Professional Documents
Culture Documents
For Finals Crimrev
For Finals Crimrev
SUGGESTED ANSWER
I do not agree with the recommendation for the filing or attempted
rape. Intent to have sexual Intercourse is an essential element of
attempted rape. In other words, intent to lie with the victim must
be ~loser. However, this intent is not established for failure to
show that Aliswan had done acts to have sex with Amethyst (Cruz
v.・ People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08,2014, Bersamin); or that
Aliswan had actually commenced to force his penis into the victim's
sexual organ (People v.・ Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December
11, 2013). Moreover, he spontaneously desisted from committing
further lascivious acts after undressing Amethyst which is a
defense in attempted rape. Undressing the victim with lewd design
merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness (People v. Sanico,
G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).
(b) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases
should be dismissed because he was entitled to the
exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct?
Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Since Aliswao 's age is above 15 but below 18, being the
brother of 16 year old Aliswan, the exempting circumstance of
minority shall be appreciated in his favor unless it is shown that
be acted with discernment. The cases are not dismissible since
the prosecution mUst be first given opportunity to present evidence
to establish that Aliswan acted with discernment.
(c) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you
about filing the proper criminal complaint against Amante. What
crimes, if any, will you charge Amante with? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) In People v. Lasala (G.R. No. L-12141, January 30,
1962) which is similar to this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that the crime committed is Less Serious
Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the Revised
Penal Code as the medical attendance is for a period
of ten (10) days only.
Considering, however, that the Less Serious Physical Injuries was
inflicted with manifest intent to insult or offend the offended party
or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, there
shall be an added penalty of the fine not exceeding P500 pesos
(Art. 265, par. 2)
With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were
staying. F and D died as a consequence. What is the proper
charge against GGG? ’12 - Q56
a) GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder.
b) GGG should be charged with arson.
c) GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with
double murder.
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who
may ne in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is only murder. When the
Revised Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is
murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to
that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder
qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is
an inherent means to commit the former (People vs. Baluntong, G.R.
No. 18206, March 15, 2015; People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485,
June 27, 1994). A single act of burning the house of victims with the
main objective of killing them resulting in their deaths resulted in the
complex crime of double murder committed by means of fire (People
vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008).
Alternative Answer:
Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with
homicide because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery.
As a conspirator in said crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an
accomplice only. His motion for reconsideration claiming that he should
be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his contention that he
should be liable as an accomplice only.
On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be
denied for lack of merit. His contention that his liability should only be
for attempted robbery with homicide because they did not benefit from
the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the crime is consummated the
moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the offender was
not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.
The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating to the offender
who entered the dwelling of the offended party. Night time is not aggravating
because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning of the
victim’s house is not a separate crime
With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the
two-storey residential house of his employer, mostly made of
wooden materials. The blaze spread and gutted down seven
neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire, six (6) persons
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA? ’12 - Q74
a) AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple
homicide.
b) AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c) AAA committed simple arson.
d) AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) AAA committed simple arson.
If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or
edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the
crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed (People
vs. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182601, March 15, 2010l People vs. Cedenio,
G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994).
Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by
setting Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami
commit? ’11 – Q37
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for
failing in his college courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suitcase
of FEL and burned it together with all its contents. '04 – Q6
1. What crime was committed by CD? '04 – Q6-1
The crime committed by CD is arson under P.D. No. 1613 (the
new Arson Law) which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to
the property of another (Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613).
2. Is CD criminally liable? '04 – Q6-2
CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose
property he burnt, because such relationship is not exempting from
criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft, swindling
or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332, RPC). The provision
(Article 323) of the Code to the effect that burning property of
small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been
repealed by P.D. No. 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider
burning property of small value as malicious mischief.
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime could only be malicious mischief as the problem does not
mention that he is carrying a match or a lighter. It was not shown that
Senio was about to light a match or ignite a lighter to set the house on
fire.
WIRE TAPPING
XX. From an extension line, Ricardo overheard a telephone conversation between Julito and Atty. Hipolito. The latter (Atty. Hipolito) was asking money
from Julito in exchange for dropping the extortion charge filed against Julito. Ricardo was charged of violating the Anti-Wire Tapping Act or R.A. 4200.
Under these facts, was there a violation as charged? (1%)
(A) Yes, because the conversation was private in nature.
(B) Yes, because the conversation was overheard without the consent of the parties, Julito and Atty. Hipolito.
(C) No, because what is punishable is intentional listening to a conversation through a wire.
(D) No, because a telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot
be considered as wire tapping.
(E) None of the above.
[Note: there are two choice marked as (D) in the original Supreme Court Bar Examination Questionnaire.] SUGGESTED ANSWER: (D) No, because a
telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot be considered as
wire tapping (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986).
Libel
(11) Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y, employing fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed a criminal
action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil complaint for damages was baseless?
(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged. (B) No, since malice is not evident. (C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of
fraud was baseless. (D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.
(13) X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source
from Y's own office who fed him the information. Did X commit libel? (A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and
reasonable care. (B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest. (C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged
communication. (D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.
(27) X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift from one of the
parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the case? (A) No, since malice is self-evident
in the letter. (B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge who has a duty to act on what it states. (C) No, since
malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations. (D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.
(38) Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with libel, can Sam present
proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk? (A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon. (C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon. (D) Yes, since truth
can be a valid defense in libel.
Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves
obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with
libel, can Sam present proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene
magazines and keeps these in his desk? ’11 – Q38
(A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon.
(C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon.
(D) Yes, since truth can be a valid defense in libel.
The statement that “In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense”
is FALSE. ’09 – Q11d
Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible
in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against
the public officer with respect to material facts related to the discharge
of their official duties, and moreover, must have been published with
good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, “truth” as a defense, on
its own, is not enough.
What is LIBEL and what pertinence has malice in law and malice
in fact in incurring criminal liability therefor. ’85 – Q20
Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or a juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation.
When the imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not prove
malice. The law presumes that defamation is malicious. This is malice
in law.
In a conditionally privileged communication, malice is not presumed.
The prosecution must prove malice in fact for the conviction of
the accused of libel involving qualifiedly privileged communication. This
means that the accused was prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
not in response to the performance of a duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed. Malice in fact is inconsistent with
good motives and justifiable ends.
Robbery
During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old
public utility vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and
Sencio, each armed with guns, hailed several MMDA buses then providing
free transport to the stranded public to stop them from plying
their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses without
allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the
bus to Tanay, Rizal.
Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio
forcibly divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They
ordered the passengers to leave thereafter. Then, they burned the bus.
When a tanod of the barangay of the area came around to Intervene,
Pater fired at him, instantly killing him.
After Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio were arrested, the police authorities
recommended them to be charged with the following crimes, to wit:
(1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct assault with homicide; (4) kidnapping;
and (5) arson.
State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the police authorities
on the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio.
(10%) ’17 – Q9
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Because Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio commandeered
the bus for purpose of robbing the passengers, the crime committed
is robbery (People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10, 1992).
Since the taking of the victims was merely to commit robbery and
not to transport them to another place for purpose of detention,
the crime committed was not kidnapping but robbery (People v.
Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993; Criminal Law Conspectus
by Florenz Regalado). Intent to deprive liberty is not present
since the deprivation of liberty is just incidental to the commission
of robbery.
Since death results by reason or on occasion of robbery, the
crime committed is a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. This composite crime is committed even though the
victim of homicide is a responding Barangay Tanod (People v.
Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967). Even though only Pater
killed the Tanod, Percy, Pablo, and Sencio are also liable for robbery
with homicide since they failed to attempt to prevent the
same (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008;
People v. Castro, G.R. No: 187073, March 14, 2012). Since the
crime committed is robbery with homicide, all other felonies such
u arson and direct assault committed by reason or on occasion of
robbery shall be integrated into the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5,
2016, en bane; People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November IS,
2010; People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v.
Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 03, 2013). Arson shall not be considered
as a separate crime but as a mere aggravating circumstance
of commission of the felony by means of fire (U.S. v. Bulfa, G.R.
No. 8468, August 20, 1913).
The elements of carnapping are: (a) the taking of the
motor vehicle which belongs to another; (b) the taking is without
consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons or by using force upon things; and (c) the taking
is done with intent to gain (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004).
In this case, the accused unlawfully took an MMDA bus
without tbe consent of its owner, which gives rise to ・the presumption
of their intent to gain.
Considering that all elements of carnapping are present, the accused
shall be liable therefor.
Since carnapping is punishable under a special law, it
shall be considered as a crime separate from robbery with homicide
(People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009;
People c. Napalit, G.R. Nos. 142919/143876, February 4, 2003;
People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913, September 2, 2015; People
v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008; People v. Roxas, G.R.
No. 172604, August 17, 2010).
Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bo!os, robbed the
house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing.
While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio
noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He
chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from
the house, but before bringing her back, raped her.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio
commit? Explain. (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(a)
Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since
he raped the daughter of Antonio on occasion or by reason of robbery.
Even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is
still robbery with rape since what is important is the direct connection
between the two crimes (People v. Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, 24
December 1948). Rape was not separate by distance and time from
the robbery.
Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable for robbery by band. There is
band in this case since more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. Under Article 296 of the Revised Penal
Code, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a
robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same, The assault mentioned in Article 296 includes rape
(People v. Hamiana, G.R. Nos. L-3491-94, 30 May 1971). They are not
liable, however, for rape under Article 296 since they were not present
when the victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to prevent
the same. They are only liable for robbery by band (People v.
Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, 8 June 2011).
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification,
killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes,
if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(b)
They are liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are
killed. It is also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Since homicides
are committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes
shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
(People v. Diu, GR No. 201449, 3 April 2011)
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. Dat 10 o’clock in the
evening, with Cas the driver of the tricycle which they would use
in going to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and Aand Bas the ones
who would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As
planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B entered
the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the
master’s bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could
see, while Bentered another room. While inside the room, B saw a
male person and immediately Bbrought out his gun but he accidentally
pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window,
hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened
by the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen
arrived. Aand B panicked and got hold of a young boy and
shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the house
that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse.
Aand B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to
bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they
would release the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the
meantime, Cwas arrested by the policemen while he was about to
flee, while Aand B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit, and what modifying circumstances
attended the commission of the crime/s? ‘14- Q9
A: A, B and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under
paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It is immaterial
that the death of a person occurred by mere accident. As long as
homicide is produced by eason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
crime is robbery with homicide as it is oly the result, without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening
in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.
They are not liable for the detention of the boy as illegal
detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery. The modifying circumstance
of dwelling attended the commissio of the crime. The settled
rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A, B and C
are not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged with the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic suspension
of sentence upon finding of guilt.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he / she has acted with
discernment (Section 6 of RA No. 9344). The discernment is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and
such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts, and the circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
component and behavior of said minor (People vs. Doqueña, G.R. No.
46539, September 27, 1939). “A”, “B” and “C” are not exempt from
criminal liability since the manner they committed the crime indicates
discernment.
Although the original plan may have been to simply robbed the victim,
the conspirators are equally liable as co-principals for all the planned
or unanticipated consequences of their criminal design (People vs.
Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004). Whenever the commission of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven, all those
who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they
did not take part in the killing (People v. Sumalinog, G.R. No. 128387,
February 5, 2004) unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 14756, April 4, 2003).
“A”, “B” and “C” should be charged with robbery with homicide despite
they merely plan to rob the victim and only “B” stabbed “G”.
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia
for five years. One night, Nestor and Julia were out having dinner,
Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bedroom
with the use of a false key. They found Julia’s jewelry box in
one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia’s
jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the
box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with
Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala,
pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand
over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just
arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the masters’ bedroom
with the box. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lucas and
Pedro commit? ’08 – Q13
Lucas and Pedro committed Robbery in an Inhabited House (Article
299, RPC) for gaining entry into the house by means of a false key.
Another Alternative Answer:
Lucas and Pedro may also be charged with qualified theft because
Lucas abused the trust and confidence of Nestor and Julia,
which gave him access to the house.
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a
bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to
get any money from the vault because the same was protected by
a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the
customers’ cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they
dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled
the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the
latter’s death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and
Jonathan commit? ’07 – Q3
Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan
committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because
that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed by
them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the
bank’s customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur
liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do
with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian,
aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about such death.
Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall
be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
because it was committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.
Alternative Answer:
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide,
because there was conspiracy among them to commit the robbery andthe death of the pedestrian was caused on the occasion of the robbery.
Even though the death was accidental, it is enough that such death
was caused by any of its robbers’ felonious act and on the occasion of
the commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539
[1984].)
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by
different families located inside a compound enclosed by a 6-feet
high hollow block fence. How many robberies did the five commit?
'96 – Q8(2)
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law
because when they entered the compound, they were impelled only by
a single indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as they were
not aware that there were five families inside said compound, considering
that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence.
The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the
same time constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal
impulse.
If the offender commits any of these acts punishable under the RPC or any of the following acts punishable under special penal laws:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), a) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
b) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
c) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
d) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
e) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
f) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)
or under
If the offender commits any of these crimes under the RPC and any of the crimes under special penal laws, thereby sowing and creating a condition
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand, he is liable of
terrorism and the penalty is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. So it is the maximum penalty
of 40 years. He has to serve it totally. Even if he has already served the minimum, he cannot be given the benefit of parole under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. So it is necessary that he must commit any of these predicate crimes and after committing these predicate crimes, where lies the
difference? Because his act that sowed and created fear and panic among the populace coupled with an unlawful demand against the government.
Q: So let us say that X was charged with terrorism based on a valid complaint or information a case of terrorism was filed against him before the RTC.
However, after trial on the merits, the judge acquitted him. According to the judge, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt therefore acquittal for reasonable doubt. Since he is acquitted of terrorism under RA 9372, can he still be prosecuted for his predicate
crime of kidnapping and illegal detention because he detained the children for more than 12 hours? Can he still be prosecuted for Illegal and Unlawful
Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives because he was full of firearms and ammunitions and explosives?
A: No more.
Because of Section 49 of RA 9372. Under Section 49 of RA 9372, whenever a person has been charged of terrorism, or any act punishable under RA
9372, based on the valid complaint or information, sufficient information and substance to bring about and thereafter he is acquitted or the case is
dismissed, he can no longer be subsequently prosecuted for any other felony or offense necessarily included in the crime charged. The crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention is necessarily included in terrorism because it is one of the predicate crimes. Likewise, violation of PD 1866, as
amended Illegal and Unlawful Possession of Firearms is also necessarily included in terrorism because it is one of the predicated crimes in terrorism. Or
any of these predicated crimes, he can no longer be charged because they are necessarily included in terrorism. This is known as the ABSORPTION
PRINCIPLE in terrorism.
Q: But what if in the same problem, while X was waiting for his demands to be given by the government, he saw a girl and with lewd design, he touched
the private parts of the seven-year old girl. Therefore he committed a violation of RA 7610 the Anti-Child Abuse Law. He was acquitted of terrorism. Can
the state prosecute him for violation of RA 7610?
A: Yes, because it is not among the predicate crimes. It is not a crime necessarily included in the crime of terrorism.
What is foremost prohibited is the act of tapping, recording or intercepting any private communication or spoken word without the consent of all the
parties. Without being authorized by all the parties to the said private communication or spoken word.
Q: So what if A told B to come inside his room and when B entered the room, A started scolding B. In scolding B, A said scandalous remarks against B.
Unknown to A, B was tape recording the private conversation between them. Can B later use the said tape recording in order to file a case of defamation
or slander against A?
A: NO. Because the said act of tape recording without being authorized by all the parties to a private communication or spoken word is inadmissible in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative proceedings or investigation.
The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace officer is authorized by written order of the court to listen to, intercept or record any
communication in crimes involving treason, espionage, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, piracy, mutiny, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition and kidnapping. Only in these instances and provided that the said peace officer is
authorized by a written order coming from the court may he be allowed to intercept, listen to or record the private communication or spoken word.
BAR: TELEPHONE EXTENSION
➢ As held by Gaanan v. People, the one listening, Y, is not liable for violation of RA 4200. The extension line of a telephone is not within the meaning of
a tape recording device and therefore, even if Y can overhear secretly the conversation, RA 4200 is not violated.
Murder/ homicide
Other frauds
Q: What if the GAA had already been approved by the Congress and signed by the President, there was already a budget for the entire calendar year. In
this budget, the military was given a portion for the blankets. So there was 1000 blankets with 500K budget allocated. Upon the enactment of the same,
the head of the military asked the supply officer to canvass. Upon canvassing, he found that there were blankets that cost 500 pesos each. But the supply
officer connived with the supplier of the blankets and told him that instead of delivering blankets with premium quality costing 500 pesos, he should
deliver only inferior quality blankets costing 300 pesos each, anyway, the people in Mindanao would not know. So the poor quality blankets were
delivered. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is not fraud against public treasury but Other Frauds under Article 214. This is because there is an allocation in the GAA and as
such, the treasury can no longer be defrauded because such amount has long been allocated or earmarked for the purchase of the blankets. The fraud is
in the implementation of the budget therefore it amounted to Estafa. Other frauds is committed by any public officer, who, by taking advantage of his
official position would commit any of the acts of Estafa under Articles 315 – 318.
Estafa
BP22
Violation of right to privacy???
Attempted robbery
Q: A went to the house of B. A told B “this is a hold up and bring out the valuables”. Instead of bringing the valuables to A, B panicked and shouted. A
therefore shot B. B died. A also panicked and left the place without bringing his loot. What is/are the crime/s committed?
A: The crime committed by A is attempted robbery with homicide. This is also a special complex crime. Here robbery was attempted because he was
unable to take any of the property. The fact that A was able to announce hold-up and bring the valuables to him means that the original design is to
commit robbery. It was attempted because he was unable to take the property, and in the course of thereof, he killed the owner.
In order to amount to special complex crime, it is necessary that both the robbery and homicide must be consummated.