CRIMINAL LAW BAR QUESTION ANSWERS 2018

I.A.
Yes. Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder.
Article 4 of the RPC states that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act
which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility
of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

In the case at bar, the impossibility of committing the crime of murder, a crime against
persons, was due to the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment because Ricardo was not in
the house when they peppered it with bullets.

I.B.
Roberto and Ruel are liable as principals by direct participation for actually firing bullets at
the house of Ricardo. Rafael is liable as co-principal by indispensable cooperation and not only
as an accomplice because he knew of the criminal design even before he lent his firearm. There
was conspiracy to commit the crime. Thus, the act of one is the act of all.

II. A.
No.
Under Article 4 of the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

The fact that the target of Rico was Ramiro, not the woman depositor, did not excuse his
killing of the latter. The fatal hitting of the woman was the natural and direct consequence of Rico’s
felonious deadly aim against Ramiro. Rico’s poor aim amounted to aberratio ictus, or mistake in
the blow, a circumstance that neither exempted him from criminal responsibility nor mitigated his
criminal liability.
Thus, Rico should be liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.

II. B.
No.
As ruled by the Supreme Court in People vs Lago, whenever a homicide is committed as
a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the conspiracy will
be held guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all
actually take part in the homicide, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to
prevent the killing. Physical absence in the place where the killing took place is not a defense, or
that the accused was not aware his co-accused would resort to a killing.

Considering that Rico, Red and Rod agreed to commit robbery and executed the
commission as they had planned, there exist conspiracy among them. The act of one is deemed
to be the act of all. Thus, absent any showing that Red and Rod tried to prevent the killing, they
should be equally liable for robbery with homicide.

III. A.
Yes, they are all liable.
Redmont and Ric are liable as principals. Under Sec. 4 of R.A. 8049, the presence of any
person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of actual participation, unless he prevented the
acts punishable. Officers or members who knowingly cooperated on carrying out the hazing by
inducing the victim to be present shall also be liable.
 Redmont, being present during the initiation and an officer of the fraternity, is liable as a
principal. Ric is also a principal as he was present and the one who ultimately convinced Ronald
to join the fraternity and undergo initiation. It is immaterial that they did not participate in the hazing
itself.
Rollie, the Vice-Chancellor and who actually planned the initiation, is liable as a principal.
The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization who actually planned the hazing
although not present when the acts of hazing were committed are liable.

Ronnie is liable as an accomplice. Under Sec. 4 of R.A. 8049, the owner of the place
where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. Ronnie
even volunteered to use his house as the venue for the planned initiation.

III. B.
No, they shall not be exonerated. In the case of Dungo vs. People, July 1, 2015, the Court
stated that the framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim shall not be a defense in
hazing. The very act of inflicting physical pain or psychological suffering is, by itself, a punishable
act.

No. It was also stated in the same case that hazing is a malum prohibitum. What is
important is not the intention to kill the neophyte during the hazing but the result of the act of
hazing.

IV. A. FIRST ANSWER

Rica should be acquitted.

In theft, intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging
to another. But if a person takes personal property from another believing it to be his own, the
presumption of intent to gain is rebutted and, therefore, he is not guilty of theft (US vs. Viera, 1
Phil 584). Also in the case of Pit-og v. People (G.R. No. 76539, October 11, 1990), the Court
acquitted the petitioner who took the sugarcane and bananas believing them to be her own, due
to the absence of criminal intent to gain.

IV. A. SECOND ANSWER

Rica should be convicted of an impossible crime of theft.

In Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 2009, the Supreme Court said that the evil
intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for Mega Foam
showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the check bounced,
she would have received the face value thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was
only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to the
accused at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The thing unlawfully taken by
the accused turned out to be absolutely worthless, because the check was eventually dishonored,
and Mega Foam had received the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.

In the case, Rica surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent of
the store owner. The evil intent cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the necklace
surreptitiously without the knowledge and consent of the store owner showed her intent to gain
or be unjustly enriched. Were it not for the fact that the necklace is owned by her, she would have
in possession of the necklace, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the
extraneous circumstance of the necklace that she owned it, a fact unknown to the Rica at the time
because it was not yet proven, that prevented the crime from being produced.
Moreover, if there is no evil intent to gain, he should have asked first the store owner
before taking the necklace.

IV. B.
Rica shall be convicted of the crime of theft if it is proven that the store acquired the
necklace from another person who was the real owner of the necklace.

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent. The elements of theft are as follows:
There is taking of personal property;
Property taken belongs to another;
Taking was done with intent to gain;
Taking was done without the consent of the owner; and
Taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of
force upon things (Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 164545, November 20, 2006).

All the elements are present in the case. Hence, Rica shall be liable for the crime of theft.

V. A.
Robert may be charged of statutory rape while Romy may be charged of child prostitution
under RA No. 7610, as amended.

Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Robert is a principal by direct
participation because he had carnal knowledge with an 8-year old girl.

Under RA No 7610, as amended, Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit,
or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.

Romy is guilty of child prostitution because with a promise of reward, he seized an 8-year
old girl and brought her to Robert so that the latter can have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(People vs Dulay, G.R. No. 193854 September 24, 2012)

V. B.
No. If the woman is a 15-year old, the crime committed is simple rape.

Rape is committed when a man had carnal knowledge with a woman by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority.

Robert is a principal by direct participation of the crime of rape because he had carnal
knowledge with the 15-year old lass. On the other hand, Romy is a principal by indispensable
cooperation because if it were not for his cunning and deceit, the girl would not voluntarily go to
the house of Robert and be raped.
VI
The members of the group are liable for usurpation of real property.
 Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of usurpation of real property is committed when
the offender, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, takes possession of any
real property or usurps any real rights in property belonging to another.
In the present case, the members of the group, with intent to gain, employed violence or
intimidation against the security guards to occupy the houses belonging to military personnel who
have already complied with the requirements for the award thereof. Hence, they are liable for
usurpation of real property.

VII. A.
Robbie is a quasi-recidivist.

Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a quasi recidivist is any person who shall
commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment; and he committed a new felony
before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same.

In this case, Robbie is convicted of Robbery by final judgment and while serving his
sentence, he committed another felony, which is murder. Thus, he is a quasi-recidivist.

VII. B.
No. Provocation and voluntary surrender as raised by Robbie, cannot lower the crime
committed.

Provocation must be proven to be sufficient; must originate from the offended party; and
must be immediate to the commission of the crime. The act of Rannie in kicking Robbie is not
sufficient or proportionate to the act of stabbing the former. It is not enough that the provocative
act be unreasonable or annoying (People vs. Dolfo).

Voluntary Surrender can be appreciated if the accused had not been actually arrested; he
surrendered himself to the person in authority or his agent; and the surrender was voluntary. Here,
the requisite that the accused had not been actually arrested, is not applicable because Robbie
was already an inmate in the National Penitentiary.

VIII.
The penalty imposable under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is Prision Correccional in
its minimum period as the minimum to any of the period of Prision Mayor as the maximum period.
The penalty imposable under the RPC , which is reclusion temporal is to be reduced by
one degree lower because of the presence of 3 mitigating circumstances. Under the rules, 2
mitigating circumstances entitles the accused to a special mitigating circumstance of 1 degree
lower from the imposable penalty. The minimum term is one degree lower from indeterminate
maximum term taking into consideration the remaining mitigating circumstances. Here, since
there is the presence of 1 more mitigating circumstance and 1 aggravating circumstance, the
rules on offsetting applies. Thus, the minimum term is the minimum of Prision Correccional.
IX.A.

Yes.
The fact of issuing a worthless check is punished under BP 22 but aside from the case for
violation of BP 22, he may also be separately charged for Estafa under Article 315 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by RA No. 4885. The act of postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check constitutes the offense of Estafa under
the aforementioned article.

Thus, if a person failed to fund the post dated checks issued, he may be held liable for
violation of Section 1 of BP 22 and Article 315 2( d) of the Revised Penal Code. Recuerdo v
People (G. R. No. 133036, January 22, 2003).

IX. B.
Yes. As to Bp 22 the payee would not be entitled to a presumption that the drawer had
knowledge that he has no funds when the check was issued if presented after 4 months. The said
presumption can only be utilized during the 90-day period. However Act No. 3326 entitled An Act
to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts as amended, is also applicable to BP Blg.
22 cases. Since BP Blg. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less
than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes
in four (4) years in accordance with the law. Thus, bp 22 can still be filed.
The prescribed penalty and prescription for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC,
the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of prisioncorreccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum in its maximum period, adding 1 year of imprisonment for every P10,000.00 in
excess of P22,000.00, provided that the total penalty shall not exceed 20 years. Furthermore,
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code states that crimes punishable by afflictive penalties, such
as the crime of estafa, prescribe in fifteen (15) years. Thus, estafa may still be filed.

X. A.
Yes, the action for adultery will prosper.
Under the law, in order to convict a woman for adultery, it is necessary that she is a married
woman and she unites in sexual intercourse with a man not his husband. And to convict a man
for adultery, it is necessary that he had intercourse with a married woman and he commits the act
with knowledge of said woman is married.

In the facts, even is Rafa and Rachel are legally separated it only involves nothing more
than separation of bed-and-board of the spouses and the marriage bonds are not severed. Thus,
since Rachel is still married to Rafa, both Rachel and Rocco are liable for adultery.

X. B.
No, the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide will not prosper.
Under the law, death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
provides that a legally married person surprises his spouse committing intercourse and he inflicts
upon them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter.

In the facts, since there is a clear application of Article 247 of the RPC, the actions of
frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide is improper, the crime that should be charged against
Roco is serious physical injuries and should be punished with the penalty of Destierro.

XI.
No.
The accused shall be charged with only one information, robbery with homicide with the
aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms. The illegal possession of firearms is not a
separate offense.

Under Sec. 29 of R.A. 10591, if the crime is committed by the person without using the
loose firearm, the violation of this law shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
 In the present case, the crime of robbery with homicide was committed with the use of the
loose firearm. Therefore, it is not a distinct and separate offense. The illegal possession of the
loose firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

XII. A.FIRST ANSWER

Rocky committed the crime of qualified theft because he ransacked the bedroom and took
the money and valuables amounting to Php100, 000 belonging to Rosario, his grandmother who
raised him, without the latter’s consent, so obviously with intent to gain and with grave abuse of
confidence.

The fact that the accused was living in the house of the offended party, who had sheltered
him out of charity, when he took the money belonging to his protector, aggravates the crime
committed by him, inasmuch as he gravely abused the confidence which the owner reposed in
him upon permitting him, out of charity, to live therein, stifling the sentiment of gratitude awakened
in his bosom by his benefactor’s charitable act. (People vs. Syou Hu, 65 Phil. 270)

XII. A. ANOTHER ANSWER

The elements of Qualified Theft, committed with grave abuse of confidence, are as follows:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That it be done without the owner’s consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force
upon things;
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
It is clear that all the elements of Qualified Theft are present in the case.

Grave abuse of confidence, as an element of Qualified Theft, "must be the result of the
relation by reason of dependence, guardianship, or vigilance, between the appellant and the
offended party that might create a high degree of confidence between them which the appellant
abused." (Ringor v. People, G.R. No. 198904, 11 December 2013)

XII. A. SECOND ANSWER

Rocky committed the crime of theft.

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent. The elements of theft are as follows:
There is taking of personal property;
Property taken belongs to another;
Taking was done with intent to gain;
Taking was done without the consent of the owner; and
Taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of
force upon things (Baltazar v. People, G.R. No. 164545, November 20, 2006).

All the elements are present in the case. Hence, Rica shall be liable for the crime of theft.

XII. B
Rocky may not incur criminal liability by invoking as a defense Art.332 of the Revised
Penal Code.
 Under Art. 332, in the crime of theft, malicious mischief and swindling or estafa, there is
no criminal liability if the offender is related to the offended party as: Spouse, ascendant, or
descendant, or relatives by affinity in the same line…

The reference to theft under Article 332 of the RPC embraces both simple theft and
qualified theft, and the reference to spouses includes common-law or live-in relationship (People
vs. Constantino, 60 O.G. 3603 [1963]}.

As such, only civil liability shall result from the crime of qualified theft committed by Rocky
against his grandmother, his ascendant.

XIII. A.
Only Ricalde can be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason.
Ricalde is liable for conspiracy to commit treason because in time of war between the
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Ratute brothers, he came to an agreement with
Riboli to adhere to the enemies of the Philippines and they solicited arms and funds for the Ratute
brothers thus, giving aid to the enemies.

Treason is a breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person who owes

allegiance to it. Thus, the offender is either a Filipino citizen or a resident alien, as the latter owes
temporary allegiance to the Philippine government while he is in the country. As such, only Ricalde
can be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason because he is a Filipino who owes
allegiance to the Philippines. On the other hand, Riboli cannot be convicted because he is a
citizen and resident of Rwanda. It was not shown that Riboli is a resident alien of the Philippines.

XIII. B.
Yes.
In order to prove treason, there must be a testimony of 2 witnesses, at least to the same
overt act, or if the accused confessed in open court. However, the 2-witness rule does not apply
to conspiracy to commit treason because this is a separate and distinct offense from that of
treason. (US vs Bautista, 6 Phil. 581)

As such, the testimony of the only witness, General Riturban, may be sufficient to convict
the accused of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason.

XIV. A.
No, Robin and Rowell cannot be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-night
use of these products in Amsterdam.

The territotiality principle and extra-territoriality principle in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code
are applicable even if the crime is punishable under special laws. In the present case, the
Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed by Robin and Rowell in a foreign country.
XIV. B.

Yes, Robin and Rowell can be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs.

Under Republic Act No. 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, any person,
who shall import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and
purity involved shall be liable for importation of dangerous drugs. In order to establish the crime
of importation of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that the dangerous drugs are brought to the
Philippines from a foreign country. The meaning of importation of prohibited drugs is to bring it
with intent to the land or with intent to unload it.

In this case, it was shown that the lollipops laced with cannabis were bought by them from a
foreign country and they intended to bring it to the Philippines. Therefore, they can be prosecuted
for importation of dangerous drugs.

XIV. C.
If they are found liable for the importation of dangerous drugs, the penalty that may be
imposed on them is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) as provided in Section 4 of Republic
Act No. 9165 or Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
If they are found liable for the use of dangerous drugs, a penalty of a minimum of six (6)
months rehabilitation in a government center shall be imposed on them. Section 15 of Republic
Act No. 9165 provides that a person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use
of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six
(6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense.

XIV. D.
Yes, Roccino can be prosecuted for the act of accessing and sharing on Facebook the private
pictures sent by PM to his brother under Republic Act No. 10175 or Cybercrime Prevention Act
of 2012 for misuse of devices.

Under Republic Act No. 10175, misuse of devices is committed by any person who shall use,
produce, sell, procure, import, distribute, or otherwise make available, or possession with intent
to use without right to a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for
the purpose of committing any cybercrime; or a computer password, access code, or similar data
by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed with intent that
it be used for the purpose of committing any cybercrime.

In the present case, Roccino was able to access the pictures through the password of his
brother without any authority from the latter. His act violated the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems.

XV.
YES. Judge Rossano committed the crime of Judgment rendered through negligence
under Art. 205 of the RPC.

A Judgment rendered through negligence is committed by the judge, who by reason of

inexcusable negligence or ignorance shall render a manifestly unjust judgment in any case
submitted to him for decision.

Here, Judge Rossano committed an error so gross and patent as to produce an inference
of bad faith, when he disallowed Reicher from testifying the case. Reicher should have been
allowed to testify on the crime committed to him by his wife.

XVI.A.

Ruben committed a violation Republic Act (RA) 9262.

 To be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm are the
following:
a) It is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offender’s wife,
former wife, or with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a
common child;
b) It results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. Ruben has repeatedly
caused Rorie, his common law wife and with whom he has a common child, physical harm and
even caused her public ridicule.
XVI.B.
Ruben also violated the following provisions of RA 9262;
1. Causing mental or emotional anguish, public ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her
child, including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, and denial of financial
support or custody of minor children of access to the woman's child/children; (Section 5 paragraph
H)
2. Violence against women and their children also includes depriving or threatening to
deprive the woman or her children of financial support legally due her or her family, or deliberately
providing the woman's children insufficient financial support; (Section 5, paragraph E number2)

XVII. A.
Yes, the case for falsification of public document against Robina will prosper. The following
are the elements of the crime of falsification of public documents:
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
2. He committed any act of falsification; and
3. The falsification is committed in a public, official, or commercial document or
letter of exchange.

In the case at bar, Robina is a private individual who committed an act of falsification in
her Miscellaneous Lease Application with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
a public document. All of the elements are present. Thus, the case against Robina may prosper.

XVII.B.
No, the case for falsification of private document against Ramsey will not prosper. The
following are the elements of falsification of private documents by any person:
1. Offender committed an act of falsification under Article 171.
2. Falsification was committed in any private document; and
3. Falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed
with intent to cause such damage.

Ramsey and Robina entered into a private document of sale and damage was caused to
Robina. However, the 1st element was not satisfied as Ramsey did not commit an act of
falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Ramsey relied on his title believing that
the land sold to him was alienable and disposable and thus, also believing that the title he holds
is valid.
XVIII. A.
 Yes. Mrs. Robinsons may be charged with slight physical injuries not child abuse.
Slight physical injuries is commited when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which
shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical
attendance during the same period.

Although maltreatment within the purview of the Anti-Child Abuse Law, includes physical
abuse, it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs. Robinson’s act was intended to
debase the intrinsic worth and dignity of Reymart or that she intended to humiliate or embarrass
the student. We should also apply the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo where every doubt is
resolved in favor accused. Considering that Mrs. Robinson’s act may incapacitate Reymart for a
few days not exceeding 9 days, the former should be charged with Slight Physical injuries under
the Revised Penal Code not child abuse.

XVIII. B.
No. Mrs. Robinson cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right
against double jeopardy will be prejudiced.

As ruled in People v Pangilinan, a person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for
a single criminal act. Likewise, Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code, a felony under the Revised
Penal Code cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

Considering that there is a similarity in the elements of the Slight Physical Injuries and
Child Abuse under RA 7610, Mrs. Robinson cannot be charged with both as not to violate her
right to Double Jeopardy.

XIX.
Ricky is liable for the crime of attempted corruption of public officers.

Under the Revised Penal Code, corruption of public officials is committed by any person
who shall offer or promise or shall give the gifts or presents to a public officer, who commits
direct bribery, qualified direct bribery, or indirect bribery.

In the case of Gregory Pozar vs. Court of Appeals (GR. No. L-62439, October 23, 1984),
it was held that when the public officer refuses to be corrupted, the crime would be on the
attempted stage.