1. Q: May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?

(1997
BAR)

A: YES, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In
People v. Sunico, et. al. (CA, 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of
election inspection and poll clerks to include a voter’s name in the registry list of
voters is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this
regard, it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law (Sec.
101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.

2. Q: Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's numerous
transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to burn 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. Is the charge of Frustrated Arson
proper? Explain. (2019 BAR)

A: NO, the proper charge is Attempted Arson. Under Art. 6 of the RPC, 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 his own spontaneous
desistance. Here, Mr. A commenced the commission of arson by pouring gasoline on
the house and lighting a match. However, he did not perform all the acts of execution
which includes setting the rest house on fire. Thus, Mr. A should only be liable for
Attempted Arson.

3. Q: A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine
gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of
successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each
having hit by different bullets coming from the submachine gun of A. Four (4) cases
of murder were filed against A.

The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the reason
that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only
once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to
just one penalty of reclusion perpetua.

a. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.

b. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes may be involved in a

complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (1999 BAR)
 A: a. NO. The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender
made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number
of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need
only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a
distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is
not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the
several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them.

b. A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave
or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to
commit another offense. (Art 48, RPC) At least two crimes are involved in a complex
crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an
offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The penalty for
the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)

4. Q: A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and when they were about to get out of
the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police
officers who fired back and shot it out with them. Suppose a bank employee was
killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers,
with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? (1998, 2004, 2018 Bar)

A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide

because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said
offenders on the occasion of robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby
causing such death by reason or on the occasion of robbery; Hence, the composite
crime of robbery with homicide.

5. Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by
AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST
from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense
prosper? Reason briefly. (2004 BAR)

A: NO, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of the victim's son, ST, appears
to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father
against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father's life and
to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal objective cannot be regarded as an evil
inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was a lawful
defense, not greater evil. Likewise, AA’s defense will not prosper because in this case
there was a conspiracy among the three of them, hence, the act of one is the act of all.
6. Q: Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the
market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a
spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused the latter’s death. Can
Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative?
Explain. (2016 BAR)

A: NO. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative under
Art. 11(20) of the Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or of his relatives by affinity in the
same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by
affinity within the same degree includes ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of
the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the ascendant, descendant, brother
or sister of Tessie, the spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the fourth
civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case, Juan is the cousin of Pedro by
affinity but not by consanguinity. Juan, therefore, is not a relative of Pedro for
purpose of applying the provision on defense of relative. Pedro, however, can invoke
defense of a stranger. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who defends a person
who is not his relative may invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all its
elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person defending be not induced
by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive

7. Q: Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had enough, Lito got
the key to the safe where his father kept his licensed pistol and took the weapon.
Knowing that Brutus usually hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class,
Lito went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced that
Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun in one
of the empty containers. At the time of the shooting, Lito was fifteen years and one
month old. What is Lito's criminal liability? Explain. (2015 BAR)

A: Lito is criminally liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of

treachery, or evident premeditation, as well as illegal possession of firearms.
Minority is not an exempting under Section 7 of R.A. No. 9644 since his age is above
fifteen years but below eighteen years and he acted with discernment. Circumstance
will show that he discerned the consequences of his criminal acts as shown from the
fact he employed means to make a surprise attack and he even hid the murder
weapon in an empty container. It was also clear that he planned the killing. However,
minority will be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance, which will
require the graduation of the penalty prescribed by law to one degree lower (Article
68).

8. Q: Mr. X and Mr. Y engaged in a violent fistfight which Mr. X instigated. This
culminated in Mr. X repeatedly smashing Mr. Y's head on the concrete pavement.
Thereafter, Mr. X left Mr. Y barely breathing and almost dead. A few minutes after
the incident, Mr. X immediately went to the police station to confess what he did and
told the police where he left Mr. Y. Fortunately, the police rescued Mr. Y and he
survived with the help of timely medical intervention. Mr. X was then charged in
court with Frustrated Homicide, to which he openly confessed his guilt upon
arraignment. Based on the above-stated facts, what is/are the mitigating
circumstance/s that may be appreciated in favor of Mr. X. Explain. (2019 BAR)

A: The mitigating circumstances of Voluntary Surrender and Voluntary

Confession of Guilt can be appreciated in Mr. X’s favor. Mr. X voluntarily and
immediately went to the police station after his altercation with Mr. Y. He
acknowledged his wrongdoing and saved the authorities’ time and investigative
resources. (People v. Gervacio, G.R. No. 107328 September 26, 1994) This satisfies the
requirements for Voluntary Surrender. Mr. X likewise voluntarily pleaded “Guilty”
in open court during his arraignment. This satisfies the requirements for a Voluntary
Confession of Guilt, (a) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that
the confession of guilt was made in open court, or before the competent court that is
to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation
for the prosecution. (People v. Bueza, G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990)

9. Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The

innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was
tested to be positive for the use of “shabu” at the time he committed the stabbing.
What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (2005 BAR)

A: Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery because the

suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and was totally
defenseless. Being under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime (Sec. 25, R.A. 9165,
Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002); Hence, the penalty for murder shall be
imposed in the maximum.

10. Q: Ms. E was charged with the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Public Documents before the trial court. Prior to her arraignment, Ms. E moved for
the dismissal of the criminal case against her, pointing out that the private offended
party is her biological father, and that such relationship is an absolutory cause under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Is Ms. E's contention correct? Explain.
(2019 BAR)

A: NO. In order to qualify as an absolutory cause, there must be lack of

voluntariness in committing a crime. In falsification of Public Document, there is
deceit. Thus, an act of falsification shows intent to defraud in order to commit the
crime of estafa.