Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BAR Don Reviewer CriminalLaw
BAR Don Reviewer CriminalLaw
BAR Don Reviewer CriminalLaw
Q: JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, 1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry
a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. and Buddy commit?
Q: What is the quantum of proof required to Q: Albert desires that the present
prove the existence of a conspiracy government be overthrown. Albert, afraid to
A: Proof beyond reasonable doubt. commit it himself with others, suggest the
overthrowing of the government to some
Q: In the absence of conspiracy, if the desperate people who will do it at the
inculpatory facts and circumstance area slightest provocation.
capable of two or more explanations, one of Is albert liable for proposal or conspiracy to
which is consistent with the innocence of the commit rebellion?
accused and the other consistent with his A: No, Albert merely suggested it and there was
guilt, can we say that the evidence does not not a concrete and formal proposal. Moreover,
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not Albert was not determined to commit the felony
sufficient to support a conviction? which is essential in conspiracy crimes. [Reyes
A: Yes, the accused should be acquitted. Since p. 134]
the facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, then the required proof is Q: Benjamin conceived the idea of
not satisfied. overthrowing the present government.
Benjamin called several of his trusted
Q: Must the agreement between or among the followers and instructed them to go around
accused occur before the commission of the the country and secretly to organize groups
crime? and to convince them of the necessity of
A: Not necessarily. The existence of an having a new government. Is Benjamin liable
agreement may be seen at two different of conspiracy to commit rebellion?
moments in time either before or during the A: No, Benjamin merely proposed to organize
commission of the crime. group and therefore it was a mere a preparatory
To establish conspiracy, it is sufficient that there act for the commission of rebellion and not the
be a common purpose and design, concerted execution of the crime. Therefore, there is no
action and concurrence of interest and the criminal proposal. [Reyes p. 134]
minds of the parties meet understandingly so as Q: Degamo was holding Garate while Recones
to bring about a deliberate agreement to commit and Wahing were raining blows on the victim.
the offense, notwithstanding the absence of a Garate died as a result Is Degamo liable of the
formal agreement. crime of murder?
A: Yes, Degamo is liable for murder by reason of
Q: In trying to prove the existence of an conspiracy. Although accused Degamo did not
agreement, what are some doctrines that deliver the fatal blow, Degamo remains
should be kept in mind? accountable for the death of Garate on the
A: The following: principle that the act of one is the act of all.
1. Mere presence at the scene of the crime [Padilla p. 232]
at the time of the crime committed is not,
by itself, sufficient to establish Q: Amadeo is on his way home when 5 friends
conspiracy; (Boy, Kano, Elliot, Crisanto and Moroy)
2. Conspiracy transcends mere armed with assorted weapons and suddenly
companionship; blocked Amadeo.
3. Leaving the scene of the crime together Boy stabbed Ignacio. Another member joined
does not, by itself, establish conspiracy; but the evidence is unclear as to who that
4. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, r person was. Amadeo died as a result. The post
approval of the act, without cooperation mortem reports reveals that only one or two,
"H", "J", and "K" were charged with Homicide. Assuming conspiracy is
Is it proper to hold all the accused established, will your answer in problem (a)
responsible for the fatal wound inflicted upon be the same? Explain your answer.
the victim by "K"? A: Aki is liable for homicide because, while it is
A: It is not proper to hold H and J liable for the clear that he intentionally caused the death of
fatal wound inflicted upon the victim by K Caloy, none of the circumstances attendant to
because of the absence of conspiracy. He and J
murder are present. Intent to kill is clear as Aki
are not co-principals of K in the killing of the
lunged at Caloy, after the latter was inflicted a
victim. The liability of H, J and K is not collective
Discuss the individual and collective Q: What is the difference of imputability and
criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy, Hilario responsibility?
and Sakay. A: While imputability implies that a deed may be
A: There appears to be conspiracy amongst the imputed to a person, responsibility implies that
four offenders; in which case the act of one the person must take the consequence of such
becomes the act of all. Ergo, they are all liable deed.
for the consequent crime, which is robbery
under Art. 299, special complex crime of robbery Q: How many justifying circumstances are
with serious physical injuries, committed in an there?
inhabited house, by pretending to be persons in A: There are six (6) justifying circumstance,
authority. There is no band as only three are namely:
armed. 1. Self-defense,
2. Defense of Relative;
Sakay, who seems to have participated only as 3. Defense of Stranger;
lookout, still will be liable as principal because 4. Damage to Another (State of Necessity)
of the conspiracy. Even if there is none, he is Avoid an evil or injury
criminally liable as a principal by indispensable 5. Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of
cooperation. Right;
6. Obedience to an Order issued by a
The crime is definitely consummated as Superior for some Lawful Purpose
offenders have complete disposal of the subject
matter of the offense. Q: With justifying circumstances, is there a
crime, criminal or criminal liability?
Q: Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when A: No. The act is justified; hence, there is no
the commander of a vigilante group came to crime. There is no criminal nor criminal liability.
him and showed him a list of five policemen
Q: Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of What are the criminal liabilities of
her bracelet in her home. The following day, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to
at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a Yabang? Was there conspiracy and
neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an treachery? Explain.
unsavory reputation, came to her store to
buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her In turn, is Yabang criminally liable for
bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun- the death of Sergio?
Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went A: The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are
to a nearby police station and sought the help justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11, RPC,
of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He that is, self-defense or defense of a stranger, as
went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun they have reason to suspect that Yabang might
to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced not be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three
himself as a policeman and tried to get hold being friends and companions of the victim.
of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives
Reyes chased him and fired two warning and limbs from the unlawful aggression of
shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified
Q: When A saw B rushing towards him holding Q: X, a private citizen, saw two masked men
a bolo and poised to strike him, he break into a drug store across his home. He
immediately picked up a pointed iron bar and telephoned the police to come. Without
believing that his life was in danger as B was waiting for the police, he went outside his
close enough, he made a trust on B hitting house with a pistol and tried to intercept the
him on the stomach which caused the death thieves. He told them to stop but they did
of B thereafter. The truth, however, is that B not. He fired several shots at them, wounded
was merely trying to play a joke on C who was them and caused their hospitalization for 20
then behind A. Is A criminally liable for the days. May the thieves file any criminal case
death of B? State your reasons. against X? May X invoke the defense of the
A: A is not criminally liable because he acted in person or rights of a stranger?
self-defense due to mistake of facts. As the facts A: The thieves can file a criminal action against
of the problem state, A thrust the pointed iron X. In defense of the person or property of a
bar on B, hitting him on the stomach as he stranger, the elements of (1) unlawful
believed that his life was in danger because B aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the
was close enough when he rushed towards A means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
holding a bolo and poised to strike him. (U.S. vs. that the person defending must not be induced
Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488). Under the by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive,
circumstances, he had no time or opportunity to must be present. In self-defense of property, the
verify whether B was only playing a joke on C doctrine is that the attack on the property must
who was behind A. Hence, his mistake of the be coupled with an attack upon the person of the
facts was without fault or carelessness. He had possessor of the property. (People vs. Apolinar,
no alternative but to take the facts as they CA 38 O.G. 2870). The same rule should apply
appeared to him to justify his act. So A acted in to defense of the property of a stranger since the
good faith without criminal intent. first two elements of defense of a stranger are
also the first two elements of self-defense, that
Q: B repeatedly stabbed A with a kitchen is unlawful aggression and reasonable necessity
knife. A managed to escape with minor of the means employed to prevent or to repel it.
injuries, and to run away from B who The means employed by X in firing several shots
continued to pursue him. A, upon reaching at the thieves was not reasonable as there was
the safety of his house, took a scythe with no attack upon the person of the owner of the
which to defend himself against B. Thus drugstore or of any person present therein. Nor
armed, A went out of his house and dared B can there be defense of the person of a stranger
to come forward and fight. In the ensuing since unlawful aggression is absent.
struggle, A killed B. Charged with homicide,
A claimed self-defense. Is A entitled to the Q: "F" and "G" quarreled. "F" attacked "G"
justifying circumstance? Decide and give with a club two or three times, but "G" was
your reasons. able to parry the attack. "G" did not move
A: A is not entitled to the justifying circumstance backwards but struck back hitting "F" on his
of self-defense. There is no unlawful aggression head with a lead pipe which he picked up
on the part of the victim B. There are two stages from the ground, causing "F's" death.
Prosecuted for Homicide, "X" invoked the Q: "A" intending to kill "B", shot the latter
justifying circumstance of self-defense in with a gun at close range. Although hit but
killing "B". not mortally wounded, "B" grappled with "A"
for the possession of the gun until "B"
Would you uphold the defense? Explain succeeded in wresting it from his adversary.
briefly. Immediately thereafter, "B" fired the gun at
A: X cannot invoke the justifying circumstance "A" whom he killed. Prosecuted for homicide,
of self-defense. An essential requisite of self- "B" interposed self-defense. The prosecution
defense is unlawful aggression. The act of B in
however contended self-defense was
assaulting X when he found him and A, B's wife,
untenable because "A" had already been
lying together in bed in a room of the motel is
natural and lawful, as it was made by B, the disarmed. Decide, explaining fully your
deceived and offended husband in order to decision.
defend his honor and rights. X should have A: The contention of the prosecution that self-
known that having illicit relations with A, a defense was untenable because A had already
married woman, X being her former boy friend, been disarmed must be sustained. The reason is
he was performing an unlawful and criminal act there is no more aggression to be prevented or
that would expose him to the vengeance of the repelled. Upon almost identical facts, in the case
In the above given case, supposing Considering the circumstance of the case,
Ronald shot Dante and his (Ronald's) wife, unlawful aggression, the first element of self-
while Dante was on top of the latter, thus defense is present. Pedro loose his carabaos
killing both of them, will you grant him the which destroyed his plants and he then loose his
benefit of Article 247 of the Revised Penal carabaos which destroyed his plants and then
Code? Explain. immediately drew his revolver which Jose
A: The conviction of Dante was valid. He instinctively grabbed from Pedro's hand. In the
cannot claim self-defense as there was no struggle for the possession for the revolver, it
unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro
When Ronald drew his gun upon surprising his jumped for the gun, Jose unsheathed his dagger
wife locked in embrace with his compadre Dante and stabbed Pedro who fell down. Jose ran
while lying on their bed at their residence, his away. The intimidating attitude of Pedro when
act was natural and lawful as it was made by a he drew his revolver constitutes imminent
deceived and offended husband. The act of unlawful aggression. Jose did not give any
Dante in maintaining illicit relations with the provocation to Pedro. Pedro was in a violent
wife of his compadre was unlawful. mood and in the mind of Jose, was armed, with
revolver, in hand, and what Jose did in grabbing
Q: Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the gun was to prevent an aggression that is
the latter's house and angrily inquired why expected (People vs. Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355).
he let loose his carabaos which destroyed his Stabbing Pedro with a dagger was the only
plants. Pedro saw that Jose was armed with a available means to prevent the expected
dagger tucked on his waist and thinking that aggression considering that Jose acted by
Jose would react violently. Pedro following his instinct of self-preservation. The
immediately drew his revolver. Instinctively, flight of Jose after stabbing Pedro cannot be
Jose grabbed the gun from Pedro's hand and considered as evidence of guilt because he did
a struggle for possession of the gun ensued,
Q: When A arrived home, he found B raping Q: While C was approaching his car, he saw D
his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A slowly driving it away. So he shouted at D to
took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged stop but D instead accelerated his speed. To
with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense prevent his car from being car-napped, C
of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, drew at once hit revolver and fired at D who
can A claim the benefit of any mitigating was by then about twenty meters away,
circumstance or circumstances? fatally hitting him on the head. When
A: No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his charged for the death of D, C interpose the
daughter's honor in having killed B since the defense of his rights to property. If you were
rape was already consummated; moreover, B the judge, will you acquit or convict C?
already ran away, hence, there was no A: If I were the Judge, I would convict C. There
aggression to defend against and no defense to is no defense of his right to property because
speak of. although D drove the car of C away and he did
not stop in spite of his shouts for him to do so,
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the D had not attacked him. To be entitled to
mitigating circumstance of having acted in complete self-defense of property, the attack on
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a the property must be coupled with an attack
descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article upon the person of the owner or possessor of
13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. said property.
Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the Q: Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong
robber Gorio? State your reasons. to harvest coconuts from a plantation which
he told them belonged to him. Unknown to
Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he them, the ownership of the land was in
was running away from Enyong's house with dispute, and the registered owner
his television set, what is Enyong liable for? subsequently filed a case of qualified theft
Explain your answer. against them. How would you defend them?
A: Enyong is not criminally liable because Explain briefly.
he was acting in defense of property rights. A: I would defend them by citing U.S. vs. Ah
Under the case of People v. Narvaez (G.R Nos. L- Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of facts and
33466-67, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389} charge the owner with violation of Article 282 on
defense of property need not necessarily be grave threats. In U.S. vs. Ah Chong, the accused
coupled with aggression against persons. was exempted from criminal liability because he
performed an act which would be lawful had it
There is criminal liability this time with been true as he believed that "Grave, threats.
the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self- Any person who shall threaten another with the
defense. Under the case of People v. Narvaez, infliction upon the person, honor or property of
defense of property can be availed of even when the latter or of his family of any wrong
there is no assault against a person. It is amounting to a crime, shall suffer.
recognized as an unlawful aggression.
Q: Pat. Josue, a member of the INP Western
Q: The accused lived with his family in a Police District, together with two other
neighborhood that often was the scene of policemen, was chasing Katindig, a notorious
frequent robberies. At one time, past police killer. Katindig entered a nearby dimly
midnight, the accused went downstairs with lighted warehouse. Josue and his
a loaded gun to investigate what he thought companions continued pursuing him. When
were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After they reached the mezzanine, Josue saw a
seeing what appeared to him an armed man crouching behind a pile of boxes,
stranger looking around and out to rob the holding what appeared to be a long rifle.
house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the When the man suddenly stood up and faced
man. When the lights were turned on, the Josue and his companions, Josue fired at the
unfortunate victim turned out to be a man hitting him fatally. It turned out,
brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to however, that the deceased was the
get some light snacks. The accused was warehouseman who was holding a mere lead
indicted for serious physical injuries. Should pipe.
the accused, given the circumstances, be
convicted or acquitted? Why? Discuss Pat. Josue's criminal liability for the
A: Considering the given circumstances, namely; said killing stating your reasons.
the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the A: Patrolman Josue will not incur any criminal
time was past midnight, and the victim appeared liability. He can invoked in his favor mistake of
to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside facts due to good faith. Under the
his house, the accused could have entertained circumstances, Patrolman Josue shot the victim
an honest belief that his life and limb or those of in the honest belief that he was the notorious
Q: What are the elements of Art. 12 par. 5? Q: What are the elements of Art. 12 par. 7?
A: There are three elements: A: There are three elements:
1. That the compulsion is by means of 1. That an act is required by law to be done;
physical force 2. That a person fails to perform such at;
2. That the physical force must be 3. That his failure to perform such act was
irresistible due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
3. That the physical force must come from
a third person Q: What are absolutory causes?
A: These are defenses which have the same
Q: Can passion or obfuscation be considered effects as the exempting circumstances but they
as irresistible force? are not among those enumerated in Article 12.
A: No. They are found in certain Articles of the Revised
Penal Code or are developed by jurisprudence.
Q: What is the nature of the irresistible Those are where the act committed is a crime
force? but for reasons of public policy and sentiment
A: The force must be irresistible to reduce the there is no penalty imposed. Ex:
actor to a mere instrument who acts not only 1. Art. 6 spontaneous desistance;
without will but against his will. 2. Art. 20- accessories who are exempt from
The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be criminal liability;
present, imminent and impeding and of such a 3. Art. 19 par. 1 by profiting themselves
nature as to induce a well-grounded or assisting the offenders to profit by the
apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if effects of the crime.
the act is not done. A threat of future injury is 4. Art. 124 last par. The commission of a
not enough. crime shall be considered legal ground
The compulsion must be of such a character as for the detention of any person
to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape 5. Art. 247 par. 1, 2 Death or physical
or self-defense in equal combat. injuries inflicted under exception
circumstances
Q: What are the elements of Art. 12 par. 6? 6. Art. 280 par. 3 The provisions of this
A: There are two elements: article shall not be applicable to any
1. That the threat which causes the fear is person who shall enter anothers
of an evil greater than or at least equal dwelling for the purpose of preventing
to, that which is required to commit; some serious harm.
7. Art. 322 Persons exempt from
criminally liability
Is "A " criminally liable for the death of "C''? What is the criminal liability of A, if any?
Why? Explain.
A: A is not criminally liable. Since his service A: A is criminally liable for Robbery with force
pistol was snatched by B, in trying to regain its upon things.
possession, A was in the lawful exercise of a
right. When A succeeded in wresting the pistol No, A is not exempt from criminal
from the hand of B and it exploded with the liability under Art. 332 because said Article
bullet hitting C, A cannot incur any criminal applies only to theft, swindling or malicious
liability as he was performing a lawful act. Even mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
under the Civil Code, he is justified to employ
reasonable force to repel the unlawful Q: A raped X. In the process, X resisted and
deprivation of his property, (Art. 429, Civil slapped A. Angered, A grabbed a stone and hit
Code). Criminal intent is not present nor is there X. She was dying when A consummated the
negligence under the circumstances. The death sexual attack. A psychiatrist from the
of C was, therefore, accidental. National Center for Mental Health testified
that he conducted physical, mental and
Q: Nicandro borrowed Valeriano's gun, a high- psychological examinations on A and found
powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs. him to be suffering from a mental disorder
Nicandro was accompanied by his friend, classified under organic mental disorder with
Felix. On their way to the hunting ground, psychosis. A's father testified that A was
Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut, playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters,
Pedro told them where to hunt. Later, stole his mother's jewelry which he sold for
Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed low sums, wandered naked sometimes, and
it. The same bullet, however, that killed the oftentimes did not come home for extended
pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting periods of time. The prosecution on the other
Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May hand, presented an array of witnesses to
Nicandro be held liable for the death of prove A that was lucid before and after the
Pedro? Explain. crime was committed and that he acted with
A: Nicandro may be held liable for the death of discernment. After trial, the court convicted
Pedro. While Pedro's death would seem to be the accused and sentenced him to "life
accidental, the requisites of exempting imprisonment" considering that under the
circumstance of accident are not all present. Constitution death penalty could no longer
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano's high be imposed.
powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting wild
pigs, he committed the crime of illegal
Q: X, engaged in illegal gambling, was Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor,
accused of bribing Y, a policeman. X's defense Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
was fear of reprisal from the police in case of A: All are liable for the special complex crime of
non-payment of bribe money. He testified robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in
that when he attempted to stop giving bribe stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in
money to Y, the police raided his .boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping
establishment without warrant for half a Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl
dozen times. Y also threatened to plant to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in
incriminating evidence on him. X was also scooping up money from the cash box, and of
manhandled by Y on the pretext of resisting Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and
arrest. X would park his police jeep in front announcing the escape, are all indicative of
of his house obviously to drive away his conspiracy.
regular customers. X's defense is that he
bribe Y under the impulse of an The rule is settled that when homicide takes
uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater place as a consequence or on the occasion of a
injury. Please decide. robbery, all those who took part in the robbery
A: X's defense that he bribed Y, a policeman, are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery
under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of with homicide, unless the accused tried to
an equal or greater injury, is untenable. This prevent the killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA
exempting circumstance can be appreciated if a 218). Further, the aggravating circumstance of
person is compelled to commit a crime by craft could be assessed against the accused for
another through intimidation. It is also essential pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy,
that the person intimidated must not have any
opportunity for escape or to avoid the threat. The Although Rod is only 14 years old, his act of
facts of the problem show that X could have boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
easily reported to the authorities the alleged acts Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he
of harassment committed by the policeman. cannot invoke exemption from criminal liability
Lastly, the fear must not be speculative or under Art. 12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are,
fanciful but must be actual or real. All the acts however, entitled to two and one degrees lower,
testified to by X do not show any actual or direct respectively from the penalty of the principal
intimidation on the part of Y in case of non- under Art. 68. RPC.
payment of the bribe.
Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late
Q: Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the one night after rendering overtime. He was
store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie best friend, in the act of having sexual
posted themselves at the door. After ordering intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun
beer Ricky complained that he was and shot and killed Ken. The court found that
shortchanged although Mang Pandoy Ken died under exceptional circumstances
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky and exonerated Macky of murder but
whipped out a knife as he announced "Hold- sentenced him to destierro, conformably
up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to The court also ordered Macky to pay
prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the
Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly
people next door she was chased by Ronnie. order Macky to pay indemnity even though
As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, he was exonerated of murder? Explain your
Victor scooped up the money from the cash answer.
box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the A: No, the court did not act correctly in ordering
street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod the accused to indemnify the victim. Since the
was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and killing of ken was committed under the