UCGN Criminal Law 2022

University of the Cordilleras
College of Law
Criminal Law
#agbiagtiUClaw
Green Notes 2022 Criminal Law
CRIMINAL LAW
Prosec. Don Immanuel Vergara

Faculty Adviser
Committee Members:
Josephine Ku Jr.
Tham V Ku Jr.
Jephryll Jallen Epler
Jayelle Wilfred Pangan
Melchezedek Cadiogan
Antonette Navarro
Karl Enrico Aquino
Krzyl Tade
Karizze Allen Ramilo
Trisha Kaye Lazaga
Mariz Erese
University of the Cordilleras

College of Law | 2022
Crimes mala in se vs crimes mala prohibita The general rule is that acts punished under a
special law are malum prohibitum and malice
Datu Guimid Matalam vs. People of the
or criminal intent is completely immaterial. In
Philippines; GR Nos. 221849-50, April 4, 2016.
contrast, crimes mala in se concern inherently
immoral acts. However, not every criminal act
involves moral turpitude. Moral turpitude
DOCTRINE: Crimes mala in se presuppose implies something immoral in itself, regardless
criminal intent, while crimes mala prohibita do of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. The
not require knowledge or criminal intent. doing of the act itself, and not its prohibition by
statute fixes the moral turpitude. In mala in se it
is necessary to have knowledge of the nature of
QUESTION: Mario, Luigi and Enteng were the
his act and to have a criminal intent; in the case
officers involved in the collection and
of mala prohibita, unless such words as
remittance of accounts to the GSIS and Pag-
"knowingly" and "willfully" are contained in the
IBIG Fund. However, they failed and/or
statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is
refused to remit the required contributions
necessary. Hence, intent to commit the crime
without justifiable cause despite repeated
and intent to perpetrate the act must be
demands. Mario, Luigi and Enteng were
distinguished.
convicted for the non-remittance of
contributions to GSIS and Pag-IBIG Funds.
On appeal, Mario contended that the duty to
remit the required amounts falls to his co- When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is
accused and not him because he directed considered injurious to public welfare, and the
Enteng and Luigi to comment on the performance of the prohibited act is the crime
Indorsement. He did not sanction them upon itself. Volition, or intent to commit the act, is
their failure to comply because he did not have different from criminal intent.
time to do so, however he did not intend to
violate the law. Is Mario’s contention tenable?
Generality; exceptions – Visiting Forces
Agreement
ANSWER: No, the non-remittance of GSIS and Nicolas vs. Romulo, et.al.; GR No. 175888,
Pag-IBIG Fund premiums is malum February 11, 2009; Salonga, et.al. vs. Smith,
prohibitum. What the relevant laws punish is et.al.; GR No. 176051, February 11, 2009.
the failure, refusal, or delay without lawful or
justifiable cause in remitting or paying the
required contributions or accounts. In this case DOCTRINE: As a general rule, crimes
petitioner failed to prove a justifiable cause for committed in the Philippines are under
his failure to remit the premiums. Philippine courts and laws, except when it is
under US bases in the Philippines since they are
not considered as a Philippine Territory.
University of the Cordilleras Page 1 of 101

QUESTION: Daniel is a member of the US DOCTRINE: Consuls do not possess the

Armed Forces. One day in the Subic Bay diplomatic immunity granted to ambassadors
Freeport Zone, Olongapo City, he raped Maria. or ministers
He was later on charged with the crime of rape
and was convicted in the Philippine court.
QUESTION: Jose Viceral was a duly accredited
However, pursuant to the Visiting Forces
honorary consul of Uzeklovakia at Manila,
Agreement (VFA) between the Republic of the
Philippines. On his stay in Manila, Jose altered
Philippines and the US, the US was granted
the contents of a private document of Coco.
custody of Daniel hence, Daniel was taken out
After Coco found out there were alterations in
of the Philippine jail. Maria filed a petition
his document, Coco filed a case for falsification
contending that Daniel should be under the
of a private document against Jose in the CFI.
custody of the Philippines since the crime was
Jose objected to the jurisdiction of the court on
committed in our county. Following the
the ground that both under the Constitution of
generality principle in criminal law, is Maria
the Uzeklovakia and the Constitution of the
correct?
Philippines the Court of First Instance had no
jurisdiction to try him as he is a consul. Is a
ANSWER: No, the generality principle does consul entitled to diplomatic immunity?
not apply in the case at bar. Clark and Subic and
the other places in the Philippines covered by
the RP-US Military Bases Agreement of 1947 ANSWER: No. A consul is not entitled to the
were not Philippine territory, as they were privileges and immunities of an ambassador or
excluded from the cession and retained by the minister, but is subject to the laws and
US. Accordingly, the Philippines had no regulations of the country to which he is
jurisdiction over these bases except to the extent accredited. Such jurisdiction included the trial
allowed by the United States. of criminal actions brought against consuls for,
as we have already indicated, consuls, not being
entitled to the privileges and immunities of
The rule in international law is that a foreign ambassadors or ministers, are subject to the
armed forces allowed to enter one’s territory is laws and regulations of the country where they
immune from local jurisdiction, except to the reside.
extent agreed upon.
Territoriality; exceptions; English Rule vs

Generality; exceptions – Republic Act No. 75 – French Rule
consul does not possess diplomatic immunity
People of the Philippines vs. Wong Chen; GR
Rodolfo Schneckenburger vs. Moran; GR No. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922.
L-44896, July 31, 1936.

Moreover, under the Opium law, mere

possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in
DOCTRINE: The Philippines adheres to the
transit is not triable in our courts since mere
English Rule because the theories and
possession is not considered a disturbance of
jurisprudence prevailing in the United States
the public order. But to smoke opium aboard a
are authority in the Philippines which was a
foreign merchant ship, is certainly a breach of
territory of the United States in the present case
the public order because it causes such drug to
(1922)
produce its pernicious effects within our
territory.
QUESTION: Chen was cruising the Philippine

seas. Tired, he decided to anchor his merchant
Ex post facto law – Proclamation 84 is not an
vessel “Chongka” of English nationality in
ex post facto law
Manila Bay two and a half miles from the shores
of the city and illegally smoked opium on Republic of the Philippines, et.al. vs.
board. The authorities smelled the opium Rosemoor Mining and Development
coming from him vessel and apprehended him. Corporation, et.al.; GR No. 149927, March 30,
A case was filed against Chen under Philippine 2004.
Courts for violation of the Opium law. Chen
contended that the Philippines has no
jurisdiction over a crime like this committed DOCTRINE: An ex post facto law is limited in
aboard a foreign merchant vessel anchored in its scope only to matters criminal in nature
our jurisdictional waters. Is Chen’s contention
correct?
QUESTION: Rosemoor Mining and
Development Corporation applied with the
Bureau of Mines, for the issuance of a license to
ANSWER: No, it is incorrect. Under the French
exploit marble deposits in the mountains of
rule, crimes committed aboard a foreign
Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan. A license
merchant vessels should not be prosecuted in
was issued by the Bureau of Mines in their
the courts of the country within whose
favor. However, this was subsequently
territorial jurisdiction they were committed,
cancelled on the grounds that their license had
unless their commission affects the peace and
illegally been issued as it violated Section 69 of
security of the territory. On the other hand,
PD 463 and that there was no more public
under the English rule, crimes perpetrated
interest served by the continued existence or
under such circumstances are in general triable
renewal of the license. According to this
in the courts of the country within territory they
Proclamation No. 84, public interest would be
were committed. In our jurisdiction we adhere
served by reverting the parcel of land that was
to the English Rule.
excluded by Proclamation No. 2204 to the
former status of that land as part of the Biak-na-

Bato national park. Rosemoor contends that

Proclamation No. 84, which confirmed the
Ex post facto law
cancellation of their license, was an ex post facto
law. Is Proclamation No. 84 an ex post facto United States vs. Conde; GR No. L-18208,
law? February 14, 1922.
ANSWER: No. It is settled that an ex post facto DOCTRINE: Ex post facto laws, unless they are
law is limited in its scope only to matters favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in
criminal in nature. Proclamation 84, merely this jurisdiction. Every law that makes an
restored the area excluded from the Biak-na- action, done before the passage of the law, and
Bato national park by canceling respondents' which was innocent when done, criminal, and
license, is clearly not penal in character. punishes such action, is an ex post facto law.
QUESTION: Bart and Liaco borrowed from

An ex post facto law has six recognized
Vicente P300. They obligated themselves to pay
instances when a law is considered as such: 1) it
them back with an interest of 5% per month,
criminalizes and punishes an action that was
payable within the first ten days beginning on
done before the passing of the law and that was
January 1916. Four months and a half after the
innocent when it was done; 2) it aggravates a
contract was executed, the Usury Law took
crime or makes it greater than it was when it
effect and they were charged for the violation of
was committed; 3) it changes the punishment
said law. Vicente contends that the contract was
and inflicts one that is greater than that imposed
executed before the Usury law was adopted and
by the law annexed to the crime when it was
that there was no usury law in force in the
committed; 4) it alters the legal rules of evidence
Philippines, hence it could not be given
and authorizes conviction upon a less or
retroactive application. Is the Usury law an ex
different testimony than that required by the
post facto law?
law at the time of the commission of the offense;
5) it assumes the regulation of civil rights and
remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or
a deprivation of a right as a consequence of ANSWER: Yes. Ex post facto laws, unless they
something that was considered lawful when it are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited in
was done; and 6) it deprives a person accused of this jurisdiction. Every law that makes an
a crime of some lawful protection to which he or action, done before the passage of the law, and
she become entitled, such as the protection of a which was innocent when done, criminal, and
former conviction or an acquittal or the punishes such action, is an ex post facto law.
proclamation of an amnesty. Proclamation No.
84 does not fall under any of the enumerated
categories hence, it is not an ex post facto law.

In the present case the Usury law made an act during the second world war. Carlos now
which had been done before the law was contends that their decision should be set aside
adopted, a criminal act, and to make said Act because CA 682 is a bill of attainder in that it
applicable to the act complained of would be to virtually imposes upon specific, known and
give it an ex post facto operation. A law may be identified individuals or group of individuals,
given a retroactive effect in civil action, the penalty of detention and imprisonment for
providing it is curative in character, but ex post a period not exceeding six months without any
facto laws are absolutely prohibited unless its form of judicial trial or procedure. Is Carlos
retroactive effect is favorable to the defendant. correct?
Hence, the acts complained of were legal at the
time of their occurrence and cannot be made
criminal by any subsequent or ex post facto ANSWER: No he is incorrect. The bill of
legislation. attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without judicial trial." (Cummings
vs. Missouri, 4 Wall., 232; etc.) Detention of a
Bill of Attainder – CA 682 is not a bill of prisoner for a period not exceeding six months
attainder – 6 month detention is preventive, not pending investigation or trial is not a
penal punishment but a necessary extension of the
well recognized power to hold the criminal
People of the Philippines vs. Apolonio Carlos;
suspected for investigation.
GR No. L-239, June 30, 1947.
Equipoise Rule – improperly used by the RTC

DOCTRINE: DETENTION PENDING
INVESTIGATION OR TRIAL NOT A People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Basilio
PUNISHMENT Gabo; GR No. 161083, August 3, 2010.
QUESTION: Carlos is a Japanese spy who

DOCTRINE: The equipoise rule has been
broke into the dwelling and captured Martin
generally applied only after the parties have
and his companions. Martin and the other
victims were taken to Fort Santiago where they already concluded the presentation of their
were tortured after they refused to divulge the respective evidence.
whereabouts of Martin’s brother, a guerilla.
They were only released six days later. Due to QUESTION: A fire broke out in the plant of
this, Carlos was found guilty of treason. At that Sanyoware. Investigations were conducted by
time, CA 682 was enacted for the purposes of the authorities. Samson, Wilson, Willy and
creating the People’s Court and Office of Special Edward were the employees of Sanyoware and
Prosecutors for the prosecution and trial of were indicted for having caused the fire. The
crimes against National Security committed destructive arson case was raffled to the court of

Judge Gabo and he was supplied with the mango orchard to gather fallen mangoes. When
affidavits and counter affidavits of the case. they were bound for home at around 5:00
However, Judge Gabo observed that the sworn o’clock in the afternoon, AAA’s short pants got
statements submitted by the petitioner and hooked on the fence. AAA asked Joy and Ricky
respondents were contradictory. Hence, he to wait for her but they ran away and left her
applied the equipoise rule and dismissed the there. While AAA was trying to unhook her
case. Is Judge Gabo correct in dismissing the short pants, Larry suddenly dragged her
case before the presentation of evidence in towards a tamarind tree at knife point where
court? she was allegedly raped. A case was then filed
against Larry for rape. However, on cross-
examination, Juanita testified that Larry was
ANSWER: No, Judge Gabo is incorrect. There with her from 5:10 p.m. and never left his house
must be a proper determination of the presence from that time until his wife gave birth at 3:00
or absence of evidence sufficient to support a a.m. In addition to this, Joy testified that she
conviction thus, the equipoise rule shall only be never left AAA in the orchard and that they
applied when the parties have already both went home together without any other
concluded the presentation of their respective untoward incident. Despite this contradicting
evidence. It is only at this stage, not at any prior statements, the trial court still convicted Larry
time and certainly not merely after the filing of for rape. Is the trial court correct?
the information, can the trial court assess and
weigh the evidence of the parties and thereafter
determine which party has the preponderance ANSWER: No, Joy and AAA had conflicting
of evidence. testimonies which preclude the Court from
convicting Larry of rape with moral certainty.
Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances
Equipoise Rule – two conflicting testimonies are capable of two or more explanations, one of
which is consistent with the innocence of the
People of the Philippines vs. Larry Erguiza; accused and the other consistent with his guilt,
GR No. 171348, November 26, 2008. then the evidence does not fulfill the test of
moral certainty and is not sufficient to support
a conviction.
DOCTRINE: Where the evidence in a criminal
case is evenly balanced as to the guilt and the
innocence of the accused, presumption of The equipoise rule provides that where the
innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced,
the constitutional presumption of innocence
tilts the scales in favor of the accused. What is
QUESTION: At around 4:00 o’clock in the
required of it is to justify the conviction of the
afternoon, AAA testified that she and her
accused with moral certainty. Upon the
friends and siblings, Joy and Ricky, went to a

prosecution's failure to meet this test, acquittal for two violations of Sec. 15 and Sec. 16 of R.A.
becomes the constitutional duty of the Court, 6425. Was the prosecution able to prove beyond
lest its mind be tortured with the thought that it reasonable doubt the guilt of Ong?
has imprisoned an innocent man for the rest of
his life.
ANSWER: No. In the case at bar, the basis of
acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for
Acquittal on reasonable doubt the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain
and prove the guilt of appellants with moral
People of the Philippines vs. Anson Ong; GR certainty. As a general rule, the presentation of
No. 175940 (formerly GR Nos. 155361-62),
the boodle money is not indispensable in the
February 6, 2008.
prosecution of a drug case. However, the
material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and the non-presentation
DOCTRINE: An acquittal based on reasonable of the buy-bust money raise reasonable doubts
doubt will prosper even though the appellants' on the occurrence of a buy-bust operation. With
innocence may be doubted, for a criminal the failure of the prosecution to present a
conviction rests on the strength of the evidence complete picture of the buy-bust operation,
of the prosecution and not on the weakness of acquittal becomes inevitable.
the evidence of the defense. Slightest doubt
should be resolved in favor of the accused.
In dubio pro reo – acquittal on reasonable doubt
QUESTION: Sometime in April 1997, Col. Zoila People of the Philippines vs. Richard Guinto;
Lachica organized a buy-bust operation because GR No. 198314, September 24, 2014.
of a tip from a female informant that a group
was engaged in drug trafficking. Coballes
testified that he saw Saballa hand the boodle DOCTRINE: In dubio pro reo. When in doubt,
money to Anson Ong in exchange for a rule for the accused. When moral certainty as to
wrapped object presumed to be shabu. On the culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
contrary, the ultraviolet dusting of the boodle reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter
money was conducted but Ong was found of right.
negative for fluorescent powder. The driver’s
license confiscated from Ong, and boodle
money used in the buy-bust operation were QUESTION: The Pasig City Police Station
claimed to be lost while in the custody of conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving
Coballes who passed away during the trial. a tip from a female caller that a certain Chard
Furthermore, the criminal case of the alleged was selling shabu. During the trial, the
accomplice of Ong was dismissed. The RTC and statements of the prosecution were inconsistent
CA found Ong guilty beyond reasonable doubt

to prove the consummated illegal sale: (a)

identity of the corpus delicti of the crime, (b)
QUESTION: Beth Temporada along with four
where the money was recovered as to the buy-
other accused are all employees of the
bust operation, (c ) conflicting circumstances
Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation
before the arrest, (d) pre-arranged signal, and
(ATTC) who recruited and promised overseas
(e) source of the buy-bust money. The RTC and
employment for a fee to Rogelio Legaspi Jr., as
CA found Guinto guilty beyond reasonable
technician in Singapore, and Soledad Atle, Luz
doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. Was the Minkay, Evelyn Estacio and Dennis Dimaano as
factory workers in Hongkong. None of those
conviction proper?
who were recruited was able to leave nor
recover the amounts they had paid. Only
Temporada was apprehended and brought to
ANSWER: No. Following the objective test, in
trial. The RTC and CA convicted Temporada of
order to establish the credibility of prosecution
large scale illegal recruitment and five counts of
witnesses regarding the conduct of buy-bust
estafa. Temporada’s defense is that she was not
operation, prosecution must be able to present a
aware of the illegal nature of the activities of her
complete picture detailing the buy-bust
co-accused, therefore, she must be acquitted. Is
operation—from the initial contact between the
her contention correct?
poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration, until the consummation of the
ANSWER: No. Even assuming that Temporada
sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale.
was indeed unaware of the illegal nature of said
The prosecution fell short in proving with
activities, the same is hardly a defense in the
certainty the culpability of the accused which
prosecution for illegal recruitment. Under The
caused a doubt on the true circumstances of the
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
buy-bust operation.
1995, a special law, the crime of illegal
recruitment in large scale is malum prohibitum
and not malum in se. Thus, the criminal intent
Illegal recruitment – malum prohibitum
of the accused is not necessary and the fact alone
People of the Philippines vs. Beth Temporada; that Temporada violated the law warrants her
GR No. 173473. conviction.
DOCTRINE: The crime of illegal recruitment in Intentional vs Culpable Felonies – hazing –

large scale, a special law, is malum prohibitum accused found guilty of a culpable felony
and not malum in se. The criminal intent of the
Artemio Villareal vs. People of the
accused is not necessary and the fact alone that
Philippines; GR No. 151258, December 1, 2014;
the accused violated the law warrants her
People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals,
conviction.

et.al.; GR No. 154954; Dizon vs. People of the ANSWER: Yes. Intentional felonies concern
Philippines; GR No. 155101; Gerarda Villa vs. those wrongs in which a deliberate malicious
Escalona II, et.al.; GR Nos. 178057. intent to do an unlawful act is present. The
Court cannot sustain the CA in finding the
accused guilty of homicide under Article 249 of
DOCTRINE: Reckless imprudence or the Revised Penal Code on the basis of the
negligence consists of a voluntary act done existence of intent to kill. However, the absence
without malice, from which an immediate of malicious intent does not automatically mean
personal harm, injury or material damage that the accused fraternity members are
results by reason of an inexcusable lack of ultimately free of criminal liability. Culpable
precaution or advertence on the part of the felonies involve those wrongs done as a result
person committing it. of an act performed without malice or criminal
design. The Revised Penal Code also punishes
felonies that are committed by means of fault
(culpa). According to Article 3 thereof, there is
QUESTION: Lenny Villa with six other
fault when the wrongful act results from
freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
University School of Law wanted to join the
lack of skill.
Aquila Fraternity. They were informed that
there would be physical beatings, and that they
could quit at any time. Their initiation rites were
scheduled to last for three days. On the first day Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Intent to gain
and second day of initiation, they were
Medina vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
subjected to threats, insults, and physical
182648, June 17, 2015.
beatings from the Aquilans. After their last
session of physical beatings, Lenny could no
longer walk after receiving several paddle
DOCTRINE: Theft is committed by any person
blows. The neophytes were suddenly roused by
who, with intent to gain, but without violence
Lenny’s shivering and incoherent mumblings.
against or intimidation of persons nor force
When his condition worsened, the Aquilans
upon things, shall take personal property of
rushed him to the hospital. Lenny was
another without the latter’s consent. Intent to
pronounced dead on arrival. The accused were
gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act that is
held guilty of the crime of homicide. The
presumed from the unlawful taking by the
defense of the accused is that there was no
offender of the thing subject of asportation.
intent to kill nor to injure Lenny Villa so he
cannot be held liable for homicide. Is the
defense tenable?
QUESTION: Henry Lim engaged the services
of Medina, a mechanic, to fix his jeep which was
involved in an accident. At the time the jeep was
delivered to Medina's shop, it was still in

running condition and serviceable because the Motive, when relevant

under chassis was not affected and the motor
People of the Philippines vs. Sarino, et.al.; GR
engine, wheels, steering wheels and other parts
Nos. 94992-93, April 7, 1993.
were still functioning. A reasonable time
elapsed, but no repairs were made on the jeep.
However, the jeep was not retrieved because
parts of the jeep worth P22,500 could not be DOCTRINE: Motive becomes relevant and its
found. Medina told them that he took and absence may assume determinative significance
installed the missing parts on Lim's other when the accused has not been positively
vehicle which was also being repaired in the identified, and proof thereof becomes essential
shop. The jeep was retrieved but without the only when evidence of the commission of the
missing parts. The trial court found Medina crime is purely circumstantial or is inconclusive.
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple theft.
Medina claims that he cannot be convicted of
theft since there was no furtive taking or QUESTION: Jolito, who sat at the bench in the
unlawful asportation, in the criminal sense, front of his house, asked for coffee from his wife
considering that the taking, if at all, was with and had taken one sip thereof only when all of
the knowledge and consent of Lim. Is his a sudden accused Flora and Charlito Sarino,
contention correct? arrived. Flora struck the head of Jolito’s mother,
Encarnacion, with a gun. Charlito confronted
Ceferina, Jolito’s sister, and pointed a long bolo
ANSWER: No. A thief does not ask for at her neck. Accused Benjamin Sarino, brother
permission to steal. Indeed, a taking which is of Charlito, entered the place and shouted
done with the consent or acquiescence of the ‘putang ina ninyo’. Benjamin stabbed Jolito and
owner of the property is not felonious. his wife. Three eyewitnesses who were at the
However, the only requirement for a personal scene of the crime, namely, Encarnacion,
property to be the object of theft under the penal Ceferina and Nympha, positively identified
code is that it be capable of appropriation. Sarino and Flora as the culprits in the slaying of
Jurisprudence is settled that to "take" under the Jolito and the wounding of his wife. Sarino and
theft provision of the penal code does not Flora were found guilty of murder. Sarino
require asportation or carrying away. In this claims that he had no motive to stab Jolito and
case, Medina acknowledged without hesitation Nympha. Is the defense of lack of motive by the
the taking of the jeep's parts but instead only put accused correct?
up a defense. The intent to gain is the usual
motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of
useful property pertaining to another, unless ANSWER: No. Such argument loses sight of the
special circumstances reveal a different intent fact that lack of motive does not prevent
on the part of the perpetrator. conviction when the crime and the participation
of the accused therein are definitely established.
The three eyewitnesses testified that Sarino

suddenly appeared inside the house and wounded the intruder, who turned out to be his
stabbed Jolito who was then sitting on a bench. roommate. Ah Chong was charged with
There is absolutely nothing in our laws to murder. Is the conviction proper?
disqualify a person from testifying in a criminal
case in which the said person’s relative was
involved, if the former was really at the scene of ANSWER: No. Ah Chong must be acquitted by
the crime and was a witness to the execution of reason of mistake of facts. In view of all the
the criminal act. circumstances, Ah Chong at the time, acted in
good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in
the belief that he was doing no more than
Honest Mistake of Fact exercising his legitimate right of self-defense.
There is no criminal liability, provided that the
United States vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil 488, March
alleged ignorance or mistake or fact was not due
19, 1910, GR No. L-5272)
to negligence or bad faith. Since evil intent is in
general an inseparable element in every crime,
any such mistake of fact as shows the act
DOCTRINE: Ignorance or mistake of facts is committed to have proceeded from no sort of
sufficient to negative a particular intent which, evil in the mind necessarily relieves the actor
under the law, is a necessary ingredient of the from criminal liability provided there is no fault
offense charged it destroys the presumption of or negligence on his part.
intent and works an acquittal; except in those
cases where the circumstances demand a
conviction under the penal provisions
Honest Mistake of Fact
governing negligence, and in cases where,
under the provisions of article 1 of the Penal People of the Philippines vs. Oanis and
Code, a person voluntarily committing an act Galanta; GR No. L-47722, July 27, 1943.
incurs criminal liability even though the act be
different from that which he intended to
commit. DOCTRINE: The maxim is ignorantia facti
excusat, but this applies only when the mistake
is com-mitted without fault or carelessness. In
QUESTION: One night, Ah Chong was the case of Ah Chong, there is an innocent
awakened by someone trying to open the door. mistake of fact committed without any fault or
Ah Chong called out twice, "Who is there?" He carelessness because the accused, having no
received no ANSWER. Fearing that the intruder time or opportunity to make a further injury,
was a robber, he called out again, "If you enter and being pressed by circumstances to act
the room I will kill you." At that moment he was immediately, had no alternative but to take the
struck by a chair which had been placed against fact as they then appeared to him; and such facts
the door. Believing that he was being attacked, justified his act of killing.
he seized a kitchen knife and struck and fatally

Calderon vs. People of the Philippines and

Court of Appeals; GR No. L-6189, November
QUESTION: Corporal Alberto Galanta was
29, 1954.
instructed to arrest Balagtas and, if
overpowered, to follow the instruction
contained in the telegram. The same instruction
DOCTRINE: In criminal negligence, the injury
was given to the chief of police Oanis. When the
caused to another should be unintentional, it
group arrived at Irene's house, Oanis and
being simply the incident of another act
Galanta went to the room of Irene, and seeing a
man sleeping with his back towards the door performed without malice. A deliberate intent
to do an unlawful set is essentially inconsistent
where they were, simultaneously or
with the idea of reckless imprudence, and
successively fired at him with their .32 and .45
where such unlawful act is willfully done, a
caliber revolvers. It turned out that the person
mistake in the identity of the intended victim
shot and killed was not the notorious criminal
cannot be considered as reckless or imprudence
Anselmo Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent
to support a plea of mitigated liability.
citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's
paramour. Oanis’ defense is an honest mistake
of fact. Is his defense tenable?
QUESTION: Samson Viloria Calderon was
deployed on the left side of the Tejeron-Berran
area because it was suspected that inside it were
ANSWER: No. In the case, unlike in the case of
three chiefs of the Huks. When family members
Ah Chong, there were no circumstances
of Eustacio were woken up by footsteps outside
whatsoever which would press the accused to
their home, Eustacio went outside the fence,
immediate action. The person in the room being
carrying in his right hand a bolo which he used
then asleep, the accused had ample time and
to cut the grass from the plot. As soon as he had
opportunity to ascertain his identity without
moved about fifteen feet away, Eustacio was
hazard to themselves, and could even effect a
shot. Eustacio died the next day. Calderon
bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort to that
admitted that he was the one who shot Eustacio.
end had been made, as the victim was unarmed,
according to one eyewitness. This is the only Accused of homicide, it is urged by Calderon
that Eustacio Rodil gave him three bolo slashes,
legitimate course of action for the accused to
which missed him and that he believed Rodil to
follow even if the victim was really Balagtas, as
be a Huk. Calderon claims that he fired at Rodil
they were instructed not to kill Balagtas at sight,
in self-defense and acting under the impulse of
but to arrest him, and to get him dead or alive
an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater
only if there is resistance or aggression.
injury. Is the conviction of homicide proper?
Mistake in identity
ANSWER: Yes. The present case has much in
common with the defendant in People v. Oanis.

The latter was a peace officer who had been that nothing had happened to them and advised
ordered to apprehend, "dead or alive" a them to go home. Ronilo ignored them and
notorious gangster and escaped convict known went to the Alferezes' home. They saw Wilfredo
as Balagtas. Although, acting under erroneous Alferez waiting for a taxi at the side of the road.
belief that the victim was Balagtas, this Court The group rushed over to him. Wilfredo Alferez
convicted the accused, not merely of homicide, received a straight strike on the left side of his
but of murder. Obviously, the main reason chest from Gemoya's "Indian pana," which was
behind this conclusion was the fact that the directed at him. Edgardo and Rosalie Jimenez,
accused had acted with such a disregard for the his daughter, raced to help. But Rosalie was
life of the victim without checking carefully the struck in the left ear. The four ran away.
latter's identity as to place himself on the same Wilfredo Alferez was taken to the hospital but
legal plane as one who kills another willfully, died upon arrival. On the other hand, Rosalie
unlawfully and feloniously. In shooting Rodil was deemed to be safe. The trial court convicted
— who, obviously, could neither be a Huk nor a Gemoya of the crime of murder, and frustrated
killer — appellant herein has acted under homicide for wounding Rosalie Jimenez. Did
similar conditions. the trial court erred in convicting Gemoya of the
crime of frustrated homicide for wounding
Rosalie?
Mistake in identity; error in personae; aberratio
ictus
ANSWER: Yes. The intent to kill Rosalie is
People of the Philippines vs. Gemoya and
absent because the hitting of Rosalie was
Tionko; GR No. 132633, October 4, 2000
accidental as the second “Indiana pana” was
meant for Wilfredo. However, neither error in
personae nor aberratio ictus is exempting or
DOCTRINE: Mistake in the identity of the mitigating, they cannot therefore escape the
victim, which may either be a (a) “error in criminal liability resulting from the injury
personae” (mistake of the person), or (b) suffered by Rosalie. The accused and others are
“aberratio ictus” (mistake in blow), is neither still liable for slight physical injury in so far as
exempting nor mitigating. Rosalie’s injuries are concerned.
QUESTION: Along with their relatives, Aberratio Ictus

Armando Gemoya, Candelario, Aliazar Ronilo
and Rolly Tionko proceeded in the direction of People of the Philippins vs. Sabalones, et.al.;
Irene Lantapo's home. Ronilo Tionko with pipe, GR No. 123485, August 31, 1998.
wood, and an improvised bow and arrow
locally known as "indian pana" halted and
demanded an explanation for what had DOCTRINE: Aberratio Ictus, Error in Personae
happened to his brother-in-law. They replied carries the same gravity as when the accused

zeroes on his intended victim. Where the case identification by the prosecution witnesses. It is
involves the killing of persons other than the binding though to the co-accused because it is
intended victim, the same is better used as circumstantial evidence corroborated
characterized as mistake in the identity of the by one witness.
victims, rather than aberration ictus which
means mistake in the blow, characterized by
aiming at one but hitting the other due to Aberratio ictus; Qualifying Aggravating
imprecision in the blow. Circumstance of treachery
People of the Philippines vs. Adriano, et.al.,

QUESTION: Beronga, Sabalones, Alegarbes, GR No. 205228, July 15, 2015.
and Cabanero were convicted following a
shooting incident in Cebu that resulted in the
deaths of Glenn Tiempo and Alfredo Nardo and DOCTRINE: Criminal liability is incurred by
the fatal injuries of Nelson Tiempo, Rey Bolo, any person committing a felony although the
and Rogelio Presores. The victims were wrongful act be different from that which is
instructed to bring a certain Stephen Lim's car, intended. One who commits an intentional
who attended a wedding reception. Rogelio felony is responsible for all the consequences
Presores and Nelson Tiempo drove. After which may naturally or logically result
leaving the car at Lim's house, Alfredo Nardo, therefrom, whether foreseen or intended or not.
Glenn Tiempo, and Rey Bolo drove the owner- The rationale of the rule is found in the doctrine,
type jeep to help the group return to the party. 'el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal
A barrage of gunfire hit them as they causado‘, or he who is the cause of the cause is
approached the gate. The accused were the cause of the evil caused.
identified as the gunmen by two witnesses.
Sabalones denied their presence during the
commission of the crime and pointed out errors QUESTION: Petitioner was convicted of
from the testimonies of the witnesses arguing Homicide for the killing of Ofelia Bulanan and
that the place where the incident happened is murder for the killing of Danilo Cabiedes.
dim and not lighted. Does the defense of alibi Together with three others, they alighted the
overcome the positive identification of the Corolla and started shooting at the driver of a
appellants? CRV who was identified as Cabiedes. During
the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, was hit by a
stray bullet. Petitioner contended that he did
ANSWER: No. The witnesses and evidences of not commit the crime as he was at his house in
the prosecution are credible and the Pampanga washing the clothes of his child at
extrajudicial confession has no bearing because the time of the incident. Should the accused be
the conviction was based on positive held liable for the death of Bulanan.
identification. Alibi cannot prevail over positive

ANSWER: Yes. Adriano liable under Article 4 object of theft and was the accused liable for
of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to the theft?
doctrine of aberratio ictus. The fact that it may
not have been Adriano's intention to shoot ANSWER: No, the accused is guilty of
Bulanan will not exculpate him. Adriano's impossible crime instead. The accused’s evil
felonious assault on Cabiedes had a natural and intent cannot be denied as the mere act of
immediate result in Bulanan's death, which was unlawfully taking the check showed her intent
brought on by the gunshot Adriano fired. to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for
the fact that the check bounced, she would have
received the face value thereof. It was only due
to the circumstance of the check being unfunded
Impossible crime
that prevented the crime from being produced.
Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
Proximate Cause
162540, July 13, 2009.
Abrogar and Abrogar vs. Cosmos Bottling
DOCTRINE: The decision of the trial court has Company; GR No. 164749, March 15, 2017.
been modified and the petitioner was found
guilty of impossible crime instead. The DOCTRINE: Proximate cause is “that which, in
petitioner performed all the acts to consummate natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by
the crime of qualified theft, which is a crime any new cause, produces an event, and without
against property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot which the event would not have occurred.” –
be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking The negligence of Intergames was the
the check meant for Mega Foam showed her proximate cause despite the intervening
intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it negligence of the jeepney driver. More
not for the fact that the check bounced, she comprehensively, “the proximate legal cause is
that acting first and producting the injury, either
would have received the face value thereof,
which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was immediately or by setting other events in
only due to the extraneous circumstance of the motion, all constituting a natural and
check being unfunded, a fact unknown to continuous chain of events, each having a close
petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final even in the chain
from being produced.
immediately effecting the injury as natural and
QUESTION: Accused and two others, probable result of the cause which first acted,
employees of Mega Foam Int’l, were convicted under such circumstances that the person
of the crime of Qualified Theft for stealing and responsible for the first even should, as an
depositing in their own account a post-dated ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
check worth Php. 10, 000. Said check was the reasonable ground to expect at the moment of
payment of a customer named Baby Aquino for his act or default that an injury to same person
her purchase to Mega Foam Int’l. But it turned might probably result therefrom.”
out that the check deposited was dishonored by
the drawee bank. Was the worthless check an

QUESTION: Romel Abrogar, a participant in DOCTRINES: For the crime of attempted

an organized marathon, died upon hitting a murder, the penalty shall be prison mayo, since
passenger jeepney on the route of the race. The Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code states that
Intergames, in conducting the marathon, had a penalty lower by two degrees than that
fallen short of the yardstick to satisfy the prescribed by law for the consummated felony
requirements of due diligence. The accident had shall be imposed upon the principals in an
happened because of the inadequate attempt to commit a felony.
preparation and the Intergames’ failure to
exercise due diligence. Are the organizers of the Aggravating Circumstance, Treachery; There is no
Intergames guilty of negligence, and if so, was treachery where the attack was not
their negligence the proximate cause of the preconceived and deliberately adopted but was
participant’s death. triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part
of the accused because of the provocative act of
ANSWER: Yes. The organizers of the the victim. There is treachery when the offender
Intergames are liable for the failure to exercise commits any of the crimes against persons,
the diligence of a good father of the family in the employing means, methods, or forms in the
conduct of the marathon that it did not block off execution, which tend directly and specially to
traffic from the marathon route. The insure its execution, without risk to the offender
Intergames’ preparation for the race were arising from the defense which the offended
glaringly inadequate to prevent the happening party might take.
of injury to its participants. Negligence is the
failure to observe for the protection of the QUESTION: Malicse who was outside his
interests of another person that degree of care, sister’s house and under the influence of
precaution, and vigilance which the alcohol, heard her sister’s son cursing at him.
circumstances justly demand, whereby such Malicse entered the house to tell Isabelita about
other person suffers injury. Under Article 1173 her son but she started cursing at him
of the Civil Code, it consists of the "omission of prompting Malicse to slap her. When Malicse
that diligence which is required by the nature of returned to Isabelita’s house to apologize, he
the obligation and corresponds with the ran into Isabelita’s son Salvador who started to
circumstances of the person, of the time and of curse at him again. This prompted Malicse to
the place. The Civil Code makes liability for kick through the door and find Salvador inside
negligence clear under Article 2176, and Article holding a rattan stick which he used to strike
20. Malicse twice in the head. With a tomahawk ax
and lead pipe, two other attackers – Gary and
Attempted felony; qualifying aggravating Titus attacked Malicse. Malicse ran outside
circumstance while three others attacked him. The attackers
stopped when he pretended to be dead. (a) Are
Fantastico and Villanueva vs. Malicse, Jr.; GR
all the elements of attempted felony present in
No. 190912, January 12, 2015.
this case? (b) Is treachery present?

ANSWER: (a) Yes. All the elements of touchinig her private parts. AAA retaliated and
attempted felony are present. The essential kicked Norberto. Since he was not able to
elements of an attempted felony are as follows: pursue his lustful desires, Norberto offered
(1) offender commences the commission of the AAA money and told her not to tell the incident
felony directly by overt acts, (2) he does not to her mother. When AAA returned to her tent,
perform all the acts of execution which should she again saw Norberto touching the private
produce the felony, (3) the offender’s act be not parts of BBB. Later that day, AAA and BBB
stopped by his own spontaneous desistance, reported the incident to the police and Norberto
and (4) the non performance of all acts of denied the allegations. Is the accused guilty of
execution was due to other causeo or accident attempted rape?
other than his spontaneous desistance.
ANSWER: No. Pursuant to Article 6 of the
(b) There is no treachery in this case because the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when
essence of treachery is that the attack comes the offender commences the commission of a
without a warning and in a swift, deliberate, felony directly by overt acts, and does not
and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, perform all the acts of execution which should
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to produce the felony by reason of some cause or
resist or escape. For treachery to be appreciated, accident other than this own spontaneous
the following elements must concur: (1) the desistance. The only means by which the overt
employment of means of execution that gives acts performed by the accused can be shown to
the persons attacked no opportunity to defend have a causal relation to rape as the intended
themselves, and (2) the means of execution were crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to
deliberately or consciously adopted. The lie with the female. Norberto’s preparatory acts
incident was spontaneous, thus, treachery is not would not render him guilty of an attempt to
present. commit such felony. Attempted rape is
committed when the touching of the vagina by
Attempted felony; punishable only if there is the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate.
no other consummated felony The intent is manifest only though the showing
Cruz vs. People of the Philippines; GR No. of the penis capable of consummating the sexual
166441, October 8, 2014. act touching the external genetalia of the female.
Without such, only the acts of lasciviousness is
DOCTRINE: The intent to penetrate is manifest
committed.
only through the showing of the penis capable
of consummating the sexual act touching the Frustrated Felony
external genitalia of the female. Without such
showing, only the felony of acts of Etino vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
lasciviousness is committed. 206632, February 14, 2018.
QUESTION: AAA was awakened at around 1 DOCTRINE: In order to determine whether the
AM when she felt like someone was on top of crime committed is an attempted or frustrated
her. Norberto was mashing her breast and parricide, murder or homicide, or only lesiones

the crucial points to consider are: a) whether the At the same time, without unlawful taking as an
injury sustained by the victim was fatal, and b) act of execution, the offense could only be
whether there was intent to kill on the part of attempted theft, if at all. Thus, under Article 308
the accused. of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a
frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
QUESTION: Accused shot the victim with a 12- consummated.
gauage shotgun. According to the victim, he
was hit in the back portion of his right shoulder
and other parts of his body. The victim was
QUESTION: On October 6, 2002, Jovito
brought to the hospital for treatment and
Canceran was caught stealing 14 boxes of Ponds
survived the attack. The accused contends that
Whitening Cream belonging to Ororama Mega
he could not have been the one who shot the
Center by hiding the said item inside a box of
victim because he was at another place with two
Magic Flakes. The accused was caught when he
others. Should the accused be convicted of
tried to pay for the items as Magic Flakes. When
frustrated homicide?
the guard inspected the said box, he discovered
ANSWER: No. The accused committed may be the 14 boxes of Ponds. After the discovery of the
serious, less serious or slight physical injury items, the accused ran but was apprehended by
because there was no intent to kill on the part of the Mall employees. The accused was charged
the accused and the sustained wounds were not with Frustrated Theft. However, the RTC held
fatal. It was not shown that the victim would that Theft has no Frustrated stages. Hence,
have died from his wound without timely based on the evidence presented, the RTC
medical assistance. Moreover, when the intent sentenced the accused to Consummated Theft.
to kill is lacking, but wounds are shown to have Should the accused be convicted of
been inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not Consummated Theft?
frustrated or attempted homicide but only
physical injuries.
ANSWER: No. Under Article 308 of the RPC,
Frustrated felony; no frustrated theft the essential elements of theft are (1) the taking
of personal property; (2) the property belongs to
Canceran vs. People of the Philippines; GR
another; (3) the taking away was done with
No. 206442, July 1, 2015.
intent of gain; (4) the taking away was done
without the consent of the owner; and (5) the
taking away is accomplished without violence
DOCTRINE: Unlawful taking is deemed
or intimidation against person or force upon
complete from the moment the offender gains
things. The allegations in the information would
possession of the thing, even if he has no
show that Canceran was charged with
opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful
“Frustrated Theft” only. However, there is no
taking, which is the deprivation of one’s
crime of Frustrated Theft, and the Information
personal property, is the element which
can never be read to charge Canceran with
produces the felony in its consummated stage.

Consummated Theft because the indictment already removed. Campuhan was later
itself stated that the crime was never produced. apprehended and turned to the barangay
Instead, the Information should be construed to officials. Upon examination, it showed no
mean that Canceran was being charged with evident sign of extra-genital physical injury,
theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, and her hymen was intact, and its orifice was
Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser only .5 cm in diameter. Should the accused be
crime of Attempted Theft. convicted of Consummated Statutory Rape?
Frustrated felony; no frustrated rape ANSWER: No. Jurisprudence dictates that the
labia majora must be entered for rape to be
People of the Philippines vs. Campuhan; GR
consummated and not merely for the penis to
No. 129433, March 30, 2000.
stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a
grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is
DOCTRINE: In People v. Orita, the Supreme not sufficient to constitute consummated rape.
Court finally did away with frustrated rape and Absent any showing of the slightest penetration
allowed only attempted rape and consummated of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia
rape to remain in our statute books. It was held of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no
that rape is consummated from the moment the consummated rape; at most, it can only be
offender had carnal knowledge of the victim attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
since by it he attained his objective. Perfect However, a review of the records discloses that
penetration is not essential; any penetration of the prosecution utterly failed to discharge its
the female organ by the male organ, however onus in proving that Primos' penis was able to
slight, is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of penetrate Crysthel’s vagina, however slight.
the female organ, even without rupture of the Hence, the Court finds the accused Primo
hymen or laceration of the vagina, was Campuham guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
sufficient to warrant conviction for the crime of Attempted Rape.
consummated rape.
Conspiracy
QUESTION: On April 25, 1996, at around 4
p.m., while preparing chocolate drinks, Benito vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
Corazon Pamintuan heard her 4-year-old 204644, February 11, 2015.
daughter Chrysthel Pamintuan shouting
“Ayoko! Ayoko!”. Upon rushing towards her
child, she witnessed Primo Campuhan, a helper DOCTRINE: Conspiracy must be proven with
of her brother Conrado Plata Jr., whose pants evidence that can convince a trial court of its
are down and kneeling on top of Chrystel existence beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover,
whose pajamas or jogging pants and panty were

there can be no conspiracy to commit a crime at the scene of the crime is not by itself
that has already been consummated. indicative of conspiracy between the accused.
The presumption of innocence holds in favor of
Benito. Hence, Angelita Cruz Benito is acquitted
QUESTION: Doris Abadilla, a Jeweler, and on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Rebecca Agbulos entered into several
transactions for the sale of assorted pieces of
jewelry on a commission basis, under the Justifying circumstance – self defense
express obligation on the part of said accused of
People of the Philippines vs. Samson; GR No.
turning over the proceeds of the sale to Abadilla
if sold or of returning the same if unsold. In all 214883, September 2, 2015.
these transactions in Abadilla’s residence in
Quezon City, Angelita Benito accompanied
Rebecca Agbulos. However, the accused failed DOCTRINE: Among the requisites of self-
to fulfill their obligation despite repeated defense, the most important that needs to be
demands made upon them to do so and instead proved by the accused, for it to prosper, is the
misappropriated the same or the value thereof, element of unlawful aggression. It must be
to their own personal use and benefit. On proven first in order for self-defense to be
October 28, 1994, Rebecca Agbulos and Angelita successfully pleaded. There can be no self-
Cruz Benito were charged with estafa punished defense, whether complete or incomplete,
under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the Revised unless the victim had committed unlawful
Penal Code. Is there a conspiracy in this case? aggression against the person who resorted to
self-defense. It is present only when the one
attacked faces real and immediate threat to his
life. It must be continuous, otherwise, it does not
ANSWER: No. Under Article 8 of the Revised
constitute aggression warranting self-defense.
Penal Code, "a conspiracy exists when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it." Proof of conspiracy may be direct or QUESTION: On June 27, 2002, while Cristina
circumstantial. So long as the evidence Samson was in their house watching television
presented show a "common design or purpose" with her children, her husband, Gerry Delmar,
to commit the crime, all of the accused shall be came in drunk. Because the appellant was not
held equally liable as co-principals even if one able to cook dinner, they had a fight which later
or more of them did not participate in all the on led to the victim pointing a knife at the
details of the execution of the crime. However, appellant's neck. When the fight escalated, the
the prosecution failed to prove beyond appellant was able to get hold of the knife and
reasonable doubt Benito’s conspiracy with begged her husband not to come near her.
Agbulos to commit estafa. Benito was merely However, the victim still continued to move
present during the negotiation. Mere presence toward her. That was when the appellant
stabbed the victim, who then fell to the ground.

The victim eventually died in the hospital. The Justifying circumstance – self defense;
Appellant was charged with Parricide. She Qualifying circumstances – evident
pleaded not guilty and invoked the justifying premeditation; treachery - negated; Mitigating
circumstance of self-defense. However, the RTC Circumstance – voluntary surrender
found that there was no more unlawful
People of the Philippines vs. PFC Reyes; GR
aggression against the appellant when she
No. 224498, January 11, 2018.
stabbed the victim, thereby invalidating her
claim of self-defense. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Was there
unlawful aggression when Cristina killed her DOCTRINE: Unlawful aggression is the
husband? indispensable element of self-defense, for if no
unlawful aggression attributed to the victim is
established, self-defense is unavailing for there
is nothing to repel. Verily, there can be no self-
ANSWER: Yes. To invoke self-defense, it is
defense, whether complete or incomplete,
incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear
unless the victim had committed unlawful
and convincing evidence the concurrence of the
aggression against the person invoking it as a
following: (1) unlawful aggression; (2)
justifying circumstance.
reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending
himself. In this case, the victim’s aggression The essence of premeditation is that the
continued as he continued to move toward the execution of the criminal act must be preceded
appellant. Despite having been disarmed, the by cool thought and reflection upon the
victim still posed a threat and peril to the life of resolution to carry out the criminal intent
the appellant, leaving her with no choice but to during an interval of time sufficient to arrive at
defend herself or else she would be the one to a calm judgment. To be considered an
die. Unlawful aggression does not strictly aggravation of the offense, the circumstance
require that there be an actual physical force or must not merely be premeditation but must be
actual use of a weapon against the offender that evident premeditation.
poses a threat and imminent danger to his life.
It is sufficient that the offender is in reasonable
perception or belief that his life is still in danger. Treachery is present when the offender, in
Such reasonable belief of a perceived peril or committing any of the crimes against persons,
threat to one's life would justify the offender's employs means or methods which tend to
action of taking defense and eventually killing directly and specially ensure its execution,
the victim. Hence, Cristina Samson is acquitted without risk to himself arising from the defense
of the crime charged. which the offended party might make.

To be considered a mitigating circumstance, circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the

voluntary surrender must be spontaneous and part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the
made in such manner that it shows the intent of means employed to prevent or repel such
the accused to surrender unconditionally to the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
authorities, either because he acknowledges his provocation on the part of the person invoking
guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and self-defense. However, there is nothing in the
expense that will be incurred in his search and records which would clearly and convincingly
capture. prove Enrique's claim that his life was in danger
when he saw Danilo. A threat, even if made
with a weapon, or the belief that a person was
QUESTION: Enrique Reyes was charged with about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is
murder in an Information which alleges that the necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed
said accused, with treachery, attack Danilo by an act of aggression or by some external acts
Estrella by firing his armalite rifle at said Danilo showing the commencement of actual and
who was then walking home and hitting him on material unlawful aggression. Evidently, the
different parts of the body, depriving the latter records of this case are bereft of any indication
of a chance to defend himself from the attack of unlawful aggression that would justify a
thereby inflicting upon him mortal gunshot finding of self-defense.
wounds which caused his immediate death.
Invoking self-defense, accused-appellant
argued that he was informed that Danilo and Battered Woman Syndrome – justifying
four other men are planning to kill him. Fearing circumstance
for his family's safety, accused-appellant
People of the Philippines vs. Marivic Genosa;
prepared his Armalite rifle. When Celia was on
GR No. 135981, January 15, 2004.
her way to accused-appellant's house, she saw a
man holding a gun approaching the accused-
appellant from behind. When Celia shouted
"Ricky," accused-appellant turned towards DOCTRINE: A battered woman has been
Celia and saw Danilo holding a gun in the act of defined as a woman “who is repeatedly
shooting him. Accused-appellant drew and subjected to any forceful physical or
fired his Armalite rifle, hitting Danilo who fell psychological behavior by a man in order to
on the ground. Can the accused validly invoke coerce her to do something he wants her to do
self-defense? without concern for her rights. Furthermore, in
order to be classified as a battered woman, the
couple must go through the battering cycle at
least twice. The battered woman syndrome is
ANSWER: No. Self-defense cannot be validly
characterized by the so-called “cycle of
claimed. By invoking self-defense, the burden of
violence,” which has three phases: (1) the
proof shifted to the accused-appellant to show
tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering
that the killing was attended by the following

incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, these were duly established. There was a
nonviolent) phase. sufficient time interval between the unlawful
aggression of Ben and her fatal attack upon him.
The attack had apparently ceased and the reality
QUESTION: Marivic Genosa attacked and or even imminence of the danger he posed had
wounded his husband, which ultimately led to ended altogether. Ben was no longer in a
his death. According to Marivic, she did not position that presented an actual threat on her
provoke her husband when she got home that life or safety. Hence, the conviction of
night; it was her husband who began the Appellant Marivic Genosa for parricide is
provocation. Also, she was frightened that her affirmed.
husband would hurt her and she wanted to
make sure she would deliver her baby safely.
After being interviewed by specialists, Marivic Justifying Circumstance – self defense, defense
has been shown to be suffering from Battered of relative
Woman Syndrome. Marivic, with a plea of self-
Velasquez and Velasquez vs. People of the
defense, admitted the killing of her husband
Philippines; GR No. 195021, March 15, 2017.
and was found guilty of Parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the
husband was attacked while asleep. Can the
accused validly invoke the “battered woman DOCTRINE: An accused who pleads a
syndrome” as constituting self-defense? justifying circumstance under Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code admits to the commission
of acts, which would otherwise engender
criminal liability. However, he asserts that he is
ANSWER: No. The defense failed to establish
justified in committing the acts. In the process of
all the elements of self-defense arising from the
proving a justifying circumstance, the accused
battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) each of
risks admitting the imputed acts, which may
the phases of the cycle of violence must be
justify the existence of an offense were it not for
proven to have characterized at least two
the exculpating facts. Conviction follows if the
battering episodes between the appellant and
her intimate partner; (b) the final acute battering evidence for the accused fails to prove the
episode preceding the killing of the batterer existence of justifying circumstances.
must have produced in the battered persons
mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from
her batterer and an honest belief that she needed QUESTION: Spouses Jesus and Ana Del
to use force in order to save her life; and (c) at Mundo left their home to sleep in their nipa hut.
the time of the killing, the batterer must have Arriving at the nipa hut, the Del Mundo
posed probable – not necessarily immediate and Spouses saw Ampong and Nora Castillo in the
actual – grave harm to the accused. Under the midst of having sex. Jesus decided to pursue
existing facts of the case, however, not all of Ampong. Jesus went to the house of Ampong's
aunt, but neither Ampong nor Nora was there.

He began making his way back home when he

was blocked by Ampong and petitioners
Justifying Circumstance – self defense, defense
Nicolas Velasquez and Victor Velasquez.
of a stranger
Petitioner Nicolas hit the left side of Jesus'
forehead with a stone. Petitioner Victor also hit People of the Philippines vs. Olarbe; GR No.
Jesus' left eyebrow with a stone. Ampong and 227421, July 23, 2018.
petitioners then left Jesus on the ground,
bloodied. However, petitioners insisted that it
was Jesus who initiated an assault by barging
DOCTRINE: The accused who shows by clear
into the premises of petitioners' residences,
and convincing evidence that the death of the
hacking Victor's door, and threatening physical
victim arose from the need for self-preservation
harm upon petitioners and their companions.
in the face of the victim's deadly unlawful
The Court of Appeals found petitioners guilty
aggression, and there was a reasonable
of Serious Physical Injuries. Was there sufficient
necessity of the means employed to prevent or
evidence to prove that justifying circumstances
repel the same, is entitled to acquittal on the
existed?
ground of self-defense in the absence of any
indication of his having provoked such
unlawful aggression.
ANSWER: None. To successfully invoke self-
defense, an accused must establish: "(1)
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;(2)
In self-defense and defense of strangers, the
reasonable necessity of the means employed to
circumstances as the accused perceived them at
prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of
the time of the incident, not as others perceived
sufficient provocation on the part of the person
them, should be the basis for determining the
resorting to self-defense." Defense of a relative
merits of the plea.
under Article 11 (2) of the RPC requires the
same first two (2) requisites as self- defense and,
in lieu of the third "in case the provocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one QUESTION: On May 2006, Olarbe and his
making the defense had no part therein." In the common-law wife were sleeping in their house,
case, however, petitioners failed to present when at midnight, they were awakened by the
independent and credible proof to back up their seemingly drunk Arca, carrying a rifle and a
assertions. Even if it were to be granted that bolo, shouting insults and threatening to kill
Jesus was the initial aggressor, the beating dealt them from outside their home. Arca then
to him by petitioners and their co-accused was forcibly entered their home and held the two at
still glaringly in excess of what would have gunpoint, but Olarbe grabbed the gun from
sufficed to neutralize him. Petitioners thereby Arca and fought for its possession, and the
fail in satisfying the second requisite of self- accused won the gun and shot Arca. However,
defense and of defense of a relative. Hence, the Arca still managed to get his bolo from his waist
decision of the court of appeals is affirmed. and attack them, until the fight had moved to

the outer portion of the house, which Olarbe

managed to acquire, and hack Arca, and after
DOCTRINE: Well settled is the rule that where
the killing incident, surrendered himself to the
the accused had admitted that he is the author
authorities. Did the accused clearly and
of the death of the victim and his defense
convincingly established the justifying
anchored on self-defense, it is incumbent upon
circumstances of self-defense and defense of a
him to prove this justifying circumstance to the
stranger?
satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely
on the strength of his own evidence and not on
the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused
ANSWER: Yes. In order for Olarbe to establish
himself had admitted the killing. The burden is
Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1, on
upon the accused to prove clearly and
the Revised Penal Code, the following facts
sufficiently the elements of self-defense, being
must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on
an affirmative allegation, otherwise the
the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of
conviction of the accused is inescapable. (Ortega
the means employed to prevent or repel such
v. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 38)
aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person resorting
to self-defense. In behalf of the defense of his
QUESTION: An entrapment operation was
common-law wife, he also invoked self defense
conducted to apprehend Tony of which he was
of a stranger under Article 11, Paragraph 3 of
arrested, handcuffed and boarded on the
the Revised Penal Code. In this case, armed with
military jeep. When Tony and the arresting
both a gun and a bolo, Arca not only disturbed
team were on their way back to the station,
Olarbe's peace but physically invaded their
Officer Dennis alleged that Tony stole a grenade
home at midnight. The absence of any showing
from his companion, thus he shot Tony several
that Olarbe had provoked Arca, or that he had
times leading to his death. On a charge of
been induced by revenge, resentment or other
murder, Dennis admitted the killing of Tony but
evil motive has been equally palpable.
averred that the act was made in self-defense
Therefore, the third element of the justifying
circumstances of self-defense and defense of a thus the case must be dismissed. Is he correct?
stranger were present. Hence, the Court acquits
the accused Rodolfo Olarbe on the grounds of
self-defense and defense of a stranger. ANSWER: No. Jurisprudence holds that when
the accused admits killing the victim, but
invokes a justifying circumstance, the burden of
proving the existence of such circumstances
No Justifying Circumstance for Dangupon,
shifts to the accused. Dennis’s claim of self
qualifying circumstance of treachery present
defense must fail as Tony’s unlawful aggression
Aguilar vs. Department of Justice, et.al.; GR was not sufficiently established. Tony was
No. 197522, September 11, 2013. restrained by his movement, thus raising a

QUESTION on how he could possibly steal a time of actual or threatened dispossession. At

grenade. the time of forcible entry, the owners had
already lost the possession by the occupancy
and tilting of the farmers. Since spouses Cynthia
Doctrine of Self Help – Defense of property and Jose had lost the possession of the subject
property, they must resort to judicial process for
German Management & Services, Inc. vs. recovery of property.
Court of Appeals; GR No. 76217, September
14, 1989; GR No. L-76216, September 14, 1989.
Justifying Circumstance – Obedience to a
Lawful Order of a Superior; Obedientia est legis
DOCTRINE: Article 429, Civil Code. The owner essential – “Obedience is the Essence of the
or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to Law”
exclude any person from the enjoyment and
disposal thereof. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan; GR Nos. 103501-
03, February 17, 1997; Peralta vs.
Sandiganbayan; GR No. 103507, February 17,
1997.
QUESTION: Spouses Cynthia and Jose
authorized G Management Services to develop
their property. The property was occupied by
Samson, Delilah and twenty other farmers of DOCTRINE: For an act to by any person who
which G Management advised the group to acts in obedience to an order issued by a
vacate the premises but the latter resisted. G superior for some lawful purpose to be justified,
Management Services proceeded with the therefore, three requisites must concur: (a) an
development which included forcibly removing order must have been issued by a superior; (b)
the fences and bulldozing the crops cultivated the order must be for lawful purpose; and (c) the
by the farmers. The farmers claimed that they means used by the subordinate in carrying out
occupied and tilted the landholdings twelve such order must itself be lawful.
years before PD No. 27, thus they filed an action
for forcible entry against G Management
Services. The trial court dismissed the case and QUESTION: The management of Manila
justified the action of forcible entry on the basis International Airport (MIA) owed Philippine
of the doctrine of self-help. Is the dismissal Corporation (PNC) for a Php 55 million loan.
correct? The president of the Philippines instructed Luis
Tabby over the phone to pay the said loan
directly to the president's office, after which a
ANSWER: No. The dismissal is not correct. The memorandum was issued. Luis with the help of
doctrine of self-help enunciated in Article 429 of Gerard Dabby and Adolfo Perry caused the
the New Civil Code can only be exercised at the withdrawal and released the Php 55 million
through three check issuances. All checks were

encashed and delivered by Luis to the DOCTRINE: Insanity as an exempting

president’s office. The private secretary of the circumstance is not easily available to the
president received the cash, but did not issue accused as a successful defense. Anyone who
any receipt for the money received. Luis and his pleads insanity as an exempting circumstance
companions were all aware that the payment of bears the burden of proving it with clear and
the funds were “out of ordinary” and “not convincing evidence. The testimony or proof of
based on the normal procedure”. A complaint an accused's insanity must relate to the time
of malversation of funds was filed against Luis immediately preceding or simultaneous with
but he interposed a defense of an obedience to a the commission of the offense with which he is
lawful order of a superior. If you were the charged. (People v Edwin Isla, 686 SCRA 267)
counsel of Luis, what elements should you
prove to warrant acquittal?
QUESTION: Sometime in March, 2017, Roco
approached from behind and suddenly stabbed
ANSWER: If I am the counsel of the accused, I Eliseo, who was just passing by, with a bolo.
will prove that (1) there was an order received Eliseo was rushed to the hospital but
by Luis from the president, his superior; (2) the pronounced dead on arrival. Roco immediately
order was for a lawful purpose; (3) and that the fled and took refuge inside the house of his
means used by Luis in carrying the order was uncle. Shortly, the police officer came. Roco
also lawful. I will be establishing that Luis surrendered, turned over the bolo and was
cannot be faulted if he had to obey and strictly brought to the police station for investigation.
comply with the president’s verbal and When arraigned, Roco pleaded not guilty but
memorandum order; that the loan was lawful as signed his name on the certificate of
it was a settlement of a demandable debt; and arraignment as “Alejandro”. When trial ensued,
that the order was still valid despite the non- he pleaded the defense of insanity. Testimonies
compliance to meet the “immediate provided that (1) in 2008, Roco suffered from
compliance” demanded from him by the psychotic episodes and was confined into a
president. Luis therefore can be entitled to the mental hospital, and (2) in 2019, Roco was
justifying circumstance of "any person who acts admitted into a medical center and was
in obedience to an order issued by a superior for diagnosed as having schizophrenia. Will
some lawful purpose." insanity exempt Roco from the charge of
murder?
Exempting Circumstance – Insanity

ANSWER: No. The plea of insanity cannot
People of the Philippines vs. Roa; GR No.
proceed as he failed to prove the basis that he
225599; March 22, 2017.
was insane during the commission of the crime.
The circumstances in years 2008 and 2019
merely provide basis for the accused’s mental

condition but failed to shed light on his insanity suddenly stabbed AAA, his six-year-old
immediately prior to, during, and immediately neighbor several times, leading to the latter’s
after the stabbing incident. Also, it cannot be untimely death. Cedi was charged for a crime of
merely concluded that he was mentally insane murder but interposed a plea of insanity citing
the whole period of years 2008 to 2019 without his confinement to a mental hospital. Will Cedi
any supporting evidence. Anyone who pleads be liable for the unlawful killing?
insanity as an exempting circumstance bears the
burden of proving it with clear and convincing
evidence. ANSWER: Yes. Cedi can still be liable for the
crime as he was not able to prove that he was in
complete deprivation of intelligence while
Exempting Circumstance – Insanity committing the unlawful killing. The several
admission and release to and from the mental
People of the Philippines vs. Pantoja; GR No.
hospital cannot be concluded to be an indication
223114, November 29, 2017.
of insanity at the time of, or immediately
preceding, the incident. Prior confinement at a
mental institution does not, by itself, constitute
DOCTRINE: In the Philippines, the courts have proof of insanity at the time of the commission
established a more stringent criterion for of the crime. Even assuming that Cedi was
insanity to be exempting as it is required that insane, such insanity was clearly not
there must be a complete deprivation of continuous, as he had lucid intervals. As the
intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the court requires, insanity to be an exempting
accused is deprived of reason; he acted without circumstance requires a complete deprivation of
the least discernment because there is a intelligence in committing an act.
complete absence of the power to discern, or
that there is a total deprivation of the will. Mere
abnormality of the mental faculties will not
Exempting Circumstance – Insanity; Exception
exclude imputability. (People v Madarang, (387
– Lucid Interval
Phil 847, 859)
Verdadero vs. People of the Philippines; GR
No. 216021, March 2, 2016.
QUESTION: Celina observed that his son, Cedi,
exhibited signs of mental illness after being
injured in an altercation seven years ago. Cedi DOCTRINE: Under Article 12 of the RPC, an
was then confined to a mental hospital a few imbecile or an insane person is exempt from
times over the years for his mental issues. He criminal liability, unless the latter had acted
was being released whenever he was fine and during a lucid interval. The defense of insanity
well. During his last confinement, Cedi escaped or imbecility must be clearly proved for there is
from the facility and found his way back to their a presumption that the acts penalized by law are
home. A day after, using a kitchen knife, Cedi

voluntary. (People vs Comanda, 553 Phil the time or immediately before the commission
655,673) of the offense. (People v Isla, 686 SCRA 267,277)
QUESTION: Edward entered a drugstore while Exempting Circumstance – Imbecility;

Ed and Eddy, his companions, waited for him Mitigating Circumstance – Impaired mental
outside. After a while, Ed saw that Verdie, his faculty; Alternative Circumstance -
neighbor, suddenly attacked Edward and Intoxication
stabbed him trice using a rambo knife. Ed tried
People of the Philippines vs. Buenaflor; GR
to help but Verdie was about to attack him as
well. Eddy ran towards the police station to seek No. 93752, July 15, 1992.
assistance. The responding team arrested and
brought Verdie to the police station while
Edward was rushed to the hospital where he DOCTRINE: Exempting Circumstance;
eventually died. Verdie did not refute the act, Imbecility must constitute complete deprivation
but alleged insanity. He claimed that he had of intelligence in committing the crime. Caselaw
been an outpatient of the CV Psychiatric projects the same standards in respect of both
Department. His first visit to the facility was ten insanity and imbecility, that is, that the insanity
years ago. He was diagnosed with or imbecility must constitute complete
schizophrenia and was on medication. He was deprivation of intelligence in committing the
also confined one time in a psychiatric ward due criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of
to a relapse. He interposed that due to his the will.
mental illness, he was not in lucid interval
during the commission of the unlawful killing.
How will the court rule? Mitigating Circumstance; Impaired mental
faculties; If mental faculties were retarded or
impaired in their development, which
ANSWER: The court would determine whether impairment or retardation reflects a diminished
Verdie established with certainty that he was level of responsibility of his criminal acts, then
completely deprived, not merely diminished, of mitigating circumstance contemplated in
intelligence at the time of the commission of the Article 13 (9) of the RPC is present.
crime, thus that he did not act during lucid
Aggravating or mitigating circumstance,
interval. Further, in order for Verdie to be
intoxication; The person pleading intoxication
exempted from criminal liability under a plea of
must present proof that he had taken a quantity
insanity, the court would ascertain that the
of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission
accused must categorically demonstrate that (1)
of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of
he was completely deprived of his mental
blurring his reason; and at the same time, he
condition or illness; and (2) such complete
must prove that not only was intoxication not
deprivation of intelligence must be manifest at
habitual but also that his imbibing the alcoholic

drink was not intended to fortify his resolve to otherwise, it has an effect of increasing the
commit the crime. penalty.
QUESTION: Around 11:00 in the evening, Rosa Exempting Circumstance – Minority, R.A. 9344
and her friend were on their way home when
Dorado vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
they met Lario. Lario suddenly poked a knife on
216671, October 3, 2016.
Rosa’s neck and told her not to move. Her friend
panicked at what she saw and ran away while DOCTRINE: Definition of “discernment”, as used
Rosa had no way to call for help. Lario brought in Article 12(3) of the RPC. The discernment that
Rosa on a nearby dark alley and sexually
constitutes an exception to the exemption from
assaulted her. After regaining strength, Lario criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years
was nowhere to be found and Rosa sought help of age but over nine, who commits an act
in the nearest house. She was brought to the prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to
police station, reported the incident and on the understand the difference between right and
same day, the police were able to arrest Lario. wrong. (People vs Doquena, 68 Phil 580)
Lario did not deny the act but interposed that he
was a “little bit drunk” during the commission QUESTION: There was an altercation between
of the crime. He was ordered to submit himself the group of Rom and Donnie. During the
for neuropsychiatric evaluation where he was commotion, Donnie, 16- year old, fired his
observed to be suffering from mental sumpak, a homemade shotgun, hitting Rom
retardation and reactive depression but he was between the eyes. When Rom fell unconscious,
not psychotic. Rule on the circumstances Donnie’s group ran away. Rom was brought to
asserted by Lario. the hospital and had to undergo an emergency
operation on his forehead. He was confined for
ANSWER: First, imbecility, like insanity, to be a month and lost his left eye. The surgeon
admitted as an exempting circumstance must asserted that without medical intervention,
constitute complete deprivation of intelligence Ronald could have died. Donnie was arrested a
in committing the criminal act. The evaluation charge of murder was lodged. Donnie asserted
of medical evidence, his acts immediately his minority as a defense. How would the court
before, during and immediately after the act
rule?
must clearly prove that Lario is not intelligently
conscious and aware of the moral quality of the ANSWER: The court would determine first if
act committed. Second, Lario, pleading Donnie, 16 years of age during the commission
intoxication to decrease the penalty, must of the crime, acted with discernment. A child in
present proof that he had taken a quantity of conflict with the law aging above 15 years but
alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of below 18 who did not act with discernment shall
the crime, sufficiently to produce the effect of be exempt from criminal liability and shall be
blurring his reason. He must also prove that his subjected to an intervention program pursuant
intoxication was not habitual or purposely to RA No. 9344. If the same child acted with
taken to fortify his resolve to commit the crime, discernment, he or she shall not immediately

proceed to a trial. Instead, the child may hospital but later died. After 6 years, the RTC
undergo a diversion program, a child- convicted him guilty of homicide and being a
appropriate process of determining the minor during the commission of the crime, and
responsibility of the child without resorting to sentenced him for the shortest, appropriate
formal court proceedings. In case the diversion period of time. Rico, however, posits that
is unsuccessful or for any grounds provided by condemning him to prison would be in
the law are present, then the child shall undergo violation of his rights as a child in conflict with
appropriate preliminary investigation and the the law as bestowed by RA 9344. Is he correct?
trial before the courts may proceed.
Exempting Circumstance – Minority, R.A. 9344,

ANSWER: No. There is no violation of his
Suspension of Sentence
rights as he was already 23 years old at the time
Hubilla vs. People of the Philippines; GR No. of his conviction of homicide. Well, RA No. 9344
176102, November 26, 2014. allows suspension of the sentence of a child in
conflict of law adjudged guilty of the crime,
Section 40 of the law provides that the
DOCTRINE: RA No. 9344, Section 40, 2nd par. If suspension is available only until the child
said child in conflict with the law has reached offender turns 21 years of age. In Republic Act
eighteen (18) years of age while under No. 9344, imprisonment as a proper disposition
suspended sentence, the court shall determine of a case is duly recognized, subject to certain
whether to discharge the child in accordance restrictions on the imposition of imprisonment,
with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or namely: (a) the detention or imprisonment is a
to extend the suspended sentence for a certain disposition of last resort, and (b) the detention
specified period or until the child reaches the or imprisonment shall be for the shortest
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. appropriate period of time.
QUESTION: Nico, then 17-year-old teenager, Exempting Circumstance — Accident

was watching a graduation rites at the gate of People of the Philippines vs. Delector; GR No.
the school when four men suddenly attacked 200026, October 4, 2017.
and started to box him. He felt dizzy and fell to
the ground so he was not able to recognize who
attacked him. Aggrieved, he went home to get a
DOCTRINE: Article 12, paragraph 4, of the
weapon. Going back to the school, he met
Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal
somebody whom he thought was one of the
liability “any person who, while performing a
four men who ganged up on him. He stabbed
lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
the person with the knife and went home
mere accident without fault or intention of
immediately. The victim, Richard, suffered two
causing it.” The elements of this exempting
injuries on his neck and was rushed to the
circumstance are, therefore, that the accused: (1)

is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) Exempting Circumstance – Accident
causes injury to another by mere accident; and
(4) without fault or intention of causing it. People of the Philippines vs. Macal, GR No.
(People v. Delector; GR No. 200026, October 4, 211062, January 13, 2016.
2017)
QUESTION: At about 6:00 in the afternoon, the DOCTRINE: Article 12, paragraph 4, of the
late Vicente Delector was talking with his Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal
brother, when Armando Delector, another liability “any person who, while performing a
brother, shot him twice. Vicente was rushed to lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
the Hospital; however, he succumbed to his mere accident without fault or intention of
gunshot wounds the next day. During the trial, causing it.” The elements of this exempting
Armando insisted that the shooting of Vicente circumstance are, therefore, that the accused: (1)
had been by accident. Seeing Vicente carrying is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3)
his gun, he tried to wrest the gun from Vicente, causes injury to another by mere accident; and
and they then grappled with each other for (4) without fault or intention of causing it.
control of the gun. At that point, the gun (People v. Delector; GR No. 200026, October 4,
accidentally fired, and Vicente was hit. Was the 2017)
exempting circumstance of accident present?
ANSWER: No. Accident could not be QUESTION: Armed with an improvised

appreciated herein as an exempting bladed weapon and a kitchen knife, Manuel
circumstance simply because the accused did Macal stabbed his wife Auria on the front
not establish that he had acted with due care, portion of her body which caused her death. To
and without fault or intention of causing the prove the allegation, Auria's mother testified
injuries to the victim. The gun was a revolver that she heard her daughter screaming,
that would not fire unless there was “Mother, help me, I am going to be killed”.
considerable pressure applied on its trigger. The Manuel did not deny the factual allegations but
assertion of accident could have been accorded sought exoneration from criminal liability by
greater credence had there been only a single interposing the defense that the stabbing was
shot fired, for such can be attributed as accidental and not intentional. Furious by what
unintentional. Yet, the revolver fired twice, he had seen, Manuel went out of the room, got
which eliminated accident. Verily, such story of a knife, and delivered a stabbing blow towards
the accused as to the occurrence of the accident the paramour, but the latter was shielded by
is not only incomprehensible but also contrary Auria, which caused the stabbing blow to land
to human experience and behavior.

on Auria. Can he invoke Article 12 par. 4 of the RPC enough. (People v. Anod; GR No. 186420,
to release him from criminal liability? August 25, 2009)
ANSWER: No. Manuel Macal was not

performing a lawful act at the time Auria was QUESTION: At about 10:30 in the evening,
Samuel Anod and Lionel Lumbayan stab and
stabbed. The defense of accident presupposes
hack Erlando Costan with the use of a pointed
lack of intention to kill. This certainly does not
bolo, which cause his instantaneous death.
hold true in the instant case based on the During the trial, Samuel Anod argues that out
testimony of the accused-appellant that he has of fear of being stabbed by Lumbayan who at
the intent to kill the paramour. Moreover, the the time, was poking a knife at his breast,
prosecution witnesses, testified that they Samuel stabbed Costan in the back. Thus, the act
distinctly heard Auria screaming that she was was against his will and done under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and
going to be killed by the accused-appellant.
uncontrollable fear for his life. Can he invoke
Given these testimonies, the accused-
Article 12 of the RPC to exempt him from criminal
appellant's defense of accident is negated as he liability?
was carrying out an unlawful act at the time of
the incident.
ANSWER: No. Appellant had the chance to
Exempting Circumstance – Irresistible Force escape Lumbayan's threat or engage Lumbayan
and Uncontrollable Fear in combat, as appellant was also holding a knife
at the time. Thus, appellant's allegation of fear
People of the Philippines vs. Anod, GR No. or duress is untenable. For the circumstance of
186420, August 25, 2009. uncontrollable fear may apply, it is necessary
that the compulsion be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity for escape or self-defense
DOCTRINE: Under Article 12 of the Revised in equal combat. Therefore, under the
Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal circumstances, appellant’s alleged fear, arising
liability if he acts under the compulsion of an from the threat of Lumbayan, would not suffice
irresistible force, or under the impulse of an to exempt him from incurring criminal liability.
uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury,
because such person does not act with freedom. Exempting Circumstance – Lawful or
However, for such a defense to prosper, the Insuperable Cause
duress, force, fear, or intimidation must be
present, imminent and impending, and of such People of the Philippines vs. Bandian, GR No.
nature as to induce a well-grounded 45186, September 30, 1936.
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if
the act be done. A threat of future injury is not

DOCTRINE: Article 12, paragraph 7, of the having been so prevented by reason of causes
Revised Penal Code exempts from criminal entirely independent of her will, it should be
liability “any person who fails to perform an held that the alleged errors attributed to the
act required by law, when, prevented by some lower court by the appellant are true; and it
lawful or insuperable cause ” The elements of appearing that under such circumstances said
this exempting circumstance are: (1) An act is appellant has the fourth and seventh exempting
required by law to perform; (2) a person fails circumstances in her favor, is hereby acquitted
to perform such act; and (3) his failure to of the crime of which she had been accused and
perform such act was due to some lawful or convicted.
insuperable cause. The circumstances in Article
12(7) exempts the accused from criminal Exempting Circumstance – Instigation
liability due to the absence of intent.
People of the Philippines vs. Tapere, GR No.
178065, February 20, 2013.
QUESTION: At about 7:00 in the morning, A
neighbor saw Josefina go to a thicket to pee. A
few minutes later, he again saw Josefina emerge DOCTRINE: Instigation takes place when a
from the thicket with her clothes stained with peace officer induces a person to commit a
blood both in the front and back, staggering and crime. Without the inducement, the crime
visibly showing signs of not being able to would not be committed. On the other hand,
support herself. Later, they found a body of a entrapment signifies the ways and means
newborn babe near the thicket where Josefina devised by a peace officer to entrap or
had gone. Upon being asked whether the baby apprehend a person who has committed a
was hers or not, Josefina ANSWERed in the crime. With or without the entrapment, the
affirmative. After the incident, a physician crime has been committed already.
declared that Josefina gave birth on her own and
threw her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial
Court convicted Josefina of the crime of QUESTION: At around 7:30 p.m., PDEA
infanticide. Was there a lawful-insuperable cause to arrested Tapere for selling shabu to a poseur
exempt Josefina from criminal liability? buyer (Salgado) during a buy-bust operation
conducted against him. During the buy-bust
operation, PDEA agents saw the two conversing
ANSWER: Yes. The severe dizziness and for a brief while before Salgado handed money
extreme debility of Josefina constitute an to Tapere. In turn, Tapere took a small heat-
insuperable cause. Taking into account the sealed plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it
foregoing facts and considerations, and to Salgado. After accepting the sachet, the
granting that the appellant was aware of her agents rushed towards Tapere, introduced
involuntary childbirth in the thicket and that themselves as PDEA agents, and placed him in
she later failed to take her child therefrom, custody. On the other hand, Tapere insisted that
he was just asked by Salgado to buy the shabu

where disobeying him is not an option for him. QUESTION: A At around 1:00 in the morning,
He further alleged that the way he was arrested an informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs
was by instigation which is absolutory in nature Special Operations Unit (ADSOU) to report the
entitling him to acquittal. Was the arrest illicit drug dealings of Noel Bartolome. Police
preceded by instigation? Inspector Cruz immediately instructed to
conduct a buy-bust operation against the
accused where he designated PO1 Paras as the
ANSWER: NO. Tapere was caught in flagrante poseur-buyer. Upon arriving at the target area,
delicto committing the illegal sale of shabu Paras went towards Bartolome. The agents saw
during the buy-bust operation. His explanation the two conversing for a while before Paras
that he could not have refused Salgado’s offer to handed money to Bartolome, who in turn drew
buy for fear of displeasing the latter was out a plastic sachet containing white substances
implausible. He did not show how Salgado from his pocket and gave the sachet to Paras.
could have influenced him at all into doing With that, Paras signal the consummation of the
something so blatantly illegal. What is clear is sale. As the other members of the team were
that the decision to peddle the shabu emanated approaching, Paras grabbed the suspect. Was the
from his own mind, such that he did not need arrest preceded by instigation?
much prodding from Salgado or anyone else to
engage in the sale of the shabu; hence, he was ANSWER: No. The accused was not arrested
not incited, induced, instigated or lured into following an instigation. Instead, he was caught
committing an offense that he did not have the in flagrante delicto during an entrapment
intention of committing. through buy-bust. Here, Paras asked the
accused if he could buy shabu, and the latter, in
Entrapment
turn, quickly transacted with the former,
People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome, GR receiving the marked bill from Paras and
No.191726, February 6, 2013. turning over the sachet of shabu he took from
his pocket. The accused was shown to have been
ready to sell the shabu without much prodding
DOCTRINE: A buy-bust operation, from Paras. There is no QUESTION that the idea
considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid
to commit the crime originated from the mind
means of arresting violators of Republic Act
of the accused.
No. 9165. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to
commit a crime originates from the offender,
without anybody inducing or prodding him to Exempting Circumstance – Relationship
commit the offense. In People v. Sta. Maria, the
Interstate Estate of Gonzales vs. People of the
Court clarified that a “decoy solicitation” is not
Philippines and William Sato; GR No. 181409,
tantamount to inducement or instigation.
February 11, 2010.

falsification. The falsification of public

document was consummated when Manolita
DOCTRINE: Under Article 332 of the Revised
signed the ready-made SPA from Sato. The
Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the
consummation of the estafa occurred only when
offender criminally liable for the simple crimes
Sato later utilized the SPA, particularly when he
of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and
had the properties sold and thereafter pocketed
considers the violation of the juridical right to
the proceeds of the sale. Damage or prejudice to
property committed by the offender against
Manolita was caused not by the falsification of
certain family members as a private matter and the SPA but by the subsequent use of the said
therefore subject only to civil liability. However,
document. That is why the falsification of the
the waiver does not apply when the violation of
public document was used to facilitate and
the right to property is achieved through (and
ensure the commission of the estafa.
therefore inseparably intertwined with) a
breach of the public interest in the integrity and
Mitigating Circumstance – Incomplete Self
presumed authenticity of public documents.
Defense
People of the Philippines vs. Dulin, GR No.

QUESTION: William Sato was accused of 171284, June 29, 2015.
estafa after he induced his mother-in-law
Manolita, to sign and thumbmark a special
power of attorney, making her believe that said DOCTRINE: Article 13, paragraph 1
document involved only her taxes. Sato (Incomplete self-defense, defense of relative,
knowing fully well that said document and defense of stranger) applies only when
authorizes his minor daughter to sell, assign, unlawful aggression is present, but the other
transfer or otherwise dispose her properties to two requisites are not present. Unlawful
any person or entity. Later on, the duly aggression is a key element of self-defense. If
appointed administratrix, filed a complaint- this element is absent, then there can be no self-
affidavit for estafa against Sato. On the other defense doctrine that can be employed.
hand, Sato moved to quash the information,
claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code, his relationship to the person
QUESTION: At about 10:00 in the evening,
allegedly defrauded as his mother-in-law, was
witnesses saw Alfredo Dulin, armed with a
an exempting circumstance. Can Sato invoke
sharp-bladed instrument, assault and stab one,
Article 332 to exempt him from criminal liability?
Francisco Batulan, inflicting upon him several
stab wounds on the different parts of his body
which caused his death. Batulan initially
ANSWER: No. It does not apply where any of stabbed Dulin but after grappling, Dulin was
the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is able to gain possession of the weapon. Batulan
complexed with another crime, such as theft still pursued the attack and this eventually led
through falsification or estafa through

to his death due to various laceration wounds. Privileged Mitigating Circumstance –

Accused Dulin claims that what he did was self- Incomplete Self Defense; Ordinary Mitigating
defense from unlawful aggression of the victim. Circumstance – Voluntary Surrender
a) Can he avail of Article 11(1) to justify his act?
b) If not, can he invoke Art 13(1) to mitigate his Nadyahanvs. People of the Philippines, GR
criminal liabilities? No. 193134, March 2, 2016.
ANSWER: a) No. Alfredo Dulin cannot avail of DOCTRINE: (a) Incomplete Self-defense:
Article 11(1) to justify his act. Although Batulan When unlawful aggression (by the victim) alone is
had initiated the attack against Dulin, the proved, such incomplete self-defense is to be
unlawful aggression from Batulan effectively appreciated as an ordinary mitigating circumstance
ceased once Dulin had wrested the weapon under Article 13, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
from the latter. Whatever Dulin did thereafter – Code. When it is combined with another element of
like stabbing Batulan with the weapon – self-defense, such incomplete self-defense becomes a
constituted retaliation against Batulan. In this privilege mitigating circumstances under Article 69
regard, retaliation was not the same as self- of the same Code. (De Luna v. CA, 224 SCRA 762-
defense. In retaliation, the aggression that the 763)
victim started already ceased when the accused
attacked him, but in self-defense, the aggression
was still continuing when the accused injured (b) Voluntary Surrender: For voluntary surrender
the aggressor. As such, there was no unlawful to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in
aggression on the part of Batulan to justify his such a manner that it shows the interest of the
fatal stabbing by Dulin. accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt
or because he wishes to save them the trouble and
b) Similarly, he cannot invoke incomplete self- expenses necessarily incurred in his search and
defense to mitigate his criminal liability. Dulin capture. (People v. Gervacio, 24 SCRA 960)
should prove the elements of incomplete self-
defense by first credibly establishing that the
victim had committed unlawful aggression QUESTION: Petitioner Rafael Nadyahan was
against him. With Batulan’s aggression having driving his motorcycle with Apilis when they
already ceased from the moment that Dulin were flagged down by Acangan, Nabejet,
divested the weapon, there would not be any Binwag, and the deceased Pagaddut. Acangan
incomplete self-defense. Moreover, as borne out asked petitioner for a ride home and the latter
by his stabbing of Batulan several times, Dulin readily obliged. Acangan further asked that
did not act to defend himself or to repel any they be treated to a drink. Petitioner refused and
attack, but instead to inflict injury on Batulan. this angered Acangan. Acangan slapped
petitioner on the forehead and kicked his foot.

Petitioner then ran towards Apilis and critically material to the stabbing that
instructed the latter to start the engine of the transpired, is still material for purposes of
motorcycle. Before petitioner could leave, he defining its surrounding circumstances,
was struck on the back with a piece of wood by particularly the fact that a belt buckle and a
Nabejet. Petitioner impulsively took his knife piece of wood might not have been a potent
from the windshield of the motorcycle and ran weapon in the hands of a drunk wielder. And
to the direction of his house. Acangan's group lastly, the knife wounds were all aimed at vital
followed him. Petitioner even managed to ask parts of the body, thus pointing a conclusion
Binwag why his group was ganging up on him that the accused-appellant was simply warding
when he was hit by Pagaddut with a belt buckle. off belt buckle thrusts and used his knife as a
As petitioner was starting to lose consciousness, means commensurate to the thrusts he avoided.
he thrust his knife and stabbed Pagaddut that
caused his death thereafter. Nadyahan drove
the motorcycle away and proceeded towards Mitigating Circumstances – Plea of Guilt and
the house of a congressman. Petitioner then Extreme Poverty and Necessity; Aggravating
spent four days in Nueva Ecija to have his Circumstance – Recidivism
wounds treated. Finally, he went back to Ifugao
to surrender. During the trial, the defense People of the Philippines vs. Macbul; GR No.
manifested that while the petitioner stabbed the L-48976, October 11, 1943
victim, he did so in self-defense hence, the act is
DOCTRINE: A person is habitually delinquent
justified under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal
Code. Can he avail complete self-defense? if within a period of ten years from the date of
his release or last conviction of the crimes of
robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is found
ANSWER: No. Nadyahan can only avail guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
incomplete self-defense as a privileged oftener. Extreme poverty and necessity as a
mitigating circumstance and voluntary mitigating circumstance as the right to life is
surrender as an ordinary mitigating
more sacred than a mere property right.
circumstance. Although there was unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim and lack of QUESTION: Moro Macbul was charged with
sufficient provocation on the part of petitioner,
theft of two sacks of papers owned by the
however, it negated the presence of a reasonable
Provincial Government of Sulu. Macbul sold the
necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. First, there was intrinsic disproportion papers for 2.50 pesos in order to buy something
between a knife and a belt buckle. Second, to eat for his minor children. He was convicted
physical evidence shows that the accused- twice of the same crime on November 14, 1928,
appellant suffered only a lacerated wound on and August 20, 1942. The trial court found
the forehead. Third, the victim Pagaddut and Macbul guilty with two mitigating
his companions were already drunk before the
circumstances: plea of guilt and extreme
fatal fight. This state of intoxication, while not

poverty and necessity; but took into account the Jayson Espinola causing his death. The RTC
aggravating circumstances of recidivism for the found Hubilla guilty of homicide and sentenced
purpose of imposing the additional penalty for him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
habitual delinquency. Is the trial court correct in imprisonment for four years and one day of
imposing additional penalty for recidivism? Is prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years
the trial court correct in considering extreme and one day of prision mayor, as maximum. On
poverty and necessity as mitigating appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
circumstances? decision but modified the penalty to six months
and one day to six years of prision correccional
ANSWER: a) No, A person is habitually
as minimum, to six years and one day to twelve
delinquent, if within a period of ten years from
years of prision mayor as maximum. Is the
the date of his release or last conviction of the
penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals
crimes of robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, he is
correct?
found guilty of any of said crimes for the third
time or oftener. Macbul’s first conviction on ANSWER: Yes, Article 249 of the Revised Penal
November 1928, cannot be taken into account Code prescribes the penalty of reclusion
because his second conviction took place on temporal for homicide. Considering that
August, 1942, or fourteen years later. Hence, Hubilla was a minor at the time of the
Macbul has only one previous conviction. commission of the crime, being 17 years, four
months and 28 days old when he committed
homicide such minority was a privileged
b) Yes, the trial court is correct in considering mitigating circumstance that lowered the
extreme poverty and necessity as a mitigating penalty to prision mayor.
circumstance as the right to life is more sacred
than a mere property right.
Article 4, Revised Penal Code; Mitigating
Circumstance – Praeter Intentionem
Privileged Mitigating Circumstance –
Minority, R.A. 9344) People of the Philippines vs. Tomortogo; GR
Hubilla vs. People of the Philippines; GR No. No. L-47941, April 30,1985
176102, November 26, 2014
DOCTRINE: Article 4 of the Revised Penal
DOCTRINE: Minority as a privileged Code states that an accused shall be liable for all
mitigating circumstance under R.A 9344 the direct and natural consequences of his
unlawful act.
QUESTION: Rosal Hubilla 17 years of age was
charged with homicide for mortally stabbing

QUESTION: Jaime Tamotorgo was charged QUESTION: A mauling incident happened

with Parricide for killing his wife Magdalena De between Guillermo Wacoy, James Quibac and
los Santos. Prior to the incident, the spouses had Elner Aro. Due to the mauling incident Elner
an argument about selling their conjugal home Aro suffered blunt abdominal trauma which led
to which Jaime heavily objected. One day when to his death. Wacoy and Quibac was charged
Jaime got home from work, Magdalena and with the crime of Homicide. The RTC found
their three-month-old baby were already gone. both guilty of the crime of Death caused in a
Jaime ran after them and pleaded his wife to go tumultuous Affray while the Court of Appeals
back but Magdalena refused, he took a piece of modified their conviction to Homicide with the
wood and started hitting his wife. Magdalena mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
died thereafter. Jaime contended that he had no commit so grave a wrong. Guillermo Wacoy
intention to kill his wife. Is the contention contended that their intent was only to inflict
tenable? physical injuries on Aro. Is the contention
tenable?
ANSWER: No, the contention is untenable.
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code states that ANSWER: No, the contention is untenable. Art
criminal liability shall be incurred by any 49 of the Revised Penal Code should only apply
person committing a felony although the where the crime committed is different from
wrongful act be different from that which he that intended and where the felony committed
intended and that the accused is liable for all the befalls a different person (error in personae); and
consequences of his felonious acts. Jaime is not to cases where more serious consequences
liable for all the direct and natural consequences not intended by the offender result from his
of his unlawful act. felonious act (praeter intentionem).
It is well-settled that if the victim dies because
Aggravating Circumstance – Abuse of Superior of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to

Strength; Mitigating Circumstance – Praeter kill is presumed. In such case, even if there is no
Intentionem intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because the
penal law looks particularly to the results
Wacoy vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.
213792, June 22, 2015; Quibac vs. People of the following the unlawful act and holds the
Philippines; GR No. 213886. aggressor responsible for all the consequences
of his acts.
DOCTRINE: The penal law looks particularly
to the material results following the unlawful
act and holds the aggressor responsible for all
the consequences thereof

Justifying Circumstances – Self Defense, three (3) times with a small firearm, hitting the
Defense of Relatives - Negated; Conspiracy latter on the chest which caused him to fall. At
negated the hospital, Salvador was pronounced dead.
Napone, Jr. and Napone vs. People of the Junior and Edgar insist that the actions they
Philippines; GR No. 193085, November 29, committed and which resulted in Salvador's
2017. death were necessary and reasonable under the
circumstances to repel the latter's unlawful
DOCTRINE: For self-defense to prosper there
aggression towards them and their father. Is the
must be unlawful aggression on the part of the
defense tenable? Was there conspiracy between
victim. For unlawful aggression to be
Senior, Edgar and Junior?
appreciated there must be an actual, sudden,
and unexpected attack or imminent danger ANSWER: No, the defense is untenable. In both
thereof, not merely a threatening or self-defense and defense of relatives, whether
intimidating attitude. complete or incomplete, it is essential that there
be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.
QUESTION: At about 8:00 o'clock in the
After all, there would be nothing to prevent or
evening, Salvador was stricken with an iron bar
repel if such unlawful aggression is not present.
by Calib Napone while he and his son Robert
For unlawful aggression to be appreciated there
were on their way home. Salvador’s forehead
must be an actual, sudden, and unexpected
was oozing with blood likewise Calib was mud-
attack or imminent danger, not merely a
laden and bloodied while trying to extricate
threatening or intimidating attitude.
himself from Salvador who held him by his
collar. Calib is the son of Senior Napone and the Clearly, Senior armed himself with a bolo and
brother of Junior and Edgar Napone. Salvador was ready to use it against the Espelitas making
asked his balae Janioso to bring them to the them his specific targets because of his belief
hospital. After a while, the Napones’ arrived in that they were his son's assailants. Calib lying
a vehicle. To avoid further conflict, Janioso on the ground is not the unlawful aggression
pulled Salvador inside her house. required under the law. Any attack on the
Unfortunately, Senior followed them and person of Calib by the Espelitas had already
immediately hacked Salvador from behind ceased at the time the Napones arrived. No
hitting Salvador at the back of his head. actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or
Salvador, in retaliation, also hacked Senior. imminent danger on the life or limb of Calib,
could justify Senior's attack on Salvador.
Meanwhile, Edgar and Junior also alighted
from the vehicle. Edgar threw a stone the size of None, there was no conspiracy between Senior,
a fist at Salvador. Junior then shot Salvador Edgar and junior.

Although, the defendants were relatives and evaded the thrusts of Eduardo by hiding behind
had acted with some degree of simultaneity in Victoria. Thus, it was Victoria who received the
attacking their victim it does not prove stab intended for the paramour. He voluntarily
conspiracy as there was no other convincing surrendered to the police after the offense and
evidence to prove otherwise. There was no contended that his mind had "dimmed" or
common criminal design that could be overpowered by passion and obfuscation by the
attributed to them hence, each of the accused is sight of his wife having carnal act with her
responsible only for the consequences of his paramour. Is the contention of Eduardo
own acts. tenable? Can the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender be appreciated in
Article 247 – Exceptional Circumstances;
Eduardo’s favor?
Mitigating Circumstance – Voluntary
Surrender; Passion or Obfuscation negated ANSWER: No, the contention is untenable.
People of the Philippines vs. Gelaver; GR No. Death under exceptional circumstances under
95357, June 9, 1993. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code states that
death caused must be the proximate result of
DOCTRINE: Passion or Obfuscation is not
the outrage overwhelming the accused after
present where considerable length of time has
chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity.
elapsed from the act producing the obfuscation
when the crime was committed. Article 247 of Moreover, before the mitigating circumstance of
the Revised Penal Code explicitly states that the passion or obfuscation may be taken into
death caused must be the proximate result of consideration, the existence of an unlawful act
the outrage overwhelming the accused after sufficient to produce obfuscation must be
chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity. present. The act producing the obfuscation must
not be far removed from the commission of the
QUESTION: Eduardo Gelaver was married to
crime by a considerable length of time, during
Victoria Gelaver. Victoria left the conjugal home
which the accused might have recovered his
on July 03,1987 to be with her paramour. On
equanimity. The crime was committed almost a
March 24, 1988, an eye witness saw Eduardo
year after the victim had abandoned the
stabbing Victoria. Eduardo’s version of the
conjugal dwelling.
killing was that when his wife saw him, she
pushed her paramour aside. Her paramour Yes, voluntary surrender can be appreciated in
immediately stood up, took a knife placed on his favor. Immediately after committing the
top of the bedside table and attacked him. The offense, Eduardo voluntarily placed himself at
latter was able to wrest possession of the knife the disposal of the police authorities as
and then used it against the paramour, who

evidenced by the entry in the official police his bolo but Oloverio stopped him by drawing
blotter. his own bolo. They grappled with it, and
eventually, Oloverio ended up stabbing Gulane,
which resulted in the latter's death.
Mitigating Circumstance – Passion or Accompanied by a barangay tanod, Oloverio
Obfuscation went to the municipal hall to surrender to the
People of the Philippines vs. Oloverio; GR No. authorities. He admitted that he stabbed Gulane
211159; March 18, 2015. because he could no longer bear the insulting
remarks against him. The RTC found Oliverio
DOCTRINE: There is no uniform rule on what
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. The
constitutes "a considerable length of time." The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Is
provocation and the commission of the crime
Oloverio entitled to mitigating circumstances of
should not be far apart that a reasonable length
passion and obfuscation?
of time has passed during which the accused
would have calmed down and be able to reflect ANSWER: Yes, Oloverio is entitled to the
on the consequences of his or her actions. What mitigating circumstances of passion and
is important is that the accused has not yet obfuscation. There is passional obfuscation
"recovered his normal equanimity" when he when the crime was committed due to an
committed the crime. uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by
prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a
QUESTION: Marcelino Oloverio was charged
legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
for the murder of Golfo Dulane. According to
reason.
witnesses, they saw Rodulfo Gulane walking
away from them with Oloverio trailing behind The obfuscation must originate from lawful
him. Oloverio allegedly tapped Gulane's right feelings. The turmoil which result from a fight
shoulder and hacked him on the chest and should not be confused with the excitement in
extremities with a bolo until Gulane collapsed the mind of a person injured to such degree as
on the ground. Oloverio then allegedly took to deprive him of his sanity and self-control,
Gulane's money from his pocket. Oloverio because the cause of this condition of mind must
however, alleged that at the time and day of the necessarily have preceded the commission of
incident, Gulane had been accusing him of the offense. Moreover, the act producing the
having an incestuous relationship with his obfuscation must not be far removed from the
mother. He allegedly kept his cool and told commission of the crime by a considerable
Gulane to go home, but the latter continued to length of time, during which the accused might
mock him. Gulane allegedly attempted to draw have recovered his normal equanimity.

There is no uniform rule on what constitutes "a Rosalino Gernale, were on their way home on
considerable length of time." The provocation board a tricycle. They were in the company of
and the commission of the crime should not be Maria’s father, another female passenger and
five (5) young children. While their tricycle was
far apart that a reasonable length of time has
moving, another tricycle carrying Ramon and
passed during which a person would have
Virgilio Placer almost hit them. Placer brothers
calmed down and be able to reflect on the and Rosalino alighted from their respective
consequences of his or her actions. What is tricycles and a heated altercation ensued
important is that the accused has not yet between them. When things had subsided, they
"recovered his normal equanimity" when he proceeded to their separate routes.
committed the crime. Hence, the crime charged
Sometime later, Maria realized that the Placer
must be homicide.
brothers were chasing them. The latter were
able to overtake the tricycle driven by Rosalino
and later blocked its path. The brothers alighted
Justifying Circumstance – Self Defense, negated;
from their tricycle and proceeded towards the
Mitigating Circumstance – Voluntary Surrender
direction of Rosalino who had also alighted
People of the Philippines vs. Placer; GR No. from his tricycle. A confrontation followed and
181753, October 9, 2013. Angelina Gestiada, Rosalino’s sister, tried to
DOCTRINE: The test for the presence of pacify appellants. But Ramon Placer did not
unlawful aggression under the circumstances is heed as he stabbed Rosalino in the chest, he fell
whether the aggression from the victim put in towards the direction of his tricycle and just as
real peril the life or personal safety of the person he was about to fall, this time Virgilio stabbed
defending himself; the peril must not be an him in the stomach. Rosalino was brought to a
imagined or imaginary threat. hospital where he was pronounced dead.
Ramon insists that he acted in self-defense and
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated there that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
must be an indication that the surrender was surrender should be considered in his favor. Is
spontaneous, Indicating the intent to the defense tenable?
unconditionally submit himself to the
authorities, either because he acknowledged his ANSWER: No, his defense is untenable. There
guilt or he wished to save them the trouble and can be no self-defense, whether complete or
expenses necessary for his search and capture. incomplete, if no unlawful aggression from the
victim is established. In self-defense, unlawful
QUESTION: Ramon and his brother Virgilio aggression must be existing, If no unlawful
Placer with were charged with murder. On June aggression is established, self-defense is not a
24, 2001, Maria Gernale and her husband,

defense, because there would then be nothing to them the trouble and expenses necessary for his
repel on the part of the accused. search and capture.
The test for the presence of unlawful aggression

under the circumstances is whether the
Qualifying Circumstance – Treachery; Evident
aggression from the victim put in real peril the Premeditation, negated; Exempting
life or personal safety of the person defending Circumstance – Insanity, negated; Mitigating
himself; the peril must not be an imagined or Circumstance – Sufficient Provocation,
imaginary threat. Accordingly, the accused negated; Mitigating Circumstance – Plea of
must establish three elements of unlawful Guilt, negated for not being spontaneous
aggression, namely: (a) there must be a physical People of the Philippines vs. Racal; GR No.
or material attack or assault; (b) the attack or 224886, September 4, 2017.
assault must be actual, or, at least, imminent;
DOCTRINE: Treachery: The essence of
and (c) the attack or assault must be unlawful.
treachery is that the attack is deliberate and
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual without warning, done in a swift and
or material unlawful aggression; and (b) unexpected way, affording the hapless,
imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
material unlawful aggression means an attack resist or escape.
with physical force or with a weapon, an
Evident Premeditation: For it to be considered
offensive act that positively determines the
as an aggravating circumstance, the prosecution
intent of the aggressor to cause the injury.
must prove (a) the time when the offender
Imminent unlawful aggression means an attack
determined to commit the crime, (b) an act
that is impending or at the point of happening;
manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung
it must not consist in a mere threatening
to his determination, and (c) a sufficient lapse of
attitude, nor must it be merely imaginary, but
time between the determination and execution,
must be offensive and positively strong.
to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary his act and to allow his conscience to overcome
surrender must be appreciated in Ramon’s the resolution of his will.
favor. There is every indication that the
Sufficient Provocation: as a mitigating
surrender was spontaneous on his part,
circumstance, sufficient provocation is any
indicating his intent to unconditionally submit
unjust or improper conduct or act of the victim
himself to the authorities, either because he
adequate enough to excite a person to commit a
acknowledged his guilt or he wished to save

wrong, which is accordingly proportionate in backwards and upon reaching a dark portion of
gravity the street, he hailed a "trisikad" and sped away.
Racal raised the defense of insanity. Was there
Plea of Guilt: The voluntary plea of guilt
treachery and evident premeditation? Will the
entered by the accused is not spontaneous
defense of insanity prosper? Can the mitigating
because it was made after his arraignment and
circumstance of sufficient provocation and
only to support his claim of the exempting
voluntary plea of guilt be considered in his
circumstance of insanity. The voluntary plea of
favor?
guilt required by law is one that is made by the
accused in cognizance of the grievous wrong he ANSWER: Yes, there was treachery. Article 14
has committed and must be done as an act of of the RPC defines treachery as the direct
repentance and respect for the law. It is employment of means, methods, or forms in the
mitigating because it indicated a moral execution of the crime against persons which
disposition in the accused favorable to his tend directly and specially to insure its
reform. execution, without risk to the offender. The
essence of treachery is that the attack is
QUESTION: Roger Racal was charged with
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift
murder. In the morning of April 19, 2006,
and unexpected way, affording the hapless,
"trisikad" drivers were lining up to pick
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
passengers along Lopez St. at Sitio Alseca in
resist or escape. To emphasize, the victim,
Cebu City. Among the "trisikad" drivers was
Francisco, was caught off guard when Racal
Jose Francisco. Also present at that place during
attacked him.
that time was Racal, who was then standing
near Francisco. While the "trisikad" drivers were No, evident premeditation was absent. For it to
waiting for passengers, Racal spoke in a loud be considered as an aggravating circumstance,
voice, telling the group of drivers not to trust the prosecution must prove (a) the time when
Francisco because he is a traitor. Francisco, who the offender determined to commit the crime,
was then holding a plastic container in one hand (b) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit
and a bread in another, and was eating, retorted has clung to his determination, and (c) a
and asked Racal why the latter called him a sufficient lapse of time between the
traitor. Without warning, Racal approached determination and execution, to allow him to
Francisco and stabbed him several times with a reflect upon the consequences of his act and to
knife, hitting him in the chest and other parts of allow his conscience to overcome the resolution
his body. Francisco, then, fell to the pavement. of his will. In the instant case, no proof has been
Immediately thereafter, Racal stepped adduced to establish that Racal had previously

planned the killing of Francisco. There is no not spontaneous because it was made after his
evidence when and how he planned and arraignment and only to support his claim of the
prepared for the same, nor was there a showing exempting circumstance of insanity. The
that sufficient time had lapsed between his voluntary plea of guilt required by law is one
determination and execution. that is made by the accused in cognizance of the
grievous wrong he has committed and must be
No, the defense of insanity will not prosper. In
done as an act of repentance and respect for the
the eyes of the law, insanity exists when there is
law. It is mitigating because it indicated a moral
a complete deprivation of intelligence in
disposition in the accused favorable to his
committing the act. Mere abnormality of the
reform.
mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
The accused must be "so insane as to be Restitution of malversed funds as a mitigating
incapable of entertaining a criminal intent." He circumstance, not exculpatory
must be deprived of reason and act without the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals; GR No.
least discernment because there is a complete 167844, November 22, 2006.
absence of the power to discern or a total
deprivation of freedom of the will.
DOCTRINE: When petitioner could not present the
No, the mitigating circumstance of sufficient shortage during the examination, she was deemed to
provocation cannot be appreciated in his favor. have misappropriated the lacking accountability
As a mitigating circumstance, sufficient despite her restitution which would only be a
provocation is any unjust or improper conduct mitigating circumstance.
or act of the victim adequate enough to excite a
person to commit a wrong, which is accordingly
QUESTION: COA audited Ms. Santos, a special
proportionate in gravity. In the present case,
disbursing officer of LTFRB. The COA's
appellant asserts that several days before he
examining auditors noted a shortage of
stabbed the victim, the latter teased appellant to P33,925.99 in Ms. Santos’s accounts. Although
be "gay" and taunted him that the girl whom she acknowledged the shortage, she failed to
appellant courted rejected him. explain the same. Later on, Ms. Santos remitted
the missing amount. The COA still required her
No, the voluntary plea of guilt cannot be to explain the discrepancy. Instead of
considered in his favor. Plea of guilty made after explaining, she merely confirmed the cash
arraignment and after trial had begun does not shortage. The Office of the Ombudsman found
her guilty of “Dishonesty” and she was
entitle the accused to have such a plea
discharged from service. On appeal, the Court
considered as a mitigating circumstance. The
of Appeals found Ms. Santos liable for
voluntary plea of guilt entered by the accused is “Malversation of funds”, but they lowered her

administrative offense to “Neglect of Duty” due DOCTRINE: Taking Advantage of Public

to her restitution. What crime did Ms. Santos Position should be appreciated as an
commit? Is CA correct for treating her aggravating circumstance when the accused
restitution of the missing funds as a mitigating had not been in a public position he could not
circumstance only? have induced the injured parties. Abuse of
confidence should be appreciated when the
confidence between the parties is immediate
and personal and such as would give the
ANSWER: Ms. Santos committed
accused person some advantage. Recidivism, as
DISHONESTY. Neglect of Duty implies the
an aggravating circumstance, should be
failure to give proper attention to a task
appreciated when one who at the time of his
expected of an employee arising from either
trial for one crime shall have been convicted by
carelessness or indifference. The facts of this
the final judgment of another crime embraced in
case show a failure by an accountable officer to
the same title of the Penal Code.
make available upon demand public funds in
her custody.
QUESTION: Mr. Torrida directed that the

death of all large animals must be reported by
Yes, restitution does not exculpate one’s
the owners to him as councilman. Owners of
liability in relation with Malversation and the deceased animals reported to him. Mr Torrida
offense of Dishonesty. Section 22, Rule XIV of informed the owners that they must pay a fine
the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of of P5 for each animal, these fees to be turned
Executive Order No. 292 states that neither into the municipality by him. The owners,
restitution of the missing funds nor the fact of believing that the municipality had provided
for the payment of such fines, turned over to Mr.
recent designation as an accountable officer
Torrida five pesos for each animal that died.
serves to prevent the imposition of the
There was no provision made by the
corresponding penalties. municipality or any other entity for the
imposition of such fines. These facts clearly
constitute the crime of estafa as defined by the
Aggravating Circumstances – Abuse of Revised Penal code. What are the aggravating
Confidence, negated; Recidivism, negated; circumstance/s present, if any?
Taking Advantage of Public Position,
appreciated
United States vs. Torrida; GR Nos. 7450, 7451 ANSWER: Taking Advantage of Public
and 7452, September 18, 1912. Position (Paragraph 1, Article 14, RPC) should
be appreciated. If he (appellant) had not been
councilman he could not have induced the
injured parties to pay these alleged fines. This is

true even though a municipal councilman is not duties.” Evidence shows that the stabbing was
an official designated by law to collect public done when the victim is facing the assailant.
fines. After Trial, accused was convicted of Murder
only, even though evidence demonstrated that
Mr. Rodil knew that the victim was an agent of
The aggravating circumstance of Abuse of a person in authority. What is the actual crime
confidence (Paragraph 4, Article 14, RPC) is not committed by Mr. Rodil?
applicable. The mere fact that people had
reposed in the appellant sufficient confidence to
elect him to a public office does not constitute ANSWER: The crime committed by Mr. Rodil
abuse of confidence. is Homicide aggravated by contempt for or
insult to a public authority or disregard of the
respect due to the offended party on account of
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism his rank. Given the fact that the stabbing
(Paragraph 9, Article 14, RPC) is also not happened when the victim faces the assailant,
applicable. This is due to the fact that at the time the victim has the chance to ward it off, hence, it
the trial court held that the accused was twice a is not treacherous. The crime should only be
recidivist there was no final judgment against homicide and not murder. Furthermore, the
Mr. Torrida. information simply alleges that appellant did
attack and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while
the latter was in the performance of his official
duties, ..." The allegation cannot be an adequate
Aggravating Circumstances – Disregard of
substitute for the essential averment to justify a
Rank, Contempt of or insult to public authority
conviction of the complex crime.
People of the Philippines vs. Rodil; GR No. L-
35156, November 20, 1981.
Exempting Circumstance – Insanity, negated;

DOCTRINE: Complex crime of homicide with
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance –
assault upon an agent of a person in authority cannot
Treachery, appreciated, absorbs abuse of
be imposed when it is not properly alleged that the
superior strength; Evident Premeditation and
accused knew, before or at the time of the assault, the
Dwelling – non-imposition of Death Penalty
victim was an agent of a person in authority.
People of the Philippines vs. Dagsil; GR No.
218945, December 13, 2017.
QUESTION: An information filed in Circuit
Criminal Court alleges that Mr. Rodil “attack
and stab PC Lt. Guillermo Masana while the DOCTRINE: In order for insanity to be an
latter was in the performance of his official acceptable defense to exempt an accused from

criminal liability, the same must have been Based on the given facts, it also appears that
proven with clear and convincing evidence. RA there is evident premeditation. Since the crime
9346 prohibits the imposition of death penalty was committed in the house of Amean, the
in the Philippines. ordinary aggravating circumstance of dwelling
(Paragraph 3, Article 14, RPC) should be
appreciated. The penalty would have been
QUESTION: Mr. Dagsil allegedly raped a 14 death penalty if not for the imposition of
year old girl named Amean. Amean managed to Republic Act No. 9346.
tell her mother and the latter immediately filed
a report in the police station. Mr. Dagsil went to
the dwelling of Amean and stabbed her while Aggravating Circumstance – Evident
she was asleep. Amean died. During trial, Mr. Premeditation, negated; Disregard of Respect
Dagsil entered a plea of not guilty and claimed due on account of age, negated; Abuse of
that he was “confused.” It is his defense that he Superior Strength, negated; Mitigating
should be criminally exempted because he was Circumstances – Passion and Obfuscation,
temporarily insane when he committed the negated; lack of instruction, negated; voluntary
heinous crime. Except for his self-serving confession, appreciated.
testimony, no other corroborative, much less
People of the Philippines vs. Mangsant; GR
medical and/or expert, evidence was presented
No. L-45704, May 25, 1938.
by the defense to prove the professed mental
aberration of the accused. Decide the case.
DOCTRINE: The aggravating circumstances of

disregard of sex and age cannot be considered
ANSWER: Mr. Dagsil is liable for the crime of
when it has never been proved nor admitted by
Murder. His defense of temporary insanity to
the defendant that in committing the crime he
exempt himself is not valid. In order for insanity
had intended to offend or insult the sex and age
to be an acceptable defense to exempt an
of the victim. Abuse of superior strength is
accused from criminal liability, the same must
generally merged into that of treachery and is
have been proven with clear and convincing
inherent in the same.
evidence.
Lack of instruction cannot apply to one who has
studied in the first grade in a public school, but
The crime is murder due to the presence of only to those who really have not received any
treachery and evident premeditation. It is clear instruction. The mitigating circumstance of
that Mr. Dagsil took the advantage, with no risk obfuscation shall not be appreciated when it is
at all from the offended party to counterattack, caused by the victim’s revelation that she loved
and killed the victim when she was asleep. another man, because it was not sufficient to
There could be abuse of superior strength, but produce that mental blindness which the
the same would be absorbed by treachery. Revised Penal Code recognizes as mitigating.

sufficient to produce that mental blindness

which the Revised Penal Code recognizes as
QUESTION: The trial court found Mr.
mitigating. The only mitigating circumstance
Clemente guilty of murder for killing Demetria,
present in the case above is voluntary
a 14 year old girl. Mr. Clemente pleaded
confession.
“guilty” and told the court that he and Demetria
were lovers. He claimed that Demetria
confessed to him that she fell in love with
Aggravating Circumstances – Dwelling, Abuse
another man. Because of what he heard, he
of Superior Strength; Qualifying Aggravating
allegedly went blank and killed Demetria. The
Circumstance – Evident Premeditation
trial court found that in the commission of the
crime the aggravating circumstances of evident People of the Philippines vs. Tubongbanua;
premeditation, disregard of sex and abuse of GR No. 171271, August 31, 2006.
superior strength were present as were also the
mitigating circumstances of lack of instruction,
obfuscation and plea of guilty. Treachery was
DOCTRINE: The following elements of Evident
also upheld which qualified the crime. Is the
premeditation are: (1) the time when the
trial court correct?
accused decided to commit the crime; (2) an
overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung
to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of
ANSWER: No. There was no premeditation time between the decision and the execution, to
according to the description or account of the allow the accused to reflect upon the
crime given in the information. The aggravating consequences of his act. There is abuse of
circumstances of disregard of sex and age superior strength when one could not have
cannot be considered because it has never been executed the dastardly act without employing
proved nor admitted by the defendant that in physical superiority over the victim.
committing the crime he had intended to offend
or insult the sex and age of the victim. Abuse of
superior strength is generally merged into that
QUESTION: The lower court found Mr. Elberto
of treachery and is inherent in the same. As to
guilty of murder. Mr. Elberto was employed as
mitigating circumstances, it is not proper to
a family driver by Atty. Evelyn Sua-Kho. Earlier
consider lack of instruction in favor of the
that day of the incident, Mr. Elberto drove Atty.
defendant. Lack of instruction cannot apply to
Sua-Kho to her condominium. There inside the
one who has studied in the first grade in a public
condominium was her three year old daughter
school, but only to those who really have not
and a housemaid. Atty. Sua-Kho had a talk with
received any instruction. The mitigating
the accused, when all of a sudden, Mr. Elberto
circumstance of obfuscation cannot be
stabbed her multiple times. A co-worker of the
considered as well because the revelation by the
victim relayed that prior to the killing of Atty.
deceased that she loved another man, under the
Sua-Kho, the accused had confided to her about
circumstances in which it was made, was not
his grudges against the Atty. Sua-Kho, such as

being given spoiled food, that his meals were Minority, Relationship, not appreciated, does
being measured, that he worked long hours of not qualify simple rape to qualified rape
the day and served many bosses. Another co-
People of the Philippines vs. Lapore; GR No.
worker also testified that before the killing, the
191197, June 22, 2015.
accused told him of his grudges against Atty.
Sua-Kho, like his being scolded for being late,
and being called a thief, a killer, and ex-convict
and other bad names. Based on the given facts, DOCTRINE: Even though the prosecution is
what are the possible aggravating and able to duly prove the presence of abuse of
qualifying circumstances that should be confidence and obvious ungratefulness,
appreciated? minority, and use of a deadly weapon, they may
not be appreciated to qualify the crime from
simple rape to qualified rape. Notably, these
circumstances are not among those which
ANSWER: Present is the qualifying
qualify a crime from simple rape to qualified
circumstance of evident premeditation. Both
rape.
witnesses testified on appellant’s ill-plans
against his employer the day prior to the crime.
Absent evidence showing any reason or motive
for the witnesses to falsely testify against the QUESTION: AAA is a 13 year old child. Mr.
appellant, their testimonies should be accorded Lapore was staying in their house as a guest.
full faith and credit. Treachery cannot be Her parents were welcoming to Mr. Lapoer due
presumed since there is no concrete evidence as to the fact that he was a pastor in their church.
to how the attack was done. Mr. Lapore went inside AAA’s room and
removed AAA’s panty. Lapore then removed
his underwear and inserted his penis into her
vagina. AAA cried. When she tried to shout,
Other aggravating circumstances are abuse of
Lapore pointed a knife at her neck and
superior strength and dwelling. He killed Atty.
threatened to kill her. AAA reported her ordeal
Sua-Kho by overpowering her and driving the
to her parents. When AAA’s parents confronted
murder weapon into her body several times.
There is no dispute that Atty. Sua-Kho was Lapore, Lapore admitted to the rape and
promised to marry AAA. After the
killed in her home; thus the aggravating
confrontation, Lapore left. Three (3) months
circumstance of dwelling should be
passed. Lapore failed to return. Thus, AAA and
appreciated.
her mother reported the incident to the
Barangay Chairman and to the police. The trial
court found Lapore guilty beyond reasonable
R.A. 8353 – Rape Law, Special Aggravating
doubt of the crime of rape. The trial court
Circumstance – Use of Deadly Weapon,
appreciated the presence of the special
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance – Abuse
aggravating circumstance of the use of a deadly
of Confidence, Obvious Ungratefulness,
weapon and the generic aggravating

circumstance of the abuse of confidence or unQUESTIONable that they constitute the

obvious ungratefulness which made the crime special complex crime of Robbery with
qualified rape. Is the trial court correct in using Homicide.
the aggravating circumstances to qualify the
crime of simple rape?
QUESTION: Mr. Jose Verdad was employed as
houseboy in the residence of Tomas Ramos. He
ANSWER: No. Even though the prosecution is was allowed to sleep in the sala and to stay
able to duly prove the presence of abuse of alone in the house when the whole family was
confidence and obvious ungratefulness, away. He was also entrusted with the keys to
minority, and use of a deadly weapon, they may the house. At around 2:00 am, he attacked a 14
not be appreciated to qualify the crime from year old girl, the daughter of his employer. He
simple rape to qualified rape. Notably, these ransacked some jewelry and immediately
circumstances are not among those which escaped. Unfortunately, the minor died because
qualify a crime from simple rape to qualified of the incident. During trial, he entered a plea of
rape as defined under Article 266-B of the guilty. Mr. Jose Verdad also made an
Revised Penal Code, as amended. Thus even if extrajudicial confession that he intended to
duly alleged and proven, the crime would still abuse the minor, however, based on his
be simple rape. confession and evidence, there were no signs
that he tried to kiss or perform any act of
lasciviousness against the child. What crime or
Attempted Felony; Aggravating Circumstance – complex crime should be imposed? What are
Abuse of Confidence, Obvious Ungratefulness, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances,
Abuse of Superior Strength if any?
People of the Philippines vs. Verdad; GR No.

L-51797, May 16, 1983.
ANSWER: The proper offense is Robbery with
homicide, not Attempted rape with homicide.
Based on the given information, there is no
DOCTRINE: That the accused's intent was single overt act, such as kissing or embracing
tempered with a design to abuse the victim did the victim, that will warrant the imposition of
not affect the propriety of the charge of that Attempted rape with homicide. That the
indivisible felony. The fact that the accused took accused's intent was tempered with a design to
cash and valuables immediately after he had abuse the victim did not affect the propriety of
killed the victim clearly proves robbery. It is the charge of that indivisible felony. The fact
well settled that when there is a direct relation, that the accused took cash and valuables
an intimate connection between the robbery and immediately after he had killed the victim
the killing —whether the latter be prior or clearly proves robbery.
subsequent to the former. or whether both
crimes be committed at the same time — it is

There is the aggravating circumstance of abuse

of confidence or obvious ungratefulness. The
QUESTION: Mr. Rezor and his brother, Mr.
accused was treated like a member of the family
Resurreccion, went to the house of spouses
and was completely trusted. The circumstance
Lucio and Victoria to buy some cigarettes. Since
of abuse of superior strength is likewise present.
the store was already closed at that time,
The accused had abused that superiority which
Victoria allowed them inside the gate. Mr.
his sex and the weapon he had employed
Resurreccion talked with Victoria, while Mr.
afforded him and from which the 14-year-old
was unable to defend herself. The only Rezor went where Lucio was. Armed with the
knife he personally brought, Mr. Rezor stabbed
mitigating circumstance present is his plea of
Lucio multiple times. Victoria was not able to
guilty.
hear any scuffle and just saw his spouse already
covered in blood. Lucio died. Mr. Reno, a
person who had custody of both Mr. Razor and
Justifying Circumstance – Self Defense, negated;
Mr. Resurreccion, reported to the police station
for the brothers to be arrested. During trial, Mr.
Treachery, Abuse of Superior Strength;
Rezor invoked the justifying circumstance of
Mitigating Circumstance – Voluntary
self-defense, that it was Lucio who attacked him
Surrender, negated
first by throwing stones at him. There was no
People of the Philippines vs. Manzano, Jr., strong evidence or any witness that supports his
et.al.; GR No. 217974, March 5, 2018. claim. What crime is committed by Mr. Rezor?
Should Mr. Rezor be held criminally liable?
DOCTRINE: The absence of scuffle among the Should the mitigating circumstance of
victim and assailant substantiate the finding voluntary surrender be appreciated?
that the attack was swift and deliberate so that
the unarmed and unsuspecting victim had no
chance to resist. The intent to kill by assailant
ANSWER: The crime committed by Mr. Rezor
was confirmed by the fact that they were armed
is murder because of the qualifyng
with knives.
circumstance of treachery. The absence of
scuffle among Lucio, Mr. Rezor and Resurrecion
substantiate the finding that the attack was swift
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated and deliberate so that the unarmed and
when uncorroborated by independent and unsuspecting Lucio had no chance to resist or
competent evidence or when it is extremely escape. The intent to kill by Mr. Rezor and Mr.
doubtful by itself. Resurrecion was confirmed by the fact that they
were armed with knives when they attacked
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary
Lucio.
surrender should not be appreciated when
another person, other than the accused, merely
facilitated the arrest. This does not show
repentance on the part of the accused.

Mr. Rezor should be held criminally liable. Self- revolver to scare the passengers of the banca
defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when which hitted one passenger. They took and
uncorroborated by independent and competent carried away the motor banca, as a result all the
evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by passengers of the motor banca jumped to the sea
itself. and drowned. The trial court convicted the
accused of Robbery with Triple Homicide. Was
the crime committed by the aggravating
The mitigating circumstance of voluntary circumstance of an uninhabited place and on the
surrender should not be appreciated when occasion of misfortune?
another person, other than the accused, merely
ANSWER: Yes. The development of engine
facilitated the arrest. This does not show
trouble at sea is a misfortune, but it does not
repentance on the part of the accused. There is
come within the context of the phrase "other
no voluntary surrender by Mr. Rezor himself.
calamity or misfortune" as used in Article 14,
paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code, which
refer to other conditions of distress similar to
Aggravating Circumstance – Uninhabited those precedingly enumerated therein, namely,
Place; Aggravating Circumstance – On the "conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
Occasion of a Misfortune, negated; Mitigating epidemic”. The reason for the provision of this
Circumstance – Praeter Intentionem, negated aggravating circumstance "is found in the form
People of the Philippines vs. Arpa; GR No. L- of criminality where in the midst of a great
26789, April 25, 1969. calamity, instead of lending aid to the afflicted,
adds to their suffering by taking advantage of
DOCTRINE: The aggravating circumstance of their misfortune to despoil them." No such
the crime of homicide having been committed condition of great calamity or misfortune
in an uninhabited place must be considered, existed when the motor banca developed engine
where the deed was committed at sea, where it trouble.
was difficult for the offended party to receive
any help, while the assailants could-easily have Aggravating Circumstance – Abuse of Superior
escaped punishment, and the purely accidental Strength absorbed in Band; Dwelling,
circumstance that another banca carrying the aggravating in Robbery with Violence or
eyewitnesses to the crime was also at sea in the Intimidation; Nocturnity; Alternative
vicinity at the time without the assailant’s Circumstance – Intoxication; Plea of Guilt –
knowledge is no argument against the constitutes admission of the accusation
appreciation of said circumstance. including all aggravating circumstances
People of the Philippines vs. Apduhan, Jr.; GR
QUESTION: Dicto and Maalum Arpa boarded No. L-19491, August 30, 1968.
a motor banca bound for Talicud Island, Davao.
The motor banca developed engine trouble in DOCTRINE: (1) It is natural that in robbery in a
the middle of the sea, then Dicto fired his band there is already abuse of superior strength.
(2) The settled rule is that dwelling is

aggravating in robbery with violence and accused's plea of guilty, for while justice
intimidation of persons. The rationale behind demands a speedy administration, judges are
this pronouncement is that this class of robbery duty bound to be extra solicitous in seeing to it
could be committed without the necessity of that when an accused pleads guilty he
transgressing the sanctity of the home. (3) understands fully the meaning of his plea and
Nocturnity is aggravating when it is purposely the import of an inevitable conviction.
and deliberately sought by the accused to
facilitate the commission of the crime or to Qualifying Circumstance – Evident
prevent their being recognized or to insure Premeditation, negated; Treachery, appreciated
unmolested escape. Nocturnidad must concur People of the Philippines vs. Kalipayan; GR
with the intent and design of the offender to No. 229829, January 22, 2018.
capitalize on the intrinsic impunity afforded by
DOCTRINE: Nocturnity would not be
the darkness of night.
appreciated as aggravating where treachery is
QUESTION: Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. and five present, it being considered absorbed in the
(5) other persons whose true names are not yet latter circumstance.
known are armed with different unlicensed
QUESTION: Glaiza Molina who former live-in
firearms and other deadly weapons entered by
partner of Arnel Kalipayan Y Anio was inside
means of violence the dwelling house of
her house, when she turned to switch the stove
Honorato Miano and Antonia Miano, which
Arnek Kalipayan with the use of a bladed knife
was also the dwelling house of their children,
stabbed different parts of the former’s body
the spouses Geronimo Miano and Herminigilda
causing some injuries thereon resulting to her
de Miano. When the accused and his
instantaneous death. Arnel Kalipayan was
companions were inside the said house, they
arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty to the
killed Geronimo Miano and another person
charge. Thereafter, trial ensued. RTC convicted
named Norberto Aton who happened to also be
him of the crime murder and the CA affirmed
in the said house. The accused and his
the decision. He was charged guilty of murder
companions then took house cash money
despite the failure of the prosecution to
belonging to the spouses. When the case was
establish any qualifying circumstance. Was the
called for, Apolonio Apduhan, Jr. who plead not
decision of the court right?
guilty was advised by his attorney to change his
plea to guilty with the request that the death ANSWER: Yes. The essence of treachery is the
penalty be not imposed. Should the court sudden and unexpected attack without the
consider his plea? slightest provocation on the part of the person
being attacked. A swift and unexpected attack
ANSWER: Yes. In ascertaining whether
on an unarmed victim that ensures its execution
Apduhan pleaded guilty with full knowledge of
without risk to the assailant arising from the
the significance and consequences of his act,
defense of his victim is an indication that
recommends itself to all trial judges who must
treachery is present.
refrain from accepting with alacrity an

Aggravating Circumstance – Abuse of Superior imposable penalty should be reduced to

Strength; Recidivism, negated for failure to reclusion perpetua.
allege
People of the Philippines vs. Dacillo; GR No. Aggravating Circumstance – Recidivism;
149368, April 14, 2004. Mitigating Circumstance – Passion and
Obfuscation
DOCTRINE: The aggravating circumstance of People of the Philippines vs. Real; GR No.
abuse of superior strength necessitates a 93436, March 24, 1995.
showing of the relative disparity in the physical
characteristics of the aggressor. DOCTRINE: The act of the victim in berating
and humiliating appellant was enough to
QUESTION: Rosemarie B. Tallada was seen produce passion and obfuscation, considering
alive near the house of Francisco Dacillo. that the incident happened in a marketplace
Jovelyn who is the neighbor or Francisco saw within full view and within hearing distance of
Rosemarie enter the house of Francisco where many people.
after they hear a struggle. Jovelyn peeped
through a hole in the wall where she saw Dacillo QUESTION: In the public market, Edgardo
and another man grapple with a woman who Corpuz and Melchor Real were engaged in a
was gagged with a handkerchief. They heard a heated argument over the right to use the
sound of a woman getting beat up until market table to display their fish. The Municipal
everything went quiet. After several days, they Mayor who happened to be at the public market
smelled a rotten odor which was from tried to pacify them. Both Edgardo Corpuz and
Rosemarie’s decomposing body. Francisco Melchor Real momentarily kept their peace
Dacillo was found guilty of murder with the until Corpuz said something to Real. When
aggravating circumstance of recidivism on the Corpuz kept on walking to the disputed fish
ground that he admitted that he had a prior table, Melchor Real started to sharpen his bolo.
conviction for the death of his former live-in When Corpuz’s back was towards Real, the
partner. The penalty of his conviction is death. latter hacked him on the nape. The trial court
Should recidivism be appreciated? arraigned Melchor real for murder. He argues
that the crime committed was only homicide
ANSWER: In order to appreciate recidivism as and not murder and that he is entitled to two
an aggravating circumstance, it is necessary to mitigating circumstances: namely, passion and
allege it in the information and to attach obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense.
certified true copies of the sentences previously Did the trial court err in arraigning Melchor
meted out to the accused. This is in accord with Real for murder?
Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The aggravating ANSWER: Yes. If the appellant attacked his
circumstance of recidivism was not alleged in victim in the proximate vindication of a grave
the information and therefore cannot be offense, he cannot successfully claim in the
appreciated against appellant. Hence the same breath that he was also blinded by passion
and obfuscation. At most, only one of two

circumstances could be considered in favor of DOCTRINE: Death penalty is imposed in a

the appellant. The act of the victim in berating murder case where quasi-recidivism is a special
and humiliating appellant was enough to aggravating circumstance because it raises the
produce passion and obfuscation, considering penalty to the maximum period.
that the incident happened in a marketplace
within full view and within hearing distance of QUESTION: Roger Perete Y Manlas and
many people. Sajorda are quasi-recidivists, they were
arraigned for the crime of murder for the death
Aggravating Circumstance – Recidivism, of Receval Langlangan. Roger Parete pleaded
effects of Habitual Delinquency. guilty and was convicted. Prior to his
People of the Philippines vs. Tolentino; GR conviction, he was sentenced to death for the
No. L-48740, August 5, 1942. aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism.
Should the plea of guilt and voluntary
DOCTRINE: A person shall be deemed to be surrender be considered as a mitigating
habitual delinquent if within a period of ten circumstance?
years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of robo, hurto, estafa, or ANSWER: No. Even viewing the case in the
falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said most favorable light, the death penalty cannot
crimes a third time or oftener. be avoided. The crime committed is murder,
qualified by treachery, with the aggravating
QUESTION: Faustino Tolentino was arraigned circumstances of evident premeditation and
for the crime of theft of seven shirts valued at quasi-recidivism (Art. 160, Revised Penal
P14 belonging to Cosnic Famora and he pleaded Code), all alleged in the information which the
guilty. Being a recidivist, he was sentenced to accused admitted by his plea. Conceding
suffer two months and one day and to pay civil arguendo that not only plea of guilt but
indemnity. Faustino Tolentino was further voluntary surrender as well are present, these
sentenced to suffer an additional penalty of six cannot alter the penalty of death, since even
years and one day for habitual delinquency. without evident premeditation, quasi
Was the additional penalty imposed, correct? recidivism, as a special aggravating
circumstance, raises the penalty to the
ANSWER: Yes. A habitual delinquent is
maximum period of that prescribed by law for
necessarily a recidivist, and in imposing the
the new crime committed.
principal penalty upon him the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into Qualifying Circumstance – Evident
account. Premeditation, Price, Reward or Promise, to be
taken separately
People of the Philippines vs. Hipolito, et.al.;
Treachery; Quasi-recidivism, effect
GR No. 31402, August 17, 1981.
People of the Philippines vs. Perete; GR No. L-
15515, April 29, 1961. DOCTRINE: Evident premeditation is inherent
in and cannot be considered separately from the

aggravating circumstance that the crime was Aggravating Circumstance – Craft, Fraud or
committed in consideration of price, reward, or Disguise; when taken as aggravating
promise cannot be sustained. People of the Philippines vs. Medina, et.al.;
GR No. 127157, July 10, 1998.
QUESTION: Feliciano Hipolito agreed to kill
Concepcion Bustamante upon the promise that DOCTRINE: To be considered as an
Cirilo Mangamba, who is the driver of Vicente aggravating circumstance and thereby
Ang (husband of the deceased) will give him resultantly increase the criminal liability of an
P5,000. Feliciano and Cirilo drove and went to offender, the same must accompany and be an
places where Concepcion Bustamante could be integral part or concomitant of the commission
found. In the afternoon of the same day, he of the crime specified in the information; and
accepted from Cirilo a .38 caliber pistol with six although it is not necessarily an element thereof,
bullets, he then went to the residence of it must not be factually and legally discrete
Concepcion Bustamante Ang and made therefrom.
preparations to shoot her but she was not at her
residence. Feliciano went home and came back QUESTION: The NARCOM arranged an
the next morning to shoot her. When Feliciano entrapment for the arrest of the two men
was arrested, he admitted to the killing and engaged in the sale and distribution of shabu. A
implicated Cirilo as the person who hired him. team of NARCOM agents was formed where
Feliciano claims that the aggravating PO3 Azurin will be a poseur-buyer. When the
circumstances serve no merit since the alleged drug dealers and their driver Carlos
mastermind of the crime Vicente Ang was were arrested, Carlos managed to escape. The
absent, is his contention correct? two drug dealers were charged for the illegal
selling, distribution, and transportation of
ANSWER: No. There is no merit in the claim of drugs with the aggravating circumstance of
the accused that the aggravating circumstance craft. fraud, or disguise. Is the court correct in
of price, reward or promise is not present in attributing the aggravating circumstance?
view of the non-prosecution of Vicente Ang, the
alleged giver of the price or reward. The record ANSWER: No. While we share the trial court's
shows that the accused Feliciano Hipolito made disgust over the still unexplained escape of
arrangements with his co-accused Cirilo accused Carlos, we cannot approve its
Malagamba relative to the killing of Concepcion attribution to the appellant as the author of such
Bustamante Ang and not with Vicente Ang, craft, fraud or disguise or even that the same
although Cirilo Malagamba said that he was should aggravate his liability in the present
acting at the instance of the said Vicente Ang, case. For, even assuming ex gratia argumenti
and it was the accused Cirilo Malagamba who that appellant had a part in the release of Carlos,
paid him the amount of P2,800.00. Accordingly, it is obvious that the aggravating circumstances
whether or not Vicente Ang was prosecuted in involved do not pertain to the offense charged
connection with the slaying of Concepcion in the information and are completely unrelated
Bustamante Ang is of little importance. to the crime of illegal sale of shabu.

Aggravating Circumstance – Ignominy, cannibal which caused her death. Diego

negated; Qualifying Circumstances – Taking Balondo was found by the CFI guilty of the
Advantage of Superior Strength; Exempting crime of murder defined in Article 248 of the
Circumstance – Insanity, negated, Revised Penal Code.Deigo made a voluntary
unmeritorious plea of guilt. What aggravating circumstances
may be appreciated against Deigo?
People of the Philippines vs. Balondo; GR No.
L-27401, October 31, 1969.
ANSWER: The commission of the crime by the

Diego Balondo was attended by the aggravating
DOCTRINE: INSANITY; PSYCHIATRIC TEST
circumstances of (1) disregard of the respect due
OF ACCUSED IN INSTANT CASE, NOT
the offended party on account of her sex, and (2)
NECESSARY.Where the facts and
that the wrong done in the commission of the
circumstances narrated by the defendant in his
crime was deliberately augmented by causing
duly signed statements tally in important
other wrong not necessary for its commission.
details and he had voluntarily admitted his guilt
However one mitigating circumstance can be
before the municipal court during the
considered in favor of the defendant, namely,
preliminary investigation and voluntarily
the circumstance of his having made a
pleaded guilty when arraigned before the trial
voluntary plea of guilt in court before the
court, the conclusion that the defendant was not
presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
insane at the time of the commission of the
crime is sufficiently justified and there is no
merit in the plea of counsel de officio to subject
Evident Premeditation – elements; Special
the defendant to some psychiatric test to
Aggravating Circumstance – Use of Unlicensed
determine his sanity before the trial court
Firearm; Generic Aggravating Circumstance –
rendered judgment. Taking advantage by the
Use of Motor Vehicle
defendant of his superior strength qualifies the
crime committed as murder, defined in Article People of the Philippines vs. Salahuddin,
248 of the Revised Penal Code. et.al.; GR No. 206291, January 18, 2016.
QUESTION: Diego while attending his farm DOCTRINE: The presence of the use of
saw Gloria his niece cutting his banana leaves unlicensed firearm in the commission of the
he told her, ‘why, you are here again to cut the crime, as well as the use of motor vehicle to
banana leaves?’, that the late Gloria Bolasa facilitate its commission and escape of the
answered,’ it is none of your business for it’s the accused from the crime scene.
property of the government. Diego Balondo
then strangled Gloria Bulasa, sliced the flesh of
the legs, shoulder and the thigh, cooked those
human flesh and devoured them like an ancient

QUESTION: Zaldy Salahuddin shot Atty.

Segundo Gonzalo who sustained mortal
DOCTRINE: Aggravating circumstance of
gunshot wounds on the fatal parts of his body
cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of the
which directly caused his death with the use of
suffering of the victim. The essence of treachery
unlicensed firearm, and use of motorcycle to
is the sudden and unexpected attack by an
facilitate not only the commission of the crime
aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving
but also the escape of the accused from the scene
the latter of any real chance to defend himself,
of the crime. And that the crime be committed
at night time. What aggravating circumstances thereby ensuring its commission without risk to
the aggressor, and without the slightest
may be appreciated against Zaldy Salahuddin?
provocation on the part of the victim.
ANSWER: Yes. In People v. Dulay, the Court

QUESTION: Jomar and Alvin went to buy
ruled that the existence of the firearm can be
cigarettes and they met the victim .Olivio Olivio
established by testimony even without the
told Bernabe that he knew the latter. Bernabe
presentation of the firearm. In the said case, it
then poked a gun at the victim and ordered the
was established that the victims sustained and
latter to go with them to Bernabe’s house where
died from gunshot wounds, and the ballistic
he started QUESTIONing the victim why the
examinations of the slugs recovered from the
latter was roaming around the house. Bernabe
place of the incident showed that they were
then proceeded to interrogate and torture
fired from a .30 carbine rifle and a .38 caliber
Olivio. Afterwards, Bernabe hit Olivio in the
firearm. The prosecution witnesses positively
head with a metal pipe and strangled the latter
identified appellant therein as one of those who
with a wire. Bernabe asked Jomar and Alvin to
were holding a long firearm, and it was also
hold Olivio while he was strangling the latter.
proven that he was not a licensed firearm
Bernabe then disposed of the body of Olivio
holder. The records show that assailants used a
with the help of Jomar and Alvin, and told the
motorcycle in trailing and overtaking the
two that he would kill them if they told what
jeepney driven by Saladio after which
appellant’s back rider mercilessly riddled with happened to the police. It was Bernabe who hit
Jann-Jann with a piece of wood in his leg, tied
his bullets the body of Jeremias. There is no
his hands and used a metal to hit Jann-jann on
doubt that the motorcycle was used as a means
the head.When Jann-jann lost consciousness
to commit the crime and to facilitate their escape
Benabe then strangled him applied lotion on
after they accomplished their mission.
this anal orifice then inserted a toothbrush. Can
the aggravating circumstance of “cruelty” be
considered in this case? Reasons
Qualifying Circumstance – Treachery, Cruelty
People of the Philippines vs. Bernabe; GR No.

185726, October 16, 2009. ANSWER: Yes. Cruelty can be considered in
the case at a bar. The test in appreciating cruelty

as an aggravating circumstance is whether the (Caoili) alias "Boy Tagalog" sexually molested
accused deliberately and sadistically her at their house located in Barangay JJJ,
augmented the wrong by causing another Municipality of KKK, in the Province of LLL.
wrong not necessary for its commission and Caoili kissed her lips, touched and mashed her
inhumanly increased the victim’s suffering or breast, inserted the fourth finger of his left hand
outraged or scoffed at his/her person or corpse. into her vagina, and made a push and pull
The victim in this case was already weak and movement into her vagina with such finger for
almost dying when appellant Bernabe inserted 30 minutes. AAA felt excruciating pain during
the toothbrush inside his anus. What appellant and after the ordeal. Against her father's harsh
Bonito did to her was totally unnecessary for the warning not to go out of the house, AAA
criminal act intended and it undoubtedly proceeded to the house of her uncle, BBB,
inhumanly increased her suffering. located 20 meters away from their house. Noel
Go Caoili was convicted of rape. Is the
conviction proper? May the relationship be
R.A. 8353 – Rape, Alternative Aggravating considered the Aggravating or Mitigating?
Circumstance – Relationship, appreciated
People of the Philippines vs. Caoili; GR No.

ANSWER: No. Noel Go Caoli committed
196342, August 8, 2017; Caoili vs. People of the
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of
Philippines; GR No. 196848, August 8, 2017.
Republic Act No. 7610. Conversely, when the
victim, at the time the offense was committed, is
aged twelve (12) years or over but under
DOCTRINE: Art. 15. of the Revised Penal Code eighteen (18), or is eighteen (18) or older but
Their concept. — Alternative circumstances are unable to fully take care of herself/himself or
those which must be taken into consideration as protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect,
aggravating or mitigating according to the cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because
nature and effects of the crime and the other of a physical or mental disability or condition,
conditions attending its commission. They are the nomenclature of the offense should be
the relationship, intoxication and the degree of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A.
instruction and education of the offender. The No. 7610, since the law no longer refers to
alternative circumstance of relationship shall be Article 336 of the RPC, and the perpetrator is
taken into consideration when the offended prosecuted solely under R.A. No. 7610.In the
party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, case at bar, AAA was a little over 14 years old
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, when the lascivious conduct was committed
or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the against her. Thus, We used the nomenclature
offender. "Lascivious Conduct" under Section 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610. With the presence of this aggravating
circumstance and no mitigating circumstance.
QUESTION: The complainant, a 15 year old
daughter claim that his father Noel Go Caoili

R.A. 8353 – Rape, Alternative Aggravating ANSWER: The crime was committed by the
Circumstance – Relationship, appreciated stepfather of the offended parties, the
alternative circumstance of relationship should
People of the Philippines vs. Molejon; GR No.
be appreciated.In crimes against chastity, such
208091, April 23, 2018.
as acts of lasciviousness, relationship is always
aggravating.
DOCTRINE: Alternative circumstances are

those which must be taken into consideration as
Alternative Circumstance – Intoxication;
aggravating or mitigating according to the Aggravating Circumstance – Abuse of Superior
nature and effects of the crime and the other
Strength
conditions attending its commission. They are
the relationship, intoxication and the degree of People of the Philippines vs. Mat-an; GR No.
instruction and education of the offender. The 215720, February 21, 2018.
alternative circumstance of relationship shall be
taken into consideration when the offended
party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, DOCTRINE: The appreciation of the
legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
or relative by affinity in the same degrees of the strength depends on the age, size, and strength
offender. of the parties.
QUESTION: Benito Melojon raped or sexually QUESTION: Oscar Escad killed a 1 1/2 year old
abused and molested by her own step-daughter. child, by stabbing her with a knife at the nape.
She testified that on separate dates, Benito He also killed 61-year old woman named
Melojon would kiss her lips and neck, while Minda twice on her chest with a knife.That the
caressing her breasts and fingering her vagina killing was attended by the aggravating
repeatedly. She recalled the time when Benito circumstance of evident premeditation
Melojon suddenly entered her room and once considering that the killing was planned,
inside, he kissed her lips, licked her vagina, deliberated upon and the criminal design
mounted her, inserted his penis into her vagina carried out by the accused, and abuse of
and made a push-and-pull movement, causing superior strength considering that the accused
her to cry in pain. These beastly acts would be being then armed with a knife took advantage
committed 5 times, Benito Molejon was of his superiority in strength disregarding the
convicted of five counts of Qualified Rape sex and age of the victim.Oscar Escad was
under Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
the conviction proper? May the relationship be crimes of Slight Physical Injury and Murder,
considered the Aggravating or Mitigating? defined and penalized under Article 266 and
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Is the
conviction proper?

DOCTRINE: Under the provisions of article 11

as amended by Act No. 2142, (now Article 15 of
ANSWER: Yes. the crime committed against
the Revised Penal Code) the courts may and
Minda is Murder qualified by abuse of superior
should, even in cases of theft and robbery, take
strength. The circumstance of abuse of superior
into consideration the lack of instruction and
strength is present whenever there is inequality
education of the offender where it appears that
of forces between the victim and the aggressor,
under all the circumstances attending, he
assuming a situation of superiority of strength
should not be held to the strict degree of
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor, responsibility prescribed in the code for the
and the latter takes advantage of it in the
ordinary offender.
commission of the crime. The appreciation of
the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength depends on the age, size, and
QUESTION: A complainant left his two
strength of the parties.
carabaos near his house the following morning,
however, he noticed they were missing. He
immediately reported the loss to Welfredo
Oscar abused his superiority when he killed
Bucol, who was the team leader of the
Minda.Indeed, it was sufficiently shown that
constabulary home defense unit. Complainant
Oscar was armed with a knife, a deadly
joined the posse composed of the members of
weapon, while Minda was then burdened by a
the unit, and the barangay captain to search for
child and had no means to defend and repel the
the missing Carabaos. When they reached, they
attacks of her assailant. Furthermore, the trial
saw Macabaas, Mangigya, Makaonggos, and
court noted that Oscar was of heavy build and
Macatanda in possession of the two carabaos.
stood at 5' 10" in contrast to Minda's 4' 11" frame.
Macatanda’s companions fled, leaving him and
Clearly, Oscar abused his superiority afforded
the carabaos behind.
him by his sex, height, and build and a weapon
when he attacked Minda who was then carrying Macatanda was taken into custody and was
a child. Thus, the trial and appellate courts charged with cattle rustling. He pleaded guilty
correctly convicted him of murder. and was sentenced accordingly. May the plea of
guilt and extreme poverty be considered
aggravating or mitigating?
Alternative Circumstance – Degree of
ANSWER: Article 64 of the same Code should,
Instruction, not applicable in Robbery or Theft;
likewise, be applicable, under which the
Effect of two ordinary mitigating
presence of two mitigating circumstances, as
circumstances – plea of guilt; extreme poverty
found by the trial court, that of plea of guilty
People of the Philippines vs. Macatanda; GR and extreme poverty, without any aggravating
No. L-51368, November 6, 1981. circumstances to offset them, entitles appellant
to a lowering by one degree of the penalty for
the offense, which under P.D. No. 533 is prision

mayor, maximum, to reclusion temporary ANSWER: Petronilo Napone, Jr. is liable as

medium. principal for the crime of homicide.His criminal
design to kill Salvador thereby establishing his
complicity to the felony. Edgar Napone is liable
Principal and Accomplice; Requisites to be as an accomplice to the crime of attempted
considered an accomplice homicide. Edgar witnessed his father's assault
on Salvador and was thus knowledgeable of his
Napone, Jr. and Napone vs. People of the criminal design. The simultaneous act of
Philippines; GR No. 193085, November 29, 2017. throwing a stone at Salvador was made to assist
Senior in achieving his criminal purpose.
DOCTRINE: In order that a person may be

considered an accomplice, the following Principal by Inducement, when applicable
requisites must concur: (1) that there be
community of design; that is, knowing the People of the Philippines vs. Castillo, et.al.;
criminal design of the principal by direct GR No. L-19238, July 26, 1996.
participation, he concurs with the latter in his
purpose; (2) that he cooperates in the execution
by previous or simultaneous act, with the DOCTRINE: When a crime was already
intention of supplying material or moral aid in committed, inducement is no longer necessary.
the execution of the crime in an efficacious way;
and (3) that there be a relation between the acts
done by the principal and those attributed to the QUESTION: In December 1959, Carlos Castillo
person charged as accomplice. armed with a gun while talking to the victim,
Juan Vargas when his co-defendant Marincho
Castillo came from behind and hacked Juan
QUESTION: Petronilo Napone, Jr. hacked Vargas. As Marincho was about to strike Juan
Salvador from behind using a borak, a big bolo for the second time, Carlos uttered “You kill
ordinarily used for chopping wood, hitting him”. Can Carlos Castillo be charged of murder
Salvador at the back of his head. Salvador, in by inducement?
retaliation, also hacked Petronilo Napone, Jr.
However Edgar Napone threw a stone the size
of a fist at Salvador. Petronilo Napone, Jr. then ANSWER: No, Although Carlos was armed
shot Salvador three (3) times with a small with a gun, the firearm was not pointed at Juan.
firearm, hitting the latter on the chest which The words “you kill him” were uttered after
caused him to fall. Janioso immediately rushed Carlos hit Juan the first time, the alleged
to Salvador's aid but later died. What crime did inducement to commit the crime was no longer
each commit? necessary to induce the assailant to commit the
crime.

Saldua vs. People of the Philippines; GR No.

210920, December 10, 2018.
Principal by Indispensable Cooperation
People of the Philippines vs. Fronda; GR No.

102361-62, May 14, 1993. DOCTRINE: requisites to be considered an
accomplice:
1. knowing the criminal design of the

DOCTRINE: To be considered as a principal by
principal by direct participation, he
indispensable cooperation, there must be direct
agrees with the latter’s purpose.
participation in the criminal design by another 2. He cooperates in the execution by
act without which the crime could not have
previous or simultaneous act with the
been committed.
intention of helping in the execution of
the crime in an efficacious way.
3. A relation between the acts done by the
QUESTION: Rudy Foronda was found guilty principal and those attributed to the
of principal by indispensable cooperation for person charged as accomplice.
the murders of Esminio and Edwin Balaan.
Foronda provided the NPA members with
Balaan's whereabouts, he accompanied the ● Mere presence in the crime scene does
NPA members to their house, he tied the not make one a co-conspirator.
victims’ hands and dug the grave where the ● The existence of conspiracy cannot be
victims were buried. For more than 3 years, he proved, the elements of conspiracy must
failed to report the incident to authorities and be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
did not object when he was ordered to help ● Accomplices do not decide whether the
them in the killing. Can Rudy Foronda be crime should be committed but they
convicted as a principal by indispensable assent to the plan and cooperate into
cooperation? accomplishment.
QUESTION: There were 3 perpetrators in this

ANSWER: No, to be considered as a principal case. First, Gerry Lalamunan who escaped.
by indispensable cooperation, there must be Second, Wilson Vertudez who died. Lastly, the
direct participation in the criminal design by petitioner, Marlon Saldua who surrendered.
another act without which the crime could not The victim was Jill Abella. Saldua was armed
have been committed. Fronda is merely an when Vertudez exchanged gunshots with
accomplice to the crime. Abella. It was Vertudez who killed Abella, not
Saldua. Can Saldua be convicted as an
accomplice to the crime?
Principal and Accomplice; Requisites to be
considered an accomplice

ANSWER: Yes. Saldua was armed and stood guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
behind Vertudez, but did not stop him from attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or
shooting Abella. A person who is present when is known to be habitually guilty of some other
a crime is committed, when such presence does crime.
not have the purpose of encouraging the
criminal and when there is no previous
agreement between them as to the commission QUESTION: The victim Mamerto Victosa, a
of the crime, will make the former responsible detainee was found dead before he could be
only as accomplice in the crime committed. transferred to PNP Dipolog City. He was under
the custody of SP01 Torrefranca and P02
Catacutan. Benjamin Avengoza, superior of
Accessory to Murder; when an accessory is Torrenfranca was found guilty as an accessory
liable to murder. Based on Catacutan’s testimony, he
heard Avengoza shout at Torrefranca why he
Avengoza vs. People of the Philippines; GR
shot the victim. Instead of disarming and
No. 155046, June 26, 2006.
arresting Torrenfranca, he agreed when the
latter suggested running away. Is Avengoza
liable as an accessory to the crime?
DOCTRINE: Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
without having participated therein, either as
ANSWER: Yes. As the superior officer of the
principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
perpetrator, he has the duty to disarm and
to its commission in any of the following
arrest Torrenfranca right at the scene of the
manners:
crime. He also has the duty to report the
incident upon their arrival to the headquarters.
The Sandiganbayan ruled that the petitioner
1. By profiting themselves or assisting the concealed the principal of the crime.
offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
Charged as Principal, convicted as Accessory;

2. By concealing or destroying the body of the Acquittal of Principal does not automatically
crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in result to acquittal of the accessory
order to prevent its discovery;
Vino vs. People of the Philippines and Court
of Appeals; GR No. 84163, October 19, 1989.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime, provided
the accessory acts with abuse of his public DOCTRINE: A person charged in the
functions or whenever the author of the crime is information as principal can be acquitted as an

accessory if evidence shows his acts are merely Complex Crime

an accessory. An accused can be validly
Parulan vs. Hon. Sotero Rodas and Luis B.
convicted as an accomplice or accessory under
Reyes; GR No. L-1536, July 31, 1947
an information charging him as a principal.
DOCTRINE: To determine whether two

The identity of the assailant or principal is
offenses constitute a complex crime, the facts
immaterial for the purpose of the prosecution of
alleged in the information or complaint must be
the accessory.
considered. Determine whether one of the two
separate and different offenses charged was
committed as a necessary means to commit the
QUESTION: Lito Vino together with Sgt. Jesus
other offense.
Salazar shot Roberto Tejada. The two accused
were seen riding a bicycle, Vino drove while
Salazar carried an armalite. Tejada was able to
QUESTION: Ricardo Parulan extorted ransom
identify Salazar as his assailant. In the
from Arthur Lee. When the amount asked for
information filed, Vino was charged as a
was not given, he kidnapped Lee and took him
principal, can he thereafter be convicted as an
to an uninhabited place where he shot him
accessory? If the alleged principal was acquitted
several times causing his death. The crime
can the conviction of the Vino as an accessory be
charged against him was complex crime of
maintained?
kidnapping and murder. Is the offense charged
in the information a complex crime of
kidnapping and murder?
ANSWER: a) Yes. Vino was charged as the
principal of the crime as stated in the
information. Evidence shows that the assailant
ANSWER: Yes. The kidnapping was
was Salazar and Vino was present during the
committed as a necessary means to extort
commission of the crime. Vino’s participation
ransom money. Parulan had to take Lee
was merely an accessory.
somewhere secluded to force him out of fear to
pay the ransom if Lee refuses to provide
Parulan’s demand, he can easily kill him
b) Yes. Vino’s conviction as an accessory is
without any witness which in fact happened.
maintained even after Salazar was acquitted for
lack of evidence that positively identified him as
the assailant. Vino did not present evidence in
Complex Crime – Murder with Double
his defense thus his liability as an accessory was
Frustrated Murder
established.
People of the Philippines vs. Bernal; GR No. L-
25623, May 8, 1969.

DOCTRINE: when the person kidnapped is

killed in the course of the detention, the same
DOCTRINE: It cannot be considered a complex
shall be punished as a special complex crime
crime of murder with double frustrated murder
if the first crime committed was not necessary
for the commission of the other.
QUESTION: The accused were charged of
complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide. Victim Letty Tan was closing their
QUESTION: Ricardo Bernal shot his father-in-
store when the accused arrived in a van, four
law Guillermo Barro causing his instant death.
men dragged the victim in the said vehicle.
He also shot Anastasio Barro and Mrs. Dominga
While three men pointed their guns at her
Barro but due to timely medical assistance,
husband. The kidnappers called Tan’s family,
multiple murder was not completely executed.
asking for P20,000,00.00 in exchange for her
Can Bernal be held guilty of the complex crime
freedom. Her family failed to provide the
of murder with double frustrated murder?
amount asked, her body was later found inside
a jeepney. Is the crime charged against the
accused correct?
ANSWER: No. The shots fired against
Guillermo Barro causing his death and the shots
against Anastasio and Dominga Barro were
ANSWER: Yes. It was proved that appellants
distinct and separate acts of the accused. The
succeeded in executing their common criminal
shooting was not caused by one single act. The
design in abducting the victim, demanding for
shooting of Guillermo Barro was not a
the payment of money for her release and
necessary means to commit the frustrated
killing her as a result of the encounter with the
murders against Anastcio and Dominga Barro.
police officers.
Bernal should be charged for three separate
crimes; for the murder of Guillermo Barro;
frustrated murder of Anastcio Barro and Civil Interdiction as an accessory penalty
frustrated murder of Dominga Barro.
Maquilan vs. Maquilan; GR No. 155409, June
8, 2007.
Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping for

Ransom with Homicide
DOCTRINE: the crime of adultery does not
People of the Philippines vs. Elizalde and carry the accessory penalty of civil interdiction
Placente; GR No. 210434, December 5, 2016. which deprives the person of the rights to
manage her property and to dispose of such
property.

QUESTION: Petitioner Virgilio Maquilan and no criminal liability on the part of a person
respondent Dita Maquilan used to be spouses having carnal knowledge of another under
until the Virgilo filed adultery against Dita for sixteen (16) years of age when the age difference
having an illicit sexual affair with another man.
between the parties is not more than three (3)
Dita later filed for Dissolution and Liquidation
years, and the sexual act in question is proven
of Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Damages.
Since she is convicted of adultery, is her to be consensual, non-abusive, and non-
disqualification from sharing in a conjugal exploitative. However, if the victim is under
property constitutes civil interdiction? thirteen (13) years of age, this exception shall
not apply. Therefore, X is liable for statutory
rape.
ANSWER: No. The conviction of adultery does
not carry the accessory of civil interdiction.
Adultery is punishable by Prision Correcional,
Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
there is no statement in article 43 of the Revised
Penal Code saying that one is disqualified from Bert Pascua vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
sharing conjugal property. No. 250578, September 07, 2020
Statutory Rape under R.A. 11648 (New Law) DOCTRINE: In applying the probation law and
Section 24 of RA 9165, what is essential is not the
Hypothetical Question offense charged but the offense to which the
accused is ultimately found guilty of.
QUESTION: X, fifteen years old, and Y, twelve

years old, were in a loving relationship and QUESTION: Mr. Pascua was charged for
engaged in sexual relations. After learning that violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 for
selling 0.024 gram and possessing 0.054 gram of
Y had lost her virginity to X, Y's parents filed
methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.
statutory rape charges against X. Y's parents
Upon arraignment, Pascua pleaded "not guilty"
argued that because Y is still a minor and is to the crimes charged. Mr. Pascua later filed a
unable to consent to the act, X should be held Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into Plea
accountable for statutory rape. Is X liable for Bargaining Agreement wherein he offered to
statutory rape? enter a plea of "guilty" to the lesser offense of
violation of Section 12 - possession of
equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. The trial
ANSWER: Yes. The crime of statutory rape court issued separate Orders allowing Pascua to
under R.A. No. 11648 states that there shall be enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of

violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 in both

Criminal cases Nos. XXXX1 and XXXX2.
DOCTRINE: RA 10707 allows an accused-
However, it was expressly stated in the
convict to apply for probation in the event that
dispositive portion of the Order pertaining to
he/she is sentenced to a non-probationable
Criminal Case No. XXXX1 that Pascua was
penalty by the trial court but subsequently
"ineligible to apply for probation”. Mr. Pascua
modified by the appellate court to a
moved for reconsideration as to the Order made
probationable penalty.
in Criminal Case No. XXXX1, particularly for
declaring him ineligible for probation. Is the
trial court correct in declaring Mr. Pascua
“ineligible to apply for probation”? - QUESTION: Mr. Aguinaldo was found guilty
Hypothetical Question beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa for having
defrauded private complainant in the amount
of P2,050,000.00. As such, he was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
ANSWER: No. In applying the probation law
indeterminate period of four (4) years and two
and Section 24 of RA 9165, what is essential is
(2) months of prison correccional, as minimum,
not the offense charged but the offense to which
to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as
the accused is ultimately found guilty of. The
maximum. Notably, the computation of this
Court enumerated in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC,
penalty was based on the schedule of penalties
several violations of RA 9165 which could be
stated in Article 315 of the RPC, prior to the
subject to plea-bargaining. In the given case, the
enactment of RA 10951. However, due to the
accused is actually found guilty of the lesser
enactment of RA 10951 - which readjusted the
offense subject of the plea. Thus, regardless of
graduated values for which the penalties for
what the original charge was in the Information,
Estafa are based - the prescribed penalty for
the judgment would be for the lesser offense to
Estafa involving the aforementioned defrauded
which the accused plead guilty. This means that
amount was significantly lowered. It is now
the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the
prision correccional in its minimum and
attendant accessory penalties, and other
consequences under the law, including medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is
over One million two hundred thousand pesos
eligibility for probation and parole, would be
(P1,200,000) but does not exceed Two million
based on such lesser offense. Hence, the phrase
four hundred thousand pesos (P2,400,000).
“ineligible to apply for probation” should be
May Mr. Aguinaldo still apply for probation? -
deleted.
Hypothetical Question
Probation Law (P.D. No. 968, as amended)

ANSWER: Yes. Presidential decree 968
Emilio J. Aguinaldo IV v. People of the provides that the maximum imprisonment for
Philippines, G.R. No. 226615, January 13, 2021 one can avail probation is 6 years. Notably, the
reduction of penalty entitles Mr. Aguinaldo to

apply for probation, pursuant to RA 10707, through the initiation rites, and that the
which allows an accused-convict to apply for prosecution failed to prove criminal intent. Is
probation in the event that he/she is sentenced criminal intent material in the crime of hazing?
to a non-probationable penalty by the trial court Should Dungo and Sibal, Jr. be acquitted? -
but subsequently modified by the appellate Hypothetical Question
court to a probationable penalty.
ANSWER: No. Dungo and Sibal, Jr. are both

Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as liable. Violation of Anti-Hazing Law is mala
amended by R.A. No. 11053) prohibita. In Vedana v. Valencia, the Court
noted that in our nation’s very recent history,
Dungo vs. People, G.R. No. 209464, July 01,
the people had spoken, through the Congress,
2015
to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act
previously considered harmless by custom, as
criminal. The act of hazing itself is not
DOCTRINE: Violation of Anti-Hazing Law is inherently immoral, but the law deems the same
mala prohibita. In Vedana v. Valencia, the Court to be against public policy and must be
noted that in our nation’s very recent history, prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of
the people had spoken, through the Congress, criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of
to deem conduct constitutive of hazing, an act hazing. Circumstances from the given set of
previously considered harmless by custom, as facts show that the hazing would not have been
criminal. The act of hazing itself is not accomplished were it not for the acts of Dungo
inherently immoral, but the law deems the same and Sibal, Jr. that induced the victim to be
to be against public policy and must be present.
prohibited. Accordingly, the existence of
criminal intent is immaterial in the crime of
hazing.
Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 (R.A. No. 8049, as
amended by R.A. No. 11053)
QUESTION: Dungo and Sibal, Jr. were charged BARTOLOME AND BANDALAN VS.
with violation of Section 4 of R.A. No. 8049- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR 227951,
Anti-Hazing Law. Based on evidence, the victim June 28, 2021
was seen with Dungo and Sibal, Jr. entering a
resort where the initiation rites were conducted
and that the same two brought the victim to JP DOCTRINE: The elements of RA 8049 as
Rizal Hospital. Villanueva, the victim, sustained amended are:
injuries that led to his death. Dungo and Sibal,
● there is an initiation rite or practice as a
Jr. said the prosecution only proved during the
prerequisite for admission into
trial that their participation was only
persuading Villanueva to join APO and go

membership in a fraternity, sorority or warrants the conviction of Bartolome and

organization; Bandalan. Notably, the prosecution did not
● that there must be a recruit, neophyte or present evidence to prove that hazing actually
applicant of the fraternity, sorority or took place to establish the first element of the
organization; and offense. The second element was also absent
● that the recruit, neophyte or applicant is considering that nobody testified that
placed in some embarrassing or Samparada was a recruit, neophyte, or
humiliating situations such as forcing applicant of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity. And
him or her to do menial, silly, foolish and with the prosecution’s failure to prove the
other similar tasks or activities or present of the second element of hazing,
otherwise subjecting him or her to absence of the third element become readily
physical or psychological suffering or apparent.
injury.
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344,

QUESTION: The prosecution claimed that the
as amended)
Silang Municipal Police Station received a call
from the Estrella Hospital that a victim of People of the Philippines vs. Joery Deliola,
hazing was brought to their hospital. The G.R. No. 200157, August 31, 2016
hospital staff said that the deceased was a victim
of hazing as shown by the bruises he sustained DOCTRINE: Minority as a privileged
on his thighs. During investigation, police mitigating circumstance thus, the penalty next
learned that the victim, John Daniel Samparada lower in degree than that prescribed by law
was brought to the hospital by Bartolome and shall be imposed.
Bandalan and another unidentified male. Police
recovered from Bartolome and Bandalan a QUESTION: MMM, 11 years of age went to a
document which bore the name of Tau Gamma nipa plantation to defecate but before she was
Phi Fraternity, markings connected with the able to do so, Jake, 15 his uncle armed with a
organization, and the handwritten name of knife, suddenly appeared. He approached
Bartolome, so it concluded that they were MMM, poked a knife at her neck, ordered her to
members of Tau Gamma Phi. Bartolome and bend over, and took off her shorts and
Bandalan averred that Samparada suddenly underwear. Fearing for her life, MMM obeyed
fell, hit his head on the pavement, and his orders. MMM tried to resist but Jake was still
complained of difficulty in breathing. Should able to force his penis inside MMM' s vagina.
Bartolome and Bandalan be acquitted? - Jake was charged with rape; his defense was he
Hypothetical Question acted without discernment and his minority
should be considered. Is Jake’s defense tenable?
Should his minority during the commission of
the crime be considered?
ANSWER: Yes. Based on the given facts, there
is no direct or even circumstantial evidence that

ANSWER: a. No, Jake’s defense is untenable. to restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration

Discernment is the mental capacity of a minor to in order that he/she may be given the chance to
fully grasp the consequences of his act, known live a normal life and become a productive
and determined by taking into account all the member of the community. Thus, accused-
facts and circumstances presented by the appellant is ordered to serve his sentence, in lieu
records in each case. of confinement in a regular penal institution, in
an agricultural camp and other training
Jake acted with discernment when he raped the facilities, in accordance with Section 51 of R.A.
victim and is demonstrated by the following 9344.
surrounding circumstances: (1) the victim was a
helpless minor; (2) he secured the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344,
consummation of the offense with a weapon; (3) as amended)
he satisfied his lust by penetrating the victim
BBB vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
from behind; and (4) he threatened the victim
249307, August 27, 2020
not to report what happened. Taking all these
facts into consideration, Jake clearly knew that QUESTION: Complainant testified that while
what he did was wrong. attending an event in school, her classmate Hara
Jane Generosa (Generosa) invited her to go to
b. Yes, minority as a privileged mitigating
John Mark Socubos' (Socubos) house together
circumstance should be considered. Jake shall
with Robin James Navido (Navido) and BBB.
be criminally liable for the crime of Qualified
There, she noticed that none of Socubos'
Statutory Rape. However, given that accused-
relatives were home. When Socubos and
appellant was only 15 years old and 2 months
Navido went out to buy something, BBB asked
when the crime was committed, the privileged
Generosa to go out for a while, leaving her and
mitigating circumstance of minority should be
BBB alone in the house. In the living room,
appreciated; thus, the penalty next lower in
petitioner asked her if she had her monthly
degree than that prescribed by law shall be
period. She ANSWERed in the negative. He
imposed.
then moved closer to her, lowered her pants and
Although it is acknowledged that accused was underwear, and kissed her on the cheek. She
qualified for suspension of sentence when he was so shocked and scared, she failed to do
committed the crime, Section 40 of R.A. 9344 anything. He then inserted his forefinger into
provides that the same extends only until the her vagina. Jolted by the pain, she immediately
child in conflict with the law reaches the pulled up her pants and underwear and dashed
maximum age of twenty-one (21) years old. out of the house. BBB was charged with rape by
Nevertheless, the promotion of the welfare of a sexual assault under Article 266-A (2) of the
child in conflict with the law should extend Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to
even to one who has exceeded the age limit of Republic Act No. 7610. The Court of Appeals
twenty-one (21) years, so long as he/she imposed the stiffer penalty of reclusion
committed the crime when he/she was still a temporal in its medium period under RA 7610
child. The offender shall be entitled to the right instead of the lighter penalty of prision mayor

prescribed under the Revised Penal Code conclusion that AAA may have incurred a debt
considering that he is a minor during the of gratitude towards complainant. This debt
commission of the crim. Can BBB be prosecuted of gratitude may very well be used by
under RA 7610? complainant to inject feelings of guilt and coerce
a hapless and financially distressed victim such
ANSWER: No, being only fifteen (15) years and as AAA to grant him sexual favors.
eight (8) months old when he committed the
crime he was charged with and found guilty of, As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of
BBB should be penalized under Article 266-A (2) desistance is viewed with suspicion and
of the Revised Penal Code instead of RA 7610. reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably
The privileged mitigating circumstance of regarded such affidavit as exceedingly
minority applies to BBB, the penalty next lower unreliable because it can easily be secured from
in degree should be imposed a poor and ignorant witness, usually
through intimidation or for monetary
Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs. 3[a- consideration. At most, the retraction is an
c], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9775) afterthought which should not begiven
Hypothetical Question probative value.
QUESTION: AAA declared in a judicial Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (Secs. 3[a-
affidavit that she met Rogelio at a disco bar and c], 4 and 5, R.A. No. 9775)
they began exchanging text messages. Rogelio Hypothetical Question
and AAA began seeing each other, Rogelio also
started giving gifts, sometime in their QUESTION: Ben suffers a heart attack and
relationship Rogelio threatened AAA that he needs a huge sum of money for his operation.
will stop giving her money if she refuses to have Desperate to come up with a solution, Maritess
sexual intercourse. Rogelio and AAA had her wife, began to buy sexy clothes for their 11-
sexual intercourse. Rogelio’s sex video with year-old daughter Krissa. Every night she
AAA, a minor was uploaded to the internet and would apply heavy make up on Krissa and
began circulating in their province. AAA was clothe her with skin revealing clothes. Maritess
shocked that their video was uploaded in the would ask Krissa to dance in front of her while
internet. Later, however, AAA issued a sworn recording it on her phone. Maritess started to
affidavit recanting the judicial affidavit she upload the videos of Krissa on the internet and
executed. Can Rogelio still be charged for received a huge sum of money for the video.
violation of R.A 9775 despite the sworn After sometime, Krissa started to show her
affidavit? genitals on cam. Unsatisfied with the amount of
money she raised, Maritess asked his son Elmer,
ANSWER: Yes, Rogelio admitted that AAA was 15-year of age to have sexual intercourse with
receiving money, food and gifts from him, as Krissa. Fearing for their father’s life they kept
well as enjoying financial academic assistance. doing explicit activities and uploaded it on the
The admission alone is sufficient to form a internet. After Ben’s recovery, he found out

what his wife did to their children and filed a one day to four years and two months; and
case against maritess for violation of RA 9775. maximum period is four years, two months and
Will the case prosper? one day to six years. At arraignment, he pleaded
guilty to the crime charge. Supposing the trial
ANSWER: Yes, under R.A 9775 it shall be judge imposes a straight penalty of
unlawful for a person to commit any of the imprisonment for one year, is the penalty
following acts: to coerce a child to perform in correct in the context of the ISLaw?
the creation or production of child
pornography; to publish and sell child
pornography materials. In the case at bar,
ANSWER: The requirement of imposing an
Maritess the mother of Krissa and Elmer
indeterminate sentence in all criminal offenses
groomed both minor for the purpose of child
with definite minimum and maximum terms, as
pornography and uploaded the sexual activities
the Court deems proper within the legal range
to gain money. Hence, Maritess can be charged
of the penalty specified by the law, must be
for violation of RA 9775 or the Anti-child
deemed mandatory. Hence, no. The straight
Pornography act of 2009.
penalty imposed was contrary to the ISL Section
Republic Act No. 10592 (Amendments to 1. On appeal however, the Court declared the
Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the RPC) straight penalty to be erroneous, and modified
it by imposing imprisonment ranging from 20
2017 Bar Exam Question years as minimum to 25 years as maximum
(Batistis vs. People, G.R. No. 181571, December 16,
2009)
DOCTRINE: The application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory both
for those crimes punishable by the Revised Republic Act No. 10592 (Amendments to
Penal Code and Special Laws. Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the RPC)
2018 Bar Exam Question
QUESTION: Batistis was convicted for

violations of Section 155 (infringement of
trademark) and Section 168 (unfair competition) DOCTRINE: The Indeterminate Sentence Law
of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act directs the court to sentence the accused to an
No. 8293). He was found guilty beyond indeterminate sentence the maximum term of
reasonable doubt of infringement of trademark which shall be that which , in view of the
and unfair competition. The law prescribes the attending circumstances, could be properly
penalty of prision correcional, a divisible imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
penalty whose minimum period is six months the minimum which shall be within the range
and one day to two years and four months; the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the
medium period is two years, four months and Code for the offense.

person has or had a sexual or dating

relationship, or with whom he has a common
QUESTION: Randy was prosecuted for forcible
child, or against her child which result in or is
abduction attended by the aggravating
likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological
circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the court
harm or suffering, or economic abuse.
held that the prosecutor was able to prove the
charge. Nonetheless, it appreciated in favor of
Randy, on the basis of the defense's evidence,
QUESTION: For the past five years, Ruben and
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
Rorie had been living together as husband and
surrender, uncontrollable fear, and
wife without the benefit of marriage. Initially,
provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised
they had a happy relationship which was
Penal Code (RPC), the penalty for forcible
blessed with a daughter, Rona, who was born
abduction is reclusion temporal. Applying the
on March 1, 2014. However, the partners'
Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty
relationship became sour when Ruben began
should be imposed on Randy?
indulging in vices, such as women and alcohol,
ANSWER: The penalty should be Prision causing frequent arguments between them.
Mayor as the minimum term to Reclusion Their relationship got worse when, even for
Temporal In Its minimum period as the slight mistakes, Ruben would lay his hands on
maximum term. In this case, there is one generic Rorie. One day, a tipsy Ruben barged into their
aggravating circumstance of recidivism which house and, for no reason, repeatedly punched
may be offset by one of the three mitigating Rorie in the stomach. To avoid further harm,
circumstances of voluntary surrender, Rorie ran out of the house. But Ruben pursued
uncontrollable fear and provocation. her and stripped her naked in full view of their
Considering the presence of two mitigating neighbors; and then he vanished.
circumstances, and in accordance with the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum
term shall be Reclusion Temporal in its Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and
minimum period and the minimum term shall pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie
be the penalty next lower in degree which is expressed her wish to live separately from
Prision Mayor. Ruben and asked him to continue providing
financial support for their daughter Rona. At
Anti-Violence Against Women and their
that time, Ruben was earning enough to support
Children Act of 2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A. No.
a family. He threatened to withdraw the
9262)
support he was giving to Rona unless Rorie
2019 Bar Exam Question would agree to live with him again. But Rorie
was steadfast in refusing to live with Ruben
again, and insisted on her demand for support
DOCTRINE: The law provides that violence for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an
refers to any act or a series of acts committed by agreement, no further support was given by
any person against a woman with whom the

Ruben. What crimes did Ruben commit: (a) For

beating and humiliating Rorie? (b) For
DOCTRINE: Mere failure or an inability to
withdrawing support for Rona?
provide financial support is not punishable by
RA 9262.
ANSWER: a. Ruben violated Section 5(i) of

Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence
QUESTION: Acheron and his wife married in
against Women and their Children. Here,
2011. Six days after the wedding, Acheron went
Ruben did then and there willfully, unlawfully
to Brunei for work. As a placement fee, they
and feloniously inflict psychological violence
loaned P85,000.00 from their godmother. He
upon Rorie, a woman with whom has a child,
was able to pay a total amount of P71, 500.00
resulting to mental and emotional anguish and
only. His wife claimed he caused her mental or
public ridicule or humiliation by boxing the
emotional anguish, public ridicule or
victim on the head, kicking her at the back and
humiliation by denying financial support. In his
stripping her naked in full view of their
defense, he was not able to give support to his
neighbors.
wife because while in Brunei, his rented place
was burned down and he met with a minor
motor accident. Can Acheron be found guilty of
b. For withdrawing support for Rona, such act
causing psychological or emotional anguish to
is a violation of RA 9262, section 3 (d), which
his wife when he allegedly failed to give
reads: “Economic abuse” refers to acts that
financial support? - Hypothetical Question
make or attempt to make a woman financially
dependent which includes, but is not limited to
the following: Withdrawal of financial support
ANSWER: No. Section 5 (i) number four states
or preventing the victim from engaging in any
“the anguish is caused through acts of public
legitimate profession, occupation, business or
ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal and
activity, except in cases wherein the other
emotional abuse, denial of financial support or
spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and
custody of minor children or access to the
moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the
children or similar such acts or omissions.” The
Family Code.
word Denial used means refusal to satisfy a
request or the act of not allowing someone to do
or to have something.
Anti-Violence Against Women and their
Children Act of 2004 (Secs. 3, 5 and 26, R.A. No.
9262)
To be punishable by section 5(i), it must
Christian Pantonial Acheron vs. People of the ultimately be proven that the accused had the
Philippines, G.R. No. 224946, November 09, intent of inflicting mental or emotional anguish
2021 upon the woman, inflicting psychological
violence upon harm with the willful denial of

financial support being the means selected by Judge, he decided to put Mang Kanor at
the accused to accomplish said purpose. different Barangay to prevent backlash from
devotees of Brgy. ABC. (a) Was the prescribed
community service correct? (b) Can Mang
He cannot also be held guilty of violating Kanor apply for R.A. No. 11362 if he was again
section 5 (e) due to the absence of the third and charged with a felony punishable by Arresto
fourth elements. There is no proof that he Menor?
refused to give support in order to control the
behavior or actions of his wife. ANSWER: a. No, the prescribed community
service was incorrect. As Article 88a of the
Revised Penal Code clearly states, the court in
the discretion may, in lieu of service in jail,
R.A. No. 11362 - Community Service Law;
require that the penalties of arresto menor and
August 08, 2019
arresto mayor may be served by the defendant
Hypothetical Situation by rendering community service in the place
where the crime was committed. Since Mang
Kanor committed the felony at Brgy. ABC, it is
DOCTRINE: The court in the discretion may, in proper that he renders his community service at
lieu of service in jail, require that the penalties the said barangay.
of arresto menor and arresto mayor may be
served by the defendant by rendering b. No. Mang Kanor cannot apply for R.A. No.
community service in the place where the crime 11362 multiple times. Paragraph 5 of Article 88a
was committed, under such terms as the court provides that the privilege of rendering
shall determine, taking into consideration the community service in lieu of service in jail shall
gravity of offense and the circumstances of the be availed of only once.
case, which shall be under the supervision of a
probation officer. R.A. No. 11362 - Community Service Law;
August 08, 2019
QUESTION: There was an ongoing religious
Hypothetical Situation
ceremony at Brgy. ABC when Mang Kanor
decided to throw stones at the officiating
DOCTRINE: In requiring community service,
minister. Mang Kanor was charged of Art. 133
the court shall consider the welfare of the
of the Revised Penal Code, a felony punishable
society and the reasonable probability that the
by Arresto Mayor in its maximum period. After
person sentenced shall not violate the law while
the promulgation of his judgment, he filed an
rendering a public service.
Application for Community Service (R.A. No.
11362), to which the Presiding Judge accepted
QUESTION: Mang Jose bought a licensed
and ordered Mang Kanor to render community
firearm. Due to his excitement, he discharged
service at Brgy. XYZ. According to the Presiding
the firearm calculated enough to cause alarm

and scandal at the Barangay Plaza. Mang Jose him, to have been derived from the proceeds of
argues that since the felony charged was Art. the crime of robbery or theft."
155 Alarms and Scandal of the Revised Penal
Code, a felony punishable by Arresto Menor, he QUESTION: Ireneo Cahulogan was charged of
was qualified to apply for community service the crime Fencing for buying 210 cases of Coca
under Article 88a of the same Code. However, Cola products worth Php 52,476.00 owned by
the Presiding Judge barred his application due the offended party Johnson Tan which
to lack of assurance that Mang Jose will not Cahulogan know, or should be known to him,
violate the law while rendering a public service. to have been derived from the proceeds of the
Was the decision correct? crime of Theft. Tan discovered that Lopez and
Lariosa delivered the subject items to
ANSWER: Yes. Guidelines in the imposition of Cahulogan's store. Tan then informed
Community Service or A.M. No. 20-06-14-SC Cahulogan that the delivery to his store was a
provides that in exercising the discretion to mistake and that he was pulling out the subject
allow service of penalty through community, items but Cahulogan refused, claiming that he
the factors may be taken into consideration by bought it from Lariosa for Php 50,000.00, but
the Court: (a) the gravity of the offense; (b) the could not present any receipt evidencing such
circumstances of the case; (c) the welfare of the transaction. Upon arraignment, petitioner
society; and (d) the reasonable probability that pleaded not guilty, but chose not to present any
that accused shall not violate the law while evidence in his defense. Rather, he merely
rendering the service. Thus, having no submitted his memorandum, maintaining that
assurance that Mang Kanor will not violate the the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
law while rendering public service, the reasonable doubt. The RTC found Cahulogan
Presiding Judge, at his discretion, may guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
disapprove his application for Community charged. CA affirmed the decision. Did the CA
Service. correctly upheld Cahulogan’s conviction for the
crime of Fencing?
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D.
No. 1612) ANSWER: Yes. The Court held that Lariosa's
act of selling the subject items to Cahulogan
Ireneo Cahulogan vs. People of the
without the authority and consent from Tan
Philippines; G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018
clearly constituted theft. As such, Cahulogan's
possession of the stolen items constituted prima
DOCTRINE: PD 1612 defines Fencing as "the facie evidence of Fencing - a presumption which
act of any person who, with intent to gain for he failed to rebut.
himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose
Moreover, the Courts correctly found that the
of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner
prosecution was able to establish beyond
deal in any article, item, object or anything of
reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime
value which he knows, or should be known to
of Fencing, as it was shown that: (a) Lariosa sold

to petitioner the stolen Coca Cola Product; (b) mountain bike belonging to Rafael Mendoza.
petitioner bought the subject items from Mendoza averred that he saw his bicycle with
Lariosa; (c) petitioner should have been Magno Lopez and when he asked where he got
forewarned that the subject items came from an the bicycle, Magno ANSWERed that it was
illegal source, as his transaction with Lariosa given to him by his brother Atanacio. However,
did not have any accompanying delivery and Mendoza alleged that the said vehicle was
official receipts, and (d) petitioner's intent to stolen from him, which was reported in a police
gain was made evident by the fact that he blotter. He insisted that he is the owner of the
bought the subject items lower than their value. bicycle, having bought the same abroad.
Thus, the Court finds no reason to deviate the
factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by On the other hand, Atanacio insisted that he
the CA, as there is no indication that it used to own the subject bicycle. He bought it
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied the from Bicycle Works and presented evidence
surrounding facts and circumstances of the including its SEC Registration, Articles of
case. Incorporation, and By-Laws. He could not
present the receipt for the purchase of the bike
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (Secs. 2 to 6, P.D. since he bought it twenty (20) years ago. He also
No. 1612) presented two (2) notarized affidavits from
Bicycle Works. Furthermore, Magno pointed
Dante Lopez vs. People of the Philippines,
out that the handlebar and the front fork of his
G.R. No. 249196, April 28, 2021
bicycle as compared to those shown in the
pictures are different. The RTC found Atanacio
DOCTRINE: Without a proper factual guilty. The CA affirmed the RTC. Was
foundation, the presumption of fencing must be Atanacio’s guilt proven beyond a reasonable
upended in favor of the presumption of doubt?
innocence enjoyed by the accused. No prima
facie evidence or case shall arise in the absence
ANSWER: No. The presumption under Section
of the required facts on which the same must
5 of PD 1612 which states that mere possession
operate. The prosecution cannot, and should
of any object which has been the subject of
not, merely depend on the operation of the robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
presumption of fencing to establish moral
evidence of fencing was overcome by Atanacio
certainty for convicting the accused. More
upon presentation of the notarized affidavits of
importantly, the courts should be mindful in
the President and Chief Mechanic of Bicycle
applying such presumption, subject to a careful
Works that indeed, Atanacio bought the bicycle
scrutiny of the facts of each case. This,
subject of the case from their store. Moreover,
considering that unjust convictions result in
apart from the police blotter of the alleged
forfeiture of life, liberty, and property.
robbery, no evidence was presented to prove
Dela Paz's ownership of the bicycle in issue. The
QUESTION: Dante Atanacio was charged with evidence did not establish that the bicycle given
the crime of fencing for allegedly possessing one by Atanacio to Lopez was the same bicycle

stolen from Dela Paz. Thus, without ANSWER: Yes. One of the prohibited acts
establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the under Section 4 refers to the selling or
item which has been the subject of theft is the distributing such photo or video or recording of
same object in the possession of the petitioner, sexual act whether it be the original copy or
the presumption under Section 5 of PD 1612 reproduction thereof. The law expressly
would not operate. provides that such prohibition shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 photo or video coverage of the same was given
(Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995) - Sections 3 and 4 by such person. Any person who violates such
provision shall be liable for photo or video
Hypothetical Question: voyeurism.
Note: Section 4, last par: “The prohibition under Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply (Secs. 3 and 4, R.A. No. 9995) - Sections 3 and 4
notwithstanding that consent to record or take
photo or video coverage of the same was given Hypothetical Question:
by such person/s. Any person who violates this
provision shall be liable for photo or video
voyeurism as defined herein.” Note: Section 3 (e): "Private area of a person"
means the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
public area, buttocks or female breast of an
QUESTION: Kathie and Hardo, well-known individual.
couple celebrities, being so in love with each
other, decided to record their intimate activities.
After some time, Kathie broke up with Hardo. QUESTION: A customer brought a busted
To get even, Hardo shared some of their laptop to Jandro, a technician. He succeeded to
recorded sexual acts to two of their common fix the laptop and recovered all the files, which
friends. However the social media account of included pictures in a somewhat dressing room
one of the two friends was allegedly hacked of lady performers while they were changing
resulting the sex video to be shared unstoppable outfits. Some of the pictures were ladies
to different social media platforms. Kathie was wearing nothing but their underwear. Jandro
so furious that she confronted Hardo. Hardo reproduced those pictures to make money.
claimed that he can only be blamed half way When apprehended by the authorities, Jandro
since she was fully aware and even consented to claimed that he couldn't be charged with video
the recorded sex videos. Can Hardo be charged voyeurism since the pictures were not showing
with video voyeurism under the Anti-Photo any private areas. Is Jandro still liable under
and Video Voyeurism Act? Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act?

ANSWER: Yes. Section 3 of the act defines the complaint for rape”. Bennie and Buena
“private area of a person” as either naked or moved to have the petition for change of venue
undergarment clad genitals, public area, dismissed on the ground that it had become
buttocks or the female breast of an individual. moot in view of the complainant’s affidavit of
What the act punishes is not just the act of desistance. Will the petition prosper?
taking photo or video of a person or persons
performing sexual activities or capturing an ANSWER: No. The affidavit of desistance made
image of the private area of a person without the by Lyn will not make the petition moot and
latter’s consent but also the act of selling, academic as such affidavit does not warrant the
copying, or reproducing those photos or videos. dismissal of the instituted rape complaint.
Jurisprudence in many cases provides that
retractions are generally unreliable and are
looked upon with considerable disfavor. Also,
Extinction of Criminal Liability as Amended
the court declared that at most desistance is an
by R.A. No. 10592
afterthought which should not be given
Conception vs. Savellano Jr., G.R. No. 131728, probative value. (People vs. Junio, Flores vs
March 9, 1998 People, 211 SCRA 622)
Extinction of Criminal Liability as Amended

by R.A. No. 10592
DOCTRINE: An affidavit of desistance by
itself, even when construed as a pardon in the Adlawan vs. People, G.R. No. 197645, April 4,
so-called "private crimes," is not a ground for 2018
the dismissal of the criminal case once the action
has been instituted. The affidavit, nevertheless,
may, as so earlier intimated, possibly constitute DOCTRINE: It has been held that an affidavit
evidence whose weight or probative value, like of desistance is merely an additional ground to
any other piece of evidence, would be up to the buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole
court for proper evaluation. consideration that can result in acquittal. To
reiterate, there must be other circumstances
which, when coupled with the retraction or
QUESTION: An information for rape was filed desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the
against Bennie and Buena predicated on a testimony given by the witnesses during trial
complaint filed by Lyn. The case was docketed and accepted by the judge. (People v. Montejo,
and assigned by raffle to a branch presided over 407 Phil. 502, 517 (2001), citing People v.
by Judge Pabbie. Thereafter, Lyn, through her Echegaray, 335 Phil. 343, 351 (1997)).
counsel, filed a Petition for a Change in Venue.
During the pendency of the petition for a
change of venue, Lyn, assisted by her counsel QUESTION: Georgia filed a complaint of a
and parents, executed an affidavit of desistance crime of frustrated homicide against her
stating that “she may be allowed to withdraw

stepson, Jay. Georgia claimed that she and Jay Canlas vs. People of the Philippines, 932
had an altercation about money which resulted SCRA 309, G.R. Nos. 236308-09 February 17,
in a hacking incident. If not with the timely 2020
medical intervention, Georgia could have died
from the mortal wounds. The regional trial
court found Jay guilty beyond reasonable DOCTRINE: Private individuals may be held
ground. While the appealed case was pending liable under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
before the court of appeals, Georgia filed an Practices Act if they acted in conspiracy with a
affidavit of Recantation and Desistance where public officer
she admitted that she only fabricated the
accusations against Jay and that they no longer
have ill feelings toward each other. The Court of
QUESTION: Mayor Jejomar and the other
Appeals ruled that the affidavit of desistance,
accused public officers of Makati City in the
by itself, cannot be a ground for the dismissal. Is
performance of their official and/or
the appellate court correct?
administrative functions, conspired with Efren,
a private individual and the representative of
Hilmarc’s Construction Corporation , in giving
ANSWER: Yes. A mere retraction by Georgia of unwarranted benefits, advantage, and
her testimony does not necessarily vitiate the preference to Hilmarc’s, and causing undue
original testimony. It is settled that an affidavit injury to the Government by awarding
of desistance made by a witness, including the Hilmarc’s the contract for the Phase IV
private complainant, after conviction of the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking
accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant Building. Efren and the others were convicted
attention. Thus, it cannot be used as a sole for violating RA 3019. On appeal, Efren
consideration that can result in the acquittal of a contended that he should be acquitted because
case. To add, the affidavit of desistance was there is not a single case in which a private
executed after Jay was already convicted by the person was held liable for violation of Section
trial court. It is a well-settled rule that factual 3(e) of RA 3019. Is Efren correct?
findings of the trial court involving the
credibility of witnesses are accorded utmost
respect since trial courts have first-hand account
ANSWER: No, Efren is incorrect. The well-
on the witnesses' manner of testifying in court
settled rule is that “private persons, when acting
and their demeanor during trial.
in conspiracy with public officers, may be
indicted and, if found guilty, held liable under
Section 3 of RA 3019, in consonance with the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. avowed policy of the anti-graft law to repress
No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D. certain acts of public officers and private
No. 677, P.D. No. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195 and R.A. persons alike constituting graft or corrupt
No. 10910) practices act or which may lead thereto.

mere request or demand of a gift, present, share,

percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.
violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance
No. 3019, as amended by R.A. No. 3047, P.D.
of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or
No. 677, P.D. No. 1288, B.P. Blg. 195 and R.A.
present is required in direct bribery. Moreover,
No. 10910)
the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific.
People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 188165, It is limited only to contracts or transactions
December 11, 2013 involving monetary consideration where the
public officer has the authority to intervene
under the law. Direct bribery, on the other hand,
has a wider and more general scope: (a)
DOCTRINE: Direct bribery and violation of Sec
performance of an act constituting a crime; (b)
b of RA 3019 are different as the latter is specific
execution of an unjust act which does not
constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or
refraining from doing an act which is his official
QUESTION: Adam is a public officer, in duty to do.
consideration of ₱4,000.00, Adam promised to
dismiss a criminal complaint pending
preliminary investigation before him. Adam
However, although the two charges stemmed
was later on convicted of violation of Sec 3(b)
from the same transaction, the same act gave
RA 3019. Adam argues that he should be
rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No
acquitted because he should have been charged
double jeopardy attached since there was a
only with direct bribery not of RA 3019. On the
variance between the elements of the offenses
other hand, the prosecution argues that they
charged. The constitutional protection against
were correct in charging him with violation of
double jeopardy proceeds from a second
RA 3019 because the term ‘transaction’ as used
prosecution for the same offense, not for a
thereof is not limited in its scope or meaning to
different one.
a commercial or business transaction but
includes all kinds of transaction, whether
commercial, civil or administrative in nature,
pending with the government. Who is correct, Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22)
Adam or the prosecution?
Maria Nympha Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero
Corporation, G.R. No. 215118, June 19, 2019
ANSWER: Adam is correct. Section 3(b) of RA

3019 is neither identical nor necessarily
DOCTRINE: A receipt of notice of dishonor
inclusive of direct bribery. While they have
must be made in writing
common elements, not all the essential elements
of one offense are included among or form part
of those enumerated in the other. Whereas the

QUESTION: Maria asked JMV Corporation to John Dennis G. Chua vs. People of the
use its corporate name and account for a car Philippines and Cristina Yao, G.R. No. 195248,
loan intended for her personal use to which November 22, 2017
JMV agreed. JMV paid the down payment and
gave the possession and use of the vehicle to
Maria who in turn, issued and delivered to JMV DOCTRINE: Failure to prove petitioner's
thirty four (34) postdated checks against her receipt of notice of dishonor warrants his
bank account. However, some of the checks acquittal.
were dishonored for reason drawn against
insufficient funds or account closed. JMV called
Maria on the phone and reminded her of the
QUESTION: Chua needed money to revive
dishonored checks. Maria responded by
their family’s sugar mill business and they
requesting for photocopies of the dishonored
asked Yao to lend them money. Yao loaned
checks and gave assurance of replacing them.
them millions. As payment, Chua issued four
Instead of a reply, JMV sent a demand letter to
(4) checks but were dishonored for having been
Maria the payment of the eleven (11) checks that
drawn against a closed account. Upon dishonor
were dishonored. Maria was given five (5) days
of the checks, Yao personally delivered her
to comply with the demands of JMV but it was
demand letter to the office Chua which was
left unheeded by Maria. However during trial,
received by Chua’s secretary. He was thus
the prosecution failed to present any
charged with four (4) counts of violation of B.P.
documentary evidence to prove the receipt of
Blg. 22. During the trial, the personal secretary
the notice of dishonor. JMV argues that Maria’s
was never presented to testify whether she in
acknowledgement over the phone is sufficient
fact handed the demand letter to Chua. Is it
evidence for receipt of notice of dishonor. Is
enough for the prosecution to prove only that a
JMV correct?
notice of dishonor was sent to the accused?
ANSWER: No. To be admissible against the

ANSWER: No. It must be borne in mind that it
accused, the admission made must be
is not enough for the prosecution to prove that
categorical and definite. Likewise, reminders or
a notice of dishonor was sent to the accused. The
oral demands are not sufficient to bind the
prosecution must also prove actual receipt of
accused. The notice of dishonor or demand
said notice, because the fact of service provided
must be in writing as required under Sec. 3 of
for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such
B.P. 22.
notice of dishonor by the accused. In this case,
there is no way to ascertain when the five-day
period under Section 22 of B.P. Blg. 22 would
Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) start and end since there is no showing when
Chua actually received the demand letter.

Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No. Senate Committee Report No. 54 and testimony
9160) of witness Espina. Did the RTC committed
grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there
Republic of the Philippines vs. Dumayas, G.R.
exists no probable cause to allow an inquiry into
No. 190357, April 17, 2017
the deposits and investments of respondents?
DOCTRINE: In the issuance of a bank inquiry

ANSWER: No. For the trial court to issue a bank
order, the power to determine the existence of
inquiry order, it is necessary for the AMLC to be
probable cause is lodged in the trial court.
able to show specific facts and circumstances
Section 11 itself requires that it be established
that provide a link between an unlawful activity
that "there is probable cause that the deposits or
or a money laundering offense, on the one hand,
investments are related to unlawful activities,"
and the account or monetary instrument or
and it obviously is the court which stands as
property sought to be examined on the other
arbiter whether there is indeed such probable
hand. The application for the issuance of a bank
cause.
inquiry order was supported by only two pieces
of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54
and the testimony of witness Thelma Espina.
QUESTION: In April 2005, the Philippine Regrettably, this evidence proved to be
National Bank (PNB) submitted to the Anti- insufficient.
Money Laundering Council (AMLC) a series of
suspicious transaction reports involving the
accounts of Livelihood Corporation
Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. No.
(LIVECOR), Molugan Foundation (Molugan),
9160)
and Assembly of Gracious Samaritans, Inc.
According to the reports, a range of P38 million 2006 BAR EXAM QUESTION; Money
to P172.6 million were transferred between Laundering Crime and Covered Institution
LIVECOR, Molugan, and AGS. The transactions
were reported '"suspicious" because they had no
underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or QUESTION: Rudy is jobless but is reputed to
economic justification; nor were they be a jueteng operator. He has never been
commensurate to the business or financial charged or convicted of any crime. He
capacity of Molugan and AGS, which were both maintains several bank accounts and has
lowly capitalized at P50,000 each. The AMLC purchased 5 houses and lots for his children
find probable cause that the suspicious from the Luansing Realty, Inc. Since he does not
transactions of Livecor, Molugan, and AGS as have any visible job, the company reported his
reported by PNB are related to the fertilizer purchases to the Anti-Money Laundering
fund scam. However, the RTC judge finds no Council (AMLC). Thereafter, AMLC charged
probable cause to issue bank inquiry order since him with violation of the Anti-Money
the only evidence presented by the AMLC are Laundering Law. Upon request of the AMLC,

the bank disclosed to it Rudy's bank deposits subject to the approval of the court. The
amounting to P100 Million. Subsequently, he acceptance of an offer to plead guilty to a lesser
was charged in court for violation of the Anti- offense is not demandable by the accused as a
Money Laundering Law. (a) Can Rudy move to matter of right but is a matter addressed entirely
dismiss the case on the ground that he has no to the sound discretion of the trial court.
criminal record? (b) In disclosing Rudy's bank
accounts to the AMLC, did the bank violate any
law? QUESTION: Sayre was charged with violation
of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of R.A. 9165
in three separate Information. Sayre filed a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) No. Under the proposal for plea bargaining the charge Illegal
Anti-Money Laundering Law, Rudy would be Sale of Dangerous Drugs to the lower offense of
guilty of a "money laundering crime" Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous
committed when the proceeds of an "unlawful Drugs under Section 12. in accordance with the
activity," like jueteng operations, are made to guidelines provided by the Court in OCA
appear as having originated from legitimate Circular No. 90-2018.2 On the other hand, the
sources. The money laundering crime is City Prosecutor argued that they are bound by
separate from the unlawful activity of being a DOJ Circular No. 27, rejecting Sayre's plea
jueteng operator, and requires no previous bargain from Illegal Sale of dangerous Drugs to
conviction for the unlawful activity Sec. 3, Anti- Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and insisting
Money Laundering Act of 2001). that "any plea bargaining outside the DOJ
circular is not acceptable." Sayre contends that
(b) No, the bank did not violate any law. The
DOJ Circular No. 27 is unconstitutional as it
bank being specified as a "covered institution"
repealed, altered, or modified the more
under the Anti- Money Laundering Law, is
favorable plea bargaining provision under OCA
obliged to report to the AMLC covered and
Circular No. 90-2018. Is his contention correct?
suspicious transactions, without thereby
violating any law. This is one of the exceptions
to the Secrecy of Bank Deposit Act.
ANSWER: No. Section 2, Rule 116 of the Rules
of Court provides that plea bargaining requires
the consent of the accused, the offended party,
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
and the prosecutor. The DOJ Circular No. 27
(R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640)
provision pertaining to acceptable plea bargain
Sayre vs. Hon. Dax Gonzaga Xenos, G.R. Nos. for Section 5 of R.A. 9165 did not violate the
244413 & 244415-16, February 18, 2020 rule-making authority of the Court. DOJ
Circular No. 27 merely serves as an internal
guideline for prosecutors to observe before they
may give their consent to proposed plea
DOCTRINE: A plea bargain still requires
bargains.
mutual agreement of the parties and remains

was present during the marking, inventory, and

photograph-taking.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640)
People vs. Bermejo, G.R. No. 240225, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs. 3
December 02, 2020 to 12, R.A. No. 9208)
People vs. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528, January 11,

2017
DOCTRINE: Prior to the amendment of R.A.
9165, the witnesses required are a) the accused
or his counsel, b) representative from the media
DOCTRINE: Instigation is the means by which
and DOJ, and c) any elected public official. The
the accused is lured into the commission of the
witnesses required after the amendment of
offense charged in order to prosecute him. On
R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640 are a) the accused or his
the other hand, entrapment is the employment
counsel and b) elected public official and a
of such ways and means for the purpose of
representative of the National Prosecution
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker.
Service or the media.
QUESTION: The private complainants are
minor victims in prostitution activities. Hirang
QUESTION: On October 14, 2013, a sold BBB, along with AAA, CCC and DDD, to
confidential informant told the police that his Korean customers for sexual activities.
Bermejo was selling illegal drugs. After the buy- Hirang told his victims that they would receive
bust operation, Bermejo was brought to the ₱5,000.00 after a “gimik” with them. Hirang was
barangay hall but the barangay officials were introduced by a confidential informant to
not available. They were transferred to the Villagracia, who posed as a travel agency
Makati City Hall Building where the confiscated employee having Korean friends. An
items were marked in the presence of Barangay entrapment operation was initiated where NBI
Chairman Michale Tolentino. Bermejo claims operatives arrested Hirang. Hirang was
that the unbroken chain of custody was not charged and convicted for qualified trafficking.
proven because all the witnesses needed were Was Hirangs conviction proper?
not present. Is the contention of the accused
tenable? ANSWER: The presence of the crime's elements
was established by the prosecution witnesses
who testified during the trial. The young
ANSWER: Yes. The incident subject of charges victims themselves testified on their respective
against Bermejo happened prior the effectivity ages, and how they were lured by Hirang to
of R.A. 10640. The prosecution failed to participate in the latter's illicit sex trade. Police
establish the crucial presence of all witnesses authorities also personally witnessed Hirang's
required by R.A. 9165. Only an elected official unlawful activity, as they conducted the

entrapment operations and arrested him after committing trafficking in persons. The pimp
Hirang transacted with the supposed customers argued that the prosecution failed to prove their
and received payment therefore. guilt because of the lack of testimony from the
confidential informant. Does the petitioner’s
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Secs. 3 contention have merit?
to 12, R.A. No. 9208)
ANSWER: No, the testimony of the confidential
People vs. Santiago Jr., G.R. No. 213760, July
informant is not indispensable in the crime of
1, 2019
trafficking in persons. Neither is his identity
relevant. "It is sufficient that the accused has
lured, enticed or engaged its victims or
DOCTRINE: Jurisprudence consistently holds transported them for the established purpose of
that there are compelling considerations why exploitation," which was sufficiently shown by
confidential informants are usually not the trafficked person's testimony alone.
presented by the prosecution. One is the need to
hide their identity and preserve their invaluable Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689)
service to the police. Another is the necessity to
People vs. Mateo et al., G.R. No. 210612,
protect them from being objects or targets of
October 9, 2017
revenge by the criminals they implicate once
they become known. The testimony of the DOCTRINE: When there is conspiracy, the act
confidential asset is not relevant for conviction of one is the act of all. It is not essential that there
nor is it indispensable for a successful be actual proof that all the conspirators took a
prosecution of this case because his testimony direct part in every act. It is sufficient that they
would merely be corroborative and cumulative. acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.
QUESTION: TV5 segment producer Espenida QUESTION: Herminia, Jr. met a certain
and his crew went to Plaza Morga and Plaza Geraldine who is the head of the Business
Moriones to investigate the alleged prostitution Center of MMG. Geraldine was soliciting
operations in the area. A confidential asset, alias investments and has showed a brochure
"Romeo David" was to pose showcasing the investments and businesses of
ashttps://docs.google.com/file/d/1lUXV8P8BuB MMG which convinced Herminia, Jr. to invest.
dDJxEGz2c_NJRsZAUG8C1o/edit?usp=docslist The interests and principal were promptly paid,
_api&filetype=msword a customer and transact which induced him to make a bigger
with the alleged pimps for a night with a minor. investment. Herminio, Jr., his father, and sister
Espenida, who was on board a TV5 vehicle made a joint investment They received several
heard the transaction through the microphone post-dated checks which their banks informed
clipped on Romeo. The team and David arrived them that these were dishonored. Herminia’s
at Plaza Morga. After surveying the area, David father and sister then demanded for the return
pointed to the pimps, who, upon seeing the of their money, but their demands were
police, ran away but were eventually caught
and arrested. The court convicted the pimp of

unheeded. Is Herminia Jr. guilty of syndicated deceive another so that he shall act upon it to
estafa? his legal Injury.
ANSWER: Yes, it is clear that all the elements QUESTION: Baladjay and her nine co-accused
of syndicated estafa, are present, considering were indicted with the crime of Syndicated
that: (a) the incorporators/directors of MMG Estafa, they are agents of Multitel. The accused
comprising more than five (5) people, including succeeded in inducing the complainants to
herein accused-appellant, made false pretenses invest money. Baladjay and her co-accused then
and representations to the investing public - in used the money invested for their own personal
this case, the private complainants - regarding a benefit. Baladjay, was the sole witness and she
supposed lucrative investment opportunity denied transacting with the private
with MMG in order to solicit money from them; complainants. However, Baladjay also admitted
(b) the said false pretenses and representations that she was also known as the president of
were made prior to or simultaneous with the Multitel. Is Baladjay guilty of syndicated estafa?
commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same,
private complainants invested their hard- ANSWER: Yes, here, using Multitel as their
earned money into MMG; and (d) the conduit, Baladjay and her counselors employed
incorporators/directors of MMG ended up deceit and falsely pretended to have the
running away with the private complainants' authority to solicit investments from the general
investments, obviously to the latter's prejudice. public when, in truth, they did not have such
authority as Multitel was not really engaged in
Swindling by Syndicate (P.D. No. 1689) any legitimate business. Eventually, Baladjay
People vs. Baladjay, G.R. No. 220458, July 26, and her cohorts ran away with the private
2017 complainants' money causing them damage
and prejudice.
Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No.

DOCTRINE: Fraud, in its general sense, is
7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659)
deemed to comprise anything calculated to
deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or DOCTRINE: Any person who participated
equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly with the said public officer in the commission of
reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by an offense contributing to the crime of plunder
which an undue and unconscientious shall likewise be liable for the crime of plunder.
advantage is taken of another. On the other In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
hand, deceit is the false representation of a participation and the attendance of mitigating
matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by and extenuating circumstances, as provided by
false or misleading allegations, or by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by
concealment of that which should have been the court.
disclosed which deceives or is intended to

QUESTION: Overjoyed by the award to his following individuals could be held liable for
firm of a multi-billion government contract for plunder:
the development of an economic and tourism
hub in the Province of Blank, Mr. Gangnam 1) Governor Datu who received the amount of
allotted the amount of P100 Million to serve as P50,000,000.00 after he signed the contract in
gifts for certain persons instrumental in his favor of the firm of Mr. Gangnam. His wife
firm's winning the award. He gave 50% of that Provincial First Lady Dee is also liable as the
amount to Governor Datu, the official who had amount given to Governor Datu, his husband
signed the contract with the proper was deposited in her account. She is considered
authorization from the Sangguniang a co-conspirator;
Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the 2) Bokal Diva is also liable for plunder. He was
Sangguniang Panlalawigan member who had the one who lobbied for the award of the Project
lobbied for the award of the project in the to the firm of Mr. Gangnam in the Sanguniang
Sangguniang Panlalawigan; and 25% to Mayor Panlalawigan. He received 25% of or
Dolor of the Municipality where the project P25,000,000.00 and another P25,000,000.00 in
would be implemented. Governor Datu another project of Mr. Gangnam in the
received his share through his wife, Provincial construction of an overpriced Blank Sports
First Lady Dee, who then deposited the amount Arena in the Municipality to which Dolor is the
in her personal bank account. Mayor. The aggregate amount has a total of
Previously, upon facilitation by Bokal Diva, Mr. P50,000,000.00. Further, Terry, the Secretary of
Gangnam concluded an agreement with Mayor Bokal Diva is also liable as co-conspirator. The
Dolor for the construction of the Blank Sports amount was deposited in her bank account.
Arena worth ₱800 Million. The project was Anti-Plunder Act (Secs. 1, 2 and 6, R.A. No.
highly overpriced because it could be 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659)
undertaken and completed for not more than 2014 Bar Examination
₱400 Million. For this project, Mayor Dolor
received from Mr. Gangnam a gift of ₱10 DOCTRINE: To establish the crime of plunder,
Million, while Bokal Diva got ₱25 Million. it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance
In both instances, Bokal Diva had her monetary of the scheme or conspiracy to amass,
gifts deposited in the name of her secretary, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being
Terry, who personally maintained a bank sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt
account for Bokal Diva's share in government a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
projects. May each of the above-named the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy. (Sec.
individuals be held liable for plunder? Explain 4, RA 7080)
your answer.
QUESTION: City Engr. A, is the city engineer
ANSWER: (a) Not all of them could be held and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards
liable for plunder based on the elements of R.A. Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In
No. 7080 as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Only the

2009, the City of Kawawa, through an of his of office or position, and illegally or
ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million fraudulently conveying or disposing of assets
for the construction of a road leading to the belonging to the national government, in the
poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the aggregate amount or total value of at least P50
construction of the road leading to his farm. million.
Investigation further showed that he accepted
money in the amount of P10 million each from (B) Yes, my answer will still be the same. City
three (3) contending bidders, who eventually Engr. A’s net worth being less than P50 million
lost in the bidding. is not determinative of his liability. What is the
material is the fact that he acquired, amassed,
Audit report likewise showed that service and accumulated an ill-gotten wealth of more
vehicles valued at P2 million could not be than P50 million. The basis of plunder is the
accounted for although reports showed that combination of criminal acts or a series of acts
these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized that accumulated at least P50 million. The
drivers but the same were never returned. predicate crimes are already absorbed in the
Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s crime of plunder.
custody amounting to P10 million which were
found to be missing and could not be accounted Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
for. In another project, he was instrumental in Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (Secs.
awarding a contract for the construction of a city 3(a), 5 and 10, R.A. No. 7610)
school building costing P10 million to a close Antonieta Lucido vs. People of the
relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Philippines, G.R. No. 217764, August 7, 2017
Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has
a net worth of more than P50 million, which was DOCTRINE: An accused can be prosecuted and
way beyond his legitimate income. (A) If you convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of
are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the
will you file against City Engr. A? (B) Suppose four acts therein. The prosecution need not
the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty,
than P50 million, will your answer still be the and child exploitation have resulted in the
same? prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial
to the development of the child is different from
ANSWER: (A) If I were the Ombudsman, I the former acts.
would file a case of Plunder under RA 7080
against City Engineer A. Engr. A is a public QUESTION: Antonieta Lucido (Lucido) was
officer who amassed, accumulated, or acquired accused, and convicted, of child abuse under
ill-gotten wealth through a combination of overt Section 10(a) of RA 7610, otherwise known as
or criminal acts of misuse, misappropriation, the Special Protection of Children against Child
conversion, or malversation of public funds, Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.
receiving kickbacks from persons in connection Lucido beat with the use of a belt, pinched and
with a government contract or project by reason strangulated AAA, an 8-year-old child placed
under her care. Lucido claims that the

prosecution failed to prove the infliction of Pedro Perez vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
physical injuries on the child, and tried to No. 201414, April 18, 2018
impugn ill motives on the prosecution’s DOCTRINE: Inserting a finger in a 12-year-old
witness. Lucido also claims that the prosecution girl's vagina and mashing her breasts are not
failed to prove the infliction of physical injuries only acts of lasciviousness but also amount to
on the child has “prejudiced the child’s child abuse punished under Republic Act No.
development” as required by Section 10(a) of 7610.
RA 7610. Further, Lucido asserts that she should
have been charged with slight physical injuries QUESTION: Pedro Perez (Perez) was found
under the RPC and not child abuse under RA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
7610. Is Lucido guilty of child abuse in violation Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The
of Section 10(a) of RA 7610? prosecution alleged that Perez committed child
abuse when he followed AAA, a minor, into the
ANSWER: Yes. The Supreme Court held that kitchen, kissed her nape, told her to keep quiet,
Section 10(a) of RA 7610 punished 4 distinct and inserted his finger inside her vagina while
offenses which are (1) child abuse, (2) child mashing her breasts. The elements of the offense
cruelty, (3) child exploitation, and (4) being aforementioned are: (1) the accused commits the
responsible for the conditions prejudicial to the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
child’s development. The element that acts must (2) the said act is performed with a child
be prejudicial to the child’s development exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
pertains only to the fourth offense. sexual abuse; and, (3) the child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age. Perez contends
Under Article 1, Section 3(b) of RA 7610, that assuming the crime is committed, it should
physical abuse, whether habitual or not, only be acts of lasciviousness since the
constitute child abuse. The testimonies of prosecution was not able to prove the second
AAA’s father and the medical findings all element. Is Perez guilty beyond reasonable
support the fact that physical abuse did occur. doubt for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610?
Strangulating, severely pinching, and beating
an eight (8)-year-old child to cause her to limp ANSWER: Yes. Under Section 5(b), the
are intrinsically cruel and excessive. These acts elements of sexual abuse are: (1) The accused
of abuse impair the child's dignity and worth as commits the act of sexual intercourse or
a human being and infringe upon her right to lascivious conduct; (2) The said act is performed
grow up in a safe, wholesome, and harmonious with a child exploited in prostitution or
place. It is not difficult to perceive that this subjected to other sexual abuse; and, (3) The
experience of repeated physical abuse from the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years
petitioner would prejudice the child's social, of age.
moral, and emotional development.
The presence of the first and third elements is
Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, already established. However, the petitioner
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act (Secs. claims that the second element is wanting. For
3(a), 5 and 10, R.A. No. 7610) the petitioner, the prosecution must show that

AAA was "exploited in prostitution or subjected being. Petitioner denied having physically
to other sexual abuse." The Court held that to abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that
meet the second element, the child victim must he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after his
either be exploited in prostitution or subjected minor daughters, Mary Ann Rose and
to other sexual abuse. In Quimvel v. People, the Cherrylyn, had told him about Jayson and
Court held that the fact that a child is under the Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about
coercion and influence of an adult is sufficient Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied
to satisfy this second element and will classify shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando
the child victim as one subjected to other sexual to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to
abuse. Thus, when the petitioner inserted his restrain his sons from harming his daughters.
finger into the vagina of AAA, a minor, with the RTC and CA found and declared petitioner
use of threat and coercion, he is already liable guilty of child abuse. Is the petitioner guilty of
for sexual abuse. the crime charged?
Republic Act No. 7610

Answer: No. The Supreme Court held that
George Bongalon vs. People of the
petitioner is not guilty of child abuse, but rather
Philippines, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
of the crime of slight physical injury only. The
Doctrine: Not every instance of the laying of records did not establish beyond reasonable
hands on a child constitutes the crime of child doubt that the laying of hands by George on
abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. Jayson had been intended to debase the
7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as a
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the human being, or that he had thereby intended
accused to debase, degrade or demean the to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records
intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have
human being should it be punished as child been done at the spur of the moment and in
abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed
Revised Penal Code. by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of
his own minor daughters who had just suffered
harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With
Question: Petitioner was charged with child
abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of RA the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific
7610, for allegedly committing acts of physical intent to debase, degrade or demean the
abuse and/or maltreatment by striking Jayson intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
Dela Cruz (12 year old) with his palm hitting the human being that was so essential in the crime
latter at his back and by slapping said minor of child abuse. Considering that Jayson’s
hitting his left cheek and uttering derogatory physical injury required five to seven days of
remarks to the latter’s family, which acts of the medical attention, the petitioner was liable for
accused are prejudicial to the child’s slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of
development and which demean the intrinsic the Revised Penal Code.
worth and dignity of the said child as a human

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No. should be found in the recorded conversation
4200) itself. The party who is recording or is
presenting the recording, must establish a “clear
Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.
showing” that both parties to the conversation
No. 110662, 235 SCRA 111, August 4, 1994
allowed its recording.
DOCTRINE: Unauthorized tape recordings of

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (Secs. 1 to 4, R.A. No.
telephone conversations not admissible in
4200)
evidence. Absent a clear showing that both
parties to the telephone conversations allowed Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93833,
the recordings of the same, the inadmissibility September 28, 1995
of the subject tapes is mandatory under RA
4200.
DOCTRINE: Even a (person) privy to a
communication who records his private
QUESTION: Private respondent filed a case for conversation with another without the
annulment of marriage with damages against knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a
petitioner with the RTC, citing the petitioner's violator under R.A. 4200. The law makes no
lack of a marriage license and/or psychiatric distinction as to whether the party sought to be
incapacity. After giving his testimony, the penalized by the statute ought to be a party
private respondent formally offered in evidence other than or different from those involved in
Exhibits. Among the exhibits were three cassette the private communication.
tapes of claimed telephone conversations
between the petitioner and unidentified people.
All evidence presented by the private QUESTION: Petitioner Ramirez filed a civil
respondent was admitted by the trial court. Are case against private respondent Garcia alleging
the tape recordings obtained in violation of RA a confrontation that vexed and humiliated her
4200 admissible as evidence in court? in a hostile and furious mood and in a manner
offensive to her dignity and personality. In
support of this claim, a verbatim transcript of
ANSWER: No. Unless there is a clear showing the event was produced. The transcript was
that both parties to the conversation allowed its based on a tape recording of the confrontation.
recording, the recording is illegal and may As a result of the recording of the event, Garcia
subject the person who made the recording to filed a criminal case before the RTC for violation
the penalties provided under Republic Act No. of RA 4200. Is the recording of a private
4200. Where the conversation was recorded conversation without consent of both parties a
using a mobile phone, whether the recording is violation of RA 4200?
video or only audio, the best evidence that both
parties to the conversation allowed its recording

ANSWER: Yes. Section of Republic Act 4200 internet using the names of these known
provides that it shall be unlawful for any personalities and entities for the purpose of
person, not being authorized by all the parties selling these registered domain names to said
to any private communication or spoken word, personalities and entities in the future.Does Mr.
to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other S's "innovative business model" expose him to
device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, any criminal liability under the Cybercrime
intercept, or record such communication or Prevention Act of 2012? If so, for what crime?
spoken word by using a device commonly
known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, ANSWER: Yes. Mr. S’s “business model”
or however otherwise described. This provision exposes him to liability for Cyber Squatting
clearly makes it illegal for any person, not under Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime
authorized by all the parties to any private Prevention Act of 2012. Cyber Squatting is the
communication to secretly record such acquisition of a domain name over the internet
communication by means of a tape recorder. It in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
also does not matter who made the unconsented reputation, and deprive others from registering
video or audio recording. The law makes no the same, if such a domain name is: (i)
distinction as to whether the party sought to be similar, identical or confusingly similar to an
penalized by the statute ought to be a party existing trademark registered with the
other than or different from those involved in appropriate government agency at the time
the private communication. Consequently, of the domain name registration; (ii) identical
“even a (person) privy to a communication who or in any way similar with the name of a person
records his private conversation with another other than the registrant, in case of a
without the knowledge of the latter (will) personal name; and (iii) acquired without
qualify as a violator” under R.A. 4200. right or with intellectual property interests in it.
Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No.
10175) 10175)
2019 Bar Exam Question Tolentino vs. People, G.R. No. 240310, August
06, 2018
QUESTION: Mr. S, a businessman and

information technology practitioner, claimed DOCTRINE: Section 6 of RA No. 10175
to have devised an innovative business model. provides that the "penalty to be imposed shall
He would diligently compile a list of known be one (1) degree higher than that provided for
personalities and entities in the fields of by the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
entertainment, arts, culture, and sports, and and special laws, as the case may be." xxx
acquire numerous domain names in the Following Article 90 of the RPC, the crime of

libel in relation to RA 10175 now prescribes in Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No.
fifteen (15) years. 10175)
Virginia Dio vs. People of the Philippines and

Timothy Desmond, G.R. No. 208146, June 08,
QUESTION: A complaint was filed on August
2016
8, 2017 against Tolentino's Facebook post dated
April 29, 2015. Tolentino berated a doctor for
selling allegedly bogus products. Tolentino
DOCTRINE: Whether emailing or, as in this
claimed that the action has prescribed as RA
10175 does not categorically state the case, sending emails to the persons named in the
informations - who appear to be officials of
prescriptive period for such action. Is the filing
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority where Subic
of the complaint on August 8, 2017 against
Bay Marine Exploratorium is found - is
Tolentino's Facebook post dated April 29, 2015
sufficiently "public", as required by law Articles
within the prescriptive period for libel in
353 and 355 of the RPC and by the Anti-
relation to RA 10175?
Cybercrime Law, is a matter of defense that
should be properly raised during trial.
Passionate and emphatic grievance, channeled
ANSWER: Yes. In an unsigned resolution of the
through proper public authorities, partakes of a
Supreme Court, the prescriptive period for
degree of protected freedom of expression.
online libel under the Cybercrime Law is 15
Certainly, if we remain faithful to the dictum
years (compared to the one-year prescriptive
that public office is a public trust some leeway
period for libel in the penal code). In relation to
should be given to the public to express disgust.
Section 6 of RA No. 10175, the former penalty of
prision correccional in it its minimum and
medium periods is increased to prision
QUESTION: In response to an electronic
correccional in its maximum period to prision
message that Dio sent, Desmond filed a libel
mayor in its minimum period. The new penalty,
complaint against Dio. The electronic message
therefore, becomes afflictive, following Section
being defamatory or acting in a way that harms
25 of the RPC. Corrolarily, following Article 90
or prejudices the aggrieved person by
of the RPC, the crime of libel in relation to RA
dishonoring, discrediting, or showing contempt
10175 now prescribes in fifteen (15) years.
for Timothy Desmond. Dio alleged that she sent
Hence, the filing of the complaint was "well
the emails as private communication to the
within the prescriptive period for libel" in
officers of the corporation, who were in the
relation to online libel. However, in any case,
position to act on her grievances, and that the
the mere use of offensive language is not
emails were sent in good faith, with justifiable
enough to constitute libel.
ends, and in the performance of legal duty. Is
the defense raised by Dio a ground for quashing
any information?

there a crime committed?What crime was

committed?
ANSWER: No. Good faith is not among the
grounds for quashing an information as
enumerated in Rule 117, Section 3 of the Rules
ANSWER: Yes. The crime committed is torture
of Court. It is not apparent on the face of the
Such deprivation caused him physical
Informations, and what is not apparent cannot
discomfort. Food deprivation and confinement
be the basis for quashing them. For the alleged
in solitary cell are considered as physical and
privilege to be a ground for quashing the
psychological torture under Section 4 (2) of R.A.
information, the same should have been averred
9745.
in the information itself and secondly, the
privilege should be absolute, not only qualified.
Where, however, these circumstances are not
alleged in the information, quashal is not proper Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (R.A. No.
as they should be raised and proved as 10175)
defenses. As such, "the claim of the accused that
the letter is privileged communication is not a
ground for a motion to quash. It is a matter of
defense which must be proved after trial of the
case on the merits." DOCTRINE: Liability under the DOCTRINE of
command responsibility is no longer simply
administrative (based on neglect of duty) but is
now criminal.
Anti-torture Act of 2009 (SECS. 3 [A, B], 4 AND
5, R.A. No.9745)
2013 Bar Exam Question QUESTION: X, a police officer, placed a hood

on the head of W, a suspected drug pusher,a
and watched as Y and Z police trainees, beat up
DOCTRINE: Mental or psychological torture and tortured W to get his confession.
refers to acts committed by a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority which are
calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or ANSWER: X is liable as principal for the crime
undermine a person’s dignity and morals. of torture. Under Section 13 of R.A. No. 9745,
immediate senior public official of the PNP shall
be held liable as a principal to the crime of
QUESTION: AA was arrested for committing a torture if he has the knowledge that acts of
bailable offense and detained in solidary torture are being committed by his
confinement. He was able to post bail after two subordinates, and did not take preventive
weeks of detention. During the period of action during its commission. Section 13
detention, he was given not given any food. Is explicitly makes superiors criminally liable

under the DOCTRINE of command vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping

responsibility. law and not by the provisions on qualified theft
or robbery. Hence, taking a motor vehicle is
carnapping and not qualified theft (People vs.
New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to 4, Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 08, 2004).
R.A. No. 10883)

New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016 (Secs. 3 to 4,
DOCTRINE: Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle R.A. No. 10883)
propelled by any power other than muscular 2017 Bar Exam Question
power using the public highways. Trailers
having any number of wheels, when propelled
or intended to be propelled by attachment to a
DOCTRINE: Under the Doctrine of Absorption,
motor vehicle shall be classified as a separate
felonies cannot absorb carnapping. For being
motor vehicle with no power rating.
punishable under special law, carnapping shall
QUESTION: In 1996, Edwin Cipriano, who always be considered as a separate and
manages ESC Transport ,hired the accused, independent crime. Taking cash, killing the
Luisito Bustinera, as a taxi driver and assigned victim, and taking his tricycle on the same
him to drive a Daewoo Racer the accused occasion constitute carnapping and a special
reported for work but did not return the taxi on complex crime of robbery with homicide.
the same day. On the following day, Cipriano
went to Bustinera’s house but did not find the
taxi their. The wife of the accused also informed QUESTION: During the nationwide transport
Cipriano that his husband has not yet returned. strike to protest the phase out of old public
Cipriano then went to report his missing taxi. utility vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy,
Pablo, Pater and Sencio, each armed with guns,
The accused did not deny that he did not return hailed several MMDA buses then providing
the taxi on December 25 as he was short on the free transport to the stranded public to stop
boundary fee, and claimed that he did not them from plying their routes. They later on
abandon the taxi but returned it. Bustinera also commandeered one of the buses without
claimed that he gave P2000.00 to his wife to allowing any of the passengers to alight and
remit it to Cipriano as payment for the told the driver to bring the bus to Tanay, Rizal.
boundary fee, and tell him that he could not Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy,
return the taxi due to the balance he owed. What Pablo, Pater, and Sencio forcibly divested the
crime was committed? passengers of their cash and valuables. They
ordered the passengers to leave thereafter.
Then, they burned the bus. When a tanod of the
ANSWER: The crime of carnapping was barangay of the area came around to intervene,
committed. The unlawful taking of motor

Peter fired at him, instantly killing him.What

crime was committed?
ANSWER: The crime committed is robbery, and

not kidnapping because Percy, Pablo, Pater and
Sencio commandeered the bus for purposes of
robbing the passengers, and not to transport
them to another place for purposes of detention
(People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10,
1992).
- Nothing follows -


UCGN Criminal Law 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCGN Criminal Law 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Cordilleras

Prosec. Don Immanuel Vergara

University of the Cordilleras

University of the Cordilleras Page 1 of 101

QUESTION: Daniel is a member of the US DOCTRINE: Consuls do not possess the

Territoriality; exceptions; English Rule vs

University of the Cordilleras Page 2 of 101

Moreover, under the Opium law, mere

QUESTION: Chen was cruising the Philippine

University of the Cordilleras Page 3 of 101

Bato national park. Rosemoor contends that

QUESTION: Bart and Liaco borrowed from

University of the Cordilleras Page 4 of 101

Equipoise Rule – improperly used by the RTC

QUESTION: Carlos is a Japanese spy who

University of the Cordilleras Page 5 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 6 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 7 of 101

to prove the consummated illegal sale: (a)

DOCTRINE: The crime of illegal recruitment in Intentional vs Culpable Felonies – hazing –

University of the Cordilleras Page 8 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 9 of 101

running condition and serviceable because the Motive, when relevant

University of the Cordilleras Page 10 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 11 of 101

Calderon vs. People of the Philippines and

University of the Cordilleras Page 12 of 101

QUESTION: Along with their relatives, Aberratio Ictus

University of the Cordilleras Page 13 of 101

People of the Philippines vs. Adriano, et.al.,

University of the Cordilleras Page 14 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 15 of 101

QUESTION: Romel Abrogar, a participant in DOCTRINES: For the crime of attempted

University of the Cordilleras Page 16 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 17 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 18 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 19 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 20 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 21 of 101

To be considered a mitigating circumstance, circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the

University of the Cordilleras Page 22 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 23 of 101

He began making his way back home when he

University of the Cordilleras Page 24 of 101

the outer portion of the house, which Olarbe

University of the Cordilleras Page 25 of 101

QUESTION on how he could possibly steal a time of actual or threatened dispossession. At

University of the Cordilleras Page 26 of 101

encashed and delivered by Luis to the DOCTRINE: Insanity as an exempting

Exempting Circumstance – Insanity

University of the Cordilleras Page 27 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 28 of 101

QUESTION: Edward entered a drugstore while Exempting Circumstance – Imbecility;

University of the Cordilleras Page 29 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 30 of 101

Exempting Circumstance – Minority, R.A. 9344,

QUESTION: Nico, then 17-year-old teenager, Exempting Circumstance — Accident

University of the Cordilleras Page 31 of 101

ANSWER: No. Accident could not be QUESTION: Armed with an improvised

University of the Cordilleras Page 32 of 101

ANSWER: No. Manuel Macal was not

University of the Cordilleras Page 33 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 34 of 101

University of the Cordilleras Page 35 of 101