Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW 1
Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW 1
Bar Qs 1990 2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2.5%)
seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South
China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian 1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino 2. Use of aliases in cinema and television
businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific" entertainment.
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain 3. In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085).
of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the
Philippine authorities. An information for homicide 4. Under the witness protection program a
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court person may
adopt a different identity (RA.
of Cebu City. He moved to quash the information 6981).
for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will 5. When he has been baptized or customarily
you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
known
by such alias.
6. When authorized by a competent court
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(CA. No.
142, as amended by RA. 6085).
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should 7. When properly indicated in a Certificate of
be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction
Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code).
over the crime committed since it was committed
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2013)
on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory
and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of
the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about
imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance
Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison
with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship
revenue
of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The
vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of earner for the country through a law providing for
Panama govern while it is in the high seas. premium accommodations for prisoners (other
than those under maximum security status) whose
USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED (2006)
wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country those who want long-term premium
Prepared by: LJC 2
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
The answer will be the same. The consent of A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and
Eunice would not confer jurisdiction on Philippine his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with
Courts. knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a
taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from
their destination, the group alighted and after
CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012) distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood
guard outside the house. Before A could enter the
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the
house, D left the scene without the knowledge of
power of Congress to enact penal laws? (5%)
the others. A stealthily entered the house and
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, Who are liable for the death of G and the physical
meaning it cannot provide punishment injuries of F?
without judicial proceedings.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or
degrading punishment.
A alone should be held liable for the death of G.
The object of the conspiracy of A, B, C, and D was
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the
offense without due process of law. stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable
FELONIES
for the death of G since the former was completely
CONSPIRACY (1997) unaware of said killing.
Prepared by: LJC 4
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury,
actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, contending that by preventing ST from shooting
B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
A and for contributing positive acts which led to
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
the realization of a common criminal intent. B
positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked SUGGESTED ANSWER:
F's escape. D, however, although part of the
No, AA's defense will not prosper because
conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left
obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC
the scene before A could enter the house where
and AA, such that the principle that when there is a
the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall
part of the conspiracy, he did not personally
govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to
participate in the execution of the crime by acts
be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence,
which directly tended toward the same end (People
justified as a defense of his father against the
vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also defend his father's life, cannot be regarded as an
held liable for the infliction of physical injuries evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a
upon F because there is no showing that he had lawful act.
knowledge of the plan to kill F.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not
CONSPIRACY; AVOIDANCE OF GREATER EVIL greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
(2004) criminal objective of stabbing FT.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. CONSPIRACY; CO-CONSPIRATOR (1998)
The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a
his gun but was prevented from shooting the
narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide
attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
will come from the other end of the alley and
Prepared by: LJC 5
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the Arturo is not liable because he was not able to
appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan not punishable unless expressly provided by law
shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-
was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to
Arturo, if any. [5%] the conspiracy.
demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict crime of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be
harm on their victims. inferred from the manner the offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was
CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH RAPE
committed by Fernando at a place "distant from
(1996)
the house" where the robbery was committed, not
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence,
with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, Fernando alone should answer for the rape,
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, rendering him liable for the special complex crime.
his wife, and three daughters were living. While (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June
SUGGESTED ANSWER: put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look
for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
him, B had already left the place. What was the
Robbery, while Fernando committed complex
participation and corresponding criminal liability of
Prepared by: LJC 7
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
each, if any? Reasons. 8% A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned execution are performed, is exculpatory.
killing and taking of the money appears to be Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime
for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to of robbery with homicide.
him, B had already left the place. What was the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
participation and corresponding criminal liability of
each, if any? Reasons. 8% A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of
robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal liability because he desisted. B's
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
B to kill C and take the latter's money. The planned execution are performed, is exculpatory.
killing and taking of the money appears to be Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.
intimately related as component crimes, hence a
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
or good motive. It is enough that the
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied,
discontinuance comes from the person who has
A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they
begun the commission of the crime but before all
have planned and agreed on the sequence of their
acts of execution are performed. A person who has
attack even before they committed the crime.
began the commission of a crime but desisted, is
Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a
absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one,
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already
who having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds
governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the
the call of his conscience and returns to the path of
store to carry out their criminal plan.
righteousness.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY (1998)
the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]
would be different if B then tried to stop A from
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
continuing with the commission of the crime; he
did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or
of the crime which both he and B designed, more persons participating in the commission of a
planned, and commenced to commit, would also crime collectively responsible and liable as co-
be the act of B because of their expressed
Prepared by: LJC 9
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
conspirators although absent any agreement to b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in
that effect, when they act in concert, the
commission of the crime will be considered as
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a co-
conspirators; and
common purpose or objective. The existence of a
c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
commission
of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation in pursuing the crime and
criminal participation, shall not render one
thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
criminally liable as co-conspirator.
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY; EFFECTS
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
(2003)
(2000)
State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded
its legal effects. 4%
to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
happened to be passing by, pointed to the four
culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A
inferred or deduced from the manner the
even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed
participants in the commission of crime carried out
X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X
its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert
was not inside the room and nobody was hit or
in the commission of the crime, meaning that their
injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable
acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way
for any crime? Explain. (3%)
indicative that they are pursuing a common
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall
Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson
be collective, not individual.
because of the destruction of the room of X with
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are: the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability
for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the
a) Not all those who are present at the scene of
act committed would not constitute any other
the
crime will be considered conspirators;
crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the
facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs.
Prepared by: LJC 10
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled process, sustains injuries or dies, the person
that the liability of the offender was for an committing the felonious act is responsible for
impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497;
said case, which constitutes a more serious crime People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
though different from what was intended,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT;
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT OF PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)
SCARING (1996)
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon
board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from him a two- inch wound on his right palm. Vicente
Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the was not able to hack Anacleto further because
incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot
of the bus, jumped out of the window and while Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was
lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the accordingly charged by the police at the
road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast prosecutor's office for attempted homicide.
moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Twenty- five days later, while the preliminary
investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol
to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus
and Benjamin although he was completely
infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by
unaware that the two jumped out of the bus?
Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.
Explain.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts
regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student
death because without such wound, no tetanus and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was
infection could develop from the victim's right declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get
palm, and without such tetanus infection the even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
victim would not have died with it. day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding
house and placed a rubber snake which appeared
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
(2000)
weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
a. What is an impossible crime? (2%) b. Is an opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar
impossible crime really a crime? (2%) died without regaining consciousness. The police
investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
culprit and he was charged with Homicide for
An impossible crime is an act which would be an Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that
offense against person or property, were if not for he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency shall be given the benefit of the mitigating
or propensity although no crime was committed.
circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art.
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF 13, par. 3, RPC).
SCARING (2001)
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She the latter's consent and took liberty with the
did not openly show her preference but on two letter's backpack where he placed the rubber
snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. and hit Belle causing her death.
And any act done by him while committing a
Was Gaston criminally liable?
What is the liability
felony is no less wrongful, considering that they
of Gaston? Why? (4%)
were part of "plans to get even with Cesar".
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a
practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even
considering that they are not friends but in fact though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle rather just
rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to to scare Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent
the case of People vs. Pugay, et al. to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised Penal
Code, provides in part that criminal liability shall be
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
incurred by any person committing a felony
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of although the wrongful act done be different from
frightening another is not a crime. What he did that which he intended. In other words, the rule is
may be wrong, but not all wrongs amount to a that when a person, by a felonious act, generates
crime. Because the act which caused the death of in the mind of another a sense of imminent
Cesar is not a crime, no criminal liability may arise danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
therefrom. avoid such danger and in the process, sustains
injuries or dies, the person committing the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT OF
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or
SCARING (2005)
death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs.
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
natural and logical consequence of Gaston's materially contributed to and hastened A's death.
felonious act. (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037). Even though B may have acted without intent to
kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT;
when the victim dies. However, B may be given the
IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003)
mitigating circumstance of having acted without
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
B could be held liable for parricide because his act approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them.
of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from
inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A Scott's waist. But Rustom pulled Olive's hand
person committing a felonious act incurs criminal causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then
with, or for purposes of, the robbery.
Will you presumed dead and came across the name of his
sustain the defense? Why? (4%) grandfather who had raised him from childhood
after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being ran amuck and, using his balisong, started
felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's stabbing at the passengers who then scampered
death, the offender is liable therefore although it away, with three of them Jumping out of the train
may not be intended or different from what he and landing on the road below. All the three
whether the killing was intentional or accidental, who jumped out of the moving train? State your
robbery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love the passengers and such wrongful act was the
was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of
afternoon when he visited her. When he left her the train; hence their deaths.
escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. (2004)
497}
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT; SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to
PROXIMATE CAUSE (2004) get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a
substance into YO's coffee thinking it was arsenic.
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney.
It turned out that the substance was white sugar
Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney.
substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to
Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled
YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal
out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-
liability did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)
up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible
pavement, causing his instant death . Is XX liable
crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred
for ZZ's death? Explain briefly. (5%)
by any person performing an act which would be
SUGGESTED ANSWER: an offense against persons or property, were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of
accomplishment or on account of the employment
pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up,
of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2,
coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and
RFC).
cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act
was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of In the problem given, the impossibility of
the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime
otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural against persons, was due to the employment of
and logical consequence of XX's felonious act ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison.
which created an immediate sense of danger in the The law imputes criminal liability to the offender
mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by although no crime resulted, only to suppress his
jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a
SCRA 1037). criminal though objectively, no crime was
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at
of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical
the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the impossibility which renders the crime intended
Buddy commit? [3%]
2. Suppose that, because of CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES;
his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be KIDNAPPING (2000)
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the
your answer to the first question be the same?
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and
[2%]
fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's
parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the
"impossible crime" because, with intent to kill,
ransom note was received by Carla's parents,
they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate
Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police.
Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not
Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and
poisoned only because the would-be killers were
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note
unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun
was not received by Carla's parents, the
was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act
investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of
done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
"Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against
would have constituted a crime against persons
Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means
employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them SUGGESTED ANSWER:
although no crime resulted, because their act of
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for
trying to poison Jun is criminal.
"impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts
Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less which when performed would be a crime against
serious physical injuries for causing the persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime
hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days against personal security and not against persons
to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by or property, Enrique could not have incurred an
Jun the matter which required such medical "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is
attendance, committed with criminal intent, thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.
renders them liable for the resulting injury.
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (1997)
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala
crimes mala prohibita.
prohibita"(3%)
2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
same time, malum prohibitum?
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily
evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The violated.
moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good
Mala in se is incurred when the crime is only
faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the
attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala
offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result
prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred
of criminal negligence. Correspondingly,
only when the crime is consummated.
modifying circumstances are considered in
punishing the offender. Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are appreciated in
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA (2003)
imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated
implications, between crimes mala in se and unless the special law has adopted the scheme or
crimes mala prohibits. 4%
scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
In legal implications: In crimes mala in se, good shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr.
faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill
defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration
or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; which declared the shipment as children's toys, the
taxes and duties of which were computed at punishable, may the accused be nevertheless
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned convicted for an offense punished by the Revised
documents with the Manila International Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain.
Container Port. However, before the shipment was (3%)
released, a spot check was conducted by Customs
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that
the contents of the van (shipment) were not Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime
children's toys as declared in the shipping was not consummated is correct, RA. 3019 is a
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a
recorders with taxes and duties computed at rule, attempted violation of a special law is not
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure punished. Actual injury is required.
Yes, both are
and detention were then issued by the District liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of
Collector of Customs. Further investigation commercial documents, a complex crime.
showed that Moonglow is non-existent.
MALUM IN SE VS. MALUM PROHIBITUM (2005)
Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were
charged with and convicted for violation of Section Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum.
3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among (2%)
others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to any party, including the Government. In the
discharge of official functions through manifest
In crimes malum in se, an act is by nature wrong,
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The
negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the
moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good
accused alleged that the decision was erroneous
faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the
because the crime was not consummated but was
offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result
only at an attempted stage, and that in fact the
of criminal negligence. Correspondingly,
Government did not suffer any undue injury.
modifying circumstances are considered in
punishing the offender.
a) Is the contention of both accused correct?
Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the attempted or In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not by nature
frustrated stage of the violation charged is not
Prepared by: LJC 22
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished because case? When is it
not necessary to be
there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and established? Explain. (3%)
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the prohibited act is not a defense.
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means 5. In crimes committed through reckless
to achieve the desired result; while motive is the imprudence.
moving power which impels a person to act for a
CONSPIRACY (2012)
definite result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or
malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies; Define conspiracy. (5%)
while motive is not an element of a crime but only
considered when the identity of the offender is in SUGGESTED ANSWER:
doubt.
When two or more persons come to an agreement
MOTIVE; PROOF THEREOF; NOT ESSENTIAL; concerning the commission of a felony and decide
CONVICTION (2006) to commit it, there is conspiracy.
for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B”
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally
Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence. liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable
for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be
CONSPIRACY VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT considered as a manner of incurring liability.
REBELLION VS. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF MURDER (2009)
MURDER (2012)
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in
Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft, Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School.
swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at
committed is robbery. Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit
the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely.
**EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; MINORITY
Realizing what she had caused, Katreena
(1998)
immediately helped Pomping. When investigated,
John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching she freely admitted to the school principal that she
the television program "Zeo Rangers." One was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye.
evening while he was engrossed watching his After the incident, she executed a statement
admitting her culpability. Due to the injury. 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be
Pomping lost his right eye. exempt from criminal liability, unless it was
proved that she acted with discernment.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)
She is however civilly liable;
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying
circumstance under Article 12. paragraph and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
the actor;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b. The act is done within legal bounds,
hence
considered as not a crime;
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape
criminal;
was already consummated; moreover, B already
d. There being no crime nor criminal, ran away, hence, there was no aggression to
there is no
criminal nor civil liability.
defend against and no defense to speak of.
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun.
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER (2002)
As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B police station and sought the help of a policeman
with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia
stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat.
actually the aggressor because he had earlier Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried
challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away.
the latter was about to stab B. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots
in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he
May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
was about 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in
justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but
in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty
who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or
offense committed be the unavoidable or
Prepared by: LJC 29
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
necessary consequence of the due performance of included in self- defense, must have been done to
the duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is
not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of no defense to speak of where the unlawful
a duty. aggression no longer exists.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR; ELEMENTS
already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes (2000)
to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was
beyond the call of duty which brought about the
sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut
cause of death of the victim.
beside the seashore when she was awakened by
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF HONOR; the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it
REQUISITES (1998) was her husband, Gardo,who had returned from
fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but
One night, Una, a young married woman, was
allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor,
sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man
Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After
on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito,
Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as
who came home a day early from his business trip,
he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize
Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the
that the man was not her husband. Enraged,
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did."
Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and
Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina
stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide,
that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious,
Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim
Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged
be sustained? Why? (5%)
with homicide Una denies culpability on the
ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[5%]
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: be sustained because the aggression on her honor
had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor,
defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the
is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on
RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1)
her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as
Prepared by: LJC 30
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person Yes. I would convict the security guard for
making a defense. Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured
performance of a duty cannot fully be justified.
or disabled party already ceased to exist when the
Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall
accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the
of the factory compound to commit a crime inside
attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense.
the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even
Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not
admitting that such act is considered unlawful
govern.
aggression on property rights. In People vs.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to
the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense defend his property rights, but all the elements of
of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave self-defense under Art. 11, must be present. In the
offense committed against her, which is only instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second
mitigating. element (reasonable necessity of the means
employed) is absent. Hence, he should be
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF PROPERTY;
convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete
REQUISITES (1996)
self-defense.
armed stranger looking around and out to rob the Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he
house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. acted out of an honest mistake of fact and
When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate therefore without criminal intent. An honest
victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus
to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The absolves the accused from criminal liability.
accused was indicted for serious physical injuries.
QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME (2003)
Should the accused, given the circumstances, be
convicted or acquitted? Why? 4% When would qualifying circumstances be deemed,
if at all, elements of a crime? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even
assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful element of a crime when -
aggression on his person is not justified. Defense
a. it changes the nature of the crime,
of property or property right does not justify the
bringing about a more serious crime
act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and
and a heavier penalty;
limb of the accused is already in imminent and
b. it is essential to the crime involved,
immediate danger. Although the accused acted
otherwise some other crime is
out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
committed; and
absolved from criminal liability.
c. it is specifically alleged in the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Information and proven during the trial.
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the
frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of
an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house,
a crime when it is specifically stated by law as
the accused could have entertained an honest
included in the definition of a crime, like treachery
belief that his life and limb or those of his family
in the crime of murder.
are already in immediate and imminent danger.
aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission when diagnosed after he committed the crime,
of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing insanity as a defense to the commission of crime
Jake would render her criminally liable as must have existed and proven to be so existing at
accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise the precise moment when the crime was being
without knowledge of Jake‟s commission of the committed. The fact of the case indicate that
felony, she would not be liable. Romeo committed the crime with discernment.
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad,
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Romeo was having an affair with his maid
Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going
back to the province to marry her childhood back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy,
Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was
sleeping in the maid’s quarters. sleeping in the maid’s quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic The following day, Romeo was found catatonic
inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where
he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a
defense.
defense.
Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH
SUGGESTED ANSWER: on the case? (2%)
furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his crime of ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH HOMICIDE
malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A because a single act caused a less grave and a
heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)....
ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45
following defenses:
caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought That the accused had no intention to commit
that after all, explosions were everywhere and so grave a wrong as that committed as they
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja merely intended to frighten Jepoy;
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
That Jonas committed the crime in a state of
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
intoxication thereby impairing his will power or
yard in order to provoke him so that he would
capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his
come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber
circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600
gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit
(1997); Art. 15, RPC.).
Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind
him, killing the boy instantaneously,
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999)
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC 36
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He
Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced
is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of and surrendered to the authorities about two years
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty
Court is immaterial as it was made during but, after the prosecution had presented two
preliminary investigation only and before a court witnesses implicating him to the crime, he
not competent to render judgment. changed his plea to that of guilty.
1. That the ACCUSED SPONTANEOUSLY elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the
PLEADED guilty to the crime charged;
accused should be considered mitigating because
it was done spontaneously, indicative of the
2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE THE
remorse or repentance on the part of said accused
COURT COMPETENT to try the case and
and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved
render judgment; and
the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
expenses in looking for the accused. voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is
spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.
mitigating circumstance because the prosecution
This must be either (a) because he acknowledges
had already started with the presentation of its
his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save them the
evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).
trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his
MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1996) search and capture. (Reyes' Commentaries, p. 303).
Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle
commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with
with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the
the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to
stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of
investigate, was held to be mitigating
Police of the town, accompanied by several
circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes'
policemen, went to Hilario's house. Hilario, upon
Commentaries, p. 299)
seeing the approaching policemen, came down
from his house to meet them and voluntarily went MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY SURRENDER;
b. made before the government incurs expenses, minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted
time and effort in tracking down the offender's with discernment) are privileged mitigating
whereabouts; and
circumstances.
PRIVILEGE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012) the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and
69), the presence of privileged mitigating
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)
circumstance has the effect of reducing the
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that penalty one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary
mitigate criminal liability of the crime being mitigating circumstances can be off-set by the
modified to one or two degrees lower. These aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating
circumstances cannot be off- set by aggravating circumstances are not subject to the off- set rule.
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, because the killings were by reason (to prevent
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, identification) and on the occasion of the robbery.
his wife, and three daughters were living. While The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's several persons were killed [homicide), would be
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's considered as aggravating circumstances. The
daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the
finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People
distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA
back the daughter to the house, raped her first. 531)
Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of
c) The aggravating circumstances which may be
Danilo and his family.
considered in the premises are:
a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
1. Band because all the four offenders are
Fernando commit? Explain.
armed;
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns 2. Noctumity because evidently the offenders
in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the took advantage of nighttime;
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the 3. dwelling; and
whole family to prevent identification, what crime 4. Uninhabited place because the house
did the four commit? Explain. where the crimes were committed was "at
a desolate place" and obviously the
c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating
offenders took advantage of this
circumstances may be appreciated against the
circumstance in committing the crime.
four? Explain.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; GENERIS
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
VS. QUALIFYING (1999)
b) Relationship, because the offended party is a during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly,
killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny,
homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy
Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve,
to prove that the killing was committed by means Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the crime or that they took advantage of found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are
nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). both crimes against property, embraced under the
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised
that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. Penal Code. The implication is that he is
specializing in the commission of crimes against
However, band should be considered as the crime
property, hence aggravating in the conviction for
was committed by more than three armed
Robbery with Homicide.
malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision,
stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an
additional penalty when an offender is convicted a
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly
1. The convictions are not for crimes Would you say that the killing was attended by the
embraced in the
same Title of the Revised qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident
Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful
was committed by the offender before entry?
serving sentence by final judgment for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating against the accused because he resolved to kill the
circumstance which cannot be offset by any victim "later in the night" and there was no
mitigating circumstance.
sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution, to allow his conscience to
AGGRAVATING; TREACHERY & UNLAWFUL
overcome the resolution of his will.
ENTRY (1997)
2. TREACHERY may be present because the
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent
accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means
one big house. The accused suspected his wife of
and methods which directly and specially insured
having an illicit relation with the victim. One
the execution of the act without risk himself
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
arising from the defense which the victim might
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the
have made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but
vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91).
being so annoyed over the suspected relation
between his wife and the victim, he could not 3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there
sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. is no showing that the accused deliberately sought
He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his
entered the apartment of the victim through an act. The Intention to commit the crime was
unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim conceived shortly before its commission (People vs
soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is
inflicting several wounds, which caused his death absorbed in treachery.
within a few hours.
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an
Prepared by: LJC 44
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After and even produced a receipt covering the sale.
having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her
argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be
suffered serious physical injuries. May the found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of
intoxication of A be considered aggravating or the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal
indication from the facts of the case that it was possession of any article of value which has been
habitual or intentional on the part of A. the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
Aggravating circumstances are not to be evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is
presumed; they should be proved beyond upon the accused to prove that she acquired the
111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property accused; this is not so in violations of Revised
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrases Penal Code.
that he should have known or ought to know that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides,
she should have followed the administrative Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the
procedure under the decree that of getting a acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of
clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as
unlicensed in order to escape liability. fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of
robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING VS. THEFT OR
the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D.
ROBBERY (1995)
No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA
What is the difference between a fence and an 63]
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain.
Is there any
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING; ELEMENTS
similarity between them?
(1995)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What are the elements of fencing?
One difference between a fence and an accessory
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence
is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and The elements of fencing are:
the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to
i. a crime of robbery or theft has been
robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is
committed;
punished two degrees lower than the principal,
ii. accused, who is not a principal or
unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or
highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree
manner deals in any article, item , object
lower.
or anything of value, which has been
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore derived from the proceeds of said crime;
there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
Prepared by: LJC 46
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
iii. the accused knows or should have known King committed the composite crime of Rape with
that said article, item, object or anything homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a
of value has been derived from the from complex crime, and Theft. ...
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge
theft; and
of the commission of the crime and obviously to
iv. there is on the part of the accused, intent
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its
to gain for himself or for another.
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES & FENCE rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev.
(1998) Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability
therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
King went to the house of Laura who was alone.
adopted brother of the principal.
Laura offered him a drink and after consuming
three bottles of beer. King made advances to her Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory
and with force and violence, ravished her. Then to the crime of theft committed by King, or as
King killed Laura and took her jewelry. fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King,
the exemption under Article 20 does not include
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about
the participation he did, because he profited from
the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her
the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry
body, cleaned everything and washed the
knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or
bloodstains inside the room.
Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the
piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent
that the jewelry was taken from Laura but to gain, he received it from King and sold it.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose ACCESSORY (2004)
the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
briefly. (5%)
started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's
fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing
No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became
exemption from criminal liability of an accessory furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his
by virtue of relationship with the principal does not malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A
cover accessories who themselves profited from or heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
assisted the offender to profit by the effects or ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45
accessory, though related to the principal of the caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought
Revised Penal Code. that after all, explosions were everywhere and
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY DIRECT
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
PARTICIPATION; CO- PRINCIPAL BY
started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (2000)
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he
Despite the massive advertising campaign in would come out of his house. When Jepoy came
media against firecrackers and gun-firing during out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45
the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the
bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was
Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, following behind him, killing the boy
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct facts of the case indicate that B, the killer
participation and Jaja as co-principal by supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to
Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime kill C out of a long standing grudge.
of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL;
as co-principal and not only as an accomplice
INDUCEMENT & PARTICIPATION (1994)
because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even
before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
concurred in that criminal design by providing the Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
firearm. construct a new building but had no money to
finance the construction. So, she insured the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY
building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy
INDUCEMENT (2002)
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice her building so she could collect the insurance
done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said
willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward building resulting to its total loss.
promised to him but because he also had his own
What is their respective criminal liability?
long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable SUGGESTED ANSWER:
as a principal by inducement? (5%)
Tata is a principal by inducement because she
SUGGESTED ANSWER: directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or
monetary consideration, to commit arson which
No. A would not be liable as a principal by
the latter would not have committed were it not
inducement because the reward he promised B is
for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals
not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill
by direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal,
the inducement made by the inducer must be the DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (1994)
sole consideration which caused the person
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
induced to commit the crime and without which
Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
the crime would not have been committed. The
construct a new building but had no money to also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but
finance the construction. So, she insured the told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie,
building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want
her building so she could collect the insurance Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%)
building resulting to its total loss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?
Ruben‟s liability is that of an accomplice only
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he merely cooperated in Ponciano‟s
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is
destructive arson because they collectively caused not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing
the destruction of property by means of fire under was carried out without the use of Ruben‟s gun.
the circumstances which exposed to danger the Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-
life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as conspirator since he was not a participant in the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in
Accomplices are those persons who, not being a the killing of Freddie because his act of lending his
principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense gun to Ponciano did not have the relation between
by previous or simultaneous acts (Article 18) the acts done by the latter to that attributed to
Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun,
ACCOMPLICE (2009) Ponciano would have consummated the act of
killing Freddie. In other words, Ruben‟s act in
No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying
lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable
that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben
Ponciano to consummate the crime.
Prepared by: LJC 50
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1) a robbery or also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that
theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith
took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, and lacking of any knowledge that the subject car
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, is a carnapped vehicle.
sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate
manner deals in any article or object taken” during
from the Land Transportation Office showing that
that robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or
the vehicle had been previously reported as
should have known of that the thing was derived
carnapped.
form that crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he
intends to gain for himself or for another. Here, Consequently, in light of the satisfactory
someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto explanation of Roberto of his possession of the
who did not take part in the crime. Roberto should vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft
have known also that the car was stolen because it upon a person found in possession of the stolen
was not properly documented as the deed of sale personal property finds no application in the
and registration certificate did not reflect the instant case.
correct numbers of the vehicle‟s engine and
There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to
chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check
warrant the prosecution of Riberto for any
the papers covering his purchase. Lastly,
wrongdoing.
Roberto‟s defense of good faith is flawed because
Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2010)
therefore, its violation in regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
(Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184, January 25, garments, more popularly known as"ukay-ukay."
The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge
car form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the prosper? Why or why not? (5%)
subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is
SUGGESTED ANSWER: have known” that the goods or articles had been
the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]).
No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper.
Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to
“Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent
the prima facie presumption of fencing.
to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any
manner with an article of value which he knows or CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES (2013)
should be known to him to have been derived from
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in
the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612).
August, 1998 while Abelardo was in his office,
Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must
Modesto, together with two other men in police
first be established that a theft or robbery of the
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto
article subject of the alleged fencing has been
asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
committed --- fact which is wanting in this case.
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in
later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of
the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the
money that, in his rough count, could not be less
nature of movable property carries with it a prima
than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault
facie presumption of ownership. The presumption
and soon he heard the news that a gang that
of “fencing” arises only when the article or item
included Modesto had been engaged in bank
involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery
robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under
(Sec. 5, PD 1612).
the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2009) in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and
secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted
No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D.
that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to
prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)
articles found in his possession had been the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
subject of robbery.
Article 19 of the Code, such person must have light felonies are excluded even though resulting
knowledge of the commission of the crime. The from the same single act.
term “knowledge “ under the law is not
COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to
synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that
commit an offense as a necessary means for
the crime has been committed is not sufficient.
committing another offense. Only one information
Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the
show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects more serious crime shall be imposed.
of the crime as Abelardo is described as being
COMPLEX CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX
“unsure of what to do under the circumstances.”
CRIME VS. DELITO CONTINUADO (2005)
Even if he can be considered as an accessory under
Distinguish the following from each other:
paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo is not
liable, being the brother of Modesto under Article SUGGESTED ANSWER:
20, RPC.
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of
PENALTIES two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in
COMPLEX CRIME VS. COMPOUND CRIME
one information either because they were brought
(2004)
about by a single felonious act or because one
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound offense is a necessary means for committing the
and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
information so that only one penalty shall be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime,
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender the penalty for the most serious crime shall be
committed only a single felonious act from which imposed and in its maximum period
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja you decide the case?
lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's
yard in order to provoke him so that he would If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito and find
come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at
gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Paulo resulted in the commission of two felonies,
Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind one grave (homicide) and the other less grave
him, killing the boy instantaneously, (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under
Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be
more serious crime (homicide} in its maximum
charged with? Explain. (2%)
period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex used as a defense as it is not an exempting
crime of attempted murder with homicide because circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle
a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony of Art. 4, RPC, which makes a person criminally
(Art. 48. RPC). liable for all the natural and logical consequences
of his felonious act
Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while
consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP D’ETAT &
punishable by afflictive penalties. REBELLION & SEDITION (2003)
COMPLEX CRIME; DOCTRINE OF ABERRATIO 1) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat
ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE (1996)
with rebellion? 2%
At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo 2) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat
but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in with sedition? 2%
the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from
criminal liability.
If you were the judge, how would 1.) Yes, if there was conspiracy between the
Prepared by: LJC 58
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
offender/ offenders committing the coup the military or national police. Art.
d'etat and the offenders committing the 48 of the Code may apply under the
rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one conditions therein provided.
would be the crime of the other and vice
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
versa. This is possible because the offender
in coup d'etat may be any person or The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed
persons belonging to the military or the with the crime of rebellion because both crimes are
national police or a public officer, whereas directed against the Government or for political
rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the purposes, although the principal offenders are
crime of coup d'etat may be committed different. The essence may be the same and thus
singly, whereas rebellion requires a public constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two
uprising and taking up arms to overthrow crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be
the duly constituted government. Since the proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.
two crimes are essentially different and
COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION OF THE
punished with distinct penalties, there is no
CRIME (1999)
legal impediment to the application of Art.
48 of the Revised Penal Code.
A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
a. Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
with sedition because the two persons who were seated in a cockpit with one
crimes are essentially different and burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire.
distinctly punished under the Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having
Revised Penal Code. Sedition may hit by different bullets coming from the sub-
not be directed against the machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were
Government or non-political in filed against A.
objective, whereas coup d'etat is
always political in objective as it is The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
committed by A for the reason that, since A
directed against the Government
performed only one act, he having pressed the
and led by persons or public officer
trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed
holding public office belonging to
was murder. Consequently, the trial judge
Prepared by: LJC 59
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
being automatic, the offender need only press the CRIME VS. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME (2003)
made up of two or more crimes which are carried out in the same place and at about the
considered only as components of a single same time, and violating one and the same penal
indivisible offense being punished in one provision provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
of the Revised Penal Code. criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a
AS TO PENALTIES -
In ORDINARY COMPLEX
particular crime, violating one and the same penal
CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious
be imposed and in its maximum period.
acts violating a common right, a common penal
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is provision, and impelled by a single criminal
specifically prescribed for all the component impulse (People vs. Le- desma, 73 SCRA 77).
Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing "continuing crime" is more pertinently used with
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he 2) In the absence of the birth
was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the certificate, age of the victim maybe
information that the victim was a minor below proven by authentic document,
seven years old, and her mother testified that she such as baptismal certificate and
was only six years and ten months old, which her school records;
aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The 3) If the aforesaid documents are
information also alleged that the accused was the shown to have been lost or
victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution. destroyed or otherwise unavailable,
the testimony, if clear and credible
On automatic review before the Supreme Court,
of the victim's mother or any
accused-appellant contends that capital
member of the family, by
punishment could not be imposed on him because
consanguinity or affinity, who is
of the inadequacy of the charges and the
qualified to testify on matters
insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the
respecting pedigree such as the
elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond
exact age
or date of birth of the
reasonable doubt. Is appellant's contention
offended party pursuant to Section
correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
1) The primary evidence of the age of 12 years of age and what is sought
the victim is her birth certificate; to be proved is that she is less than
more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns
twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA punishable under the old law [RA No,4] with
184) imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The
trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (1999)
imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal State with reasons whether the court may
Code, the maximum term of the Indeterminate correctly impose the following penalties:
sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable
a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
under the same Code after considering the
attending mitigating and/or aggravating
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
circumstances according to Art, 64 of said Code.
Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a
The minimum term of the same sentence shall be
straight penalty may be imposed. (People v.
fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in
Arellano, G.R. No, 46501, October 5, 1939)
degree to that prescribed for the crime under the
said Code. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
maximum and the minimum terms of the minimum imposable penalty shall be imposed but
indeterminate sentence? (2%) the maximum shall not exceed the maximum
imposable by law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence. year (Sec. 2, Art. 4103, as amended).
at the
time of approval of this Act; and
subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay
10) those whose sentence imposes penalties the civil liability pertaining to such offender
which do
not involve imprisonment, like without prejudice to recovery from those whose
destierro.
share have been paid by another.
PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT VS. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT (2005)
fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%)
grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate
The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion Sentence Law should be the minimum of the
temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the
penalty next lower in degree, which is prision
Taking into account the attendant aggravating and
mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12
mitigating circumstances, and applying the
years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the
and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as
proper penalty to be imposed on the accused.
maximum. I believe that because of the remaining
2) An accused is credited with the full time of his the fact that the penalties of reclusion perpetua
preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily agreed and life imprisonment are not synonymous and
in writing to abide by the rules of the institution should be applied correctly and as may be
imposed upon its prisoners, provided that: specified by the applicable law. Reclusion perpetua
has a specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40
a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime
years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art. 41),
committed consists of a deprivation of liberty;
while life imprisonment has no definite term or
b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a accessory penalties. Also, life imprisonment is
recidivist, or for having been previously convicted imposable on crimes punished by special laws, and
for two or more times of any crime, or for having not on felonies in the Code (People vs. De Guzman,
failed to surrender voluntarily for the execution of G.R. Nos. 51385-86, Jan. 22, 1993; People vs.
the sentence upon being so summoned (Art. 29, Estrella, G.R. Nos. 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People
RPC). vs. Alvero, G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993; People vs.
Lapiroso, G.R. No. 122507, Feb. 25, 1999).[see
Where the accused however did not agree he
Criminal Law Conspectus, page 156]
would only be credited with 4/5 of the time he had
undergone preventive imprisonment. PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
IMPRISONMENT (1994)
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA (RA) NO.
7959 (2005) Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life
imprisonment.
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion SUGGESTED ANSWER:
provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua other and therefore, should not be used
has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day interchangeably.
to forty [40] years under Republic Act 7659, while
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the
life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion
Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of
perpetua may be reduced by one or two degrees;
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years,
reclusion perpetuates accessory penalties while life
and carries it with accessory penalties.
imprisonment does not have any accessory
penalties (People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty
vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546). prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration
of imprisonment and without any accessory
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE
penalty.
IMPRISONMENT (2001)
b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were
issued by the court but after the lapse of the period remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a
of probation, Maganda transferred residence "Motion for Probation" praying that execution of
without prior approval of the court. May the court his sentence be suspended, and that a probation
revoke the Order of Probation and order her to officer be ordered to conduct an Investigation and
serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. to submit a report on his probation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judge denied the motion on the ground that
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
took effect on July 16,1986, no application for
Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
probation shall be entertained or granted if the
must first be issued by the court an order of final
defendant has perfected an appeal from the
discharge based on the report and
judgment of conviction.
recommendation of the probation officer. Only
then can the case of the probationer be Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
terminated. (Bala v. Martinez, G.R. No. 67301,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
January 29, 1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto
PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (1994)
Prepared by: LJC 74
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
was qualified for probation but that at the time of TERM (1997)
his application for probation, he is no longer
The accused was found guilty of grave oral
qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The
defamation in sixteen (16) informations which
qualification for probation must be determined as
were tried jointly and was sentenced in one
of the time the application is filed in Court
decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one
(Bernardo vs. Judge, etal. GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10.
(1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight
1992; Edwin de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-
(8) months of prision correccional. Within the
19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al,
period to appeal, he filed an application for
GR No. 84859, June 28, 1989; Bernardo us. Judge
probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as
Balagot, etal, GR 86561, Nov. 10, 1992).
amended. Could he possibly qualify for probation?
PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY APPEAL (2001)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA
RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision
384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one
title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot,
decision imposing multiple prison terms, the
and sentenced to suffer one year Imprisonment. A
totality of the prison terms should not be taken
appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of
into account for the purposes of determining the
Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still
eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law
apply for probation? Explain. (5%)
uses the word "maximum term", and not total
SUGGESTED ANSWER: term. It is enough that each of the prison terms
does not exceed six years. The number of offenses
No, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation
is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed,
after he appealed from the judgment of conviction
when taken individually and separately, are within
by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as
the probationable period.
amended by PD1990) now provides that no
application for probation shall be entertained or PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
granted if the accused has perfected an appeal PROBATION; NOT APPEALABLE (2002)
from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was
PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM VS. TOTAL found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one
Prepared by: LJC 75
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
(1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days
(12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly.
maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been (5%)
found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(10) days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos
(P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%) Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous
conviction for another crime with a penalty of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not entitled to
thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1)
the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as
month does not disqualify him from applying for
amended) does not extend to those sentenced to
probation; the penalty for his present conviction
serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
does not disqualify him either from applying for
than six years (Sec. 9a).
probation, since the imprisonment does not
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto
PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY APPEAL
mayor and a fine of P50.00.
(1995)
B. May a probationer appeal from the decision
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused
terms and conditions thereof? (2%)
Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and
drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as
sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and
amended, an order granting or denying probation
one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6,000.00 with the
is not appealable.
accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs.
PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2004) Vincent applied for probation. The probation
officer favorably recommended his application.
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment
of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. 1. If you were the Judge, what action will you
Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for take on the application? Discuss fully.
2. Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a
Prepared by: LJC 76
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
crime for which he was sentenced to a that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine.
maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for
the law, he is not eligible for probation. He probation he is proscribed from doing so as the
seasonably appealed his conviction. While maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE.
affirming the judgment of conviction, the Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced
appellate court reduced the penalty to a to one which allows probation it is but fair and just
maximum of four (4) years and four (4) to grant him that right because it is apparent that
months taking into consideration certain the trial judge committed an error and for which the
modifying circumstances. Vincent now accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial
applies for probation. How will you rule on tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law
his application? Discuss fully.
but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the
appellate court should be considered a new decision
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
as the trial court's decision was vacated; hence, he
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for could take advantage of the law when the decision is
probation. The accused is not entitled to probation remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see
as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA).
of four years and eight months imprisonment. at the time of trial under R.A. 9344.
Could Juan forthwith file an application for 3. Suspension of sentence of minor
probation? Explain. 8% above 15 but below 18 years of age
at the commission of the offense,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
while acting with discernment.
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation 4. Suspension of sentence by reason of
because he appealed from the judgment of insanity (Art. 79, Revised Penal
apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the 5. Suspension of sentence for first
Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the
time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the
establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was
provides to this effect: that if the minor is found 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other
guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy
and ascertain any civil liability which the accused were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
(a) Nature of crime – in recidivism, the first crime, committed in its maximum period unless it is off-
and the aggravated second crime are embraced in set by a mitigating or special aggravating
the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. In circumstance, the presence of which will trigger
habitual delinquency, the first, second and third the imposition of additional penalty for the third or
crimes must be a habitual- delinquency crime, and subsequent crime. This is not subject to the off-set
habitual-delinquency crime; within 10 years after into oil drums and bullet- riddled vehicles and later
conviction or release, he was found guilty of on burying these oil drums, vehicles with the use of
habitual-delinquency crime for the second time; backhoes and other earth-moving machinery, the
within 10 years after conviction or release he was Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating
found guilty of habitual- delinquency crime for the team recommended to the panel of public
(c) Number of crimes – in recidivism, there must be Chief Prosecutor tasked with approving the filing
at least two crimes committed; while in habitual of the Information, how will you pass upon the
committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The CHR is correct in describing the crime shall be that which, in view of the attending
committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined in the circumstances, could be properly imposed under
preamble of the “Henious Crimes Law” (Rep. Act the rules of the said Code, and the minimum which
No. 7659), despite the passage of Rep. Act No. shall be within the range of the penalty next lower
9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If
penalty. the offense is punishable under a special law, the
court shall sentence the accused to an
However, the “Henious Crimes Law” does not
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
define crimes; it is only an amendatory law
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
increasing the penalty for the crime specified
law and the minimum shall not be less than the
therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,
minimum term prescribed by the same (Section 1
the heinous crime committed shall be prosecuted
of Act 4103).
under the penal law they are respectively defined
and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2007)
the case may be. The circumstances making the
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one
crimes heinous may be alleged as qualifying or
night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to
generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be
see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
designated as defined and punished under the
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
penal law violated and the penalty shall be
service gun and shot and killed Ken.
reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole,
as the case may be in lieu of the death penalty. The court found that Ken died under exceptional
circumtances and exonerated Macky of murder but
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (2012)
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court
imposing a sentence? (5%) also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs
of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the
If crime is punishable under the Revised Penal
prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy
Code, the court shall sentenced the accused to an
(Joy’s sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
indeterminate sentence maximum term of which
Prepared by: LJC 82
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of the ground that the proper penalty should have
prohibited substances? Explain your answer. been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense counsel chimed in, contending that
No, Macky s not entitled to the benefit of the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as
should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty
amended) for having evaded the sentence which
of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
banished or placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the
correccional only. Who of the three is on the right
said law expressly provides that the law shall not
track? Explain. (3%)
apply to those who shall have “evaded sentence”.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
None of the contention is correct because the
No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous
Indeterminate Sentence Law for the crime of
drug by a first offender is not imprisonment but
homicide, which is penalized by mprisonment
rehabilitation in a government center for a
exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered
minimum period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A.
by the indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law
9165). The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
requires that the sentence in this case should
apply when the penalty is imprisonment not
reflect a minimum term for purposes of parole, and
exceeding one year.
a minimum term fixing the limit of the
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is
(2010) incorrect.
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial having INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; HOMICIDE
imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) (234 SCRA 555[1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can
day to twenty (20) years. Applying the be applied if the special law adopted the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the nomenclature of penalties provided under the
appropriate penalty to be imposed. Explain. (3%) RPC, such pronouncement cannot be applied in
the instant case because the for illegal possession
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of drugs under R.A. 9165 do not follow the
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and
minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the
the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years existence of mitigating and aggravating
Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for bought a collar for the puppy and brought it to a
guilty of theft, she will incur civil liability, which as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two
consists of restitution or reparation for damage priviledged mitigating circumstances of
caused and indemnification for consequential incomplete self-defense and the presence of at
damages (Art. 100 RPC). The general rule is: a least two ordinary mitigating circumstances
person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable. without any aggravating circumstance under
Articles 69 and 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code,
PENALTIES; HOMICIDE (2013)
respectively, which lower the prescribed penalty
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the for homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after victim lived. In contrast, there are two mitigating
considering the attendant circumstances, what circumstances, namely, voluntary surrender and
penalty should the judge impose? (7%) plea of guilt. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum term of the medium period
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and the minimum term should be within the range
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate of the penalty next lower in degree or arresto
sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its mayor in any of its period.
The penalties that may be served simultaneously PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED (2009)
Probation Law; Period Covered (2009) in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion
temporal. After two years in hiding, he was
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007.
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
3. Temporary absolute
disqualification;
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect,
4. Temporary special
disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the
right to Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA VS. LIFE (PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is
Even if it would be considered that the crime time offenders, their petitions for probation should
committed was punishable by death, the penalty be granted. How would you resolve the brothers’
as far as Joe I concerned can only be reclusion petitions for probation? Explain. (3%)
perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the imposition
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of the capital punishment upon offenders
thereunder. The brother’s petition for prohibition should be
denied.
The brother‟s petition for prohibition. The murder
being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is Matt‟s petition for probation shall be denied
two degree lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, because he was convicted for drug-trafficking.
prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when Section 24 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive
he committed the crime, the penalty of prision Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) expressly provides,
mayor should be lowered further by one degree “Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
because his minority is a privilege mitigating pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
circumstance; hence, prision correccional or imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege
imprisonment within the range of ix months and 1 granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
day to 6 years is the imposable. Decree No. 968, as amended.”
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for
younger brother Jeff was found guilty of violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court
under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty
of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed
prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
his conviction during the pendency of which he
years and four(4) months of reclusion temporal, as
also filed a petition for probation.
maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied
The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first for probation but his application was denied
Prepared by: LJC 87
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
because the probation law does not apply to drug Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion
the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or temporal. After two years in hiding, he was
the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007.
Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe
provided under this law? (7%)
moved to avail of the process of intervention or
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or diversion
longer apply to Machel. The suspension of was denied, and he was convicted two (2) years
sentence lasts only until the law reaches the later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the
maximum age and thus, could no longer be judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain.
in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a Court of the same province, Lorna who was then
prison term as well as to pay P150,000 as civil suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma
indemnity and damages. While his appeal was manifested to the court that with Lorna's death,
pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What extinguished. Is Alma's contention correct? What if
is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal
well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%) and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%)
The death of AX while his appeal from the No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of
judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes the offended party does not extinguish the
his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it criminal liability of the offender, because the
arises from the crime and recoverable under the offense is committed against the State [People vs.
Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the
indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil civil liability of Alma based on the offense
action if predicated on a source of obligation under committed by her is not extinguished. The estate
Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi- of Lorna can continue the case.
contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died
delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 ).
pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised liability shall be extinguished and therewith the
Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had civil liability under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 89,
been convicted with finality before he died. par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity
may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if
EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL LIABILITIES;
predicated on a source of obligation other than
EFFECTS; DEATH OF OFFENDED PARTY (2000)
delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before quasi-delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239,
the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)
After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While
PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)
the case was pending appeal in the Regional Trial
Prepared by: LJC 90
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
Enumerate the differences between pardon and e) PARDON being a private act by the
amnesty. (2.5%)
President, must be pleaded and proved by the
person pardoned, while AMNESTY which is a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the
exercised individually by the President, while which the courts should take judicial notice.
c) PARDON looks forward and relieves the APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to
offender of the penalty of the offense for which disqualify him. TRY contended he is not
he has been convicted; it does not work for the disqualified because he was already pardoned by
restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the President unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention
the right of suffrage, unless such rights are correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
pardon only excuses the convict from serving the The Office of the President dismissed the appeal
sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon. Is the
the conviction unless expressly remitted in the only ground for reinstatement to one's former
pardon. position and that the absolute pardon does not
exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
PARDON; EFFECT; REINSTATEMENT (1994)
Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
estafa, through falsification of public document. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her
pay, among others, P5,000.00 representing the
former position inasmuch as her right thereto had
balance of the amount defrauded.
been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her
The case reached the Supreme Court which conviction. The absolute pardon merely
affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the extinguished her criminal liability, removed her
pendency of Linda's motion for reconsideration in disqualification, and restored her eligibility for
the said Court, the President extended to her an appointment to that office. She has to re-apply for
absolute pardon which she accepted. such position and under the usual procedure
required for a new appointment. Moreover, the
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising
Department of Finance requesting that she be
from the crime. (Monsanto vs.Factoran, Jr., 170
restored to her former post as assistant treasurer,
SCRA 191); see Art. 36, RPC)
which is still vacant. The Department ruled that
Linda may be reinstated to her former position PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY (1995)
without the necessity of a new appointment and
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955.
directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum
After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in
of P5,000.00 be satisfied.
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda
Claiming that she should not be made to pay on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was
P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the registered in the civil registry of Davao City three
President. days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975
Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the
Prepared by: LJC 92
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of incident, and right after his graduation in
bigamy is computed from the time the crime was Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI
discovered by the offended party, the authorities authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20
or their agents. The principle of constructive notice years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the
which ordinarily applies to land or property death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years?
commences to run from the day on which the not even commenced to run.
crime is discovered by the offended party, the
The period of prescription of a crime shall
authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the
commence to run only from the day on which the
commission of the crime was known only to
crime has been discovered by the offended party,
Albert, who was not the offended party nor an
the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised
authority or an agent of an authority. It was
Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the
discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert
killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended
revealed to them the commission of the crime.
party nor has the crime been discovered by the
Hence, the period of prescription of 20 years for
authorities or their agents.
homicide commenced to run only from the time
Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; CONCUBINAGE
(2001)
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; COMMENCEMENT
(2004) On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
committed in February 1987 was filed against
OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching.
Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza,
One night, he saw AM stab CV treacherously, then
Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation.
throw the dead man's body into a ravine. For 25
For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998
years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and
when the Judge of said court decided the case by
OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime
after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to
was committed in Manila. The case was
tell the authorities what he witnessed, and
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila
revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can
but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime
AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of
had already prescribed. The law provides that the
25 years? Reason briefly. (5%)
crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain,
Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the (5%)
lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994
prescription is not correct. The filing of the a case of giving false testimony was filed
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and step will you take?
suspended the period of prescription in as much as
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or 1) Yes. ...
information, not by the result of proof. (People vs.
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash
Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
the Information on the ground of prescription. The
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; FALSE TESTIMONY crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has
(1994) prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the
principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987
Paolo was charged with homicide before the
and therefore the penalty prescribed for such
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo
shoot Abby during their heated argument. While Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in
the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case
burned down and the entire records of the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994,
were destroyed. Later, the records were whereas the principal criminal case was decided
reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
witness stand. This time he testified that his first prescriptive period of the crime commenced to
testimony was false and the truth was he was run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is
abroad when the crime took place. more than five (5) years.
The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE SLANDER
Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to (1997)
the defendant in a criminal case.
A was charged in an information with the crime of
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper?
grave oral defamation but after trial, the court
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became found him guilty only of the offense of simple
Prepared by: LJC 95
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense
contending that, under the law, the crime of which includes such light offense.
simple slander would have prescribed in two
b) While the general rule is the failure of an
months from commission, and since the
accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads
information against him was filed more than four
to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a
months after the alleged commission of the crime,
waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, the
the same had already prescribed.
exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged
The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two in the complaint or information; (2) lack of
grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or
period, the nature of the offense charged in the penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground
Information should be considered, not the crime invoked by the accused in his motion for
proved; second, assuming that the offense had reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it
already prescribed, the defense was waived by the can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even
failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash. be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas)
The motion for reconsideration should be Name at least two exceptions to the general rule
granted.- that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal
case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of simple slander although it is necessarily included
in the offense of grave slander charged in the Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a
information, because, the lesser offense had criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
already prescribed at the time the information was
a. When the civil action is based on
filed (People us. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468;
obligations not
arising from the act
Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People.
complained of as a felony;
201 SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily
b. When acquittal is based on
circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses
Prepared by: LJC 96
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
reasonable doubt or acquittal is on 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an
the ground that guilt has not been intersection because of the red signal of the traffic
proven beyond reasonable doubt light. While waiting for the green signal, C
(Art. 29, New Civil
Code);
beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached
c. Acquittal due to an exempting the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C.
circumstance, like
Insanity;
While the transaction was taking place, the traffic
d. Where the court states in its light changed to green and the car immediately
Judgment that the case
merely sped off. As the car continued to speed towards
involves a civil obligation;
Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost
e. Where there was a proper his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did
reservation for the filing
of a not stop. A suffered serious injuries which
separate civil action;
eventually caused his death. C was charged with
f. In cases of independent civil actions ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court
provided for in
Arts. 31, 32, 33 and was not convinced with moral certainty that the
34 of the New Civil Code;
guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable
g. When the judgment of acquittal doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of
includes a declaration that the fact reasonable doubt.
from which the civil liability
might
Can the family of the victim still recover civil
arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA,
damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain.
314 SCRA 370);
(5%)
h. Where the civil liability is not
derived or based on the criminal act SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of which the accused is acquitted
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil
(Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF ACQUITTAL (2000) in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the
ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
A was a 17-year old working student who was
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for
earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was
the same act or omission may be instituted. Such
driving a car along busy Espana Street at about
action requires only a preponderance of evidence
Prepared by: LJC 97
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
{Art. 29, CC). writ of execution against Max. The latter opposed
the motion on-the ground that the decision made
If A's family can prove the negligence of B by
no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he
preponderance of evidence, the civil action for
was not impleaded in the case.
damages against B will prosper based on quasi-
delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
to another, there being fault or negligence, is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or
negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer
between the parties, is called a quasi- delict [Art. of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation
2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct business) where said employee is utilized, is
from civil liability arising from negligence under subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the
the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}. Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision
made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law
CIVIL LIABILITY; SUBSIDIARY; EMPLOYERS
violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for
(1998)
such liability and Max is deemed to know it
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and because ignorance of the law is never excused.
operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian And since his liability is not primary but only
crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay; he
required medical attendance for three months. need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case.
Guy was charged with reckless imprudence It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion
resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution
Metropolitan Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to
and thus given the opportunity to be heard.
suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto
mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY;
of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees. CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005)
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape
was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied for having carnal knowledge with the same
due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary woman. In addition to the penalty of
Prepared by: LJC 98
CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
is interrupted when “any kind of investigative the crime is deemed legally discovered by the
proceeding is instituted against the guilty person authorities or their agents and thus the
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution” prescriptive period of the crime commenced to
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. run.
167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
When A left the country and returned only after
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; PARRICIDE (2010) three (3) year, the running of the prescriptive
period of the crime is interrupted and suspended
A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard.
because prescription shall not run when the
He immediately went into hiding in the mountains.
offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were (Art. 91, RPC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: