I.

In August 2018, B entered into a contract with S for the purchase of the latter's second-
hand car in the amount of ₱400,000.00 payable in two (2) equal monthly installments.
Simultaneously with the signing of the contract and S's turnover of the car keys, B
executed, issued, and delivered two (2) post-dated checks, all payable to S, with the
assurances that they will be honored on their respective maturity dates.
However, all two (2) checks were dishonored for being drawn against insufficient
funds. Consequently, notices therefore were duly issued to and received by B, but this
notwithstanding, no payment arrangements were made by him. Further, upon S's
investigation, it was uncovered that B's checking account had only ₱50,000.00 when its
was opened in June 2018 and no further deposits were made after that. S also found out
that B knew fully well of such circumstance at the time he issued the two (2) checks.
What crime/s should B be charged with and for how many counts? Explain

B should be charged with one count of estafa and two counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed by means of any of the following
false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, by post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an
obligation when the offender therein was not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. Case law dictates in estafa, the act of fraud is punished, and not the amount of
checks that were issued. Meanwhile, under B.P. Blg. 22, any person who makes or
draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered
the bank to stop payment, shall be criminally punished. Case law dictates that in B.P.
Blg. 22, each check dishonored constitutes a separate crime under the law.

Here, B should be charged with estafa, because he assured S that the checks will be
honored at the time of their maturity despite knowing that they were insufficiently
funded at the time of the making; these checks were simultaneously issued with the
execution of the contract; and the checks were later dishonored due to insufficient
funds, without B fully paying for the amount of the checks. It should only be one
charge, because there was only one act of fraud by B. Further, B should be charged with
violation of B.P. Blg. 22, because the checks he issued were dishonored due to
insufficient funds, and he failed to pay the amount of the checks within 5 banking days
from notice of dishonor. There would be two counts because there were two dishonored
checks.

II.
Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's numerous
transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to bum down Mr. B's rest house.
One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and started pouring gasoline on its walls.
However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for burning, he was discovered by Mr. B's
caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently prevented from setting the rest house on fire.
Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated Arson.
(a) Is the charge of Frustrated Arson proper? Explain.
(b) Assuming that Mr. A successfully burned down Mr. B's rest house, and as a
result, Ms. C was trapped therein and was subsequently killed in the fire, what
crime/s did Mr. A commit? Explain.

a. No, the charge is improper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. Further, there is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason
of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.
Meanwhile, case law dictates that the consummation of arson does not depend
upon the extent of the damage caused. Once the fire has started, it was already
consummated.

Here, the charge is improper, because Mr. A was prevented from setting the
house on fire by Ms. C. Thus, the crime was only attempted arson.

b. The crime is simple arson, but the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed.

Under the law, if by reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or death shall be imposed.

Here, the crime is merely simple arson, because Mr. A merely intended to burn
the house down. However, on occasion of the arson, Ms. C died while being
trapped inside. Thus, reclusion perpetua must be imposed.

III.
Mr. L is a newspaper reporter who writes about news items concerning the judiciary.
Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary can be criticized and exposed for the
prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of the public nature of their offices. Upon
receiving numerous complaints from private citizens, Mr. L released a scathing
newspaper expose involving Judge G and his alleged acts constituting graft and
corruption. Consequently, Mr. L was charged with the crime of Libel.
In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a valid defense in Libel and in this relation,
claimed that he was only exposing the truth regarding Judge G's misdeeds. Further, Mr.
L contended that in any event, his expose on Judge G is based on the complaints he
received from private citizens, and as such, should be deemed as a mere fair
commentary on a matter of public interest.
(a) Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable? Explain.
(b) What is the effect on the criminal liability of an accused if he or she publishes a
libelous article on an online news platform?

a. Yes, the contention of Mr. L is tenable.

Case law dictates that the following are the elements of libel: (a) the defamatory
imputation; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and
(d) existence of malice. However, the doctrine of fair comment provides that
discreditable imputations directed against a public person in his public capacity
are not actionable.

Here, Mr. L’s contention is tenable, because news regarding the alleged graft and
corruption of Judge G is covered by the doctrine of fair comment.

b. The crime would be cyberlibel, and the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code. Under the
Cybercrime Prevention Act, cyberlibel is committed if libel was committed
through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in
the future.

IV.
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw
what looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the
necklace on display was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of the store
owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV
camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the
necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she
was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was lacking.
What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica?
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the
real owner of the necklace?

a) Rica would be liable for impossible crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were
 it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Here, Rica would be liable for impossible crime, because she took the necklace
from the jewelry store, which would have been simple theft, if it were not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, because she actually owned the
said necklace.

b) Rica would be liable for simple theft.

Under the Revised Penal Code, theft is committed by any person who, with
intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter's consent.

Here, Rica would be liable for theft, because she took the necklace of the jewelry
store, with intent to gain, surreptitiously, without the jewelry store’s consent.

V.
With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring him a young girl that he
(Robert) can have carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl
and brought her to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert
proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged?
(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is a 15-year old lass who was
enticed, through cunning and deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert
where the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge with her?

a) They will be charged with the crime of statutory rape.

Under R.A. No. 7610, when the victim is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, for rape.

Here, the crime would be statutory rape, because the victim was merely 15 years
of age at the time of the criminal incident.

b) Yes, my answer will be the same, because the crime would be statutory rape.

Under R.A. No. 7610, when the victim is under 16 years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, for rape.
 Here, the crime would be statutory rape, because the victim was merely 15 years
of age at the time of the criminal incident.

VI.
A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and occupied the houses built by
the National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain military personnel. To gain entry to
the houses, the group intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with
the firearms they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses
with the use of crowbars and hammers. They claimed that they would occupy the
houses and live therein because the houses were idle and they were entitled to free
housing from the government.
For the reason that the houses were already awarded to military personnel who have
been found to have fully complied with the requirements for the award thereof, NHA
demanded the group to vacate within ten (10) days from notice the houses they
occupied and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the deadline, the group refused
to vacate the houses in question.
What is the criminal liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions?

The criminal liability is occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any
real rights in property belonging to another, shall be criminally liable.

Here, the criminal liability is occupation of real property, because the homeless and
destitute persons occupied the houses built by NHA for military personnel by
intimidating the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the firearms they were
carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses with the use of crowbars
and hammers.

VII.
Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the
maid's room of their own house. Rafa shot both lovers in the chest, but they survived.
Rafa charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery, while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa
with frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide.
In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to
the incident in question, executed a notarized document whereby they agreed to live
separately and allowed each of them to get a new partner and live with anyone of their
choice as husband and wife. This document was executed after Rachel discovered that
Rafa was cohabiting with another woman. Thus, they also raised the defense of in pari
delicto. In the frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide cases, Rafa raised the defense
that, having caught them in flagrante delicto, he has no criminal liability.
Assuming that all defenses have been proven:
(a) Will the action for adultery prosper?
(b) Will the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide prosper?

a) No, the action for adultery will not prosper.

Under the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by a woman who has
sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband. However, the offended
party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty
parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or
pardoned the offenders.

Here, the action will not prosper, because Rafa and Rachel executed a notarized
document stating that they are allowed to get a new partner and live with them.

b) Yes, the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide will prosper, but
Rafa’s penalty will only be destierro.

Under the Revised Penal Code, parricide is committed by a person who kills his
spouse. Homicide is committed by a person who kills another, without it being
parricide or murder. Meanwhile, a felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. Lastly, any legally married person
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person, shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer
the penalty of destierro. Case law dictates that this provision does not define a
felony, but merely exempts the offender from imprisonment.

Here, the actions will prosper but the penalty will only be destierro, because Rafa
shot his wife and her lover, who survived, while they were having sexual
intercourse.

VIII.
Jenny obtained a fire insurance from YG Insurance Co. (YG). In payment of the policy,
she issued a postdated check payable to cash in the amount of Php 15,000.00 which was
handed to Lisa, YG’s sales agent. Lisa did not remit the check to YG. Instead, Lisa
deposited it in her husband’s bank account, but the check was dishonored for having
been drawn from a closed account.
What crime, if any, was committed by Lisa and, if there was any, what is its
prescribed penalty? Explain briefly.

Lisa committed an impossible crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person performing
an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Here, Lisa would be liable for impossible crime, because she misappropriated the check
as an agent of YG Insurance Co., which would have been estafa with abuse of
confidence, if it were not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, because
the same was dishonored.

IX.
During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted on her Facebook page a statement that
Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for re-election, has a pending corruption case with
the Sandiganbayan for pocketing Php 20,000,000.00 of public funds under his custody.
Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and commented online, stating: “Bhie, true yan.
Alfredo is so corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan. Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s friend,
reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another person, Justine, who is a
stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a crusader for good governance,
came across the said post. Finding it relevant to her advocacy and crusade, Justine
shared the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter account.
Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of
Cyberlibel? Explain briefly.

Only Czarina should be held liable for the crime of Cyberlibel.

Case law dictates that the following are the elements of libel: (a) the defamatory
imputation; (b) publication of the charge; (c) identity of the person defamed; and (d)
existence of malice. Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act, it becomes Cyberlibel when
it was committed through a computer system or any other similar means. However, the
doctrine of fair comment provides that discreditable imputations directed against a
public person in his public capacity are not actionable.

Here, Bern should not be held liable for libel, because her post was about the pending
corruption case of the incumbent mayor - a public person in his public capacity.
Donnabel and Justine must not be held liable, because they did not make any
defamatory imputation against the mayor. They merely engaged with the post.
However, Czarina must be held liable, because her imputation that “Maraming ding
binabahay yan. Suragol pa!” was defamatory, and it was already about the private life of a
public person.

X.
On May 15, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m., Lucy, Mary, and Raphael were on board a
passenger jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel. They were traversing the highway
on the southbound lane.
Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, driven by Kiko, was traveling along the northbound lane.
Kiko overtook the vehicle in front of him, which caused him to occupy the opposite lane
where the jeepney was on. With the Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried
to avoid the collision but failed. The bus hit the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s
death, serious physical injuries to Lucy and Mary, and extensive damage to the jeepney
amounting to Php 500,000.00.
The public prosecutor filed two Informations charging Kiko for two separate offenses:
(i) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Serious Physical Injuries for the injuries suffered by
the passengers; and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property for Raphael’s death and the damage to the jeepney.
Is the public prosecutor correct? Explain briefly.

No, the public prosecutor is incorrect.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit
any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave felony, shall be
criminally liable. Meanwhile, case law dictates that reckless imprudence, under Article
365, is a single crime, and the consequences on persons and property are material only
to determine the penalty.

Here, the public prosecutor is incorrect, because Kiko committed a single act of hitting
the jeepney, which caused the death of Raphael, serious physical injuries to Lucy and
Mary, and extensive damage to the jeepney. Thus, Kiko must only be charged for one
crime of reckless imprudence.