Academicus Review Center Inc.

Empowering your dream . Empowering your future

1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

2021 MOCK BAR EXAMINATION

SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW
EXAMINERS : PART 1 | ATTY. RAMEL C. MURIA
PART 2 | JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

PART 1.1

An altercation ensued between John and Mark. Bystanders tried to pacify

them but failed to do so. Their verbal confrontation eventually resulted into a
fist fight. After a few minutes, John prevailed over Mark. He dragged him to his
car and brought him to the police station. He talked to the police officer on duty
telling him that he would filing a complaint for unjust vexation against Mark.
Thereafter, he left before signing the statement which the investigator
prepared from him. Assuming that no criminal charges were in fact filed
against Mark because he did not commit any crime, is John criminally liable for
arresting him? Discuss whether John committed any crime.

Suggested answer:

Yes, John is criminally liable. He may be prosecuted for Unlawful Arrest.

Under Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code, an unlawful arrest is committed
by any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without
reasonable ground therefore, shall arrest a person or detain another for the
purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities. In this case, the arrest
made by Pepe and the latter’s delivery to the police station were without any
legal or reasonable ground. Accordingly, he had committed unlawful arrest.
(see U.S. vs. Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-4580, September 7, 1908).

PART 1.2

Discuss the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law.

Suggested answer:

1|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law enunciates that there can be no

crime without a law punishing the conduct or omission. It is better expressed
in the principle nullum crimen, nulla sine lege. The principle prohibits the
extended application of a penal provision to acts not within the letter of the law
and mandates that in case of doubt in its interpretation or application, the same
shall be resolved in favor of the accused.

The principle also embraces the prohibition on the retroactive

application of law and on the vague or overarching statements of punishable
conduct. This implies that penal statutes should operate prospectively and
must be clear, unequivocal, and with the required specificity to inform people
of the conduct that it seeks to punish.

PART 1.3

Alex and Barry were fighting when Carlo came with a shotgun. He tried
to pacify them but to no avail. When Barry finally noticed Carlo, he suddenly
grabbed it and shot Alex with it. Thereafter, he ran away from the scene. Alex
was brought to the hospital and confined for a while because of the injury he
sustained in the shoulder. He was discharged later after two days. A criminal
case for attempted murder was filed against Barry. After the prosecution
presented its witnesses, Barry testified on his behalf admitting that he had no
intent to kill Alex and thus, he could not be convicted of the crime charged.
Carlo was also called to testify for the defense. He claimed that there was no
doubt that Barry intentionally shot Alex with the shotgun. Is Jorge criminally
liable for attempted murder?

Suggested answer:

No, he is not liable for attempted murder. In this case, no treachery or

any qualifying circumstance attended the shooting. The facts are clear that the
accused and the victim were in a fist fight before the former took the shotgun
and shot the latter in his shoulder. Moreover, considering that the accused shot
the victim at close range with the shotgun, he could not have been mistaken in
his aim to injure the latter in his shoulder. Considering this, intent to kill could
not be inferred also from his act. In Etino vs. People, G.R. No. 206632, February

2|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

14, 2018, the Supreme Court held that when the accused shot the victim with a
shotgun without aiming at his vital organ, an intent to kill is unlikely. Thus, said
accused could only be held criminally liable for serious physical injuries.

PART 1.4

Isko stabbed Lito who nearly died were it not for timely medical
attendance. Isko eluded arrest and went to the office of Mayor Benny, his uncle.
Mayor Benny told him to cool down for a while. He gave him P50,000.00 and
directed him to go to the Visayas while he is trying to settle the case. Isko hid
in Cebu until he was arrested two months after the incident. Is Mayor Benny
criminally liable for helping Isko escape to Cebu?

Suggested answer:

No. Mayor Benny is not criminally liable in helping Isko to escape since
he did not abuse his public office as contemplated under Article 19, paragraph
3 of the Revised Penal Code. Also, the crime which Isko committed is neither
treason, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. Isko was
not also known to be guilty of some other crime.

PART 1.5

Rodel was charged with Frustrated Homicide. He pleaded not guilty

during arraignment. When the case was called for the presentation of the
witness for the prosecution, his lawyer manifested that he is willing to plead
guilty to a lesser offense of Attempted Homicide. Assuming that he would be
allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense, can he benefit from the mitigating
circumstance of confession of guilt in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article
13? Explain fully.

Suggested answer:

No. He is no longer qualified to benefit from the mitigating circumstance of

confession of guilt under paragraph 7 of Article 13. His act of pleading guilty to
3|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

a lesser offense of Attempted Homicide is in itself an aggravating circumstance

already. He could have benefited from his plea of guilt if only the information
for Frustrated Homicide had been amended to Attempted Homicide prior to
the re-arraignment.

PART 1.6

Johnny received text messages from an unknown sender telling him that
he would surely die if he would not kill Jose. The text messages continued.
Three days after, he received a phone call reiterating the threats. On the fourth
day, a man approached him and told him that he would be killed in the evening
if the task is not accomplished by four o’clock in the afternoon. Johnny noticed
the firearm in his waist and so, he acceded to the threats. That afternoon,
Johnny went to the next town to look for Jose. Finding the target in his house,
Johnny shot him twice in the head. Is Johnny criminally liable for killing Jose?

Suggested answer:

Yes, he is criminally liable for killing Jose. Duress as a valid defense should
be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one’s life or limb. It should
not be inspired by speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. A person should not
commit a very serious crime on account of a flimsy fear (People v. Quilloy, G.R.
No. L-2331, January 10, 1951). The requisites of this exempting circumstance
are the following: (a) Existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) The fear must be
real and imminent; and (c) The fear must be of an injury greater than or at least
equal to that committed. In this case, Johnny’s fear was not imminent in that he
still had reasonable choices on how to deal with the threats given him. In fact,
he could have eluded the man or reported him to authorities when he went to
look for the victim.

PART 1.7

Luis was convicted by the trial court and was sentenced to one year of
prision correccional to six years and one day of prision mayor. He appealed the

4|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty to
six months of arresto mayor to six years of prision correccional. Can Luis apply
for probation? Discuss.

Suggested answer:

Yes. Republic Act 10707 provides that when a judgment of conviction imposing
a non-probationable penalty is appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is
modified through the imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant
shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision before
such decision becomes final.

PART 1.8

Discuss the propriety of appreciating mitigating and aggravating

circumstances in convictions under Republic Act 9262.

Suggested answer:

Yes. While Republic Act 9262 is a special penal law, it makes use of the
penalties provided for under the Revised Penal Code. A number of cases state
that an offense is defined and is ostensibly punished under a special law, when
the penalty therefor is actually taken from the Revised Penal Code in its
technical nomenclature; necessarily, its duration, correlation, and legal effects
under the system of penalties native to said Code shall also apply. (AAA vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 229762, November 28, 2018).

PART 1.9

Stephen gave Christine a post-dated check in the amount of P500,000.00.

Christine used the check to pay Margo for the second-hand car which she
bought. When Margo presented the check for payment, it was dishonored for
being drawn against a Closed Account. Margo looked for Christine after the
check bounced but she could not find her. She looked for Stephen. After several
attempts of finding him, she chanced upon Stephen who told her that the check
5|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

was inadvertently issued because it has no consideration but love and affection
for Christine. According to him, the check was given to Christine without any
valuable consideration. Having no other recourse, Margo filed a case for
violation of BP 22 against Stephen and Christine. Can both Stephen and Margo
be held for violation of BP 22?

Suggested answer:

As a general rule, only the drawer or the issuer of the check is criminally liable
under BP 22. An endorser is not criminally liable should the check be
dishonored later for lack of funds or being drawn against a closed account.
However, applying the principle of conspiracy suppletorily to cases of violation
of BP 22, the payee maybe held criminally liable for violations of BP 22 should
it be proven that conspiracy exists between him and the drawer in issuing the
bad check. In this case, the indicia of conspiracy are apparent. Stephen issued
the post-dated check to Christine for no valuable consideration. Later on,
Christine used the unfunded check which she got for no cost from Stephen to
buy a car and eventually, absconded with the latter. With this, both Stephen
and Christin suffered no risk for issuing a bad check and using it to defraud an
innocent third person. Accordingly, they maybe deemed to have conspired to
issue the worthless check so as to defraud the victim in this case.

PART 2.1

In 2012, Rissa published a story in an online news site, called Raffa,

where it was alleged that Mr. Willy, a businessman, who had a link with illegal
drugs, and human trafficking, lent a car to a former SC Chief Justice. After four
months, RA No. 10175, which punishes cybercrimes including cyber libel, was
enacted. However, there are no evidences proving the illegal activities of Mr.
Willy. In 2014, the story was republished in the said site.

a. Can Rissa be charged of libel for the 2012 publication of defamatory

story, and cyber libel for the 2014 republication thereof without
violating the rule on double jeopardy?
b. If a complaint for cyber libel involving the 2014 republication of
defamatory story was filed with the Department of Justice in 2018, can

6|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

an information, which was filed in 2019, be quashed on the ground of

prescription?

Suggested answer:

a. Yes. It is settled that a single defamatory statement, if

published several times, gives rise to as many offenses as there
are publications. Each and every publication of the same libel
constitutes a distinct offense. This is the “multiple publication
rule” which is followed in our jurisdiction. (Soriano v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72383, November 9,
1988; Brillante v. CA, G.R. Nos. 118757 and 121571, October
19, 2004)
b. No. In Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 240310, August 6, 2018, the
Supreme Court apply Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code to
cyber libel. Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the
crime of libel shall prescribe in one year while crime punishable
by prision mayor shall prescribe in 15 years. The Supreme
Court in Tolentino vs. People, supra, applied the 15 years rule.

With the 15-year period of prescription, the information cannot

be quashed.

PART 2.2

Pedro is charged in court with possession of dangerous drugs involving 2

grams of shabu under Section 11 of RA No. 9165. Pedro through Atty. Juan
filed a motion to allow him to plea to a lesser offense of possession of drug
paraphernalia under Section 13.

a. Can the Regional Trial Court approve the said motion despite the
vigorous objection of the public prosecutor?
b. If the public prosecutor gave conformity to the motion, and Pedro was
allowed to plea to lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia, can
the latter apply for probation despite Section 24 of RA No. 9165 on non-
applicability of probation law?

7|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

c. If Pedro made a voluntary plea to possession of dangerous drugs

punishable by a penalty of 20 years and 1 day of imprisonment to life
imprisonment, what penalty will you sentence him if you are the judge
handling his case? Please apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law
d. Would your answer in question number 2-c be the same if Pedro is a child
in conflict with the law?
e. If Pedro, a child in conflict with the law, who is sentenced to suffer a
maximum penalty to 7 years of prision mayor for possession of
dangerous drugs, applied for probation during the pendency of his
appeal, can the application be granted?

Suggested answer:

a. No. in People vs. Reafor, G.R. No. 247575, November 16, 2020, the
Supreme Court ruled: The RTC gravely abused its discretion in granting
respondent's motion to plea bargain notwithstanding the prosecution's
opposition to the same which is grounded on DOJ Circular No. 27.
Effectively, respondent's plea of guilty to a lesser offense to which he was
convicted of was made without the consent of the prosecution. Since
respondent's plea of guilt and subsequent conviction for a lesser offense
clearly lack one of the requisites of a valid plea bargain, the plea
bargaining is void. Resultantly, the judgment rendered by the RTC which
was based on a void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and cannot be
considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that a void
judgment has no legality from its inception.
b. Yes. Accused is charged of sale of dangerous drugs. Pursuant to a plea-
bargaining agreement, he pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
possession of drug paraphernalia, which is punishable 6 months and 1
day to 4 years. Sale of dangerous drugs is not probationable. However, in
applying for probation, what is essential is not the offense charged but
the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty of. In sum, in
determining the eligibility of the accused for probation, the court shall
consider possession of drug paraphernalia for which he pleaded guilty,
and not sale of dangerous drugs with which he is charged. Possession of
drug paraphernalia is probationable since the penalty prescribed for it
does not exceed 6 years of imprisonment. Under Section 24 of RA No.
9165, any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail
of the privilege granted by the Probation Law. However, possession of

8|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

drug paraphernalia is not considered as drug trafficking or pushing.

Hence, the accused is eligible to apply for probation. (Pascua vs. People,
G.R. No. 250578, September 7, 2020)
c. Applying Section 1 of ISLAW, the minimum penalty shall not be less than
20 years and 1 day. Under Section 2 thereof, the rule on indeterminate
sentence will not apply if the penalty is life imprisonment. Hence, the
maximum penalty must be less than life imprisonment. (Concurring
opinion by Justice Peralta, People vs. Obias, G.R. No. 222187, March 25,
2019). A penalty of more than 40 years shall be considered as life
imprisonment. Hence, the maximum penalty must be 40 years of
imprisonment or less such as 30 years. Thus, the court can sentence the
accused to suffer 20 years and one day of imprisonment as minimum to
30 years as maximum. (People vs. Pis-an, G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020)
d. If the accused is a child in conflict with the law, the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code are applicable (Section 98 of RA No. 9165). For this
purpose, the penalty of 20 years and 1 day of imprisonment to life
imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. Since the
accused is a minor, reclusion perpetua shall be reduced to reclusion
temporal. Taking into consideration confession as a mitigating
circumstance, reclusion temporal shall be applied in its minimum period.
Applying the Islaw, the maximum penalty shall be fixed within the range
of the minimum period of reclusion temporal while the minimum
penalty shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree, and that is, prision mayor. If I am the judge, I will sentence the
accused to suffer 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum penalty
to 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum penalty.
e. Yes. Under Section 70 of R.A. No. 9165, a first-time minor offender can
apply for probation for the crime of illegal possession or use of
dangerous drug even if the penalty is higher than six years of
imprisonment.

If the applicant is a child in conflict with the law, the application for
probation can be filed at any time in accordance with Section 42 of R.A.
No. 9344, which is amendatory to Section 4 of P.D. No. 968. The phrase
at any time means the child in conflict with the law may file application
for probation even beyond the period of perfecting an appeal or during
the pendency of the appeal.

9|P age
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

PART 2.3

Can a lady student be charged in court with sexual harassment by his

handsome professor? If not, what should be the proper charged?

Suggested answer:

The offender in sexual harassment has authority, influence or moral

ascendancy over victim in a work, training, or education environment. If an
employee sexually harasses another employee, but the former has no
authority, influence or ascendency over the latter, this is not sexual harassment
under RA No. 7877. But the harassment constitutes gender-based public
spaces or online sexual harassment under R.A. No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act) or
any other crime. Under R.A. No. 11313, the crime of gender-based sexual
harassment may also be committed between peers and those committed to a
superior officer by a subordinate, or to a teacher by a student, or to a trainer
by a trainee.

PART 2.4

Five officers of GA company recruited "special buyers," who are not

members of Pag-ibig. For a fee, these “special buyers” would apply membership
in Pag-ibig, and then, they would obtain housing loans from Pag-Ibig but they
will not occupy the housing units involved. Then GA will sell the units to real
buyers, who would assume the balance on the loan of the "special buyer."
Because of this complex scheme involving fraudulent buyers, a huge amount of
money was transferred from the coffers of the Pag-ibig fund by HDMF, and
released to the GA.

a. What are the elements of syndicated estafa?

b. Are the officers of GA company liable for syndicated estafa?

Suggested answer:

a. a. The elements of syndicated estafa under P.D. No. 1689 are: 1. Estafa or
other forms of swindling under Articles 315 to 318 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed; 2. It is committed by a syndicate of five or more
persons; and 3. Defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys

10 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative,

“samahang nayon,” or farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public. (People v. Tibayan,
G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015)
b. No. In Home Development Mutual Fund v. Sagun, G.R. No. 205698, July
31, 2018, based on evidence, GLOBE ASIATIQUE (GA) allegedly recruited
“special buyers,” who are not members of Pag-IBIG. For a fee, these
“special buyers” would apply membership in Pag-IBIG, and then, they
would obtain housing loans from Pag-IBIG but they will not occupy the
housing units involved. Then GA will sell the units to real buyers, who
would assume the balance on the loan of the “special buyer.” Because of
this complex scheme involving fraudulent buyers, a huge amount of
money was transferred from the coffers of the Pag-IBIG fund by HDMF,
and released to the GA. Officers of GA including Delfin Lee were charged
of syndicated estafa. In this crime, it must be established that GA solicited
funds from the general public and at least five swindlers used GA to
defraud its members or stockholders. However, in this case, GA did not
solicit funds from the general public. The HDMF, the complainant, was
not itself a stockholder or member of GA. It was the HDMF itself, not GA,
that had solicited (Pag-ibig) funds from its members. The funds
supposedly misappropriated did not belong to GA’s stockholders or
members, or to the general public, but to the HDMF. Thus, the
respondents did not commit syndicated estafa. However, they should be
charged with simple estafa.

See: (Galvez v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 187919, February 20, 2013)

PART 2.5

a. Pedro through force and intimidation have sexual intercourse with a

child (17 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted under the Revised
Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? Explain briefly your reason.
b. Pedro through force and intimidation have lasciviously massaged the
breast of a child (17 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted under the

11 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Revised Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? What is the proper

designation of the crime? Explain briefly your reason.
c. Pedro through force and intimidation have anal intercourse with a child
(17 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted under the Revised Penal
Code or under RA No. 7610? What is the proper designation of the crime?
Explain briefly your reason.
d. Pedro through force and intimidation have sexual intercourse with an
imbecile (19 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted under the
Revised Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? Explain briefly your reason.
e. Pedro through force and intimidation have lasciviously massaged the
breast of an imbecile (19 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted
under the Revised Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? What is the proper
designation of the crime? Explain briefly your reason.
f. Pedro through force and intimidation have anal intercourse with an
imbecile (19 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted under the
Revised Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? What is the proper
designation of the crime? Explain briefly your reason.
g. Pedro through force and intimidation have anal intercourse with his
daughter, an imbecile (19 years of age). Should Pedro be prosecuted
under the Revised Penal Code or under RA No. 7610? What is the proper
designation of the crime? Explain briefly your reason.

Suggestion answer:

a. If the acts constitute sexual abuse under RA No. 7610, and rape, the
perpetrator shall be prosecuted under RPC. The penalty under RPC for
rape is graver than that prescribes by RA No. 7610. Rape is severely
penalized because it may lead to unwanted procreation; or to paraphrase
the words of the legislators, it will put an outsider into the woman who
would bear a child, or to the family, if she is married. (People vs. Tulugan,
227363, March 12, 2019) Where a minor is raped, RPC ought to prevail
over RA 7610. (People vs. Ejercito, supra) Moreover, RA No. 8353, which
amended RPC on rape, is the more recent and special penal legislation
and this law strengthens the policies of RA No. 7610. (People vs. Briones,
G.R. No. 240217, June 23, 2020)
b. If the acts constitute sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) under RA No.
7610, and acts of lasciviousness, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted
under RA No. 7610. The penalty for sexual abuse (now lascivious

12 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

conduct) under RA No. 7610 is graver than that for acts of lasciviousness
under RPC.
c. If the acts constitute sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) under RA No.
7610, and sexual assault, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under RA
No. 7610. The penalty for sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) under
RA No. 7610 is graver than that for sexual assault under RPC.
d. If the acts constitute sexual abuse against an imbecile under RA No. 7610,
and rape, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under RPC. The penalty
under RPC for rape is graver than that prescribes by RA No. 7610.
e. If the acts constitute sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) against an
imbecile under RA No. 7610, and acts of lasciviousness, the perpetrator
shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610. The penalty for sexual abuse
(now lascivious conduct) under RA No. 7610 is graver than that for acts
of lasciviousness under RPC.
f. If the acts constitute sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) against an
imbecile under RA No. 7610, and sexual assault, the perpetrator shall be
prosecuted under RA No. 7610. The penalty for sexual abuse (now
lascivious conduct) under RA No. 7610 is graver than that for sexual
assault under RPC.
g. If the acts constitute sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct) against an
imbecile under RA No. 7610, and qualified sexual assault, the perpetrator
shall be prosecuted under RPC. The penalty for qualified sexual assault
under RPC is graver than that for sexual abuse (now lascivious conduct)
under RA No. 7610.

PART 2.6

Pedro, a capataz, bloated the amount in the payroll of SMB company, his
employer, by making it appear the total amount of the salaries of the SMB
employees is P15 million when in fact the correct amount is only P10 million.
Using this payroll, Pedro obtained P15 million from the treasurer department.
Instead of distributing the money to the employees as their salaries, Pedro
misappropriated the entire amount.

a. What is/are the crime/s committed by Pedro?

13 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

b. Would your answer be the same, if SMB is a government institution?

Suggested answer:

a. If the capataz is a private employee, the payroll shall be considered as a

private document. Making untruthful statement by bloating the amount
in the payroll is falsification of private document. Using the falsified
document to defraud his employer in the amount of P5 million
constitutes estafa through false pretense. Applying the common element
doctrine, using damage as an element of falsification of private document
precludes the re-use thereof to complete the elements of estafa. Hence,
estafa is not technically committed because the element of damage is not
present. The capataz is only liable for falsification of private document.
(People v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-34516, November 10, 1931) because it was
committed ahead of estafa.

With respect to the P10 million, the possession of capataz as an employee is

physical. Hence, misappropriation thereof is theft.

b. If the capataz is a public officer since SMB is a government institution,

the payroll shall be considered as a public document. Making untruthful
statement by bloating the amount in the payroll is falsification of public
document. Using the falsified document to defraud his employer in the
amount of P5 million constitutes estafa through false pretense. Applying
Article 48 of RPC, since falsification of public document is a necessary
means to commit estafa, the two crimes shall be merged together to form
a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
(Ilumin v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85667, February 23, 1995)

With respect to the P10 million, the possession of capataz as an employee is

physical. Hence, misappropriation thereof is theft.

PART 2.7

Pedro is the agent of SMB company. As an agent, his obligation is to sell

invermectin products of SMB, and then remit to proceeds of sale to SMB less

14 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

his 10% commission. Under this agency arrangement, SMB will defray
transportation and hotel expenses to be incurred by Pedro in connection with
the sale of invermectin. Pedro was able to sell several invermectin. The total
amount of the proceeds of sales is P100,000. However, Pedro misappropriated
10,000. He retained P10,000 as his commission, remitted P80,000 to SMB, and
presented falsified official receipts involving the amount of 10,000 for
transportation and hotel expenses.

a. What is/are the crimes committed by Pedro?

b. Would your answer be the same if the receipts are unofficial?
c. Would your answer in questions no. 7-a and 7-b be the same if Pedro is
receiving monthly salaries from SMB in addition to his 10% commission?

Suggested answer:

a. Misappropriation of money by an agent is estafa. Falsifying an official

receipt to conceal estafa is falsification of public document. Accused is
liable for separate crimes of estafa and falsification.
b. Misappropriation of money by an agent is estafa. Falsifying an unofficial
receipt to conceal estafa is falsification of private document. Applying the
common element doctrine, the use of damage as an element of estafa
precludes the re-use thereof to complete the elements of falsification of
private document. Accused is liable for estafa because it was committed
ahead of falsification of private document.
c. Misappropriation of money by an employee is theft. Falsifying an official
receipt to conceal theft is falsification of public document. Accused is
liable for separate crimes of theft and falsification.
Misappropriation of money by an employee is theft. Falsifying an
unofficial receipt to conceal theft is falsification of private document.
Accused is liable for separate crimes of theft and falsification of private
document. Common element principle is not applicable since there is no
element such as damage common to both crimes.

PART 2.8

Pedro filed three complaints with the office of the city prosecutor against
Juan for violation of ordinance on disturbing peace and order, violation of BP

15 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

Blg. 22 and slight physical injuries, respectively. These cases are all covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure. Will the filing of complaints for preliminary
investigation interrupt the running of the periods of prescription for these
three crimes?

Suggested answer:

a. The filing of complaint involving violation of ordinance with the

prosecutor’s office does not interrupt the running of period of
prescription. The proceedings mentioned in Act No. 3326 are
“judicial proceedings.” Preliminary investigation, which is not a judicial
proceeding contemplated in Act 3326, will cause a prescriptive
interruption. (Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992) The
provision in the Rules on Criminal Procedure regarding the interruption
of prescription by institution of criminal action is not applicable to
violation of ordinance because case involving this crime is covered by
the Rules on Summary Procedure. (Jadewell Parking Systems Corp. vs.
Lidua, Sr., G.R. No. 169588, October 7, 2013, Justice Leonen)
b. The filing of complaint involving violation of BP Blg. 22 with the
prosecutor’s office interrupts the running of period of prescription.
Under Act No. 3326, the running of the prescription of offense
punishable under special law shall be interrupted when “judicial
proceedings for investigation and punishment” are instituted against the
guilty person. The proceeding is described as “judicial” since when Act
No. 3326 was passed on December 4, 1926, preliminary investigation of
criminal offenses was being conducted by justices of the peace.
Considering that preliminary investigation in criminal case for purposes
of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive
branch, the term “proceedings” should now be understood either as
executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the
investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment
stage. Hence, institution of proceeding, whether executive or judicial,
interrupts the running of prescriptive period. (Panaguiton v.
Department of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, People v.
Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012)

Note: The Jadewell case is not compatible with Panaguiton case,

which is affirmed in Pangilinan case, and other cases, because the former

16 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

expressly reaffirmed the Zaldivia principle while latter expressly

abandoned it. For purpose of the bar exam, the Jadewell principle should
be applied if the case involved violation of ordinance. Jadewell should
not be applied to offenses under special laws even they are covered by
the rules on summary procedure.

In People vs. Lee, G.R. No. 234618, September 16, 2019, the Supreme
Court said that Jadewell presents a different factual milieu as the issue
involved therein was the prescriptive period for violation of a city
ordinance, unlike in the Pangilinan and other related cases, where the
issue refers to prescription of actions pertaining to violation of a special
law. For sure, Jadewell did not abandon the doctrine in Pangilinan as the
former even acknowledged existing jurisprudence which holds that the
filing of complaint with the Office of the City Prosecutor tolls the running
of the prescriptive period.
c. The filing of complaint involving slight physical injuries with the
prosecutor’s office interrupts the running of period of prescription.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides “the period of prescription
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information.” The
filling of compliant for preliminary investigation if the fiscal’s office
interrupts the running of prescription of slight physical injuries because
Article 91 does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed in the
Office of the Prosecutor for preliminary investigation or in court for
action on the merits. (Francisco vs. CA, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983)
In People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, April 27, 2007, the Supreme
Court applied the Francisco principle to slight physical injuries, which is
also covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Jadewell case cannot be applied to prescription of felonies although they
are covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Jadewell is
interpreting Act No. 3326, which governs violation of ordinance while
Francisco and Bautista are interpreting Article 91 of the Revised Penal
Code, which is rule on prescription of felonies such as oral defamation
and slight physical injuries.

17 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

PART 2.9

Will previous crimes covered by amnesty, pardon and discharge by

reason of probation be considered in determining if the accused is a recidivist,
which condition will aggravate the penalty for the crime of which he is
charged?

Suggested answer:

Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the modes of criminal

extinction such as death, pardon and amnesty. In People v. Henry Go, G.R. No.
168539, March 25, 2014, it was stated that the only thing extinguished by the
death of the offender is his criminal liability. His death did not extinguish the
crime. In People v. Patriarca, Jr., G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000, the
Supreme Court ruled that pardon looks forward and abolishes or forgives the
punishment.

Applying the Henry Go case and Patriarca case, the modes mentioned in
Article 89 such as death and pardon merely extinguish the criminal liability of
the offender but not the crime itself. However, there is a special rule on
amnesty. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides that amnesty
completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Because of this special rule
of extinguishment of all effects of the penalty, the Supreme Court in Patriarca
stated that amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the
offense itself. In sum, amnesty extinguishes not only the criminal liability of the
offender but also the crime itself.

Under Section 16 of P.D. No. 968 as amended by R.A. No. 10707, final
discharge of the probationer extinguishes his criminal liability. The intention
of the law is to make discharge of the probationer a mode of criminal extinction
in addition to those listed in Article 89 of RPC. Since final discharge of the
probationer under Section 16 of P.D. No. 968 merely extinguishes his criminal
liability, and not the penalty and all its effects, the effect of such discharge is
similar to death or pardon, and not to amnesty. In sum, discharge of the
probationer looks forward, and extinguishes merely the criminal liability and
not the crime itself.

Since the previous crime is not extinguished by the discharge of the

probationer or by pardon, the same shall be considered for purposes of
determining if the accused is a recidivist in committing a second crime, which

18 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

is embraced in the same title. On the other hand, since the previous crime is
extinguished by amnesty, the same shall not be considered for purposes of
determining if the accused is a recidivist in committing a second crime, which
is embraced in the same title.

PART 2.10

What is the crime committed by a child prostitute, her customer, the

pimp, who maintained her to engage in prostitution, and the owner of the
motel, who knowingly allowed the use of his establishment for child
prostitution?

Suggested answer:

Under Section 58 of R.A. No. 9344, persons below 18 years of age shall be
exempt from prosecution for the crime of prostitution under Article 202 of the
Revised Penal Code. The pimp is liable for qualified trafficking in person, the
customer use of trafficked person and owner of motel promoting trafficking in
person.

PART 2.11

State the five (5) differences between piracy under the Revised Penal
Code and piracy under PD 532.

Suggested answer:

Similarities and differences between piracy under the Revised Penal Code, and
piracy under P.D. No. 532 are as follows:

a. Criminal Act – The criminal act in both piracy under the Revised Penal
Code and piracy under P.D. No. 532 is attacking upon or seizing a
vessel, or taking away or seizing the vessel, or other properties with
intent to gain.

19 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

b. Mode of Commission – In piracy under P.D. No. 532, the seizure or

taking must be committed by means of violence or intimidation
against person, or force upon things (such as destroying the door of a
vessel’s room). On the other hand, the Revised Penal Code has not
mentioned “by means of violence or intimidation against person or
force upon things” as an element of or as a mode of committing piracy.
c. Offender – Under the Revised Penal Code, a pirate is any person, who
is not a member of complement of a vessel nor a passenger thereof. In
sum, a pirate must be an outsider. Under P.D. No. 532, a pirate is any
person including a passenger or member of the complement of the
vessel. Thus, a pirate can be an outsider or insider.
d. Vessel – Vessel for purposes of piracy under P.D. No. 532 refers to any
vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from
one place to another through Philippine waters. But it shall include
vessels or boats used in fishing. Thus, a ship or vessel constituting the
dwelling of one or more persons is not a vessel within the meaning of
P.D. No. 532.
The Revised Penal Code provides no definition of a vessel for
purposes of piracy. Hence, vessel for purposes of piracy under the
Code is generic, and it is not confined to passenger, cargo or fishing
vessel.
e. Place of Commission – In piracy under P.D. No. 532, the vessel where
the crime is committed must be in Philippine waters. Before, in piracy
under the Revised Penal Code, the vessel where the crime is
committed must be on high seas. But R.A. No. 7659 amended Article
122 of RPC by punishing piracy not only on high seas but also in
Philippine waters.

PART 2.12

What is the period of prescription for violation of RA No. 3019?

Suggested answer:

For corruption under R.A. No. 3019 as amended by R.A. No. 10910, the
prescriptive period is 20 years.

20 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

PART 2.13

Is the mental age of a person relevant in statutory rape, exempting

circumstance of imbecility and 12-year-old rule under Section 5 of RA No.
7610?

Suggested answer:

For purpose of statutory rape, there is no difference between actual age

and mental age. Having sexual intercourse with the offended party, who is
under 12 years of age, is statutory rape under Article 266-A (d) of RPC. The
word “age” in this provision includes chronological age and mental age. Hence,
having sexual intercourse with idiot, imbecile, or feebleminded is statutory
rape under Article 266-A (d) (People vs. Daniega, G.R. No. 212201, June 28,
2017; People vs. Labordo, G.R. No. 239033, February 13, 2019; People vs. XXX,
G.R. No. 243988, August 27, 2020).

Under Section 5 (b) of RA No 7610, when the child subjected to sexual

abuse is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted for rape
and acts of lasciviousness under RPC. The word “age” in the phrase “when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age” in Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 is
either chronological or mental. For purpose of Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610,
there is no difference between actual age and mental age. Hence, the victim
whose actual age is 12 years old but her mental age is 9 years old, is considered
as a victim under 12 years of age within the contemplation of Section 5 (b).
(People vs. Pusing, G.R. No. 208009, July 11, 2016, Justice Leonen)

In exempting circumstance, there is a difference between actual age and

mental age. In exempting circumstance of imbecility, what is important is the
mental age of the accused. An idiot, whose mental age is 2 years, and imbecile,
whose mental age is 7 years old (People vs. Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October
19, 2011, Bersamin) are exempt from criminal liability. A feebleminded, whose
mental age is 12 years old, is not exempt from criminal liability since he is not
an imbecile (People vs. Nunez, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997) but he is
entitled to mitigating circumstance of mental illness (People vs. Formigones,
G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950). In exempting circumstance of minority
under Section 6 of RA No. 9344, what is important is the chronological or actual
age of the accused.

21 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

If the actual age of the accused is 18 years old and mental age is 9 years
old, the exempting circumstance of minority and imbecility shall not be
appreciated because he is neither a minor nor an imbecile (People vs. Roxas,
G.R. No. 200793, June 04, 2014).

PART 2.14

What are the elements of violation of Anti-Wire Tapping Law? What is

the crime committed if the police officer tapped a cellphone private
communication between two individuals?

Suggested answer:

The interception of the cellphone conversation between two individuals

is not a violation of the anti-wiretapping law because it is a wireless
communication. Such acts shall constitute cybercrime of illegal interception
under R.A. No. 10175.

PART 2.15

Explain briefly the blameless ignorance doctrine?

Suggested answer:

Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day

when the crime is committed. An exception to this rule is the “blameless
ignorance” doctrine, under which prescription runs only upon discovery of the
crime by offended party or State through a person in authority or his agent. In
other words, the courts would decline to apply the statute of limitations where
the State through a person in authority or its agent, and the offended party does
not know, or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a crime. In
sum, the State and the offended party should not be blamed for failure to
institute the case immediately after the commission of the crime if it/he is
ignorant of such commission. This principle is incorporated in Section 2 of Act

22 | P a g e
 Academicus Review Center Inc.
Empowering your dream . Empowering your future
1408 Ermita Center, 1350 Roxas Blvd., cor. Sta. Monica St. Ermita, Manila
Globe (0977) 675 1793

3326 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code. (Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
Nos. 169823-24 and 174764-65, September 11, 2013)

---NOTHING FOLLOWS---

23 | P a g e