Professional Documents
Culture Documents
B.P. 22
BP 22 (2013)
No. X. Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued
a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two
days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and
requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the
check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a
complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks
Law)
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of
BP 22 is malum prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith
is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose
for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of Frankto
defer the deposit of the check as it ahs insufficient funds will not militate against his
prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged. Moreover, if what is
charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held
criminally liable under Article 332, RPC.
BP 22 (2010)
No. VIII. A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that
the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been closed.
The two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash,
even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that
the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for
payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed.
What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss of
her P85,000.00? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B
who drew the postdated check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and
with knowledge at the time he issued the check that the account thereof is already
closed. A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B‟s
check to C who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22 does not apply to endorser of
checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a
worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a
credit transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not
arise when a check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
Estafa and B.P. 22 (2009)
No. XIII. b. Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into
investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly, and
guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months following the investment,
the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was
charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa
(BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime,
or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of
violation of BP 22. Is Angelo’s contention tenable? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, his contention is not tenable. He committed as many
count of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 count of violation of BP 22, since each
swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different time
or dates, and in different amounts. Moreover, his drawing of separate checks payable to
each payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and
of different dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling and
issuing each check. It cannot be maintained that hi acts are the product of one criminal
resolution only. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Angelo committed only one count of
estafa and one count of violation of BP 22 because his acts were propelled by one and
the same intent to defraud (Santiago v. Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214[1993]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of
value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No.
1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense
of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the
presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal
property puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know
that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative
procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is
unlicensed in order to escape liability.
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any
similarity between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the
penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher,
whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower
than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from
robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the
penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory
to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the
crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence
under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The elements of fencing are: a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item , object or anything of
value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime; the accused knows or should have
known that said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft; and there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or
for another.
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three
bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed
Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that
the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. ...
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with
homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor
under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence.
Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing
that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law
of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it
from King and sold it.
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any
similarity between them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the
penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher,
whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower
than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from
robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the
penalty is one degree lower. Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to
prove criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code. SUGGESTED
ANSWER: Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes
of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of
robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No.
1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery. The mere fact
that the offense was committed on a highway would not be the determinant for the
application of PD No. 532. If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway,
is forcibly taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the
location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not be necessarily put the
offense within the ambit of PD No. 532. In this case, the crime committed is violation of
the Anti-Carnapping Act. Of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993).
Moreover, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the
purpose of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What was shown I one isolated
hijacking of a postal van. It was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously
attempted at similar robberies by them to establish the “indiscriminate” commission
thereof (Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1996).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As a public prosecutor, I would charge the 10 men who hijacked the postal van with
violation of PD 532. As oppose to brigandage under Article 306 of the RPC, highway
robbery under PD 532 does not require that there be at least four armed persons
forming a band of robbers. In this case, while there are ten (10) men who hijacked the
postal van, only two (2) were armed. Hence, they may be charged with highway robbery
under PD 532.
Carnapping 1993 No. 19:
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in
the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner
of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy,
who In his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a
jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger
was killed; the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The
car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20,000.00. What offense or offenses may
Dodoy be charged with? Discuss.
Answer:
Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property resulting from reckless
imprudence. Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the
object is enough to consummate the crime; although in the Dirio case, it is still frustrated
because there is inability to dispose freely the object.
With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were staying. F and D
died as a consequence. What is the proper charge against GGG?
a. GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder. b. GGG should be
charged with arson.
c. GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with double murder.
d. GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
D. If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fore is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the
crime committed is murder only. When the Code declare that killing committed by
means of fire is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to
that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder qualified by
means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is an inherent means to commit
the former (People v. Baluntong, GR No. 182061, March 15, 2010; People v. Cedenio,
GR No. 93485, June 27, 1994). A single act of burning the house of victims with the
main objective of killing resulting in their deaths resulted in the complex crime of double
murder committed by means of fire (People v. Gaffud, GR No. 168050, September, 19,
2008).
74. With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the two-storey
residential house of his employer, mostly made of wooden materials. The blaze
spread and gutted down seven neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire,
six (6) persons sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA?
a. AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple homicide.
b. AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c. AAA committed simple arson.
d. AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or office, but death
results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the
resulting homicide is absorbed (People v. Baluntog, GR No. 182061, March 15, 2010;
People v. Cedenio, GR No. 93485, June 27, 1994).
(37) Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by setting
Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami commit?
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nesting is not correct.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof
defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work,
education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any
other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement
for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed
when: xxx (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
Contrary to Nesting’s claim, it is enough that his acts result in creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 696 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2004,
2003 and 2000 Bar Examinations.
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had
sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and
under 18 years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. Although the
problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its
material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since Page 255 of
374 the essence of the crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to
her family (Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child
abuse" includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen
(18) years.
Art 336; Acts of lasciviousness 1993 No. 15
Mick, a gay foreigner, fondled and played with the private part of Egay, an 11
year-old boy, who enjoyed it and gladly received the P100.00 given him by the
foreigner. 1) What crime, if any, was committed by the foreigner? Explain. 2) If the
act was committed on Citry, an 11 year-old girl; would your answer be the same?
Discuss.
Answer:
1} Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstance of rape (Art. 336, RPC and RA. 7610)
2) Yes, acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex. (Art. 336, RPC)
Art 347; Simulation of birth & Child trafficking under RA 7619 2002 No XI
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C,
an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This
was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What
are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making
it appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons named therein are the parents
of the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child constitutes the
crime of simulation of birth. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking",
a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act
of buying and selling of a child.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all involved in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child, violate Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute
child trafficking which are penalized under Article IV of said law.
Child abuse; RA 7610 1993 No. 5:
Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year of
his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his
company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt.
Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for
herself in the streets in Manila, They were alone in one room in a beach resort
and stayed there for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between
them. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl P1,000.00 for her
services. She gladly accepted it.
1) What crime may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss.
2) What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain.
Answer:
1) The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act 7610, a
law providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination.
One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is
that of keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the
offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or
massage parlor, beach resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col. Agaton is a
retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child he kept company within a
private room in the beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must be an age difference
of more than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col.
Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and
thereafter he gave her P1,000.00 "for her services", constitutes the very evil punished,
among other acts, in said law. Page 355 of 374
2) The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may Interpose are that the child is related to
him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized in
law, or local customs and traditions, or that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral,
social, or legal duty (Sec. 10(b), Art. VI, RA 7610).
XVII
Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He
pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his
desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife caught him in
the act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610
(Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or
for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Braulio committed acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code. Under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code on acts of lasciviousness, the following elements must
be present:
(1) that the o4ender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and
(2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances:
(a) by using force or intimidation;
(b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
(c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age. In the case of Amployo v.
People,[13] the Court expounded on the definition of the term lewd, thus The term lewd
is commonly deRned as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or
intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or
unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred
by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as
lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature
of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances. What is or what is not
lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise deRnition. As
early as U.S. v. Gomez we had already lamented that “It would be somewhat difficult to
lay down any rule specially establishing just what conduct makes one amenable to the
provisions of article 439 of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct
must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to
determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be
extremely diPcult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between
such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover.”
Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610 states that: “Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article
336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period.” Thus, the accused in this case should be prosecuted under the Revised Penal
Code.
The elements of rape under Art. 266-A are not present in this case: :
(1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and
(2) that said act was accomplished
a) through the use of force or intimidation, or
(b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
(c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Based on the given facts,
there was no carnal knowledge.
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking
for P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams
in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre
Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed
but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she
does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter
Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his
house to work as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid
for the purpose of repaying her mother's loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by
any persons who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the
latter's will, retainh im in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be
liable as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12,
Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan's household to
pay her loan, did he commit a crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services
under compulsion and payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in order
to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him,
against his will, as household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal Code)