2022 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL

CRIMINAL LAW

LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

legaledge8@gmail.com
0942-949-9176 / 0917-894-5356

1. John was driving his car when he discovered that his break was not working. He tried to veer to the
right side of the road but seeing an old lady walking therein, he suddenly steered to his left.
Unfortunately, his car collided with a passenger jeepney which was moving fast in the opposite lane.
Due to the incident, the driver of the jeepney died while two passengers suffered serious physical
injuries. One passenger, however, sustained light scratches only. The jeepney rolled over due to the
impact and sustained irreparable damages. After preliminary investigation, the Public Prosecutor filed
a complex crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries, and
Damage to Property, and a separate crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries.
John’s counsel appealed the resolution and moved for the deferment of the arraignment and further
proceeding. He claimed that the charge should only be one information for complex Crime of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, Multiple Physical Injuries and Damage to Property, with the Slight
Physical Injuries being absorbed in the multiple physical injuries. For what crime or crimes should John
be charged? Explain. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

John should be charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide, Serious Physical
Injuries, Slight Physical Injuries, and Damage to Property.

Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, reckless imprudence is considered as a quasi-
offense, while the injuries resulting therefrom are essential only for the determination of the
penalty for the crime.

As such, reckless imprudence cannot be a complex crime. Also, the resulting injuries cannot be
prosecuted, either as separate offenses or combined as complex crimes, as they are not
considered as independent offenses, but treated merely as resulting injuries.

Hence, there is only one crime committed by John, and that is Reckless Imprudence Resulting
in Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries, Slight Physical Injuries, and Damage to Property.

2. Dindo’s father died of cardiac arrest. During his lifetime, he was known as a bully and greedy old
man. During the wake, Resty arrived and delivered a short derogatory speech against Dindo’s father.
Then, he opened a can of beer and poured its contents on the coffin of the dead man. Dindo felt insulted
and hit Resty with a monoblock chair. However, Resty was able to dodge the assault. He then pushed
Dindo to the concrete wall to prevent him from throwing the monoblock chair towards his direction.
Dindo fell down to the floor and lost consciousness after hitting his head on the wall. Resty hurriedly
left after the incident. Dindo suffered head injuries which prompted him to recuperate at home for
twenty-days. For what crime or crimes, should Resty be charged, if any? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Resty may be charged with Slander by Deed and with Less Serious Physical Injuries.
Page 1 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

Slander by deed is committed by performing an act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt
upon another person. By pouring beer over the cadaver of Dindo’s father, Resty committed an
act which put dishonor or shame on Dindo and his family. As such, he should be held liable for
Slander by Deed.

As to Less Serious Physical Injuries, he may be held liable for such crime, considering the
injuries suffered by Dindo required a healing period of ten (10) days or more, but not more than
thirty (30) days.

Resty cannot claim not to have committed a crime, when he pushed Dindo to the wall, because
the assault of the latter was prompted by his provocation.

3. Karen was having a drinking spree with Marites and two other women. Soon, an altercation erupted
among the four loud women. Commotion ensued, and thus, Patrolman Rigor, who was nearby,
approached to pacify them. The women were pacified with the presence of a uniformed policeman, but
not for long. Karen started cussing Marites again when Patrolman Rigor turned around to leave.
Patrolman Rigor went back and restrained Karen from mauling Marites. Unfortunately, Karen’s anger
could not be contained and thus, she vented it on the police officer. He kicked Patrolman Rigor on his
groin, but her foot landed on his right thigh instead. She was then placed under arrest and brought to
the police station. Eventually, the police station charged her of Direct Assault with Serious Physical
Injuries for his assault against Patrolman Rigor. Is Karen criminally liable for Direct Assault with Serious
Physical Injuries? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under the law, Direct Assault against an agent of person in authority is committed by anyone,
who shall assault an agent of person in authority while in the performance of duty or by reason
of the past performance of duty. To qualify as assault, the laying of hands against an agent of a
person in authority must be serious showing the obstinate defiance of the law.

In this case, since the assault by Karen against Rigor landed only on his right thigh, the injuries
he sustained could not be considered Serious or Less Serious Physical Injuries, but only Slight
Physical Injuries.

Considering that the assault against Rigor cannot be considered serious, the crime committed
in this case is only Resistance and Disobedience to Agents of Person in Authority under Article
151 of the Revised Penal Code.

4. Pikoy received a text message from Bitoy stating, “pre, iskor kami ng kumpare ko, ‘san libo lang.”
Two hours after, Pikoy went to their usual meeting place where he saw Bitoy with another person
wearing a bull cap. When Pikoy approached them, Bitoy introduced his companion as Fredo.
Thereafter, Pikoy asked them, “magkano?” Fredo replied,”’sanlibo.” Pikoy then said, “sige,” and asked
for the money. However, after receiving the PhP1,000.00 bill, he sensed something was wrong and
thus, he walked away immediately. Unfortunately, two police officers grabbed him before he could walk
Page 2 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

far from Bitoy and Fredo. Two sachets of shabu, with an aggregate weight of 1.00 milligram, were then
confiscated from him. The police officers charged him with two separate offenses of selling and
possession of prohibited drugs. His counsel requested for a preliminary investigation and argued that
no sale of prohibited drugs took place and thus, he could only be charged with illegal possession of
prohibited drugs. Moreover, the counsel questioned the legality of the arrest of his client. If you were
the investigating prosecutor for what crime or crimes would you charge Pikoy? Explain. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If I were the Investigating Prosecutor, I would charge Pikoy with one count of Illegal Possession
of Prohibited Drugs.

In buy-bust operations, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the simultaneous
receipt of the marked money by the seller consummate the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

In this case, since the sale of the prohibited drug was not consummated, Pikoy could not be
charged with Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs for the buy-bust operation. The facts present that
it could not be distinguished which one of the two sachets would be sold to the poseur-buyer or
whether both sachets would be delivered to the latter in exchange for the PhP1,000.00.

Accordingly, Pikoy should only be charged with one count of Illegal Possession of Prohibited
Drugs for the two sachets of shabu confiscated from him.

5. Earl, a public officer, is charged with the crime of Plunder. In the Information filed by the Ombudsman
before the Sandiganbayan, it was stated that he committed fourteen (14) acts of Malversation, and
sixteen (16) acts of Misuse of Public Funds. All things considered, the Information alleges that he
committed thirty (30) acts and was able to collect almost PhP1,000,000,000.00 through the series of
acts. In order to convict Earl of Plunder, is it necessary that the Ombudsman prove each and every of
the thirty (30) acts alleged in the Information? Explain. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under Republic Act No. 7080 or the Anti-Plunder Act, for purposes of establishing the crime of
Plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done by the accused in
furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate, or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it
being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative
of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

Here, there is no need to prove each of the thirty (30) alleged acts of Earl, since all that is needed
is to prove a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme, as long
as the aggregate amount proven must be at least PhP50,000,000.00.

Hence, it is not necessary for the Prosecutor to prove each of the alleged acts.

Page 3 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

6. On or about November 31, 2022, Coco robbed Cathy, who was then seventeen (17) years old at the
time of the incident, with two mobile phones and cash amounting to PhP4,000.00. And while on
occasion of the robbery, Coco pointed a knife at Cathy and brought her to a public restroom. Despite
attempts to escape and begging, and while still at knifepoint, Coco removed her clothes and inserted
his penis into the victim’s vagina. After the incident, Cathy, accompanied by her landlord, went to the
police station to report the robbery but not the accompanying rape. On December 4, 2022, Coco
approached Cathy and told her that he would kill her the next time he sees her. Thereafter, she went
to the police station and reported that Coco threatened, robbed, and raped her. Cathy was subjected
to a physical and genital examination, but there was no evident signs of injuries nor laceration on the
victim’s hymen. However, the examiner did not preclude the possibility of sexual abuse. The RTC ruled
that Coco is guilty of Robbery with Rape. The CA affirmed. As judge, how would you rule? Decide. (5
points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As judge, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The following elements must concur in the crime of Robbery with Rape: (1) the taking of personal
property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken
belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4)
the Robbery is accompanied by Rape.

Here, all the elements are present: that Coco, while armed with a knife, forcibly took private
complainant's two (2) cellular phones and cash amounting to PhP4,000.00. Moreover, the
medical findings that there was no laceration on the victim's hymen is insufficient to disprove the
crime of Rape. The absence of hymenal laceration is inconsequential, since it is not an element
of the crime of Rape. The Court has consistently held that mere touching of the external genitalia
by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.

Hence, Coco is guilty of the crime of Robbery with Rape.

(SOURCE: People of the Philippines vs. Armando Bueza y Ranay; G.R. No. 242513; March 4,
2021; J. Hernando.)

7. The victim, AAA, was at home with her two brothers, her grandmother and her father, Noel, the
accused. Her mother, Mina, was out selling barbecue. While AAA's brothers were at the basketball
court, Noel instructed AAA to go up to the bedroom. Noel then ordered AAA to remove her shorts. After
AAA complied, accused Noel inserted his penis into her vagina which caused her pain. AAA shouted
and pleaded. Noel stopped, but threatened her not to tell Mina about what happened. When Mina
returned home that night, AAA did not report anything, as she feared that Noel might do something to
her mother. AAA finally told Mina the truth out of fear that her mother would leave her since her father
was sending Mina away already. AAA disclosed to her what her father had done to her. AAA likewise
revealed that it was not the first time it happened, since her father has been sexually assaulting her
since she was five (5) years old and that she did not tell her mother about it, as he threatened to kill
Mina if she did. Noel insisted that Mina concocted the rape allegations in order to exact revenge against
him. What crime or crimes did Noel commit? Explain briefly. (5 points)

Page 4 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Noel committed the crime of Qualified Rape.

It has been held that when the offender is the victim's father, there need not be actual force,
threat or intimidation, because when a father commits the odious crime of rape against his own
minor daughter, his moral ascendancy or influence over the latter substitutes for violence and
intimidation.

Here, AAA was below eighteen (18) years old when the crime was committed against her, i.e.,
having been sexually assaulted since she was five (5) years old. The facts also present that
accused is AAA's father, who sexually took advantage of her without her consent, likely relying
on the authority he holds over her. Undoubtedly, relationship of the accused with the victim
should also be considered in assessing his criminal liability.

Thus, the commission of the crime of Qualified Rape may be duly established.

(SOURCE: People of the Philippines vs. XXX; G.R. No. 218277; November 09, 2020; J.
Hernando)

8. Pablo, a municipal treasurer, received from the Provincial Treasurer five (5) brand new printers for
use in the municipal treasurer’s office. Each printer is valued at PhP10,000.00. Since Pablo needed
money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four (4) of the printers to his friend, Raul, for
PhP2,000.00 each. Raul, as a general merchant, knew that one printer could easily be sold between
PhP6,000.00 to PhP10,000.00. For this reason, he readily agreed to buy the printer. Raul then resold
the printers at PhP6,000.00, thus making a profit of PhP16,000.00. Two (2) months after the
transaction, Pablo was audited. The investigation, as to his accountabilities, led to the discovery that
Raul bought the four (4) printers from Pablo. Is Raul liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain.
(5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Fencing, as defined in Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law), is the act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire,
conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.

Here, Raul is not liable thereof, since the Anti-Fencing Law is applicable only to the buy and sell
of articles of value, which are the proceeds of robbery or theft. In this case, the printers were
proceeds of malversation.

Hence, Raul may not be held liable for the crime of Fencing.

Page 5 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

9. Keith and Nikko are avid basketball fans and made a bet for the PBA Game between San Miguel
and Ginebra. Keith placed a PhP10,000.00 bet for San Miguel, while Nikko placed a PhP10,000.00 bet
for Ginebra. Ginebra won, but Keith refused to pay Nikko. An altercation transpired wherein Nikko was
beating up Keith. Nikko was joined by his friends Allan and Xavier in beating up Keith. Allan held the
hand of Keith, while Xavier held Keith’s legs, as Nikko was punching him in his belly and then took out
his Swiss knife and stabbed Keith leading to his fatal death. Nikko, Allan, and Xavier were all equally
charged with homicide. Should Allan and Xavier be held liable? Decide. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Allan and Xavier should not be held equally liable as Nikko for the crime of homicide.

Under the law, conspiracy exists when two (2) or more persons are acting together, and whose
acts are aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another,
so as to complete it, and they shall be equally liable for the result of those acts, as the act of one
is the act of all. Generally, an accused may be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy.

In this case, however, Xavier and Allan cannot be considered as co-principals of Nikko by reason
of conspiracy, as their acts cannot be fully established to have been collective, but rather merely
individual, arising from instantaneous circumstances. Accordingly, it may be arguable whether
or not Xavier and Allan aimed towards the execution of a common design of killing Keith. What
is only clear is that the fatal death resulted from the act of Nikko stabbing Keith.

While the acts of Xavier and Allan may be said to be one of help and cooperation, they are not
indispensable for the commission of the offense, as the stabbing could have been committed
just the same without holding the victim. Hence, Allen and Xavier may only be held liable as
accomplice in the commission of the crime charged.

(SOURCE: People v. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-35700, 15 October 1973; People v. Peralta, G.R.
No. L-19069, 29 October 1968)

10. Kevin is one of the most wanted criminals of the Philippine National Police. He is notorious all over
social media and known as a “sticky bandit” as he can successfully snatch phones through double
sided tape stuck on his hands at KPOP concerts. In 2017, he was convicted of the crime of theft, when
he stole an iPhone 7 from a fan during a BTS concert. He served his sentence and was released on
the same year. In 2019, he was convicted again of the crime of theft when he stole a Samsung Galaxy
S10+ at a Blackpink concert. He served his sentence and was released on the same year. Needing the
money, Kevin sold the stolen phones, but was caught and thereafter charged and convicted for violation
of the Anti-Fencing Law in 2021. Testing his skills, Kevin once tried to steal an iPhone 14 Pro in 2023
during the Blackpink concert, but failed, and instead slapped the owner. Kevin was convicted of slight
physical injuries and the court imposed a straight penalty of thirty (30) days. Is Kevin considered a
habitual delinquent? Explain. (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, he is not.

Page 6 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

Under the Revised Penal Code, a habitual delinquent is one who is found guilty of robbery, theft,
estafa, falsification, and serious or less serious physical injuries within a period of ten (10) years
from the date of his release or last conviction third time or oftener.

Here, since Kevin is convicted only twice of theft, one violation of Anti-Fencing Law, and slight
physical injuries within a span of ten (10) years, then he is still not considered a habitual
delinquent.

Thus, Kevin is not a habitual delinquent, since he was not found guilty for the third time or oftener
for robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, and serious or less serious physical injuries within a period
of ten (10) years from the date of his release or last conviction.

(SOURCE: Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code)

11. Chris and Mona are associates at a big law firm. They have been exchanging draft pleadings
through email and sometimes, exchange gossips as well. One day, there was a news circulating within
the legal circles that two (2) partners at a big law firm were having an illicit affair that is currently subject
of a disbarment case. Through email, Chris sent to Mona a copy of the pleading filed in the said
disbarment case with a note that “Naku, alam mo, tingin ko si Madam A ang kabit ni Boss X. Nakikita
ko sila lagi sa parking magkasama pag umuuwi ako. Whatchathink???”. Out of vengeance for all the
scolding sessions Chris got from Boss X, the said email was also sent to all the members of the law
firm, including Madam A and Boss X. Furious, Madam A and Boss X decided to pursue legal action
against Chris. What crime or crimes, if any, did Chris commit? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Chris committed the crime of Cyber Libel.

Under the relevant laws, Cyber Libel is committed when a person makes a malicious imputation
of a crime or any act tending to cause dishonor, discredit, or contempt of identifiable persons
published through a computer system.

Here, Chris made malicious imputations, when he speculated that Madam A is the mistress of
Boss X, who are identifiable persons, and published the same through email, a computer system,
which can be read by the members of the big law firm.

Hence, Chris committed the crime of Cyber Libel.

(SOURCE: Articles 353 and 355 of the Revised Penal Code; Section 4 (c) (4) of Republic Act
No. 10175 or the “Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012”)

12. Tommy, a 40-year-old laborer, was convicted by the trial court for the crime of slight physical injuries
against Kathy, his neighbor. Kathy claimed that Tommy intentionally pushed her during a heated
argument, which caused her to fall and sustain minor bruises. The court sentenced Tommy to
imprisonment of thirty (30) days. Tommy, however, insists that under Republic Act No. 11362, he can
only be sentenced to community service. Is Tommy correct? Explain. (5 points)

Page 7 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor or one
(1) day to thirty (30) days of imprisonment. It is true that under Republic Act No. 11362, the court,
in its discretion, may impose community service instead of imprisonment for offenses punishable
by arresto menor. However, such substitution is not a matter of right for the offender. It is still
within the discretion of the court, based on the welfare of society and the reasonable probability
that the person sentenced shall not violate the law while rendering the service.

In this case, Tommy was convicted of slight physical injuries and sentenced to imprisonment for
thirty (30) days. He insists on substituting his sentence with community service. However, the
law does not grant him the absolute right to demand community service over imprisonment.

Therefore, Tommy is not correct in alleging that, as a matter of right under the provisions of
Republic Act No. 11362, his penalty should only be community service. The imposition of such
a penalty is within the court’s discretion and is not a matter of right for Tommy.

(SOURCE: Realiza v. People, G.R. No. 228745, August 26, 2020)

13. Connell, a prominent lawyer, is married to Helen. However, he also maintains a relationship with a
popular actress, Marianne. Connell has bought a condominium unit for Marianne, and he frequently
stays with her there. Helen, in her attempt to gather evidence of her husband’s infidelity, hired a private
investigator, who secretly took videos of Connell and Marianne, while engaged in sexual intercourse
inside the condominium unit. Helen planned to use these videos in a lawsuit against Connell. In the
meantime, Connell, to maintain his reputation, made representations that Marianne is his legal wife.
Considering the circumstances, what possible charge or charges can be filed against Connell, if any?
(5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Connell could face a charge of Concubinage.

Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code defines Concubinage as a crime committed by a married
man, who keeps a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or has sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman not his wife, or cohabits with her in any other place.

Connell, while still married to Helen, maintained a relationship with Marianne, cohabited with
her, and even falsely represented her as his wife.

Thus, based on these facts, Connell can be charged with Concubinage.

14. At the age of 17, Linus committed the crime of robbery with homicide. The case was immediately
filed, but due to various circumstances, it took several years for the case to be resolved. By the time
the court was ready to promulgate the sentence, Linus was already twenty-three (23) years old. Linus

Page 8 of 9
2023 BAR EXAMINATIONS TRIAL CRIMINAL LAW
LEGAL EDGE BAR REVIEW CENTER

argues that because he was a minor when he committed the crime, he cannot be held criminally liable.
Is Linus correct? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

The legal basis is found in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344, which states that a child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal
liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment.
The law does not automatically exempt a minor from criminal liability, but examines whether the
minor acted with discernment.

Linus was seventeen (17) years old when he committed the crime, so while he was a minor, he
was above fifteen (15) years of age. It would need to be determined, if he acted with discernment
when he committed the crime.

Therefore, Linus cannot be automatically exempted from criminal liability just because he was a
minor at the time of the commission of the crime. The court should determine, whether Linus
acted with discernment at the time of the crime. If it was found that he did, he would not be
exempt from criminal liability.

15. Lucien was charged with violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Upon arraignment, Lucien pleaded not guilty.
Later, he filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into Plea Bargaining Agreement, offering to plead
guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 of the same law. The RTC allowed Lucien to enter
a plea of guilty to the lesser offense for violation of Section 12, Article II of the law. However, the RTC
declared him ineligible to apply for probation, for the reason that although the lesser offense is
probationable, he was actually charged with a non-probationable offense. Is the RTC correct? (5 points)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under the Probation Law, what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which
the accused is ultimately found guilty of. Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the
Information, the judgment would be for the lesser offense to which the accused pled guilty. This
means that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the attendant accessory penalties, and
other consequences under the law, including eligibility for probation and parole, would be based
on such lesser offense.

In this case, considering the acceptance of a plea bargain, Lucien is actually found guilty of the
lesser offense subject of the plea, which is probationable.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in holding that Lucien is ineligible for probation.

(SOURCE: Pascua v. People, G.R. No. 250578, September 7, 2020)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-
Page 9 of 9