Bar Review Institute
University of the Philippines College of Law
LAST MINUTE TIPS IN
CRIMINAL LAW
BAR 2020/2021
I. Territoriality
Q1: What is the territoriality principle of
1
penal laws?
ANS: The territoriality principle states that
02
penal laws have force and effect only within
the territorial jurisdiction of a country. As
stated in Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, the provisions of the Code shall be
02
enforced not only within the Philippine
Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone.
I2
As exceptions, penal laws may also be
imposed outside of the jurisdiction of the
Philippines for:
BR
(1) an offense committed while on a
Philippine ship or airship,
(2) forging or counterfeiting of coins
or currency notes of the Philippines
or obligations and securities issued
AW
by the Philippine government,
(3) the introduction into the
Philippines of those mentioned in
number 2,
(4) offense committed by public
PL
officers or employees in the exercise
of their functions, and
(5) crimes against national security
and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of the RPC.
U
[Art. 2, RPC]
II. Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Q2: Differentiate among Praeter
Intentionem, Aberratio Ictus, and Error in
Personae.
ANS: Praeter intentionem occurs when the
act committed exceeds the intent and there
is no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE
[Nizurtado v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
107383, December 7, 1994].
Aberratio ictus refers to a mistake in the
blow and occurs when an offender
intending to do an injury to one person
actually inflicts it on another.
Error in personae refers to a mistake in
identity and occurs when a felony is
inflicted on one person mistaken for
another. [People v. Gemoya, G.R. No. 132633,
October 4, 2000]
Q3: Is criminal intent required in
malversation?
ANS: No. Malversation is committed either
intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or
the culpa is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
charged differs from the mode proved, the
same offense of malversation is still
committed; hence, a conviction is proper.
All that is necessary for a conviction is
sufficient proof that the accused accountable
officer had received public funds or
property, and did not have them in his
possession when demand therefor was
made without any satisfactory explanation
of his failure to have them upon demand.
For this purpose, direct evidence of the
personal misappropriation by the accused is
unnecessary as long as he cannot
satisfactorily explain the inability to
produce or any shortage in his accounts.
[Mesina v. People, G.R. No. 162489, June 17,
2015]
Page 1 of 8

Q4: When may a minor be exempt from
criminal liability?
ANS: According to Sec. 6 of R.A. 9344, a
child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the
time of the commission of the offense shall
be exempt from criminal liability. A child
above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen
(18) years of age who acted without
discernment shall likewise be exempt from
criminal liability.
1
III. Justifying, exempting, and
02
mitigating circumstances
Q5: Justin witnesses a woman being
physically attacked on the street with a 2x4
02
piece of wood by Jake. Justin tried to grab
the piece of wood and take it away from
Jake. Inadvertently, this caused Jake to lose
I2
balance and fall onto the sidewalk where
Jake hit his head on a concrete electric post
and suffered severe head trauma. Justin
BR
immediately called an ambulance to attend
to Jake, but the latter died on the way to the
hospital. Justin then surrendered to the
police and was charged with homicide.
What attendant circumstances may Justin
AW
raise that can diminish his criminal liability?
ANS: Justin’s criminal liability may be
wholly extinguished by claiming that his act
was done in defense of a stranger.
To justify a crime in defense of a stranger,
the following elements must concur:
PL
1. Unlawful aggression against a
stranger
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and
U
3. The accused be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other ill
motive.
IV. Aggravating and alternate
Q6: When is relationship aggravating?
UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE
ANS: Relationship is aggravating in crimes
against chastity. It is also aggravating in
crimes against persons when: (a) the
offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender, (b) the offender
and the offended party are of the same
level, or © the crime is homicide or murder,
rape.
Q7: When is relationship mitigating?
ANS: Relationship is a mitigating
circumstance in Robbery, Usurpation,
Fraudulent Insolvency and Arson.
Q8: When is relationship exempting?
ANS: Relationship exempts an accessory
who is related to the principal from criminal
liability [Art. 20, RPC]. However, there
exists an exception where the said relative
profited themselves or assisted the offender
to profit by the effects of the crime [Art.
19(1), RPC]
Also, in crimes of theft, malicious mischief,
and swindling or estafa, there is no criminal
liability if the offender is the spouse,
ascendant, descendant, brother, sister,
brother-in-law, sister-in-law of the offended
party and they are living together [Art. 332].
V. Application of ISLAW
Q9: Francis was convicted of Estafa in 2010.
In March 2021, he was on trial for 2 counts
of Qualified Theft. Is Francis disqualified
from the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law?
ANS: No, Francis is not disqualified. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply
to persons convicted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life imprisonment; to
those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason; to those
convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or espionage; to those convicted of
piracy; to those who are habitual
Page 2 of 8
delinquents; to those who have escaped
from confinement or evaded sentence; to
those who having been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one year.
Considering that Francis does not fall into
any of the above, he is not disqualified from
the law’s benefits. [Sec. 2, Indeterminate
1
Sentence Law]
02
VI. Service of Sentence
Q10: Explain the three-fold rule.
ANS: Under the three-fold rule, the
02
maximum duration of the convict’s sentence
shall not be more than 3 times the length of
the time corresponding to the most severe
I2
penalty imposed upon him. This rule
applies when the convict has to serve 4 or
more sentences successively. The maximum
BR
period shall not exceed 40 years. [Art. 70,
RPC]
Q11: What is a subsidiary penalty?
ANS: Subsidiary penalty provided in
AW
Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code is a
subsidiary personal liability to be suffered
by the convict who has no property with
which to meet the fine imposed by a court
in its final judgment at the rate of one (1)
day for each amount equivalent to the
PL
highest minimum wage rate prevailing in
the Philippines at the time of the rendition
of the judgment of conviction by the trial
court. [Article 39, Revised Penal Code as
U
amended by Rep. Act No. 10159 (2012)]
Q12: Salvador and his wife, Myrna, were
charged with eight (8) counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22. Salvador was
convicted but his wife was acquitted
because she did not participate in the
issuance of the checks. Salvador was
penalized with a fine only. During
UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE
execution, Salvador was not able to pay the
fine and the writ of execution was returned
unsatisfied. Private Complainant Brian filed
a Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty,
which was denied by the Metropolitan Trial
Court (“MTC”). He appealed to the
Regional Trial Court, but the RTC denied
his appeal. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the latter dismissed it because (i)
Private Complainant Brian did not have the
legal standing to file the appeal, as it should
be the Office of the Solicitor General which
should have filed the same; and (ii) the
MTC correctly denied the Motion to Impose
Subsidiary Penalty as it was not imposed as
part of its judgment.
Was the MTC correct in denying the Motion
to Impose?
ANS: Yes, the MTC was correct in denying
the Motion to Impose Subsidiary Penalty.
Subsidiary penalty may be served by the
convict only if it is imposed expressly in the
judgment of the court pursuant to Article 78
of the Revised Penal Code stating that no
penalty shall be executed except by virtue of
a final judgment and a penalty shall not be
executed in any other form than that
prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents other than those
expressly authorized thereby.
Here, the judgment of conviction did not
provide subsidiary imprisonment in case of
failure to pay the penalty of fine. Thus,
subsidiary imprisonment may not be
imposed without violating the RPC and the
constitutional provision on due process.
[People, through Private Complainant Brian
Victor Britchford v. Salvador Alapan, G.R. No.
199527, 10 January 2018]
VII. Effect of Death of the Accused
Q13: Edwin was charged and convicted of
homicide. While his appeal was pending,
Page 3 of 8
Edwin died. What is the effect of his death
on his civil liability?
ANS: The death of the accused pending
appeal of his conviction extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely thereon. However, the claim of
civil liability survives notwithstanding the
death of the accused if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict, such as law, contracts,
quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. [People v.
[c] the conduct of the malefactors
before, at the time, or immediately
after the killing of the victim;
[d] the circumstances under which
the crime was committed; and,
[e] the motives of the accused
[Edenetino v. People, G.R. No. 206632,
February 7, 2018]
Q15: How is attempted rape distinguished
from acts of lasciviousness?

1
Culas, G.R. No. 211166, June 5, 2017] ANS: The difference between attempted
rape and acts of lasciviousness lies in the

02
VIII. Crimes against Persons
Q14: While Gardo was walking to his home,
Miko charged at him with a thick banana-q
intent of the perpetrator as deduced from
his external acts. The intent referred to is the
intent to lie with a woman. Attempted rape
is committed when the "touching" of the

02
stick and stabbed Gardo in the chest, near vagina by the penis is coupled with the
the heart. Barangay tanods were quick to intent to penetrate; otherwise, there can
respond and were able to take Gardo to a only be acts of lasciviousness. [People v.
nearby hospital. They also apprehend Miko
I2 Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011]
before he could inflict any more damage or
escape. Gardo survived the attack. The IX. Crimes against property
doctor said that Miko missed Gardo’s heart
BR
Q16: Bertie rented a condominium unit
by 3cm and ordered Gardo’s confinement in
owned by GSS Corp. Before signing the
the hospital for 20 days to recover. What
lease contract, Bertie issued 24 post-dated
offense should Miko be charged with?
checks representing monthly rental
ANS: Miko should be charged with Less
payments. Every month for 4 months, GSS
Serious Physical Injuries. The Revised Penal
AW

Corp. encashed the checks without any

Code states that any person who shall inflict
problem. On the 5th month, the
physical injuries upon another requiring
corresponding check was returned
medical attendance for 10 days or more
uncashed, and stamped “No sufficient
shall be found guilty of Less Serious
funds”. Despite notice, Bertie did not
Physical Injuries (Art. 265, Revised Penal
deposit any funds for the checks.
PL

Code),
Eventually, only the first four checks were
paid and all others were returned uncashed,
Intent to kill is only presumed if the victim
and stamped “No sufficient funds”. Bertie
dies as a result of a deliberate act of the
was then charged with 20 counts of a
malefactors. Intent to kill is a specific intent
U

violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and the

which the prosecution must prove by direct
crime of Estafa for the issuance of the
or circumstantial evidence which may
bouncing checks.
consist of:
Can Bertie be held liable for the 20 criminal
[a] the means used by the
cases for violation of BP 22, and separately
malefactors;
also be held liable for the crime of Estafa for
[b] the nature, location and number
the issuance of the same bouncing checks?
of wounds sustained by the victim;
ANS: Yes, Bertie can be held liable both for
a violation of BP 22 and the crime of estafa.

UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE Page 4 of 8

In Leonora Rimando vs. Spouses Aldaba and
People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 203583, 13
October 2014), the Court held that the
simultaneous filing of both cases does not
amount to double jeopardy. While a BP 22
case and an estafa case may be rooted from
an identical set of facts, they nevertheless
present different causes of action, which,
under the law, are considered separate,
distinct, and independent from each other.
Deceit and damage are essential elements in
1
Estafa, but are not required in Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22.
02
Q17: How does theft become qualified?
ANS: Theft becomes qualified when any of
the following circumstances under Article
02
310 is present: (1) the theft is committed by
a domestic servant; (2) the theft is
committed with grave abuse of confidence;
I2
(3) the property stolen is either a motor
vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the
property stolen consists of coconuts taken
BR
from the premises of a plantation; (5) the
property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property
was taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
AW
any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance. [Miranda vs. People, G.R.
176298, January 25, 2012]
X. Crimes against liberty
PL
Q18: May a public officer be held criminally
liable for kidnapping and illegal detention?
ANS: Yes. Although the crime of
kidnapping can generally only be
U
committed by a private individual, the fact
that the accused is a public official does not
automatically preclude the filing of an
information for kidnapping against him.
A conviction for the crime of kidnapping or
serious illegal detention requires the
concurrence of the following elements:
1. The offender is a private individual;
UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE
2. That individual kidnaps or detains
another or in any other manner
deprives the latter of liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping is
illegal;
4. In the commission of the offense,
any of the following circumstances is
present:
a. The kidnapping or detention
lasts for more than three
days.
b. It is committed by one who
simulates public authority.
c. Any serious physical injury
is inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained, or
any threat to kill that person
is made.
d. The person kidnapped or
detained is a minor, a female
or a public officer.
A public officer who detains a person for
the purpose of extorting ransom cannot be
said to be acting in an official capacity. In
People v. Santiano, this Court explained that
public officials may be prosecuted under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code if
they act in their private capacity.
Accused-appellant's membership in the
Philippine National Police does not
automatically preclude the filing of an
information for kidnapping or serious
illegal detention against him. He may be
prosecuted under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code if it is shown that he committed
acts unrelated to the functions of his office.
[People v. Borja, G.R. No. 199710, August 02,
2017]
Q19: Distinguish between kidnapping and
serious illegal detention and arbitrary
detention.
ANS:
Kidnapping Arbitrary
and Serious Detention
Illegal (Art. 124)
Page 5 of 8
 material author of the falsification”[Nierva
Detention
vs. People of the Philippines].
(Art. 267)

Offender Private Public officer XII. Anti-Child Abuse Law

individual or employee
Q21: What are the elements of sexual abuse
Act Offender Public officer under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610?
Committed ANS: The elements of sexual abuse under
kidnaps, detains a
detains, or person Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 are as follows:
otherwise without legal 1. The accused commits the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious

1
deprives a ground
person of conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a

02
liberty
child exploited in prostitution or
Classification Crime Crime subjected to other sexual abuse; and
against against the 3. The child, whether male or female, is
personal fundamental below 18 years of age.

02
liberty laws of the [Imbo v. People, G.R. No. 197712, April 20,
State 2015]

I2
XI. Crimes against Public Interest

Q20: Gino sold a piece of land to Ben. Gino

BR
presented a Transfer Certificate of Title
bearing the descriptions of the lot and
purporting his name as registered owner.
After the purchase price was paid. Ben
began the process to transfer the title to his
AW
Q22: Who is considered a “child” or
“children” under Republic Act No. 7610?
ANS: "Children" refers to persons below
eighteen (18) years of age or those over but
are unable to fully take care of themselves
or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or

own name. It was then that the Register of condition. [R.A. 7610, sec. 3(a)]
Deeds informed him that the TCT in his
possession was a falsity. Ben confronted XIII. Safe Spaces Act & VAWC
Gino about this discovery. Gino, instead of
giving an explanation, insisted on its Q23: Bill and Anne were sweethearts for 11
authenticity and refused to return Ben’s years until Bill ended the relationship and
PL

money. What crime has Gino committed?
ANS: Gino committed the crime of
falsification of public documents because
the deception could not have been
U
married Kelly. Five years after their break
up, Bill began to send private messages to
Anne. Initially, they were friendly, then
flirty. Anne politely asked Bill to stop but

committed without the falsification.
“In the absence of satisfactory explanation,
one found in possession of and who used a
forged document is the forger of said
document. If a person had in his possession
a falsified document and he made sure of it,
taking advantage of it and profiting thereby,
the clear presumption is that he is the
when he didn’t, she blocked him on all
communications and social media platforms
and changed her personal mobile phone
number. After a while, Anne began
receiving sound clips of sexually-charged
moaning and pictures of human male
genitalia from Bill's multiple newly-made
social media accounts. This account sent her
photos of her and her new boyfriend she

UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE Page 6 of 8

posted as Instagram Stories she set to “close
friends only” with the caption “mas
minahal kita”.
(A) May Bill be charged with a violation
of the Safe Spaces Act?
ANS: Yes, he may be charged with
gender-based online sexual harassment,
stalking, and cyberstalking.
1
Gender-based Online Sexual Harassment
includes acts that use information and
02
communications technology in terrorizing
and intimidating victims through invasion
of the victim’s privacy through
cyberstalking and incessant messaging
02
(R.A. No. 11313 or the Safe Spaces Act).
Cyberstalking is a form of stalking that is
I2
committed through an electronic medium in
which online communication takes place. To
constitute an offense, the conduct must be
BR
manifested through the repeated use of
electronic communications in stalking.
Stalking refers to conduct directed at a
person involving the repeated visual or
physical proximity, non-consensual
AW
communication, or a combination thereof
that cause or will likely cause a person to
fear for one’s own safety or the safety of
others, or to suffer emotional distress. (R.A.
No. 11313 or the Safe Spaces Act).
PL
(B) May Bill be charged with violation
of the Anti-VAWC Law?
ANS: Yes, Bill may be charged with a
U
violation of R.A. No. 9262 or the
Anti-VAWC Law. Section 3 of the said law
defines ‘violence against women and their
children’ as any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against, among
others, a woman with whom the person had
a sexual or dating relationship which result
in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or
UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE
economic abuse including threats of such
acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment
or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
Considering that Bill and Anne had been
engaged in a dating relationship, Bill may
be charged under R.A. No. 9262.
Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or
reckless conduct, personally or through
another, that alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child constitutes a violation
of R.A. No. 9262. Herein, Bill’s harassment
against Anne constitutes sufficient ground
for convicting him under the said offense.
XIV. Data Privacy Act of 2012
Q24: Taylor Dimagiba Swift, a popular
actress and politician, wrote her name,
contact number, and address in the
guestbook of Forever 22 for COVID-19
contact tracing purposes. Michael, an
employee in Forever 22, copied Taylor's
contact details in a separate sheet and
released the same to the press. Taylor
accused Michael of violating the Data
Privacy Act. In reply, Michael contended
that Taylor, being a public figure, has no
expectation of privacy whatsoever, and
should not be so onion-skinned. Is Michael's
defense meritorious?
ANS: No, Michael's defense is not
meritorious. Section 32 of the Data Privacy
Act of 2012 penalizes any unauthorized
disclosure of personal information by any
personal information controller or its
employees. While Section 4 of the said Act
provides for several exceptions to the
application of the law, none is present in the
case at bar. Pertinent exceptions are limited
to information regarding a public officer
that relates to the position or function of the
individual, and personal information
processed for journalistic, artistic, literary or
research purposes. Considering that what
was shared by Taylor was her personal and
Page 7 of 8
private information, it is incorrect to say
that the same is not protected by the Data
Privacy Act of 2012.

1
02
02
I2
BR
AW
PL
U

UP LAW BAR REVIEW INSTITUTE Page 8 of 8