“Mimicry”

“ You are afraid of death because you erected your kingdom in this life and you wrecked your
palace in the hereafter.”

- Ust. Munir Muluk

“There are always two afflictions you experience while you live. One is a blessing in which the
affliction is not apparent. The other one is the real affliction which many people could say that it is an
affliction.”
- Ust. Munir Muluk

There are two kinds of fear such as physical fear and emotional fear. Physical fear is the result of
self-preservation; all people want to avoid death which allow us to dodge and hide when being attacked;
if a person does not have fear, he may become fearless and stupid. So sometime fear is important so
that a person will not become stupid by jumping from the 100 stories.

The second type of fear is emotional fear which is in the brain. Fear of losing is emotional fear
which comes from desperation to win.

Too much fear for both will make you hesitant; it is important to get accustomed to physical pain
by exposing yourself to it so that you will never become hesitant and you will be relaxed during the fight.

People who worked hard and who prepared much are most likely affected by this phenomenon
because they think if they do not succeed, their effort are wasted. So, do not be desperate to win so that
you will never become hesitant and you will lose your fear of losing.

Both physical pain and emotional pain are in Allah’s hand so there is no point of being fearful and
eventually hesitant.

Streamline the law and the facts because they are meant to be verbose and eventually confuse
you.

Just master the laws, their nuances and application; never mind the suggested answer;
sometimes, they are not accurate.

You cannot depend on memorization during the bar exams; your stock knowledge is
indispensable; own the context.

-Atty. Michael Ingles

Looking back at the various suggested answers, what you need is you just demonstrate your
knowledge of the law during the bar exams; just tell the examiners that you deserve entry to the world of
legal profession. A set of facts can be answered in different ways as pointed out by some alternative
answers given by U.P.

Bravery is in the attitude. Attitude comes from belief. Lions see the elephants as lunch; elephants
see the lions as eaters; lions win; elephants die.
 “It is the character which allows a person to speak; it is the character which allows a person to
write; it is the character which allows a person to excel and it is the character which allows a person to
do everything he wants, not the necessary logistics he needs.
During the bar exams, do not entertain doubts; you know the law 100%.

In the facts, examiners sometime intend not to use the proper word, like for example, the word
expropriation in cases involving an expropriation of private property to allow you to think out of the box.

“Always imagine the interplay of the law; this is the core of reading the law and the reason why
reading cases is important.”
If you can cite the name of RAs, citation of cases, legal terms, topics like Bill of Rights, Custodial
Investigation, Warrantless Arrest, among others, it is appreciated.

For as long as you know the law, that is enough for the bar exams.

Just show to the examiner that you know the topic he asked such as warrantless arrest, custodial
investigation, non-establishment clause, free-exercise clause, among others.

Dean Willard Riano had focused on the PBE in his books and discussions. He called the
provisions which were not asked in the PBE as codal.

Master: 1) Previous BE; 2) Syllabus; and 3) Legal terms- res gestate, privilege communication, deadman
statute, non-impairment clause; 4) Epigraph in a fertile provision- filial privilege, best evidence rule; 5)
Principles of law; 6) Citations of cases; and 7) Title of the statutes- Human Security Act.

When Justice Leonen said you go beyond a perfect score, it means that you cite legal basis in you
answer and articulate it; a yes or a no answer does not matter for as long as you have the legal basis
and you are able to logically frame your answer. Argue like a lawyer; give a lawyer-like answer.

Always determine the characters and the problems in the facts; also, determine the solution to
that problem.

During the bar exams, there must be a leap from being safe to be bold; it is the character that
makes you articulate; write like you play a computer game.

Force yourself to give the law; tell the examiner that you know the law by using legal terms, citing
the law or case citations.

Memorize definitions and legal terms; use key words; just supply the connectors.

“Personalize the context of your knowledge.”

“In taking notes, do not just capture. The most important thing is to make it your own. Make your brain
explore with the context. Remember these: Information, inspiration and implementation. Always ask:
How can I use it? Why must I use it? When can I use it?”

“Sometimes, the question is also the answer.”

“ You do not need to get a perfect score in the Bar Examinations. Go beyond a perfect score.”
-Marivic Leonen, J.

“The best teacher is the one who uses analogy.”

“In answering the Bar Exams, make the facts simple by reengineering it to a simple sentence; simplify
the complex sentence.”

“Even if your answer is wrong, if you get the issues, you will be entitled to a certain credit.”

-Judge Bernardo

“you got the issues if you are within the topic. Meaning, you are not out of topic.”
“ Do not write a kilometric answer in the Bar Exams; 3 sentences suffice provided they are complete.”

“Control the oil; you will control the nations. Control the food; you will control the people.”

“Use the call question to answer the bar exams to get the sympathy of the examiners.”

“Just answer the bar exams using legal basis. The Exactness of the application of the law is not
necessary.”

GENERAL PRINCIPLES...............................................................................................................10

General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996) ...................................................................................................................10

General Principles; Territoriality (1994) ......................................................................................................................................................10
General Principles; Territoriality; Jurisdiction over Vessel (2000) ..................................................................................................................10
Use of Aliases; When Allowed (2006)
.............................................................................................................................................................10

FELONIES........................................................................................................................................10

Conspiracy (1997) .................................................................................................................................................................................10

Conspiracy; Avoidance of Greater Evil (2004)...........................................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Co-Conspirator (1998) .........................................................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Common Felonious Purpose (1994) ................................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape (1996)...............................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003)...................................................................................................................................12
Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003).................................................................................................................................12
Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy (1998)................................................................................................................................................13
Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy; Effects (2003) .............................................................................................................................................13
Criminal Liability: Destructive Arson (2000) .................................................................................................................................................13
Criminal Liability: Felonious Act of Scaring (1996)......................................................................................................................................13
Criminal Liability: Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1996)...........................................................................................................................13
Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (2000) ..............................................................................................................................................14
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2001)......................................................................................................................................14
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2005)......................................................................................................................................14
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Immediate Cause (2003) .........................................................................................................................14
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1994)..........................................................................................................................15
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1997)………………………...........................................................................................15
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1999)..........................................................................................................................15
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (2001).........................................................................................................................15
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (2004)…………………………........................................................................................16
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crime (2004) ...............................................................................................................................................16
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes (1994) ................................................................................................................................................16
Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes; Kidnapping (2000)
................................................................................................................................17 Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (1997)
..............................................................................................................................................................17 Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (1999)
.............................................................................................................................................................17 Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (2001)
.........................................................................................................................................................17 Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (2003)
.........................................................................................................................................................17 Mala Prohibita; Actual Injury Required
(2000) ........................................................................................................................................18 Malum in Se vs. Malum Prohibitum (2005)
...................................................................................................................................................18 Motive vs. Intent (1996)
...........................................................................................................................................................................18 Motive vs. Intent (1999)
..........................................................................................................................................................................18 Motive vs. Intent (2004)
........................................................................................................................................................................19 Motive; Proof thereof; Not
Essential; Conviction (2006) .................................................................................................................................19

JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ...................................................................19

Exempting Circumstances; Coverage (2000)……………………..............................................................................................................19

Exempting Circumstances; Minority (1998)...........................................................................................................................................19
Exempting; Minority; 11 yrs Old; Absence of Discernment (2000) .........................................................................................................19
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (2004) ......................................................................................................................................20
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)………………………......................................................................................................20
Justifying; Defense of Stranger (2002) ..............................................................................................................................................20
Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites (2000) ..............................................................................................................................20
Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998) ............................................................................................................................21
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements (2000) .............................................................................................................................................21
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (1996) ............................................................................................................................21
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)
..................................................................................................................................21

Qualifying; Elements of a Crime (2003).......................................................................................................................22

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES................................................................................................22

Mitigating; Non-Intoxication (2000) .........................................................................................................................................................22

Mitigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)...............................................................................................................................................................22
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Requisites (1999)............................................................................................................................................22
Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Voluntary Surrender (1997).............................................................................................................................22
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender (1996)..................................................................................................................................................23
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender; Elements (1999) ..........................................................................................................................................23

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES .........................................................................................23

Aggravating Circumstances (1996)......................................................................................................................................................23

Aggravating Circumstances; Generis vs. Qualifying (1999) ..................................................................................................................24
Aggravating Circumstances; Kinds & Penalties (1999).......................................................................................................................24
Aggravating; Cruelty; Relationship (1994) ............................................................................................................................................24
Aggravating; Must be alleged in the information (2000)………………………..........................................................................................24
Aggravating; Nighttime; Band (1994) ................................................................................................................................................24
Aggravating; Recidivism (2001)..........................................................................................................................................................24
Aggravating; Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998) .................................................................................................................25
Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry
(1997).............................................................................................................................................25

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ...........................................................................................25

Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998) ...........................................................................................................................................25

Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry (1997)..................................................................... ...........................................................25

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES...........................................................................................................................25

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996) ...............................................................................................................................................................25

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995).............................................................................................................................26
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)..........................................................................................................................................26
Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998).....................................................................................................................................26
Criminal Liability; Non-Exemption as Accessory (2004) ............................................................................................................................26
Criminal Liability; Principal by Direct Participation; Co-Principal by Indispensable Cooperation (2000).....................................................27
Criminal Liability; Principal by Inducement (2002) .....................................................................................................................................27
Criminal Liability; Principal; Inducement & Participation (1994) .............................................................................................................27
Destructive Arson (1994) ................................................................................................................................................................................27

Penaltie………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………27
Complex Crime vs. Compound Crime (2004).................................................................................................................................................27
Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. Delito Continuado (2005) ...................................................................................................28
Complex Crime; Aberratio ictus vs. error in personae (1994)............................................................................. ...........................................28
Complex Crime; Aberratio Ictus, Error In Personae & Praeter Intentionem (1999) …………………………..................................................28
Complex Crime; Aberratio Ictus; Attempted Murder with Homicide (2000) ..................................................................................................28
Complex Crime; Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus; Not Applicable (1996) ………………………….................................... .....................................29
Complex Crimes; Coup d’etat & rebellion & sedition (2003)………………………........................................................................................29
Complex Crimes; Determination of the Crime (1999)...................................................................................................................................29
Complex Crimes; Nature & Penalty Involved (1999) ...................................................................................................................................30
Complex Crimes; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime (2003) ............................................................................. ............30
Continuing Offense vs. Delito Continuado (1994) .......................................................................................................................................30
Death Penalty (2004) ..................................................................................................................................................................................30
Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites (2004)......................................................................................................................................31
Habitual Delinquency & Recidivism (2001) ................................................................................................................................................31
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1994) ..........................................................................................................................................................31
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999) ..........................................................................................................................................................32
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999) ……………………….........................................................................................................................32
Indeterminate Sentence Law (2002) .........................................................................................................................................................32
Indeterminate Sentence Law (2005) .........................................................................................................................................................32
Indeterminate Sentence Law; Exceptions (1999) .....................................................................................................................................32
Indeterminate Sentence Law; Exceptions (2003) ....................................................................................................................................33
Penalties: Fine or Imprisonment vs. Subsidiary Imprisonment (2005).....................................................................................................33
Penalties: Pecuniary Penalties vs. Pecuniary Liabilities (2005) …………………………............................................................................33
Penalties; Complex Crime of Estafa (1997) .............................................................................................................................................33
Penalties; Factors to Consider (1991) .....................................................................................................................................................33
Penalties; Homicide w/ Modifying Circumstance (1995) .........................................................................................................................34
Penalties; Mitigating Circumstances w/out Aggravating Circumstance (1997) ……………………….......................................................34
Penalties; Parricide w/ Mitigating Circumstance (1997)...........................................................................................................................34
Penalties; Preventive Imprisonment (1994) ............................................................................................................................................34
Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua (RA) No. 7959 (2005) ............................................................................................................................35
Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (1994) .................................................................................................................35
Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (2001) ……………………....................................................................................35
Probation Law: Proper Period (2005) .....................................................................................................................................................35
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (1994)................................................................................................................................................35
Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (2001)................................................................................................................................................36
Probation Law; Maximum Term vs. Total Term (1997)...........................................................................................................................36
Probation Law; Order Denying Probation; Not Appealable (2002) .........................................................................................................36
Probation Law; Period Covered (2004) ..................................................................................................................................................36
Probation Law; Right; Barred by Appeal (1995) ……………………........................................................................................................36
Probation Law; Right; Barred by Appeal (2003) .....................................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; Adults/Minors (2006)......................................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; Minors (2003).................................................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; Youthful Offender (1995) ..............................................................................................................................38

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY....................................................................................38

Amnesty vs. PD 1160 (2006) ...................................................................................................................................................................38

Amnesty; Crimes Covered (2006)...........................................................................................................................................................38
Extinction; Criminal & Civil Liabilities; Effects; Death of accused pending appeal (2004) ........................................................................38
Extinction; Criminal & Civil Liabilities; Effects; Death of Offended Party (2000)…………………………..........................................................38
Pardon vs. Amnesty (2006).......................................................................................................................................................................39
Pardon; Effect; Civil Interdiction (2004) ......................................................................................................................................................39
Pardon; Effect; Reinstatement (1994) ...................................................................................................................................................39
Prescription of Crimes; Bigamy (1995) ...................................................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (2000) .................................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (2004) ....................................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Concubinage (2001).........................................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; False Testimony (1994) ....................................................................................................................................41
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slander
(1997)................................................................................................................................................41

CIVIL LIABILITY ...........................................................................................................................................................................................41

Prescription of Crimes; Concubinage (2001)..........................................................................................................................................40

Prescription of Crimes; False Testimony (1994) …………………........................................................................................................41
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slander
(1997)................................................................................................................................................41
Subsidiary; Employers (1998).....................................................................................................................................................................42
Civil Liability; When Mandatory; Criminal Liability (2005).........................................................................................................................42
Damages; Homicide; Temperate Damages (2006) ........................................................................................................................................42

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.................................................................................................42

Piracy in the High Seas & Qualified Piracy (2006) .......................................................................................................................................42

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE...............................................................................................................43

Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling (2002) ..................................................................................................................................43

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ..........................................................................................................................................................43

Art 134; Rebellion; Politically Motivated; Committed by NPA Members (1998)

…………………………...........................................................43 Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)
......................................................................................................................................44 Art 134-A; Coup d’etat (2002)
.......................................................................................................................................................................44 Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New
Firearms Law (1998).......................................................................................................................................44 Art 136; Conspiracy to
Commit Rebellion (1994).............................................................................................................................................44
Art 148; Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience (2001) ....................................................................................................................44
Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers & Professors (2002) ................................................................................................................................45
Art 148; Persons in Authority/Agents of Persons in Authority
(2000)................................................................................................................45 Art 156; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (2002)
.............................................................................................................................................45 Art 157; Evasion of Service of Sentence (1998)
...........................................................................................................................................46 Art. 134; Rebellion vs. Coup d'etat (2004)
..........................................................................................................................................46 Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder
(2000) .......................................................................................................................................46

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST....................................................................................47

False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999) .........................................................................................................................................................47

False Testimony (1994)..........................................................................................................................................................................47
Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)......................................................................................................................................47
Forgery & Falsification (1999) ........................................................................................................................................................................47
Grave Scandal (1996) .................................................................................................................................................................................48
Perjury (1996) .............................................................................................................................................................................................48
Perjury (1997) .............................................................................................................................................................................................48
Perjury (2005) .................................................................................................................................................................................................49

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS........................................................................................................................................49

Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001) ..............................................................................................................................................49

Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005) ..................................................................................................................49
Jurisdiction; Impeachable Public Officers (2006) ....................................................................................................................................50
Malversation (1994) ...............................................................................................................................................................................50
Malversation (1999) .............................................................................................................................................................................50
Malversation (1999) ..............................................................................................................................................................................50
Malversation (2001) ...........................................................................................................................................................................50
Malversation (2006) ............................................................................................................................................................................51
Malversation vs. Estafa (1999) ...........................................................................................................................................................51
Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001) ................................................................................................................................52
Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996) ..............................................................................................................................................52
Public Officers; definition (1999)..................................................................................................................................................................52
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996) ………………………...............................................................................................52
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1997) ................................................................................................................................53

Crimes Against Person………………………………………………………..……………………………….53

Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault-Authority (1995) …………………................................................................................................53

Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion (1994) ..................................................................................................................53
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998 No) .........................................................................................................................53
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997).............................................................................................................................................54
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)..................................................................................................................................................54
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)...........................................................................................................................................54
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)………………………….......................................................................................................54
Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994) ...................................................................................................................................55
Infanticide (2006)......................................................................................................................................................................................55
Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005) …………........................................................................................................................................55
Murder (1999) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................55
Murder; Definition & Elements (1999) ........................................................................................................................................................56
Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996).......................................................................................................................................................56
Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)..........................................................................................................................................56
Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)......................................................................................................................................................56
Murder; Treachery (1995)..............................................................................................................................................................................57
Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004) .......................................................................................................................................................57
Parricide (1999)..........................................................................................................................................................................................57
Parricide (1999)........................................................................................................................................................................................57
Parricide; Multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997)………………………...............................................................................................................57
Rape (1995).................................................................................................................................................................................................58
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)...............................................................................................................................................58
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002) .............................................................................................................................................................58
Rape; Consented Abduction (2002) …………………………...................................................................................................................59
Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993)............................................................................................................................................59
Rape; Male Victim (2002) .......................................................................................................................................................................59
Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000)...................................................................................................................................59
Rape; Proper Party (1993).......................................................................................................................................................................59
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)..........................................................................................................................60

Crimes Against Personal Security and Liberty………………………….60

Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)…………………………….....................................................................................................60

Grave Coercion (1998)..................................................................................................................................................................................60
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999) ....................................................................................................................................61
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)...........................................................................................................................................61
Kidnapping (2002) ..................................................................................................................................................................................61
Kidnapping (2006) ...................................................................................................................................................................................61
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)………………….....................................................................................................................................62
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004) ....................................................................................................................................62
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006) ......................................................................................................................................62
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996) ...............................................................................................................................................63
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997) ……………………….............................................................................................................63
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006).....................................................................................................................................63
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994) ......................................................................................................................................64
Unjust Vexation vs Acts of Lasciviousness (1994).......................................................................................................64

Crimes Against Property………………………………64

Arson; Destructive Arson (1994)………………………................................................................................................................................64

Arson; Destructive Arson (2000)...................................................................................................................................................................64
Arson; New Arson Law (2004).......................................................................................................................................................................64
BP 22; Memorandum Check (1994)................................................................................................................................................................65
BP 22; Memorandum Check (1995)..............................................................................................................................................................65
BP 22; Presumption of Knowledge (2002) ………………………….................................................................................................................65
Estafa & Trust Receipt Law (1995) ..............................................................................................................................................................65
Estafa (1999) ................................................................................................................................................................................................66
Estafa vs. BP 22 (1996)...........................................................................................................................................................................66
Estafa vs. BP 22 (2003).............................................................................................................................................................................66
Estafa vs. Money Market Placement (1996)..............................................................................................................................................67
Estafa vs. Theft (2005) ...............................................................................................................................................................................67
Estafa; Elements (2005) .......................................................................................................................................................................67
Estafa; Falsification of Commercial Document (2000)....................................................................................................................................67
Estafa; Falsification of Commercial Documents (1997) ..............................................................................................................................68
Estafa; Swindling (1998).............................................................................................................................................................................68
Robbery (1996) .............................................................................................................................................................................................68
Robbery under RPC (2000) .................................................................................................................................................................68
Robbery under RPC (2001) ..................................................................................................................................................................68
Robbery vs. Highway Robbery (2000)........................................................................................................................................................69
Robbery w/ force upon things (2000) ...................................................................................................................................................69
Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005) …………………….............................................................................................................69
Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)...............................................................................................................................................................70
Robbery w/ Homicide (1998).................................................................................................................................................................70
Robbery w/ Homicide (2003)......................................................................................................................................................................71
Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995) ……………………....................................................................................................71
Robbery w/ Intimidation vs. Theft (2002) ...................................................................................................................................................71
Robbery w/ Rape (1999) ........................................................................................................................................................................71
Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004) ..................................................................................................................................................71
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)..............................................................................................................................................................72
Robbery; Rape (1997)...............................................................................................................................................................................72
Theft (1998) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................72
Theft (2001) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................73
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
...........................................................................................................................................................................73 Theft; Qualified Theft
(2002) ......................................................................................................................................................................73 Theft; Qualified Theft
(2006) ..........................................................................................................................................................................73 Theft; Stages of
Execution (1998) ...............................................................................................................................................................73 Theft; Stages of
Execution (2000) ............................................................................................................................................................74 Usurpation of Real
Rights (1996)....................................................................................................................................................................74

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY....................................................................................................74

Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Unjust Vexation (1994) ...................................................................................................................................74

Adultery (2002)......................................................................................................................................................................................74
Concubinage (1994) ...........................................................................................................................................................................74
Concubinage (2002) ...............................................................................................................................................................................75
Unjust Vexation vs. Act of Lasciviousness
(2006)............................................................................................................................................75

CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS........................................................75

Bigamy (1994)..............................................................................................................................................................................................75
Bigamy (1996).............................................................................................................................................................................................75
Bigamy (2004)...........................................................................................................................................................................................75
Bigamy; Prescriptive Period (1995)..........................................................................................................................................................76
Simulation of Birth & Child Trafficking (2002) .................................................................................................................................................76

CRIMES AGAINST HONOR......................................................................................................................................................................76

Libel (2002)……………………..................................................................................................................................................................76
Libel (2003)...................................................................................................................................................................................................76
Libel (2005)................................................................................................................................................................................................77
Slander (1988) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................77
Slander (1996) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................77
Slander by Deed vs. Maltreatment (1994 )..................................................................................................................................................77
Slander vs. Criminal Conversation (2004) ....................................................................................................................................................77

MISCELLANEOUS.........................................................................................................................78

Corpus Delicti (2001) ....................................................................................................................................................................................78

Corpus Delicti; Definition & Elements (2000) .........................................................................................................................................78
Entrapment vs. Instigation (1995) .........................................................................................................................................................78
Entrapment vs. Instigation (2003)
...................................................................................................................................................................78
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS...............................................................................................................79

Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998) …………………………...............................................................................................79

Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997) ..........................................................................................................................................79
Anti-Hazing law – RA 8049 (2002)...............................................................................................................................................................80
CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004) .................................................................................................................................................................80
Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006)..................................................................................................................................................................80
Dangerous Drug Act: Plea-Bargaining (2005) .......................................................................................................................................80
Dangerous Drugs Act (1998)....................................................................................................................................................................80
Dangerous Drugs Act (2006).................................................................................................................................................................81
Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Marked Money (2000)...............................................................................................................................81
Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Plea Bargaining (1998) ...........................................................................................................................81
Dangerous Drugs Act; Consummation of Sale (1996)…………………....................................................................................................82
Dangerous Drugs Act; Criminal Intent to Posses (2002)........................................................................................................................82
Dangerous Drugs Act; Plea-Bargaining (2004)....................................................................................................................................82
Highway Robbery (2001) ...........................................................................................................................................................................82
Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996) ..................................................................................................................................................................82
Illegal Possession of Firearms – RA 8294 (1998) .........................................................................................................................................83
Illegal Possession of Firearms & Ammunitions (2000) ...................................................................................................................................83
PD 46 & RA 6713 & Indirect Bribery (2006) ..................................................................................................................................................83
PD 46
(1994)....................................................................................................................................................................................................83 PD
46 (1997)..................................................................................................................................................................................................84
R.A. No. 9160 Anti-Money Laundering Act (2005) .........................................................................................................................................84
Ra 3019; Preventive Suspension (1999) ................................................................................................................... ....................................84
RA 3019; Preventive Suspension (2000)........................................................................................................................................................84
RA 3019; Public Officer (2003)........................................................................................................................................................................85
Ra 6713; Coverage (2001) ............................................................................................................................................................................85
RA 7438-Economic Sabotage; Illegal Recruitment (2004) .............................................................................................................................85
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006) ..............................................................................................................................................................86

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996)
1} What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.
2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are (a) the CLASSICAL THEORY,
which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty
is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and

(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which considers man as a social being and his acts are
attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as
he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of
sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired into.

2. We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in
tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our
Code.
Notes:
1. The classical school of thought was premised on the idea that people have freewill in making
decisions and thus completely responsible for their action, and that punishment can be a deterrent for
crime, so long as the punishment is proportional, fits the crime. Since humans have the right of choice, if
they commit crimes, they shall be punished as a retribution.

The classical theory simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the
purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense.

(b) In positivist school of thought, it says that man is subdued occasionally by a strange and
morbid phenomenon which constrain him to do wrong contrary to his volition, thus punishment is a
rehabilitation and not a retribution.

2. We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in
tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our
Code.

General Principles; Territoriality (1994)

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe
and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
Calamba, Laguna.
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code,
under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law
governs the situation.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, generally, the provisions of the Code shall be applicable in
Philippine territory only. Therefore, any crime committed outside of the Philippines cannot be filed in a
Philippine court.

Article 2. Application of its provisions. - The provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but
also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations
and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in
Title One of Book Two of this Code.

General Principles; Territoriality; Jurisdiction over Vessel (2000)

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian
registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific"
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the
Philippine authorities. An information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no
jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine
territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614)

It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the
laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.

Notes:
In the case of US vs. Fowler, the Supreme Court ruled that a crime committed in the vessel while
cruising in the high seas shall not be filed in the Philippine court because of the principle of territoriality
which means that criminal laws are enforceable in Philippine archipelago.

Use of Aliases; When Allowed (2006)

When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. (2.5%)
1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.
2. Use of aliases in cinema and television entertainment.
3. In athletics and sports activities (RA. 6085).
3. Under the witness protection program a person may adopt a different identity (RA. 6981).
4. When he has been baptized or customarily known by such alias.
5. When authorized by a competent court (CA. No. 142, as amended by RA. 6085).
6. When properly indicated in a Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus Election Code).

FELONIES
CONSPIRACY
Conspiracy (1997)
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves
with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from
their destination, the group alighted and after instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the
house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the
house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily
entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F.
Thereafter, A exiled from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and
motored away. G died. F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A, B, C, and D
was to kill F only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held
criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was
completely unaware of said killing.

For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable therefor. Even if it was only A who
actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A
and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B
positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the
conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the
stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in
the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al
44 Phil. 38),

In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries
upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Tomoro, et al, the Supreme Court held that the co-conspirators shall
be liable only for the crime which is the object of conspiracy, and to be held liable, all of them must
contribute positive acts which led to the realization of the common criminal intent. Moreover, as to the
crime committed which is not the object of the conspiracy, only the actor is liable therefor.

Conspiracy; Avoidance of Greater Evil (2004)

BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack,
drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.

In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury,
contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's
defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and
AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall
govern. The act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified
as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his father's
life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did
was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of
stabbing FT.

Notes:
In the case of People V. Medrano, the Supreme Court held that when there is conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all. The co-principal who devised the plan to commit the crime shall be held liable
therefor.

Conspiracy; Co-Conspirator (1998)

Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will
hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo
will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed
day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as
planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any.
[5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-
principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability.
Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with
Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is
actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-
conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be
liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra,
96 SCRA 1; People V. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the
shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the crime was committed.

Notes:
In the case of People V. Medrano, the Supreme Court held that when there is conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all. The co-principal who devised the plan to commit the crime of murder shall be held
liable therefor although he was arrested by the police at the appointed time when the overt act was
executed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is
not punishable unless expressly provided by law and this is not true in the case of Murder. A co-
conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant to the conspiracy.

Conspiracy; Common Felonious Purpose (1994)

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street,
Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly,
Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy
and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny,
Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Is there conspiracy in this case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions
against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The
existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in
commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict
harm on their victims.

Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning,
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the
four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four
carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside
the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime
did the four commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime
of Robbery with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the
robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery
was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for
the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490,
22 June 1995}

b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide ... (implied: there is still conspiracy)

Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003)

A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept
in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry
out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens
blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the
money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had
already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
Reasons. 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter's money. The
planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack
even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry
out their criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from
continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of
the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would also be the act of
B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.

Notes:
If faced with this kind of question, demonstrate your knowledge about conspiracy and desistance.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
criminal liability because he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of execution are
performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.

The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. It is enough that the
discontinuance comes from the person who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of
execution are performed. A person who has began the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved
from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the verge of crime, heeds the call of his
conscience and returns to the path of righteousness.

Conspiracy; Flight to Evade Apprehension (2003)

A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept
in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry
out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens
blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the
money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had
already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
Reasons. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter's money. The
planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack
even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry
out their criminal plan.

That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous
desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing
with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime
which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because
of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide, but B shall not incur
criminal liability because he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and kill is not per se punishable.

The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. It is enough that the
discontinuance comes from the person who has begun the commission of the crime but before all acts of
execution are performed. A person who has begun the commission of a crime but desisted, is
absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the verge of crime,
heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the path of righteousness.

Notes:
In one case, the Supreme Court held that a person who has begun the commission of a crime
but desisted, is absolved from criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the verge of
crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to the path of righteousness. Therefore, a co-
conspirator who ran away from the crime scene because of fear shall not be held liable for the crime
committed which is the object of conspiracy since he desisted.

The phrases were memorized by Fiscal Bawasanta

Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy (1998)

What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a
crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that
effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or
objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in
pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.

Notes:
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds all persons who participated in the commission of the
crime responsible therefor although there was no previous agreement among them to commit it.
Therefore, principle which states that the act of one is the act of all are applicable to the persons
participating in the commission of a crime.

Conspiracy; Implied Conspiracy; Effects (2003)

 State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give its legal effects. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the
participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in
the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative
that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy
and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.

The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are: a) Not all those who are present at the scene of
the crime will be considered conspirators; b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the
commission of the crime will be considered as co conspirators; and c) Mere acquiescence to or
approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator.

Notes:
Implied conspiracy in one which is inferred or deduced from the manner the participants act
simultaneously; there is collective responsibility because their act is synchronized in a way indicative
that they pursue a common criminal objective.

The legal effects of implied conspiracy are: (1) Those who are present during the commission of
the crime are not automatically liable therefor; (2) Mere approval for the commission of a crime does not
make one liable; and (3) To be liable, one must participate in the commission of a crime.

Criminal Liability: Destructive Arson (2000)

A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who
happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's
room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured
during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of X
with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only
if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the
facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled
that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in said
case, which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was intended.

Notes:

In the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is
impossible crime when its accomplishment is inherently impossible like in a case where the targeted
person was not home when his room was peppered with bullet.

PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CRIME

Art. 4. Criminal liability. – Criminal liability shall be incurred by any committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.

Criminal Liability: Felonious Act of Scaring (1996)

Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from
Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of
the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road,
were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.

Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely
unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of
running was the proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious
act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape
from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the
felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27
SCRA 1037.)

Notes:
In the case of US vs. Valdez, the Supreme Court held that when a person, by felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger, and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing such felonious
act shall be responsible for such injuries or death.

Notes:
This is the original text where the Philippine SC copied the decision of the British SC, “If a man
creates in another man’s mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such person to try to
escape, and in so doing he injures himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible
for the injury which results.”

People V. Apra cited above is about conspiracy. There is undue citation here.

Criminal Liability: Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1996)

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand, causing
upon him a two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because
three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was
accordingly charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days
later, while the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of
symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following
day. Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection
which developed twenty five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the
proximate cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no tetanus infection could
develop from the victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have died
with it.

Notes:
Under Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Therefore, a person who
hacked another shall be liable for homicide or murder as the case may be when the latter died due to a
tetanus which developed after he was hacked by the accused because the proximate cause of the death
of the victim is the wound he sustained from the hacking incident.
 Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (2000)

1. What is an impossible crime? (2%)
2. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)

2. No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to
criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.

Notes:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, an impossible crime is an act which is an offense against
person or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

2. An impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to
criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal
tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2001)

Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two
occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student
and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get
even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding house
and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak
heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without
regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he
was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about
Cesar's weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the
death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why? (5%}

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13,
par. 3, RPC).

When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the
letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was already committing a felony. And any
act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans
to get even with Cesar".

Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade,
considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the
case of People vs. Pugay, et al.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of frightening another is not a crime. What he did may be
wrong, but not all wrongs amount to a crime. Because the act which caused the death of Cesar is not a
crime, no criminal liability may arise therefrom.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In this case, when the
accused placed a rubber snake inside the bag pack of the victim to frighten him, he was committing a
felony of unjust vexation because the victim might be vexed or annoyed by the act of the accused.
Therefore, the accused shall be held liable for the death of the victim.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act of Scaring (2005)

Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the police.
Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported
him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was about to run her over. He
revved the engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was
slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death. Was gaston criminally liable?
What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because even though Gaston has no intent to kill Belle
rather just to scare Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the Revised
Penal Code, provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In other words,
the rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent
danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or
dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death . (US vs. Valdez,
41 Phil, 1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Thus, when a person
scared another by revving his vehicle toward the latter by scaring him and in the process he suffered
injury, such person shall be liable for the resultant injury because the act of revving his vehicle toward
another is a crime of unjust vexation.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because by his acts of revving the engine of his car and
driving towards Belle is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of the vehicle to skid
and hit Belle, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of Belle was the direct, natural
and logical consequence of Gaston's felonious act. (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Immediate Cause (2003)

The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his
control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists,
A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It
turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held
guilty of? 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith
inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability
although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal
Code).

Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her
with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially
contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack
of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigating
circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed ( Art. 13,
par. 3, Revised Penal Code)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Thus, the husband who
hit his wife with his fist shall be liable for parricide if parricide is the resultant of his felonious act.
Although his intention is only to box his wife but his wife died, the husband shall be liable for parricide.
 Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:
1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1994)

Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott's
house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while
Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott's)
waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott, carrying her two-month old child, approached Rustom
and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist. But Rustom
pulled Olive's hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments later. Is Rustom
criminally liable for the death of the child?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the
proximate cause of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling Olive's hand which caused the latter to
fall on her baby. Had It not been for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight
coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is the
cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural
and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC; People
vs, Pugay, et al, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different that which he intended. According, a person who
pulled the hand of another which caused her to fall over her child, then latter the child died shall be liable
for the death of the child because it was his felonious act of pulling the hands of the mother that caused
the death of the child.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1997)

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient
with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of
the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as
a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening
to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing himself to be
in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and
drowned. May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code
provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the
victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because of the strong
current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the
conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed
believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to escape jumps into the
water, impelled by the instinct of self-preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case
death results by drowning.

Notes:

In the case of US vs. Valdez, the Supreme Court held that when a person, by felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger, and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing such felonious
act shall be responsible for such injuries or death. Moreover, under the Revised Penal Code, criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended. Accordingly, any person who threatened another with the use of a knife,
and the latter threw himself into the water believing that his life was in danger that he wanted to escape
from that danger, and in the process he died from drowning, such person shall be liable for homicide.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (1999)

During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the
ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed
as a result.

The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection
with, or for purposes of, the robbery. Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's
death, the offender is liable therefore although it may not be intended or different from what he intended .
The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the
killing was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that intended. According, the parson who
accidentally shot another during the robbery shall be liable for the death of the victim. That he shot the
victim accidentally without his intention to kill him is not a defense because when he shot the victim he
was committing the crime of robbery. Thus, he is liable for the natural consequence of his felonious act.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means.
Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (2001)
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one
afternoon when he visited her. When he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so
that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell phone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the
next LRT station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to
read a newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of the Super
Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers who were presumed dead
and came across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after he was
orphaned. He was shocked and his mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck and,
using his balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who then scampered away, with three of them
Jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers died later of their
injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the
moving train? State your reasons. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started stabbing
at the passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of
the train; hence their deaths.

Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony shall incur criminal liability
although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In this case, the death of the
three passengers was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which created an
immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by
jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497}

Notes:
In the case of US vs. Valdez, the Supreme Court held that when a person, by felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger, and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing such felonious
act shall be responsible for such injuries or death. According, the person who ran amuck and stabbed
the passengers of a bus shall be liable not only for those who were injured by the stabbing but also for
those who ran to avoid danger to their life and limbs, and in the process, they died because their heads
hit the pavement.

Criminal Liability; Felonious Act; Proximate Cause (2004)

On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same
jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a
hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of
the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death . Is XX liable for ZZ's
death? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and announcing a
hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such
felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death.
Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious
act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by
jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).

Notes:
In the case of US vs. Valdez, the Supreme Court held that when a person, by felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger, and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing such felonious
act shall be responsible for such injuries or death. Therefore, the person who pulled out a hand grenade
and announced a hold up and demanded for the watch, wallet and cellphone shall be liable for the death
of some passengers who scampered to avoid danger to their life and limbs because the death of such
passengers are the direct, logical and natural consequence of his felonious act.

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME
Under the Revised Penal Code, 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.

Criminal Liability; Impossible Crime (2004)

OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ
decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee thinking it was
arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened
to YO after he drank the coffee. What criminal liability did OZ incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. 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 (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).

In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against
persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law
imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal
propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an
act which would be an offense against person were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. According, the person who poured substance to the coffee of another with intent to kill
him thinking that it was arsenic but the latter did not die because what he poured was sugar shall be
liable for impossible crime.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes (1994)

JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They
asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.

On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic
weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the
house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was
not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel.

JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at
Tanauan, Batangas.

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of
finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder
and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC.
Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is
factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical
impossibility which renders the crime intended Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the
accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which
prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor's will
which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an
act which would be an offense against person were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. Accordingly, persons who peppered the room of another with intent to kill him thinking
that he is inside that room when in fact he is out shall be liable for impossible crime because impossible
crime may be incurred not only due to legal impossibility but also by reason of physical impossibility.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability: Impossible Crimes (1998)

Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day, Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison
in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate, Jerry to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a
poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy
and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk.

1.What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
2.Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10
days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called "impossible crime" because, with intent to kill,
they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only
because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered
milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a
crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is
incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal.
 2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for
less serious physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to
Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter which required such medical attendance,
committed with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting injury.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an
act which would be an offense against person were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. Accordingly, the person who placed poison on the food of another with intent to kill
thinking it was a poison but the latter did not die because what he thought poison was in reality sugar
shall be liable for impossible crime. By placing poison in the food of another, he committed the crime of
murder. But the crime of murder was not accomplished because what he thought as poison turned out to
be sugar. There is an inherent impossibility to commit the crime of murder. Hence, an impossible crime
is committed.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended.

2. 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 an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Criminal Liability; Impossible Crimes; Kidnapping (2000)

Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring
and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's
parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the
ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla
was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not
received by Carla's parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to
Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for "impossible crime to commit kidnapping"
against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime
against persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against
persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an "impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There
is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an
act which would be an offense against person were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. Accordingly, there is no impossible crime of attempted kidnapping because the crime
of kidnapping is a crime against personal security. An impossible crime may be committed if the act
performed by the accused is a crime against person or property only.

Article 4. Criminal liability. - Criminal liability shall be incurred:

1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
 2. 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 an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

Mala in se v. Mala prohibita

Mala in se, which is the plural of malum in se, are criminal acts that are wrong because they
violate the moral, public, or natural principles of society; they are rape, murder, robbery, etc. Goof faith is
a defense in this case. The acts punished are inherently wrong, evil

On the other hand, mala prohibita crimes are criminal acts that are wrong because they violate a
statute or law rather than being an action that harms or offends society; they are parking violation, illegal
possession of firearms, etc. Good faith is not a defense.

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (1997)

1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.
2. May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa as defined in the Revised Penal
Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results from criminal negligence.
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those considered wrong only because they are prohibited
by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society.

Notes:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts under the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal intent is a
valid defense, except when the crime is committed by negligence. In mala in se, the crimes are evil in
themselves.

On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita are those committed under special laws. Lack of
criminal intent is not a defense. In mala prohibita, the crimes are not evil in themselves.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et
aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to
include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter
of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special
law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.

Notes:
In the case of People v. Sunico, et al., the Supreme Court held that the failure of the election
inspectors and poll clerks to include the name of the voters in the registry list of voters is wrong per se or
malum in se because such act disfranchises the voters of their right to vote. However, it is also malum
prohibitum because it is punished by special law.

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (1999)

Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala prohibita"(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong, and hence
involves the moral traits of the offender; while in "mala prohibita", the acts constituting the crimes are not
inherently bad, evil or wrong but prohibited and made punishable only for public good. And because the
moral trait of the offender is Involved in "mala in se". Modifying circumstances, the offender's extent of
participation in the crime, and the degree of accomplishment of the crime are taken into account in
imposing the penalty: these are not so in "mala prohibita" where criminal liability arises only when the
acts are consummated.

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (2001)

Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala prohibita from a crime mala in se. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only
because there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned.
The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the
offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the offender.

Mala in Se vs. Mala Prohibita (2003)

Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implications, between crimes mala in se and
crimes mala prohibits. 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penalized are inherently
bad, evil, or wrong that they are almost universally condemned.

Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong
but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or interest and whoever violates the prohibition are
penalized.

In legal implications: In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence is a
defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it
is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated.

Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime is only
attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred only when
the crime is consummated.

Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are appreciated in imposing
the penalties, while in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated unless the special
law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.

Mala Prohibita; Actual Injury Required (2000)

Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of
Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves as agents of Moonglow
Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr.
Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal
Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a
packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which declared
the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr.
Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila International Container Port. However,
before the shipment was released, a spot check was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James
Bandido, who discovered that the contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in
the shipping documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the District
Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr.
Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which
makes it unlawful among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the
Government in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was
erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in fact
the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable, may
the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code under the
facts of the case? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct, RA. 3019 is a
special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted violation of a special law is not
punished. Actual injury is required. Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents, a complex crime.

Notes:
Estafa trough falsification of commercial document is committed when a person with fraud
misrepresents his declaration for the purpose of payment of custom duties.

A violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is also committed since the government will
suffer undue injury because of the under-declaration in the payment of custom duties. This crime is
committed because it is participated by public officials. For the violation of special laws, the rule on
stages of execution is not applicable.

Malum in Se vs. Malum Prohibitum (2005)

Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In crimes malum in se, an act is by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The
moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part of the offender
is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the offender.
In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is punished because
there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing the
prohibited act is not a defense.

Motive v. Intent

Notes:
 Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; whereas intent is the
purpose to use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an essential element of a felony
and need not be proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of felonies by dolo
and must be proved in intentional felony.

Although intent and motive are often used interchangeably, they are distinct concepts in criminal
law. Motive deal with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is
concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense.

Definition of Motive
Usually a person’s motive can be determined by looking at various factors leading up to the
commission of the crime. For example, if Bill punched Barry, an examination of the facts might reveal
that Barry had stolen Bill’s watch, giving Bill a motive for punching him. Although investigators may be
able to determine a person’s motive, that does not link them to the crime; the prosecutor does not have
to prove the defendant had a reason to engage in criminal behavior. However, a judge or jury may
consider motive when hearing the case.

Definition of intent
Intent refers to a person’s conscious decision to commit an act that violate state or federal laws.
Generally, intent is an element of an offense that the prosecutor must prove. For example, in Florida, a
person commits battery when they “actually or intentionally touched or strike another person.” Or they
“intentionally cause bodily harm to another person.” Returning to the example of Bill and Barry, if Bill was
waving his hands in the air while telling a story and accidentally hit Barry, his actions were not
intentional, and he would not be charged with battery. However, if he purposely punched Barry, he may
be charged.

General v. Specific Intent

General intent refers to a person’s aim to engage in an act that violated the law. The prosecutor is
not required to prove that the defendant meant to cause whatever outcome resulted from their actions.
Referring back to Bill and Barry, just purposely punching Barry is enough to prove Bill intentionally
meant to commit the offense.

Specific intent is defined as a person’s intention to carry out the unlawful act and cause the specific
result, if Barry knew he was going to hurt Bill as a result of punching him, that would demonstrate
specific intent.

Motive vs. Intent (1996)

1. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.
2. May crime be committed without criminal intent?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; whereas intent is
the purpose to use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an essential element of a
felony and need not be proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of felonies
by dolo.

2. Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is a culpable felony, wherein
Intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also in a malum prohibitum or if an act is
punishable by special law.

Notes:
Motive is not an essential element of a felony, while intent is an essential element of a felony.
Motive is the moving power which impels one to action, while intent is the purpose to use a particular
means to arrive at a desired result.
 Motive is an idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of
mind.

Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused
to act in a certain way- for example, to support the prosecution’s assertion that the accused committed
the crime. if a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased,
the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.

Intent the purpose to use a particular means to arrive at a desired result.

For example, if A wants to drive away B from his neighborhood because he suspected the former
of stealing his rooster. He went to the house of B and set it on fire and B dies. If A’s behavior is
analyzed, B’s death must be intentional. If A had genuinely wished to avoid any possibility of injury to B,
he would not have started the fire or he should have waited until B was seen to leave the house before
starting the fire. Here, you can see that the intent of A is to kill B.

Motive vs. Intent (1999)

1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent".
2. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain.
(3%)
Motive " is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; while "intent"
is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a
crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the
intent.

Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the offender or when
the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the proper crime to be
imputed to the offender.

It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act
did not give rise to variant crimes.

Motive vs. Intent (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and motive in the commission of an offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and the liabilities of the
perpetrators.
What are the instances where proof of motive is not essential or required to justify conviction of
an accused? Give at least 3 instances. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the accused.
2. When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of the crime.
3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
was attacked in the actual performance of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code).
5. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.
Notes:
Proof of motive is not essential to justify conviction of an accused:
1) When there is an eye witness to the crime;
2) When the accused positively identified;
 3) In crime mala prohibita;
4) In culpable felonies.

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting Circumstances; Coverage (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut shell
which is being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the presence of his friends.

1. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)

2. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a
brother of B? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things.
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies only to
theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, no criminal liability shall result from the commission of the crime
of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed by a person against his brother. Since in this case the
crime committed was robbery, the offender is liable for such crime; he is not exempted from criminal
liability.

Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result
from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually
by the following persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse
before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.

Exempting Circumstances; Minority (1998)

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers." One
evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed the
channel to enable her to watch "Home Along the Riles." This enraged John who got his father's revolver,
and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her instantaneous death. Is John
criminally liable? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he
committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability
although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person under nine years of age shall be exempt from criminal
liability. Therefore, an eight-year-old child who shot another with the use of the revolver of his father
shall be exempt from criminal liability.
 Article 12. Circumstances which exempt from criminal liability. - the following are exempt from
criminal liability:

1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act which the law defines as a felony (delito),
the court shall order his confinement in one of the hospitals or asylums established for persons thus
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to leave without first obtaining the permission of the same
court.
2. A person under nine years of age.
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80 of this
Code.
When such minor is adjudged to be criminally irresponsible, the court, in conformably with the
provisions of this and the preceding paragraph, shall commit him to the care and custody of his family
who shall be charged with his surveillance and education otherwise, he shall be committed to the care of
some institution or person mentioned in said Art. 80.
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere
accident without fault or intention of causing it.
5. Any person who act under the compulsion of irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury.
7. Any person who fails to perform an act required by law, when prevented by some lawful
insuperable cause.

Exempting; Minority; 11 yrs Old; Absence of Discernment (2000)

While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in
Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping
with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what
she had caused, Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to the
school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she
executed a statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye.

a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)

b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than
fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability.
The exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was committed with discernment. The
burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.

The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened by the
fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to
stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was
accidental.

b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:

1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev.
Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted with
discernment. She is however civilly liable;
 2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime committed
shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The sentence,
however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 8369
otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997"

1. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not Intending to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and

2. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.

Notes:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, unless he has acted with discernment, a person over nine
years of age and under fifteen shall be exempt from criminal liability. Accordingly, an eleven-year-old
child who hit the eye of her classmate with the tip of her ball pen shall not be liable for the injury
sustained by her classmate. She did not act with discernment because her purpose in swinging his ball
pen was to stop the naughty attitude of her classmate, so the injury was accidental.

2. The Revised Penal Code provides that if the offender had not intention to commit a wrong so
grave as that committed, he shall be entitled to a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, an eleven-year-old
child who hit the eye of her classmate with the tip of her ball pen shall be entitled to a mitigating
circumstance because by hitting with a ball pen, it shows that she had no intention to act that caused the
blindness of her classmate.

Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor,
he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.

Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the
actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while
in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability.
Notes:
In justifying circumstance, no criminal and civil liability is incurred, while in exempting
circumstance, civil liability is incurred but not criminal liability.

Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (1998)

Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. In Justifying Circumstances:
2. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
3. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
4. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
5. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.

Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances:

1. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
2. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
3. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an
instrument of the crime;
4. There being a wrong done but no criminal.

Justifying; Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)

When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his
gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's
honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances ?
(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape was
already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend
against and no defense to speak of.

A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate
vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.

Notes:
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor,
he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
 7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.

JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Justifying; Defense of Stranger (2002)
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to
stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged
the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a
stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in
the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was
induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3,
Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger
shall not incur criminal liability provided that the aggression is unlawful and the means employed is
reasonable; that the person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur:
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
 5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites (2000)

Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5
o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her
store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As
soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought the help of a policeman on
duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat.
Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was
about 7 meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he
crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was
about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes
brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was
subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of
exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a
duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is
not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.

After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat,
Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the
cause of death of the victim.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty shall not incur
criminal liability and, anyone who acts in the lawful exercise of a right or office shall not also incur
criminal liability. Accordingly, a policeman who shot an alleged robber shall be liable for homicide; he
cannot claim that he was acting in the performance of his duty when he shot the victim.

Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The following do not incur any criminal liability:

1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances
concur:
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

2. Any one who acts in defense of the person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same degrees and
those consanguinity within the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second requisites
prescribed in the next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the
revocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first circumstance of this Article are present and that the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
 4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.

Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998)

One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man
on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una
let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took
out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of
defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have
been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the
unlawful aggression no longer exists.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, to be able to successfully claim defense of honor, it is required
that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the
person making a defense.

But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and no longer a
defense.

Hence, a woman who shot and killed another person who has raped her cannot successfully
claim defense of honor to justify her criminal act if the unlawful aggression of raping her had already
ceased. To be able to claim justifying circumstance, the unlawful aggression shall be in progress.

Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements (2000)

Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa
hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was
her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed
the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied
himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was
not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When
tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her
honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of
the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
 But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist
when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.

Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not
defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only
mitigating.

Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (1996)

A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was
guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived at the scene
of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the
security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property and in the performance of his
duty as a security guard. If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of
having acted in defense of property and in performance of a duty cannot fully be justified. Even
assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to commit a crime inside the
same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered unlawful aggression
on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his property
rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art. 11, must be present. In the instant case, just like in
Narvaes, the second element (reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he
should be convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.

Notes:
In the case of People v. Narvaes, the Supreme Court held that a person is not justified in shooting
another person who chiseled his fence. An attack against his property does not justify him to shoot the
aggressor absent any unlawful aggression against his person.

Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)

The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent
robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate
what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed
stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the
lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen
to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused,
given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his
act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified.
Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life
and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out
of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.

Notes:
In the case of People v. Narvaes, the Supreme Court held that a person is not justified in shooting
another person who chiseled his fence. An attack against his property does not justify him to shoot the
aggressor absent any unlawful aggression against his person.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the
time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside his
house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and limb or those of his family
are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out
of an honest mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives
criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.

Qualifying; Elements of a Crime (2003)

When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when it changes the nature
of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
2. it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and
3. it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
Notes:
1. A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it changes the nature of the
crime and brings about a more serious crime involved and a heavier penalty;
2. It is essential to the crime involved; otherwise other crime is committed.
3. It is specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by law as
included in the definition of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.

MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MITIGATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Mitigating; Non-Intoxication (2000)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the
New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a
drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the
course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the
same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he
wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted
super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house.
When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously,
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)
b) If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your
clients? Explain. (2%)
c) If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)...

b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:
1. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they
merely intended to frighten Jepoy;
2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or
capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating
circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art. 15, RPC.).

Notes:
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The following are mitigating circumstances;

1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of age or over seventy years. In the case of the minor,
he shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the
act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or
obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for
the prosecution;
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.

Mitigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)

An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary
investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court
the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his
plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating
circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for
which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the
Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during preliminary investigation only and before a court not
competent to render judgment.

Notes:
 Under the Revised Penal Code, plea of guilty is a mitigating circumstance. But it should be
spontaneous. Hence, the accused is entitled to mitigating circumstance if he pleaded guilty during trial
although he did not plead guilty during preliminary investigation in the MTC. It is still spontaneous.

Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Requisites (1999)

In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment;
and
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution .
Notes:
The requisites for plea of guilty are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
2. That the accused pleaded with the court having jurisdiction of the case;
3. That the accused pleaded guilty before the prosecution presented the evidence.

Mitigating; Plea of Guilty; Voluntary Surrender (1997)

After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he
surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not
guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he
changed his plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of
guilty be considered in favor of the accused?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the
police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude
arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done
spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by
his surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too long a time
to consider the surrender as spontaneous (People v. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the government
had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in looking for the accused.

Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the prosecution
had already started with the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal Code).

Notes:
In the case People v. Ablao, the Supreme Court held that plea of guilty may not be appreciated in
favor of the accused who absconded for two years. It is no longer spontaneous.

Under the Revised Penal Code, plea of guilty shall be spontaneous to be appreciated in favor of
the accuse. According, plea of guilty shall not be appreciated in favor of the accused if the prosecution
had already presented evidence on the case because it is no longer spontaneous..

Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender (1996)

Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After
the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of Police of the town, accompanied by several
policemen, went to Hilario's house, Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen, came down from
his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to be investigated in
connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal,
faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue
is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers
and went with them is considered "Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the
same is spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes' Commentaries,
p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with
the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance .
(People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes' Commentaries, p. 299)

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Dayrit, the Supreme Court held that voluntary surrender is spontaneous
and thus should be appreciated in favor of the accused even though the accused went home after he
killed another person but he went down of his house and approached the police when he saw them
coming, and he voluntarily went with the police to the police station.

Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender; Elements (1999)

When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent
to submit unconditionally to the authorities.
1. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor
conditional;
2. made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the
offender's whereabouts; and
3. made to a person in authority or the latter's agents.

AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The following are aggravating circumstances:

1. That the offender takes advantage of his public position.

2. That the crime is committed in contempt or with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act is committed with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on
account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter
has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties, or in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an
offense, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake,
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who was previously convicted by final judgment of a crime and he is on trial for
another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
10. That the offender has been previously punished by an offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. (habitual
delinquent or reitercion)
11. That the crime be committed in consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of a
vessel or international damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other artifice
involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evidence premeditation.
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be employed.
15. That the offender takes advantage of his superior strength, or he employs means to weaken
the defense of the victim.
16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
17. That the offender employs means to add ignominy to the natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of persons under fifteen years of age or by means of
motor vehicles, motorized watercraft, airships, or other similar means. (As amended by RA 5438).
21. That the offender augmented another wrong which is not necessary for the commission of the
crime.

Aggravating Circumstances (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning,
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the
four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four
carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
1. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
2. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside
the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime
did the four commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime
of Robbery with Rape..
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent
identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that
several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes
are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis,
182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
 c) The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:
1. Band because all the four offenders are armed;
2. Nocturn because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime;
3. dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was "at a desolate
place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Solis, the Supreme Court held that robbery with homicide is committed
when on the occasion of robbery, homicide was committed to prevent the identification of the
culprits. If several rapes were committed because the offenders took turn in raping the victim, rapes are
considered as aggravating; they are synonymous with ignominy; likewise, regardless of the number of
deaths, the crime is still robbery with homicide.

Aggravating Circumstances; Generic vs. Qualifying (1999)

Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating circumstance.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Generic Aggravating Circumstances:

1. affects only the imposition of the penalty prescribed, but not the nature of the crime committed;
2. can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;
3. need not be alleged in the information as long as proven during the trial, the same shall be
considered in imposing the sentence.

Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:

1. must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial;
2. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily
prescribed.

Notes:

Generic aggravating circumstances and qualifying aggravating circumstances may be

distinguished as follows:

The former does not affect the nature of the crime committed, while the latter changes the nature
of the crime.

The former can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances, while the latter cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstances.

The former need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the trial, while the
latter must be alleged in the information and proven during trial.

Aggravating Circumstances; Kinds & Penalties (1999)

Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of
crimes and nature thereof. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:

1. GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset by
mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed by
law;
2) SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset
by mitigating circumstances:
3) QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one,
or brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime
and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.

Notes:
The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
1. Generic aggravating are those that can generally apply to all crimes; they can be offset by
mitigating circumstances.
2) Specific aggravating are those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstances:
3) Qualifying circumstances those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one; they
cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
4) Inherent aggravating are those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and
does not affect the penalty whatsoever.

Aggravating; Cruelty; Relationship (1994)

Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed
her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he
laughed while raping her. What aggravating circumstances are present in this case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately augmenting
the victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).
b) Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and
considering that the crime is one against chastity.

Notes:
a) In the case of People vs. Lucas, the Supreme Court held that CRUELTY shall be appreciated
in the crime of rape when the accused burned the face of the victim while raping her because burning
the face of the victim with the lighted cigarette was unnecessary in the crime of rape; it only augmented
the suffering of the victim.

b) Relationship (spouse, parent, any of the children or relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguity) shall be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when a person rapes his own
daughter. Art. 266-B

Aggravating; Must be alleged in the information (2000)

Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group,
Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan,
Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of
poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime
will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating
circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the Information.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE MUST BE ALLEGED IN INFORMATION, OTHERWISE IT IS ONLY
GENERIC AGGRAVATING.

The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which
attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since
none of them have been alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying
circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during
the trial to be appreciated as such.

Notes:
Under the Rules of Court, aggravating circumstances which qualify the crime to murder like when
the killing was done by means of poison, in consideration of promise or reward, and cruelty shall
be alleged in the information to be appreciated; otherwise, they will only be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances.

Aggravating; Nighttime; Band (1994)

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street,
Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly,
Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny,
Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result. Dino died, Bobby, Steve,
Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Can the court appreciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no
indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the
crime or that they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides,
judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.

However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed
malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. De los Reyes, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime can be
appreciated if the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the
crime or they took advantage of nighttime.

Aggravating; Recidivism (2001)

Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he
was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last
conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual
delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency.

Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and
again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under
the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is
specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for
Robbery with Homicide.
 Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered ...

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, in recidivism, there are at least two crimes, while in habitual
delinquency, there are three crimes.

A recidivist is one who at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent if within the period of ten years from his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa
or falsification, he if is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. REFT

A person is deemed to be a recidivist if at the time of his trial for homicide, he was convicted of
murder. On the other hand, if a person is convicted of estafa for a third time within a period of 10 years,
he is a habitual delinquent.

Moreover, he might be denied of bail if he is on trial for the crime which carries the penalty of
more than 6 years.

Aggravating; Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998)

Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism -
1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal
Code; and
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -
1 The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code,
provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment
for another crime or while serving sentence for another crime; and
2 This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance.

Notes:
Recidivism and quasi-recidivism may be distinguished as follows:

In recidivism, the two crimes that were committed by the offender are embraced in the same title
in the Revised Penal Code, while in quasi-recidivism, the two crimes that were committed by the
offender are not necessarily embraced in the same title in the Revised Penal Code.
In recidivism, the offender was previously convicted by final judgment at the time of his trial for
another crime, while in quasi-recidivism, the offender commits a crime while serving sentence for
another crime.
In recidivism, the circumstance is generic aggravating; it can be offset, while in quasi-recidivism,
the circumstance is inherent aggravating; it cannot be offset.
Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry (1997)
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit
of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation between
his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He rose from bed
and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside,
he saw the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which
caused his death within a few hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of
evident premeditation, treachery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill
the victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
2. TREACHERY may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was
sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the
execution of the act without risk himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made
(People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91).
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately
sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its commission (People vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is
absorbed in treachery.

4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the

accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance
into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the offender employed means which
specially insured the execution of the act without risk to himself arising from the defense of the victim.

Nighttime may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when the offender deliberately

sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime.

Unlawful entry may be considered when the offender gained entry from the window which is not
the proper place for entrance into the house of the victim.

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into
consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. They are the relationship, intoxication and the degree of
instruction and education of the offender.

The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the offended
party in the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or relative
by affinity in the same degrees of the offender.
 The intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstances
when the offender has committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or
subsequent to the plan to commit said felony but when the intoxication is habitual or intentional, it shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance.

Alternative Circumstances; Intoxication (2002)

A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had a
heated argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the
intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to
the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from
the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are
not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Notes:
Intoxication may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance when it is habitual or it is
deliberately done prior to the commission of the crime; however, it is mitigating circumstance when the
crime was committed while intoxicated provided the conditions above were absent.

PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES

FENCE AND ACCESORY

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of
P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in possession of
recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro
Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and
even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries for sale
but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law,
she argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or
should have known that the Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value which has
been the subject of theft or robbery, shall be prima facie evidence for fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The
burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her defense of having
bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption
of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts
the buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that it is the
proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the administrative procedure under the
decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape
liability.

Notes:
 In the case of Pamintuan vs People, the Supreme Court held that mere possession of any article
of value which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall give prima facie evidence of fencing. The
burden is upon the accused to prove that he acquired the property legitimately. Buying personal property
puts the buyer on caveat because of the phrase that he should have known or ought to know the
property is the proceed from robbery or theft.

Meaning, the person who bought personal property shall expect that it is the proceed of theft or
robbery; that is why he has the duty to prove that he bought the article legitimately.

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)

What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there
any similarity between them?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a
fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to
robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless
he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways
under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the
accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.

Notes:
The distinctions between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery are as follows:
A fence is one who commits an offense which is malum prohibitum, while an accessory is one
who commits a crime mala in se.
A fence cannot invoke lack of criminal intent as a defense, while an accessory can invoke lack of
criminal intent as a defense.
A fence is punished as a principal, while an accessory is punished as one which is not a principal
to the crime of theft or robbery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of
robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of
robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D.
No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]

Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)

What are the elements of fencing?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The elements of fencing are:
a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
b. accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item , object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime;
c. the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of value has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
d. there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Notes:
The elements of fencing are:

a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

 b. accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item ,
object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime;
c. the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of value
has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
d. there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)

King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming
three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King
killed Laura and took her jewelry.

Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her
body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew
that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.

What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a
complex crime, and Theft. ...
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to
conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with
homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor
under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.

Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as
fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the
participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that
the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of
1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it
from King and sold it.

Criminal Liability; Non-Exemption as Accessory (2004)

DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with
TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason
briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an accessory
by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or
assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an
accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accessory shall be exempt from criminal liability if he is
related to the principal like for instance he is the mother of the offender in the crime of theft, among
others; however, this exception is not applicable if the mother profited from the proceeds of the crime.
 Article 16. Who are criminally liable. - The following are criminally liable for grave and less
grave felonies:
1. Principals.
2. Accomplices.
3. Accessories.

Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent
to its commission in any of the following manners:

1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

2. By concealing or destroying the body, or the effects or intruments thereof, in order to prevent
its discovery

3. By harboring,concealing,or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime,

provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is
guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.

Article 20. Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability. - The penalties prescribed for
accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within
the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of paragraph 1
of the next preceding article.

Criminal Liability; Principal by Direct Participation; Co-Principal by Indispensable Cooperation

(2000)
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the
New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a
drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the
course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the
same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate,
Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he
wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down
Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing
lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his
house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his
target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously, If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by
Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as
co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before
he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the
firearm.

Notes:
If I were the judge, I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation to the complex
crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act of shooting constituted two grave
felonies. Two grave felonies were committed for an attempt on the life of Jepoy and for killing his son.

Jaja shall be held liable as principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of
attempted murder with homicide; without his caliber .45, the crime would not have been committed.
Thus, he is liable as principal.

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act; by direct participation
2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it; by inducement
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished. By indispensable cooperation

Article 18. Accomplices. - Accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Article 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.

Criminal Liability; Principal by Inducement (2002)

A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was
willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he also had his own
long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable
as a principal by inducement? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised B is not
the sole impelling reason which made B kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal, the
inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the person induced to
commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing
grudge.

Notes:
A would be liable as principal by inducement; it is very clear from the fact that A gave B a reward
for killing C. While it is true that the reward was not the only factor which made B decide to kill C, still,
because of that reward, the killing of C was taken into consideration by A and B. Without A offering B the
reward, the latter was not determined to kill C. Therefore, A shall be held liable as principal by
inducement for the crime of murder.

Criminal Liability; Principal; Inducement & Participation (1994)

Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for
P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so
she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its
total loss. What is their respective criminal liability?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or
monetary consideration, to commit arson which the latter would not have committed were it not for
such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who forces or induces another to commit a crime shall
be held liable as principal by inducement to the crime actually committed. Accordingly, a person who
induces another for a reward to burn his own building to collect insurance proceeds shall be liable as
principal for the crime of arson.

Article 17. Principals. - The following are considered principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of the act;

2. Those who directly force or induce others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act without which it would
not have been accomplished.

Destructive Arson (1994)

Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for
P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so
she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total
loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they collectively
caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances which exposed to
danger the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as amended by RA No. 7659).

Notes:
Under the PD 1613, any person who burns the property of another or sets fire to his own property
under the circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of others shall be liable for the
crime of arson.

Section 1. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall be punished
by prision mayor.

The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under
circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another. (PD 1613)

PENALTIES

COMPLEX CRIMES
Complex Crime vs. Compound Crime (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal
Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which
two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised
Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies
are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.

COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for
committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be imposed.
Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, there is a complex crime when a single act constitutes two or
more grave or less grave felonies; On the other hand, there is a compound crime when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other.

In complex crimes, there are at least two crimes committed, but because criminal shall be
interpreted to favor the accused, the penalty to be imposed is the most serious single penalty.

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. Delito Continuado (2005)
Distinguish the following from each other:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one information either because they were brought
about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other
offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be imposed. As
to penalties, ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its
maximum period.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the
Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed
for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are
not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be
imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime
that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.

DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime
a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division,
which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same
penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It
involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and
Impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).

Notes:
An ordinary complex crimes are those which are made up of two or more crimes; they were
brought about by a single felonious act or by one offense which is necessary in committing another one.
They shall be alleged in one information. Only one penalty which is imposable for the most serious crime
shall be imposed. They are alleged in one information.
 On the other hand, a special complex crimes are those which are made up of two or more crimes;
they are considered as components of a single offense. The penalty to be imposed is not the one
imposable for the most serious crime but one which is specifically provided for by the Revised Penal
Code. They are alleged in one information.

Delito continuado or continuous crimes are those made up of two or more crimes but they are
considered as one crime because they arise from a single criminal resolution; they are carried out in the
same place and at about the same time; the same penal provisions of the Revised Penal Code are
violated. The acts done are impelled by one criminal intent or purpose.

Complex Crime; Aberratio ictus vs. error in personae (1994)

Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person against
whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim. Error in personae, or
mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the person intended, but who turned
out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence, ie.
the attempted felony on the intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who
was hit. A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in personae only
one crime is committed.

Notes:
Aberratio ictus and error in personae may be distinguished as follows:

Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow; this may occur when an offender commits a felonious
act against an intended victim but the act misses and lands on unintended person. It brings about at
least two felonies committed on the intended victim and the unintended one. A complex crimes results in
this case.

On the other hand, error in personae means mistake in the identity of the intended victim; it
occurs when a felonious act is directed at the person intended but who turned out to be somebody else.
Here, only one crime is committed.

Complex Crime; Aberratio Ictus, Error In Personae & Praeter Intentionem (1999)
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they
alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his
intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The situation
generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim.
As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the
maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result
and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime ERROR IN PERSONAE or
mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but
turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not
affected, unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to
commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be
imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RFC)
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a
mitigating circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the act or
means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i,e., the resulting felony could not be
reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the of fender from the act or means employed by him.

Notes:
Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow; this may occur when an offender commits a felonious
act against an intended victim but the act misses and lands on unintended person. It brings about at
least two felonies committed on the intended victim and the unintended one. A complex crimes results in
this case.

On the other hand, error in personae means mistake in the identity of the intended victim; it
occurs when a felonious act is directed at the person intended but who turned out to be somebody else.
Here, only one crime is committed.

Praeter intentionem is an act of the offender which exceeds his intention and that the offender
had no intention to commit a wrong which so grave as that committed.

Complex Crime; Aberratio Ictus; Attempted Murder with Homicide (2000)

Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the
New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan.
Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking
spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course
of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his
neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of
liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy
became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A
heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight,
Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and
to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know
who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos
and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When
Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously, a)
What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC).

Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are
punishable by afflictive penalties.

Complex Crime; Doctrine of Aberratio Ictus; Not Applicable (1996)

At the height of an altercation (mitigating), Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio
instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims
exemption from criminal liability. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with
Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the com mission of two felonies, one
grave (homicide) and the other less grave (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under Art. 48, RPC;
hence, the penalty would be for the more serious crime (homicide} in its maximum period (17 years 4
months and 1 day to 20 years).

Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an exempting
circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC, which makes a person criminally liable
for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act

Complex Crimes; Coup d’etat & rebellion & sedition (2003)

1) Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with rebelliond? 2% 2) Can there be a complex
crime of coup d'etat with sedition? 2%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders committing the coup d'etat
and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the
other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d'etat may be any person or
persons belonging to the military or the national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does
not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d'etat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a
public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two
crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to
the application of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

2) Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially
different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition may not be directed against
the Government or non-political in objective, whereas coup d'etat is always political in objective as it is
directed against the Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging to
the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the conditions therein provided.
Notes:
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

How can coup d’ etat be complxed with rebellion based upon the definition of Art. 48? In the same
vein, how can coup d’etat be complexed with sedition based on the definition in Art. 48?

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion because both crimes
are directed against the Government or for political purposes, although the principal offenders are
different. The essence may be the same and thus constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two
crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.

Complex Crimes; Determination of the Crime (1999)

A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group
of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four
(4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of
A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
committed by A for the reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his
gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic
firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm
being automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each
death caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is
not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the
number of bullets which actually produced them.

Complex Crimes; Nature & Penalty Involved (1999)

What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a complex crime?
What is the penalty therefor? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies
or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At
least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The
penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, at least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either
two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a
necessary means for committing another. The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and
in its maximum period.

Complex Crimes; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime (2003)
Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts
and as to the imposition of penalties. 2%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
IN CONCEPT - An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being
punished in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either
because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary
means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that only
one penalty shall be imposed.

A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of
the Revised Penal Code.

AS TO PENALTIES -In ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed and in its maximum period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes
which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct
crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum
period. It is

the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the
rules on imposition of the penalty.

Continuing Offense vs. Delito Continuado (1994)

Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime
a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division,
which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the
same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that
each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same
penal provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal
provision, and impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).

On the other hand, a CONTINUING OFFENSE is one whose essential ingredients took place in
more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the
case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city.

The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito continuado mandates that only one information should
be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term "continuing
crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted.

Notes:
Continuing offense or continued crime is an offense which may be filed in one of the cities or
municipalities wherein the one of the essential ingredients took place in that place. This refers to the
venue where the offense is to be instituted.

On the other hand, under the single larceny rule, delito continuado or continuous crime is a series
of criminal acts resulted from one single criminal resolution which is carried out in the same place and at
about the same time, and violating one and the same penal provision. Only one information shall be filed
because despite of a series acts committed, there is only one crime accomplished in the eyes of the law.
The best example of this type of act is taking of several roosters in the same compound which belong to
different owners.

Death Penalty (2004)

A. The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstances:
1) When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
2) When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
3) When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required majority for the
imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
4) When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes insane.
5) When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery. Explain
your answer or choice briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its
execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2: "when the guilty
person is more than 70 years of age" (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.

In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age
when he committed the crime.

Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme Court in People
vs. Efren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate review for such cases where
the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the
Supreme Court.
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although
its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and
while he is insane.

Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be suspended
during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to the effect that the death penalty may not be
"INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such penalty is to be suspended. If "INFLICTED" is to be
construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the choice.

Notes:
Now, Arts. 80-85 on the execution of the death penalty are rendered inoperative by RA. No. 9346.

Under the Revised Penal Code, death penalty shall not be inflicted upon a pregnant woman or
upon any person who is more than 70 years of age.

Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall not be imposed. - The death penalty shall be
imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in the following cases:

1. When the guilty person be more than seventy years of age.

2. When upon appeal or revision of the case by the Supreme court, all the members thereof are
not unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the imposition of the death penalty. For the
imposition of said penalty or for the confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court imposing the death
sentence, the Supreme Court shall render its decision per curiam, which shall be signed by all
justices of said court, unless some member or members thereof shall have been disqualified from
taking part in the consideration of the case, in which even the unanimous vote and signature of only the
remaining justices shall be required.

Article 83. Suspension of the execution of the death sentence. - The death sentence shall not be
inflicted upon a woman within the three years next following the date of the sentence or while she is
pregnant, nor upon any person over seventy years of age. In this last case, the death sentence shall
be commuted to the penalty of reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40.

Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites (2004)

GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the
information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her mother testified that she was
only six years and ten months old, which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information
also alleged that the accused was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.

On automatic review before the Supreme Court, accused-appellant contends that capital
punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and the
insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable
doubt. Is appellant's contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The age of the
victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as qualified rape and
deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape
cases have not been met, to wit: 1) The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
2) In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim maybe proven by authentic document, such
as baptismal certificate and school records; 3) If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been
lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's mother or
any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances: (a) If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
(b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less
than 12 years old; (c) If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved
is that she is less than 18 years old.

4) In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's
mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above-stated, complainant's
sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People us.
Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002]).

Notes:
The contention of the accused is tenable because the evidence is inadequate to show qualified
rape since the age of the victim was not proved by birth certificate, baptismal certificate or school
records.

Habitual Delinquency & Recidivism (2001)

Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he
was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last
conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual
delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in
this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a
recidivist ... Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is
convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already
three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide.
And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
Notes:
Habitual delinquency is the basis of the penalty to be imposed upon an offender who is convicted
of a specified crime for the third time or more.

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW

Indeterminate Sentence Law (1994)

 Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not less
than six years but not more than twelve years. No modifying circumstance attended the commission of
the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will you
apply it?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last
sentence of Section 1 Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for violations of special
laws.

Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided therein (six
years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve
years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA 184)

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Rosalina Reyes, the Supreme Court held that indeterminate sentence
law shall be applicable in violation of special law. It is provided further that the maximum penalty shall
not be more than the maximum stated in the special law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum provided in such law.

Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999)

Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the
offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten [10) years. Upon
arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate
Sentence Law be applied? If you were the Judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on
Andres? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is
more than one (1) year.

If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty
prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said minimum and
maximum.

Notes:
Under the indeterminate sentence law, if the minimum penalty imposed is not less than one year,
the indeterminate sentence law shall be applicable.

Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999)

A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns
punishable under the old law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial
court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day . Is the penalty
thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to the penalty imposed, being only a straight
penalty, is not correct because it does not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies
to this case. Said law requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the Revised
Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum penalty prescribed by the same.
Notes:
Under the law, imposition of the penalty under the indeterminate sentence law is mandatory
provided that the penalty imposed is not less than one year.

Indeterminate Sentence Law (2002)

How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses
punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the Indeterminate
sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code after considering the
attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. The
minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree
to that prescribed for the crime under the said Code.

Notes:
In applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law under the Revised Penal Code, Art. 64 of such code
shall be applicable. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be considered. However, in the
same provision, the penalty cannot be lowered by one degree when there is even just one aggravating
circumstance.
Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which
the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the
provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the courts shall observe for the application of the penalty the following
rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the
penalty prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose
the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably
offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that
it may deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.

Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the maximum and the minimum terms of the
indeterminate sentence? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace period at
which the convict may be released on parole from imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not
deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term in Jail but in no case to go
beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence.
Notes:
The purpose of the ISL is to release the convict on parole when he already served the minimum
penalty if he is qualified; if not, he shall serve the maximum penalty imposed.

Indeterminate Sentence Law (2005)

Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where the
imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum.

State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following penalties:
a) a straight penalty of 10 months;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a straight penalty may be imposed. (People v.
Arellano, G.R. No, 46501, October 5, 1939)

Notes:
In the case of People v. Arellano, the Supreme court held that a straight penalty may be imposed
if the penalty does not exceed one year because for the indeterminate sentence law to be applicable,
the penalty imposed shall not be less than one year. Since in this case the penalty is less than one year,
a straight penalty may be imposed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty shall be imposed but the
maximum shall not exceed the maximum imposable by law.

b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is less than
one year (Sec. 2, Art. 4103, as amended).

Notes:
Under the law, indeterminate sentence law is applicable only when the penalty imposed is not
less than one year.

c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply when the minimum of the penalty
exceeds one year.

Notes:
If the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, a court cannot impose a straight penalty, and
there should be minimum and maximum in imposing the penalty.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER.
If the imposition of straight penalty which consists of the minimum period of the penalty
prescribed by law, then it may be allowed because it favors the accused.

Indeterminate Sentence Law; Exceptions (1999)

Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment;
2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4) Those convicted of piracy;
5) Those who are habitual delinquents;
6) Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7) Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive;
8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;

9) Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933). had been sentenced by final
Judgment;
10) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.

Indeterminate Sentence Law; Exceptions (2003)

When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
1) those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment or
reclusion perpetua;
2) those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3) those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4) those convicted of piracy;
5) those who are habitual delinquents;
6) those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7) those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated
the terms thereof;
8) those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9) those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and
10) those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like destierro.

Penalties: Fine or Imprisonment vs. Subsidiary Imprisonment (2005)

E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine
and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Is the penalty proper? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty is not proper. The two accused must separately pay the fine, which is their penalty.
Solidary liability applies only to civil liabilities.

Notes:
When the accused are sentenced to pay fine, their liability cannot be solidary because solidary
liability applies only in civil cases.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
NO, because in penal law when there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of its
discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the degree of
participation – as principal, accomplice or accessory. If within each class of offender, there are more of
them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or accessory, the liability in each
class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of the may be required to pay the civil liability pertaining to
such offender without prejudice to recovery from those whose share have been paid by another.

May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, should not and cannot be
reduced or converted into a prison term. There is no rule for transmutation of the amount of a fine into
a term of imprisonment. (People v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989)

Notes:
In the case of People v. Dacuycuy, the supreme court held that courts have no jurisdiction to
transmute or convert the amount of fine into imprisonment.

Penalties: Pecuniary Penalties vs. Pecuniary Liabilities (2005)

Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pecuniary liabilities do not include restitution, but include reparation of damages caused, the
indemnification for consequential damages, as well as fines and cost of the proceedings.

Pecuniary penalties include fines and cost of the proceedings.

Notes:
Monetary liabilities mean payment of damages or reparation of actual damages, etc., while
monetary penalties consist of fine and cost of the proceedings.

Penalties; Complex Crime of Estafa (1997)

A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. Since the
amount Involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods. The penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public document is
prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5,000.00. Impose the proper prison.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months and one (1)
day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and
one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance with People v. Gonzales, 73 Phil,
549, where It was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty
that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty
prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually
applied because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is
prision correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken.

Notes:
The penalty shall be prision correctional in any of its period as minimum to prision mayor in its
medium period as maximum. This is how the indeterminate sentence shall be imposed since there are
no mitigating nor aggravating circumstances to consider.

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if for example the accused is sentence to a penalty of
reclusion temporal, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed in its medium period if there is
no mitigating or aggravating circumstance. In imposing the minimum period, the penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed because it is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. Therefore, the penalty to be
imposed shall be prision mayor in any of its period as minimum to reclusion temporal in its medium
period as maximum.

However, before imposing the proper penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it is
mandatory to consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstance, and if the circumstances warrant
after considering the mitigating circumstances, the penalty shall be lowered by degree, not only by
period.
Penalties; Factors to Consider (1991)
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and the
applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would
follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must
consider to arrive at the correct penalty?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.

Notes:
The guides to impose the proper penalty are:

1. the crime committed;

2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.

Penalties; Homicide w/ Modifying Circumstance (1995)

Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying
circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and the mitigating circumstances of
passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary
surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal the range of which is twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating
circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be
imposed on the accused.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (nocturnity), and four mitigating
circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied. Hence there will be off-setting of modifying
circumstances, which will now result in the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will
therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum period.

The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four mitigating, will not justify the
lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is applicable
only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present. Since the crime committed is
Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14
years and 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is
prision mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6
years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the
remaining mitigating circumstances after the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum
of the MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
Notes:
 This is the penalty. Since there are four mitigating circumstances and one aggravating
circumstance, the penalty cannot be lowered in degree. After the offsetting of the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, the penalty should be reclusion temporal in its minimum period. Consequently,
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty is prision mayor in its maximum period as
minimum to reclusion temporal in its minimum period as maximum.

Article 64. Rules for the application of penalties which contain three periods. - In cases in which
the penalties prescribed by law contain three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty or
composed of three different penalties, each one of which forms a period in accordance with the
provisions of Articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the application of the penalty the following
rules, according to whether there are or are not mitigating or aggravating circumstances:

1. When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, they shall impose the penalty
prescribed by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstances is present in the commission of the act, they shall
impose the penalty in its minimum period.
3. When an aggravating circumstance is present in the commission of the act, they shall impose
the penalty in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall reasonably
offset those of one class against the other according to their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are
present, the court shall impose the penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such circumstances.
6. Whatever may be the number and nature of the aggravating circumstances, the courts shall not
impose a greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its maximum period.
7. Within the limits of each period, the court shall determine the extent of the penalty according to
the number and nature of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the greater and lesser
extent of the evil produced by the crime.

Penalties; Mitigating Circumstances w/out Aggravating Circumstance (1997)

Assume in the preceding problem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the proper
prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of its periods, ie. ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to
six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision correccional in its maximum period four (4) years, two (2)
months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code,
when a penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period in accordance with Article 76
and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree should be determined without regard as to whether the
basic penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied in its maximum or minimum period
as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower in degree to prision
correccional. Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within the range of arresto
mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision correctional in its maximum period.

Notes:
Since there are two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty shall
be lowered by one degree. Going down one degree from reclusion temporal is prision mayor. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty should be arresto mayor in its maximum period as
minimum to prision mayor in its maximum period as maximum. The two categories of the penalty are in
the maximum period because there no more mitigating circumstances that will justify the lowering by
period.

Penalties; Parricide w/ Mitigating Circumstance (1997)

A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three mitigating
circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
Impose the proper principal penalty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating circumstances,
a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs.
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide
with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong,
and with no aggravating circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper, penalty to be imposed
is reclusion perpetua.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, if the penalty imposed is two indivisible penalty like reclusion
perpetua to death, and there are mitigating circumstances, the penalty to be imposed is the lesser
penalty. Since in this case the penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua considering that the act was attended by at least four mitigating circumstances.

Article 63. Rules for the application of indivisible penalties. - In all cases in which the law
prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating
or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.

In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
following rules shall be observed in the application thereof:

1. When in the commission of the deed there is present only one aggravating circumstance, the
greater penalty shall be applied.
2. When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances and there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
3. When the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances attended the commission of the act,
the court shall reasonably allow them to offset one another in consideration of their number and
importance, for the purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the preceding rules, according to
the result of such compensation.

The Supreme Court held that if the crime committed is parricide, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua regardless of how many mitigating circumstances.

Penalties; Preventive Imprisonment (1994)

1) When is there preventive imprisonment? 2) When is the accused credited with the full time
of his preventive imprisonment, and when is he credited with 4/5 thereof?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) There is preventive imprisonment when [a) an offender is detained while the criminal case
against him is being heard, either because the crime committed is a capital offense and not bailable, or
even if the crime committed was bailable, the offender could not post the required bail for his provisional
liberty.
 2) An accused is credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily
agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed upon its prisoners , provided that:
a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime committed consists of a deprivation of liberty;
b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a recidivist, or for having been previously
convicted for two or more times of any crime, or for having failed to surrender voluntarily for the
execution of the sentence upon being so summoned (Art. 29, RPC). Where the accused however did
not agree he would only be credited with 4/5 of the time he had undergone preventive imprisonment.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused is credited with the full time of his preventive
imprisonment if he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed upon its
prisoners, provided that he is not a recidivist, that he was not previously convicted for two or more times
of any crime and he did not fail to surrender at the promulgation of his sentence.

However, if he did not agree to abide by the rules, he shall be credited with 4/5 of the time he had
undergone preventive imprisonment.

Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. - Offenders

who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime;
and
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender
voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted
prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970).

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case
is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial
thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. In case the maximum penalty to which
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988).

Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua (RA) No. 7959 (2005)

Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959,
reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that reclusion
perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly called the attention of the Bench and the Bar to
the fact that the penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous and should
be applied correctly and as may be specified by the applicable law. Reclusion perpetua has a specific
duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art. 41), while life
imprisonment has no definite term or accessory penalties. Also, life imprisonment is imposable on
crimes punished by special laws, and not on felonies in the Code (People vs. De Guzman, G.R. Nos.
51385-86, Jan. 22, 1993; People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People vs. Alvero
G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993; People vs. Lapiroso, G.R. No. 122507, Feb. 25, 1999). [see Criminal
Law Conspectus, page 156]

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Estrella, the supreme Court held that the penalty of reclusion perpetua
is indivisible penalty which ranges from 20 years and one day to 40 years.

Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (1994)

Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes
defined in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion
perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860;
while LIFE IMPRISONMENT is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua
has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty [40] years under Republic Act 7659, while
life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua may be reduced by one or two degrees;
reclusion perpetuates accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory
penalties (People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546)

Notes:
Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment may be distinguished as follows:

Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in
and penalized therein, while life imprisonment is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion
perpetua has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty [40] years, while life imprisonment
has no duration. Reclusion perpetua may be reduced by one or two degrees, while life imprisonment
may not be reduced by degrees.

Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (2001)

After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the
victim having sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he died despite medical assistance
given in the Ospital ng Manila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin was unlicensed and the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present. Judge Laya rendered his decision
convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment"

Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as
in the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different? State your reasons. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life Imprisonment are totally different from
each other and therefore, should not be used interchangeably.

Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of
imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory penalties.

Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed
duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
 PROBATION LAW
Probation Law: Proper Period (2005)
Maganda was charged with violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by
imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed P200,000.00, or both . The court
convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda was unable
to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition,
among others, that she should not change her residence without the court’s prior approval.

a) What is the proper period of probation?

b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the
period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the
court revoke the Order of Probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The period shall not be less than twice the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment. Under Act No. 1732, subsidiary imprisonment for violations of special laws shall not
exceed 6 months at the rate of one day of imprisonment for every P2.50 . Hence, the proper period of
probation should not be less than (6 months nor more than 12 months. Since P50,000.00 fine is more
than the maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6 months at P2.50 a day.

b) Yes. The Court may revoke her probation. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation
of the probation officer. Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated . (Bala v. Martinez, G.R.
No. 67301, January 29, 1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)

Notes:
a) Under Act. No. 1732, when the court imposes a fine, it shall provide subsidiary penalty until the
fine is full satisfied at the rate of P2.50 per day. When the court imposes fine only without imprisonment,
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months. Therefore, the court in this case is allowed to
impose subsidiary imprisonment up to six months only although the accused is fined P50,000.00
because the law sets a limit as to the period of subsidiary imprisonment that may be imposed.

However, in case of probation, the period for probation shall not be less than not more than
twice the period of subsidiary imprisonment. If the accused is to serve six month of the subsidiary
imprisonment, his period of probation shall not be less than nor more than 12 months. If he violated any
of the condition embodied in the probation, he shall be ordered arrested and be made to serve the
remaining prison term.

b) In the case of Bala v. Martinez, the Supreme Court held that court may revoke the probation of
the accused if he violated a condition therein. Probation is not coterminous with its period. There
must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on the report and recommendation
of the probation officer. Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated.

Probation Law; Barred by Appeal (1994)

a) On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence and
sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency by the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed a
motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the
Court of Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn.

On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a
"Motion for Probation" praying that execution of his sentence be suspended, and that a probation officer
be ordered to conduct an Investigation and to submit a report on his probation.

The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which
took effect on July 16,1986, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?

b) A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the
subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one year
Imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was
dismissed. May A still apply for probation? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at
the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation.
The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time the application is filed in Court
(Bernardo vs. Judge, etal. GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10. 1992; Edwin de la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-
19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al, GR No. 84859, June 28, 1989; Bernardo us. Judge
Balagot, etal, GR 86561, Nov. 10, 1992).

b) No, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of
conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968, as amended by PD1990) now provides that no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).

Notes:
Under the Probation Law, an application for probation shall not be entertained when the accused
had appealed from his conviction.

Probation Law; Maximum Term vs. Total Term (1997)

The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) informations which were
tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and
one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he
filed an application for probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he possibly
qualify for probation?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of
one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into
account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the
word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed
six years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken
individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
Notes:
Under the Probation Law, offenders who are sentenced to serve a maximum term of more than
six years shall be disqualified for probation. Accordingly, for as long as each penalty does not exceed
six years, the offender shall be qualified for probation regardless of how many convictions he had.

Probation Law; Maximum Term; Not Exceed 6 Years (2002)

a) A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years
and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one(1) day of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for
ten (10) days of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%)

b) May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
terms and conditions thereof? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does not
extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years (Sec. 9a).

It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of
arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00.

b) No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation
is not appealable

Notes:
a) Under the Probation Law, offenders who are sentenced to a maximum penalty of more than
six years shall be disqualified for probation.

b) Under the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation is not
appealable.

Probation Law; Period Covered (2004)

PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos.
Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days
only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty
days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation;
the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation, since the
imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).

Probation Law; Right; Barred by Appeal (1995)

In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused
Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and
drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1)
day and to pay a fine of P6,000.00 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent
applied for probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application.
1. If you were the Judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss fully.
2. Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a maximum
penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his
conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a
maximum of four (4) years and four (4) months taking into consideration certain modifying
circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation. How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not entitled to
probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as amended, specifically mentions that those
who "are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years" are not entitled to
the benefits of the law.

2. The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a sentence of
conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4, PD No. 968. as amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us.
Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, CA case)

This is the second consecutive year that this question was asked. It is the sincere belief of the
Committee that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply
for probation he is proscribed from doing so as the maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE.
Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced to one which allows probation it is but fair and just
to grant him that right because it is apparent that the trial judge committed an error and for which the
accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law but
also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the appellate court should be considered a new decision as the
trial court's decision was vacated; hence, he could take advantage of the law when the decision is
remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA). It is
suggested, therefore, that an examinee answering in this tenor should be credited with some points.

Notes:
1.Under the Probation Law, offenders who are sentenced to a maximum penalty of more than six
years shall be disqualified from applying for probation.

2. The Probation Law provides that appeal from conviction shall forfeit the right of the offender for
probation provided that if he was convicted of the crime which carries the penalty of more than six years,
but the penalty was modified on appeal convicting the offender with the penalty of not more than six
years, he shall be entitled to probation.

Probation Law; Right; Barred by Appeal (2003)

Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed
upon him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced
his sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an
application for probation? Explain. 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the judgment of
conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the
Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted
if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Notes:
The Probation Law provides that appeal from conviction shall forfeit the right of the offender for
probation provided that if he was convicted of the crime which carries the penalty of more than six years,
but the penalty was modified on appeal convicting the offender with the penalty of not more than six
years, he shall be entitled to probation.
Suspension of Sentence; Adults/Minors (2006)
There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an
adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of
them. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Suspension of sentence of minor under P.D. 603 as amended by R.A. 9344.
2. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of trial
under R.A. 9344.
3. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the commission of
the offense, while acting with discernment.
4. Suspension of sentence by reason of insanity (Art. 79, Revised Penal Code).
5. Suspension of sentence for first offense of a minor violating RJV. 9165. (Sec. 32)
6. Suspension of sentence under the probation law. ( PD 968)
7. Suspension of death sentence of a pregnant woman. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code)

(NOTA BENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the coverage of the examination)

Notes:
1. Under the Law, when the accused is a minor, the sentence imposed shall be suspended.
2. Under the Revised Penal Code, when the accused is in a state of insanity, the sentence
imposed upon him shall be suspended.
3. Under the Probation law, an offender who is under probation, his sentence is suspended.
4. The Revised Penal Code provides that death sentence shall be suspended when imposed
upon a pregnant woman.
5. It is provided for in the Revised Penal Code that death sentence shall not be imposed upon a
person who is already 70 years of age.

Suspension of Sentence; Minors (2003)

A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged with the
crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender.
Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time
of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender's age at the time
of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age when he committed the crime. So
although A was below 18 years old when he committed the crime, but he was already 23 years old when
sentenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of sentence? Explain. 4%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the sentence. The
law establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the
court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have
incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application pursuant to PD
603, otherwise known as the "Child and Youth Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is under PD 603
that an application for suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the conditions
for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by RA 8369.
Notes:
Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, if the offender is still a minor at the time of the
promulgation of his sentence, the sentence imposed upon him shall be suspended.
Suspension of Sentence; Youthful Offender (1995)
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the
store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that
he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife
as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl
Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people
next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up
the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, "Tumakbo na
kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang
Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
1 Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The Child and Youth
Welfare Code? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 . All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
2. No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the youthful
offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, pursuant to P.D.
No. 603, Art. 192, The complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death under Art. 294 (1), RPC [People vs. Galit. 230 SCRA 486).

Notes:
Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, when the crime committed by a minor is punishable by
death or life imprisonment, the sentence may not be suspended.

EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
(PPP-ASMaD)
1. By the of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

Amnesty vs. PD 1160 (2006)

a) Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about columnist Randy
David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as published in almost all
newspapers for the past several months.) (2.5%)

b) General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively,
were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they
apply for amnesty? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 724, applies only to offenses committed
prior to 1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.

b) Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 724, applies only to offenses committed
prior to 1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.

Notes:
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
(PPP-ASMaD)
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

Amnesty; Crimes Covered (2006)

Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, certain
crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty-. Name at least 5 of these crimes. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes covered under Presidential Proclamation No. 724:
1. Coup d’ etat
2. Rebellion or insurrection
3. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
4. Inciting to rebellion or sedition
5. Conspiracy to commit sedition; inciting to sedition;
6. Illegal assembly
7. Illegal association
8. Direct assault
9. Indirect assault
10. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority
11. Tumults and other disturbances
12. Unlawful use of means of publications and unlawful utterances
13. Alarm and scandal
14. Illegal possession of Fas.

Notes:
1. Coup d’ etat
2. Rebellion or insurrection
3. Inciting to commit sedition
4. Inciting to rebellion or sedition
5. Conspiracy to commit sedition;
6. Illegal assembly
7. Illegal association
8. Direct assault
9. Indirect assault
10. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority
11. Tumults and other disturbances
12. Unlawful use of means of publications and unlawful utterances
13. Alarm and scandal
14. Illegal possession of Fas.
Extinction; Criminal & Civil Liabilities; Effects; Death of accused pending appeal (2004)
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to
a prison term as well as to pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his appeal was
pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is
the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes his
criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and recoverable under the Revised
Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action if
predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-
contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 ). Civil
indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had
been convicted with finality before he died.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, death of the accused extinguishes his criminal liability because
service of sentence is personal.

In the case of People v. Bayotas, the Supreme Court held that civil indemnity and damages are
recoverable if the accused is convicted with finality. Therefore, if the accused dies before he is convicted
by final judgment, the offended party cannot recover damages.

Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
(PPP-ASMaD)

1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties,
liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of this Code.

Extinction; Criminal & Civil Liabilities; Effects; Death of Offended Party (2000)
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan.
After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was pending appeal in the Regional Trial
Court of the same province, Lorna who was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to
the court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma's
contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities ?
Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not extinguish the
criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against the State [People vs. Misola,
87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma based on the offense committed by her
is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue the case.

On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal liability
shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code ( Art. 89, par. 1,
RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if
predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-
delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Misola, the Supreme court held that death of the offended party does
not extinguish criminal liability of the offender because the crime is committed against the State.

In the case of People vs. Bayotas, the Supreme Court held that death of the accused shall
extinguish his criminal liability, and his civil liability arising therefrom may likewise be extinguished if he
dies before the judgment attains finality. However, his death does not extinguish his obligation which
arises from law, contract, quasi-contract and quasi-delicts.

Pardon vs. Amnesty (2006)

Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) PARDON includes any crime and is exercised individually by the President, while AMNESTY
applies to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses
b) PARDON is exercised when the person is already convicted, while AMNESTY may be
exercised even before trial or investigation.
c) PARDON looks forward and relieves the offender of the penalty of the offense for which he
has been convicted; it does not work for the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the
right of suffrage, unless such rights are expressly restored by means of pardon, while AMNESTY looks
backward and abolishes the offense and its effects, as if the person had committed no offense.
d) PARDON does not alter the fact that the accused is criminally liable as it produces only
the extinction of the penalty, while AMNESTY removes the criminal liability of the offender because it
obliterates every vestige of the crime.
e) PARDON being a private act by the President, must be pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned, while AMNESTY which is a Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of
Congress is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice.

Notes:
a) Pardon includes any crime and is exercised individually by the President, while amnesty
applies to classes of persons who may be guilty of political offenses.

b) Pardon is exercised when the person is already convicted, while amnesty may be exercised
even before trial or investigation.

c) Pardon does not alter the fact that the accused is criminally liable as it produces only the
extinction of the penalty, while amnesty removes the criminal liability of the offender because it
obliterates every vestige of the crime.

d) Pardon, being a private act by the President, must be pleaded and proved by the person
pardoned, while amnesty which is a Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of
Congress is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice.

e) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender of the penalty of the offense for which he has
been convicted; it does not work for the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of
suffrage, unless such rights are expressly restored by means of pardon, while amnesty looks
backward and abolishes the offense and its effects, as if the person had committed no offense.
 PARDON

Pardon; Effect; Civil Interdiction (2004)

TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently he was granted pardon by the
President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office. After
his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to disqualify him.
TRY contended he is not disqualified because he was already pardoned by the President
unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that
when the death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties
of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of the
sentence shall remain as effective thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly
remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but
does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when a convict is pardoned respecting the crime which carries
the penalty of death, the perpetual absolute disqualification to hold public office shall remain within 30
years from the date of the sentence as its effects except when the pardon expressly extended to such
disqualification. Accordingly, the one pardoned cannot run for public office during that period.

Article 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. - The death penalty, when it is not executed by
reason of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that of perpetual absolute disqualification and
that of civil interdiction during thirty years following the date sentence, unless such accessory
penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon.

Pardon; Effect; Reinstatement (1994)

Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa, through falsification of public document.
She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others, P5,000.00 representing the balance
of the amount defrauded

The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the
pendency of Linda's motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the President extended to her an
absolute pardon which she accepted.

By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting that she be restored
to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still vacant. The Department ruled that Linda may be
reinstated to her former position without the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City
Treasurer to see to it that the sum of P5,000.00 be satisfied. Claiming that she should not be made to
pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the President.

The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon is
the only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the absolute pardon does not exempt
the culprit from payment of civil liability. Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her right thereto had
been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute pardon merely extinguished her
criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and restored her eligibility for appointment to that office.
She has to re-apply for such position and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment.
Moreover, the pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto
vs.Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art. 36, RPC)

Notes:
In the case of Monsanto vs.Factoran, the Supreme Court held that pardon does not entitle the
one pardoned to reinstatement. He has to re-apply because it only restores his eligibility for appointment
to public office. It does not restore him to his former position.

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES
Prescription of Crimes; Bigamy (1995)
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered
in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who
remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint
for bigamy against Joe.
The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime,
more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of
Marcy's complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of
Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon
Marcy.

Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime
was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive
notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy ,
as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well
within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October
1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)

Notes:
In the case of Sermonia vs. CA, the Supreme Court held that the crime of bigamy prescribes in 15
years from the discovery of the offended party, the authorities or their agents, and registration of the
second marriage does not have the effect of constructive notice because marriage is not a property.
Therefore, the prescriptive period starts to run from the discovery.

My answer hihi:
No. the crime of bigamy charged in this case has not yet lapsed.
Under the law on prescription of penalty, the running of the period to which an action for bigamy
may be instituted begins from the time of discovery of the offense by the offended party, the authorities,
or their agents.
Here, it was only on October 1975 when Marcy discovered about the bigamous marriage of Joe
to Linda. The running of period of 15 years only commenced at the date of the said discovery.
 Hence, crime of bigamy charged in this case has not yet lapsed

Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (2000)

One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their
house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he
peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara's stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death.
Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead
body of Ara was never found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives,
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right after his
graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes
in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years?
Explain, (5%)

My answer hihi 
Yes. The state can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years
since the period has not yet prescribed.
Under the law on prescription of crime, the running of the period to which an action may be instituted
begins from the time the offense was discovered by the offended party, authorities, or their agents.
Here, it was only after 20 and a half years when Albert reported the incident regarding the killing of Mina
by Ara to the NBI authorities. The running of the period of 20 years to which an action may be filed
began only at the time of said discovery by the authorities.
Thus, the state can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years.
Under Article 91, RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission of
the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an
authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of
the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the
time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, the date of the discovery of the crime is the starting point in
counting the prescriptive period.

Article 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. - The period of prescription shall

commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities,
or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted
or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him.

The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine
Archipelago.

Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (2004)

OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV treacherously,
then throw the dead man's body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and
OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell
the authorities what he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be
prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not
yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run.
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime
has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code).
OW, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the
crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents.

Prescription of Crimes; Concubinage (2001)

On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed against
Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation. For
various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of said court decided the case by
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was committed in Manila. The case was subsequently
filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already
prescribed. The law provides that the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the
dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain, (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and
suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. (People vs.
Galano. 75 SCRA 193)

Notes:
In the case of People v. Galano, the Supreme Court held that the filing of the case with the
prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation interrupted the running of the period for prescription.
Therefore, if the prescriptive period of the crime is 10 years, and the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation dismisses the case, such case may still be refiled after the dismissal because it
is still within the prescriptive period.

Prescription of Crimes; False Testimony (1994)

Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the
case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of the case were
destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This
time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took
place. The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to
the defendant in a criminal case.
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper?

2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a
case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal step will you take?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes.
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information on the ground of prescription.
Under the RPC, the penalty for false testimony against a defendant who has been acquitted shall be
arresto menor. Moreover, crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par.
3, RPC). Here, the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal
case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987. The prescriptive period of the crime commenced
to run from the said final judgment. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5)
years, thus, the period has already prescribed.

Notes:
1) Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of false testimony is committed when a person gives
false testimony against the defendant in any criminal case.

2) The Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of false testimony is punishable by arresto
mayor, and a crime punishable by arresto mayor shall prescribe in five years.

Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or

reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.

Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.

Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the exception of
those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.

The crime of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.

Light offenses prescribe in two months.

When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis
of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third paragraphs of this article . (As
amended by RA 4661, approved June 19, 1966).

Article 180. False testimony against a defendant. - Any person who shall give false testimony
against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer: one degree lower
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to
death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal
or reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other
afflictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional
penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a fine not to
exceed 1,000 pesos.

Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slander (1997)

A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court
found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration contending
that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have prescribed in two months from commission,
and since the information against him was filed more than four months after the alleged commission of
the crime, the same had already prescribed.

The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive
period, the nature of the offense charged in the Information should be considered, not the crime proved;
second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of A
to raise it in a motion to quash. Resolve the motion for reconsideration.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The motion for reconsideration should be granted.- a) The accused cannot be convicted of the
offense of simple slander although it is necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in
the information, because, the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was
filed (People v. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People. 201
SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by the
simple expediment of filing a graver offense which includes such light offense.

b) While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he
pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to
quash, the EXCEPTIONS to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint or information; (2) lack
of Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground
invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can
be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas)

Notes:

a) In the case of Magat v. People, the Supreme Court held that to avoid the circumvention of the
prescriptive period, the accused cannot be charged of the graver offense necessarily includes the lesser
one if the purpose of doing that is to avoid the application of the prescriptive period. This may happen
when the lesser offense has already prescribed, so to make the case within the prescriptive period, the
prosecutor will opt to charge the accused of the graver offense. This cannot be done. Accordingly, the
accused can move to dismiss the case on the ground of prescription of the crime.

b) Under the Rules of Court, failure of the accused to move to quash the information is not
deemed waived if grounded upon that the offense charged was already extinguished.

In the case of People vs. Balagtas, the Supreme Court held that while the general rule is that
failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be
deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash. This rule admits exceptions such that:
(1) no offense was charged in the complaint or information;
(2) lack of Jurisdiction;
(3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and
(4) double jeopardy.

Since the ground invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the
offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal.

CIVIL LIABILITY
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a
criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
 1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a
felony;
2) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has
not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4) Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New Civil
Code;
7) When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
8) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).

Notes:
The exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability are:

1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony;
2) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has not
been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4) Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New Civil
Code;

7) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is
acquitted.

Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)

A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was
driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an
intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned
A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the
transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the
car continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down
on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C
was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral
certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on
the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the
acquittal of C? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When the
accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such
action requires only a preponderance of evidence {Art. 29, CC).

If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for
damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This
is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code [Arts, 31,
2176, 2177, CC}.

Notes:
When the accused is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt, the private offended party may
still claim civil liability.

ARTICLE 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence.

Civil Liability; Subsidiary; Employers (1998)

Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped Demy, a
pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which required medical attendance for three
months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the
Metropolitan Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto
mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees.

Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was returned
unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against Max. The latter
opposed the motion on-the ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and
that he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the motion? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry
(transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of
the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the
law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for such liability and Max is deemed to know it
because ignorance of the law is never excused. And since his liability is not primary but only
subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay; he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It
suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus
given the opportunity to be heard.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, employers shall be subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by
their employees. The can be made liable even if they are not impleaded in the complaint since their
liability is only subsidiary and not primary. Moreover, although the judgment do not mention that they are
subsidiarily liable, still, they are liable under the law.

Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in the
next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged
in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or
employees in the discharge of their duties.

Civil Liability; When Mandatory; Criminal Liability (2005)

The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the same
woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of
P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the award of civil indemnity for each
count, considering that the victim is the same woman. How would you rule on the contention of the
accused? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 The contention is unmeritorious. Under the law, every person criminally liable is civilly liable. (Art.
100, Revised Penal Code) Since each count charges different felonious acts and ought to be punished
differently, the concomitant civil indemnity ex delicto for every criminal act should be adjudged . Said civil
indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not be
denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations. (People v. Jalosjos,
G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)

Notes:
In the case of People v. Jalosjos, the supreme Court held that each count of rape has a
concomitant or corresponding civil indemnity. Therefore, if the civil indemnity for rape is P50,000.00, the
accused shall indemnify the victim in the amount of P500,000.00 if he is found to have raped the victim
10 times.

Damages; Homicide; Temperate Damages (2006)

In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the heirs'
claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses for the wake and burial. What kind of damages
may the trial court award to them and how much? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court may award temperate damages in the amount of twenty-five (P25,000.00) thousand
pesos. Under jurisprudence, temperate damages is awarded in homicide when no sufficient proof of
actual damages is offered or if the actual damages proven is less than twenty-five thousand (P25,000)
(People v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19, 2004).

Notes:
In the case of People v. Salona, the Supreme Court held that temperate damages may be
awarded in homicide if there is no sufficient proof of actual damages is offered or if the actual damages
proven is less than P25,000.00.

Crimes Against National Security and the Law of Nations

Piracy in the High Seas & Qualified Piracy (2006)

While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and
while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to
stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell
asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria,
Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away
several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat . Then they left hurriedly
towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port
Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.

a) What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of
the crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither
members of the complement nor passengers of the ship, seized part of the equipment of the vessel
while it was three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art. 122, Revised Penal Code).
 b) The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was accompanied by physical
injuries/homicide. The culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping (Art. 123, Revised Penal
Code).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when persons who are not crew nor passengers shall, on the
high seas, attack or seize a vessel shall be liable for the crime of piracy.

Moreover, if such attack is accompanied by physical injury or homicide, the persons who are
liable therefor shall be liable for qualified piracy.

Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. - The penalty of reclusion temporal
shall be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a
member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel,
its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.

Article 123. Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon
those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following
circumstances:

1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.

Crimes Against the Fundamental Law of the State

Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling (2002)

What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are; 1) The offender in
violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to dwelling, the
offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private capacity.
2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of
another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without
the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered
surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.
Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another
against the express or implied will of the latter.

Notes:

The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are:

 1) The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in
trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private capacity.

2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another
against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the
previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously,
after being required to leave the premises.

Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way that is, by entering the dwelling of another
against the express or implied will of the latter.

Crimes Against Public Order

Art 134; Rebellion; Politically Motivated; Committed by NPA Members (1998)
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car
traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting in
his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior officer . Commander Tiago.
According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt
practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%J

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of rebellion,
considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and the
killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politically-motivated. This was the ruling in People
vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568 involving identical facts which is a movement taken judicial notice of as
engaged in rebellion against the Government.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Avila, the Supreme Court held that the crime of rebellion is committed
when members of the New People’s Army killed the Governor because of his corrupt practices because
this move is a judicial notice that it is negaged in rebellion against the government.

Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion is committed

by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government; the purpose is to remove the loyalty to said
Government or its laws the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land,
naval or other armed forces, thus depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature their powers or
prerogatives. (Reengineered)

Notes:
In layman’s term, rebellion is an armed resistance against the duly constituted authority; a
successful rebellion may lead to capture the presidency by the leader of the group. The leader may
become the president.
 Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. - The crime of rebellion or insurrection is
committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from
the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of
any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of murder as the
purpose of the killing was because of his "corrupt practices ", which does not appear to be politically
motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or further the objective of the New
Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was committed with treachery.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code
has already been amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from said Article, common crimes which
used to be punished as part and parcel of the crime of rebellion. The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, 99
Phil. 515 (1994), that rebellion may not be complexed with common crimes committed in furtherance
thereof, was because the common crimes were then penalized in Art. 135 together with the rebellion,
with one penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 135 of said Code remained
exactly the same when the case of Enrile vs, Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was resolved. Precisely for
the reason that Art. 48 cannot apply because the common crimes were punished as part of rebellion in
Art. 135, that this Article was amended, deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common
crimes were deleted from said Article, demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat the common
crimes as distinct from rebellion and remove the legal impediment to the application of Art48. It is
noteworthy that in Enrile vs. Salazar (supra) the Supreme Court said these:
"There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to
clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that if it cannot be
conveniently utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. The Court
has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and
what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly
seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely with in its province," And significantly the said
amendment to Art. 135 of the Rev. Penal Code was made at around the time the ruling in Salazar was
handled down, obviously to neutralize the Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The amendment was sort
of a rider to the coup d'etat law, Rep. Act No 6968.

Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)

Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and rape, may one be
criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape because in
coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power would consummate the
crime. The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze
the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued possession
and exercise of governmental powers.

On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated rape it is either attempted or
consummated rape. If the accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt and
unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted rape.
On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, even without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime of rape. More so, it has long abandoned its
“stray” decision in People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated rape.

Notes:
No person can be charged for the crime of frustrated coup de ’etat because a mere attack against
the government to paralyze it consummates the crime.

Likewise, in the crime of rape, there is no frustrated rape; it is either attempted or

consummated rape. If the accused placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning
his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, he is guilty of Attempted rape. On the other
hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime of rape.

Art 134-A; Coup d’etat (2002)

a) If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by
violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing power and
taking over such installation, what crime or crimes are they guilty of? (3%)

b) If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the
crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because their attack
was against vital military installations which are essential to the continued possession and exercise
of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations.

b) The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the
group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)

Notes:
a) Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of coup d’etat is committed when persons belonging
to the PNP or AFP make a swift attack against vital military installation which are essential to the
continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by
taking over such installation

b) It is provided for in the Revised Penal Code that when a leader is unknown in the crime of coup
d ‘etat, the one who signs receipts and other documents, and who issues document in behalf of the
group, and who gives orders shall be deemed the leader thereof.

Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communications
network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power,
singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to
the military or police or holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or
participation for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
 Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat. - Any person who promotes,
maintains, or heads rebellion or insurrection shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person merely participating or executing the commands of others in a rebellion shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal.
Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake a coup d'etat
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Any person in the government service who participates, or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period.
Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner supports,
finances, abets or aids in undertaking a coup d'etat shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in
its maximum period.
When the rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat shall be under the command of unknown
leaders, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, as performed similar acts, on behalf or the rebels shall be deemed
a leader of such a rebellion, insurrection, or coup d'etat. (As amended by R.A. 6968, approved on
October 24, 1990).

Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New Firearms Law (1998)

1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%]
2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm.
What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of
the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried out singly or
simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or
holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing
or diminishing state power. (Art 134-A, RPC).

2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use of
an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294).

Notes:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried out
singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or
holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state power.

2. Under the New Firearms Law, the crime of illegal possession of firearms is absorbed in the
crime of coup d’etat. Therefore, when the crime of coup d’etat is committed with the use of unlicensed
firearms, there is only one crime committed which is coup d’etat.

Art 136; Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion (1994)

VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was recognized as
the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered
by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow
the government. Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father
Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to commit
rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable under Art 116,
RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is exempted from
criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due to "insuperable
cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.

Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators, but not to a
person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432;
People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who is not a foreigner and levies war against the
Philippines or adheres to its enemy, gives them aid or comport within the Philippines or elsewhere
shall be liable for treason.

The Revised Penal Code provides that a person who is not a foreigner, owes allegiance to the
Philippines, having knowledge of conspiracy against it conceals or does not disclose it to the
governor or fiscal, among others shall be liable for misprision of treason.

Hence, what is punishable is misprision of treason; there is not crime as misprision of rebellion.

Article 114. Treason. - Any person who, owing allegiance to (the United States or) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, not being a foreigner, levies war against them or adheres to their
enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, shall be punished by
reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a fine not to exceed P20,000 pesos.

Article 116. Misprision of treason. - Every person owing allegiance to (the United States) the
Government of the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any
conspiracy against them, conceals or does not disclose and make known the same, as soon as
possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides,
as the case may be, shall be punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.

DIRECT ASSAULT
Art 148; Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience (2001)
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the
latter's throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom crying
and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had
done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and
talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he
suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him
out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to
kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X
went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident,
Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security
guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in
the principal's office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was
deflected by B. a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? (6%) b) Would
your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B, the
Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A
Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his
duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked.

Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less Serious Physical Injuries for the
fist blow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Arts.
148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a teacher is considered a person in authority, and having
been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with
the resulting less serious physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be
liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries
committed by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a co-principal, since her
reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife of Y

b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a
person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article
151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of contempt for
authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a
person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall attack any person in authority while the
latter is engaged in the performance of his official duty shall be liable for direct assault.

Moreover, the Revised Penal Code provides that any person who disobeys a person in authority
or his agent while in the performance of his official duty shall be liable for disobedience to a person in
author.

In addition, it is provided for in the Revised Penal Code that teachers are person in authority
for purposes of applying the provision on direct assault.

Article 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes
of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of
such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods
and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the
offender is a public officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If
none of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.

Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. -
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any
person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official
duties.

When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.

Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as
such. - In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a
barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority.

A person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent

authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life
and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person
who comes to the aid of persons in authorit y, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and
universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19,
1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985).

Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers & Professors (2002)

A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She
called the student's attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing embarrassment to him.
The following day, while the class was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without any warning,
slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A's
rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter. What
crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was then
conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence on the student C,
who came to the aid of the said professor.

By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers
and professors of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in
authority for purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles
148 and 151 of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be
deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an
attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a student.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall attack a person in authority or an agent of
person in authority shall liable for direct assault. A person who comes to the aid of a person in author
shall be deemed agent of person in authority.
Art 148; Persons in Authority/Agents of Persons in Authority (2000)
Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as
a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and
barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection
and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader
and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art. 152, RPC),

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev. Penal Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional
duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299,
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, persons in authority are persons directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board,
or commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority.

The Revised Penal Code provides that agents of persons in authority are persons who by
direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with
maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman,
barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority

It is provided for in the Revised Penal Code that in applying the provisions on direct assault
teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or
on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.

Art 156; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (2002)

A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His followers,
all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him escape. The prison guards,
seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the lives of other patients,
deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's
followers? Why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from Jail (Art. 156,
Revised Penal Code).
The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal establishment any person confined
therein but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of said establishments by means of
violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other means.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall remove from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of
violence, intimidation, or bribery shall be liable as principal for the crime of delivery of prisoner from
jail.
 Article 156. Delivery of prisoners from jails. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from
any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by
means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall
be imposed.

If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the guards
by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period.

Art 157; Evasion of Service of Sentence (1998)

Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional Trial
Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was not to enter the city. While
serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%]
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went to
Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro.

A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters any of the
place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come within the prohibited radius.
Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty.
(People vs. Abilong. 82 Phil. 172).

2. Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested. This is so
because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a fugitive from
justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 1968)

Notes:
1. In the case of People vs. Abilong, the Supreme Court held that a person who was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of destierro entered the prohibited place under the sentence shall be liable for the
crime of evasion of service of sentence.

2. In the case of Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons, the Supreme Court held that evasion of service of
sentence is a continuing crime; any person who is guilty of such crime may be prosecuted in the place
where he was arrested. If he is prohibited to enter in Dagupan City, and he entered therein, he evaded
service of sentence. If he is arrested in Manila, he may be prosecuted therein because the crime of
evasion of service of sentence is a continuing crime such that the place where one of the essential
ingredients of the crime was committed can be the place for prosecution of that crime.

Art. 134; Rebellion vs. Coup d'etat (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between rebellion and coup d'etat, based on their constitutive
elements as criminal offenses.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
REBELLION is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the purpose
of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a government of the rebels. It
is carried out by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any member of the military,
national police or any public officer. COUP D'ETAT is committed when members of the military,
Philippine National Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack
thru strategy, stealth, threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public
facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental powers,
for the purpose of seizing or diqminishing state powers.

Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d'etat may be carried out singly or
simultaneously and the principal offenders must be members of the military, national police or public
officer, with or without civilian support. The criminal objective need not be to overthrow the existing
government but only to destabilize or paralyze the existing government.

Notes:
Rebellion is a crime committed when a huge number of persons rise publicly in arms for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government; the objective of overthrowing the
government is to replace it with government of the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence,
but the participants need not be any member of the military, national police or any public officer.

On the other hand, coup d’etat is committed when members of the military, Philippine
National Police, or public officer launched a swift attack , military camp or installation ,
communication networks, public facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession
of governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.

Rebellion requires a public uprising, while coup d'etat may be carried out singly or
simultaneously; the principal offenders must be members of the military, national police or public
officer, with or without civilian support.

The purpose of rebellion is to overthrow the government, while the purpose of the coup d’etat
is to paralyze the existing government.

Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder (2000)

Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay
Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was
delivering his speech. B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance
movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and
admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of
heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the
microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not
armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain,
is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and
order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb
the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B
acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which
characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position
to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such
stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault, a complex crime of direct
assault with murder was committed by B.

Notes:

The complex crime of direct assault with murder is committed when a barangay chairman is killed
while in the performance of his official duty. A barangay chairman is a person in authority; if he is
attacked while in the performance of his official duty, the crime of direct assault is committed. If he is
killed, the complex crime of direct assault with murder is committed because a single act of killing the
barangay chairman constitutes two grave felonies- direct assault and homicide or murder as the
case may be.

Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall attack any person in authority while
engaged in the performance of official duties shall be liable for the crime of direct assault.

Article 148. Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall
employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the crimes
of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in
authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of
such performance shall be liable for the crime of direct assault.

Art 148; Direct Assault with murder (1995)

Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of
the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to
Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile
rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was
fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation.
However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What
crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority
(Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in
authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof
the felony of direct assault is committed.

Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave or less
grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to
death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.

Crimes against Public Interest

False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999)
1. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal
Code? Explain. (3%)
2. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain how
and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to do with the fake bills.
Can he be held criminally liable for such possession? Decide. (3%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not
punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter, sufficient to
consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes. There must be an intent to use the false
notes.

2. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the conduct
of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b)
intent to utter (passing of as a legal tender) the same.

Notes:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall have in possession, with intent to use,
false bank notes shall be held liable for illegal possession of the counterfeit bills. Therefore, possession
of counterfeited money bills or false notes is note a crime; intent to use is essential to consummate the
crime.

2. If a person cannot explain how he came into possession of the false notes, intent to use the
same may be presumed.

Article 168. Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit. - Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the preceding articles, any
person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with intent to use any of the false or falsified
instruments referred to in this section, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
in said articles.

False Testimony (1994)

Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the
case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of the case were
destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This
time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took
place. The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to
the defendant in a criminal case.
1.] Will the case against Andrew prosper?

2.] Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a
case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal step will you take?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RPC, it is not necessary that the criminal
case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove which
of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by evidence other
than the contradictory statements (People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd series, p.
808).

2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information on the ground of prescription.
The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal
case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto
mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC. Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years
(Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the
principal criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive period
of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.
Notes:
1) In the case of People vs. Arazola, the Supreme Court held that for one to be criminally liable
for false testimony, it is not necessary that the criminal case where the offender testified is terminated
first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is
false. Accordingly, upon giving two versions of his testimony, the witness runs the risk of facing a
criminal prosecution.

2) Under the Revised Penal Code, if the accused who was the subject of the false testimony is
acquitted, the penalty for false testimony is arresto mayor, and the penalty for arresto mayor prescribes
in 5 years from the discovery of the false testimony.

Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendants. - Any person who shall give false
testimony in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos, if the
prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the penalty of  arresto mayor in any
other case.

Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)

A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No
evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact,
the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the
proposition that "the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned
is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive
for making such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was
premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor and user
of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.

Note:
The rule is that if a person had in his POSSESSION a falsified document and he made use of it
(uttered it), taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material
author of the falsification.

Forgery & Falsification (1999)

How are "forging" and "falsification" committed? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FORGING or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument
payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by erasing,
substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained
therein.

FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by:

1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than
those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, if a treasury or bank note is given the appearance of true and
genuine document, forging or forgery is committed; it is likewise committed by giving to a bearer or
order instrument the appearance of a true and genuine document.

Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by: (ICA-MAMI)

1. Imitating any handwriting, signature;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did
not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing statements other than those in fact made by them to persons who have participated
in an act or proceeding;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document
when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book.

Grave Scandal (1996)

Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked
at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding office
at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful
binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of
the town. 1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain, 2) What crime, if any, did the business
executives commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal,
but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against decency
and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public
knowledge or view. As a matter of fact, it was discovered by the executives accidentally and they have
to use binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.

2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness [as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town,
resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides such
topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.

Notes:
If a woman sunbathed naked at the top of her condominium, she is not liable for any crime
because her act is not within public view and is not highly scandalous and offensive against morality
and decency.
Moreover, a person who watch her through a binocular is not liable for act of lasciviousness
because there was no overt lustful act.

Under the Revised Penal Code, when a person acts in a highly scandalous manner which may
offend against decency or good custom, he is liable for the crime of grave scandal.

Article 200. Grave scandal. - The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed
upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous
conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code .

Perjury (1996)
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two installments,
making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president. Because the stockholders who
sold their stocks failed to comply with their warranties attendant to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment
of the second installment due on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to
release once said stockholders comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn,
rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Corporation ,
Sisenando then filed a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as
president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned,
after petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a
criminal case for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated
under oath in the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the President of the Estrella
Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such. Under the facts of the case, could
Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It cannot be reasonably maintained
that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he alleged in the complaint
that he is the President of the Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the premise that his
removal from the presidency is not valid and that is precisely the issue brought about by his
complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been the President of the corporation and it
is from that position that the stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he
filed the complaint questioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood which is a requisite of perjury.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who knowingly makes untruthful statements under
oath shall be liable for perjury. Therefore, when there is no falsehood in the statements, the crime of
perjury is not committed. In this case, Sisenando did not make a false statement when he alleged in the
complaint that he is the President for in fact he was the President.

Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty
of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so
requires.

(Go beyond a perfect score).

Perjury (1997)
A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for having an affair with
B, a coemployee in the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate himself, A testified that
he was single and was willing to marry B, He induced C to testify, and C did testify that B was single.
The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A
and C guilty of subordination of perjury?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material to
the charge of immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a
government employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to the
charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that could influence the charge.

There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the
one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation
(People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that he
testified to being immaterial, he cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by inducement when
he induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct participation
in perjury, having testified on matters not material to an administrative case.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Podol, the Supreme Court held that the crime of perjury is committed
only when the person testified on matters material to the defense or claim in case. Accordingly, in
the case of immorality, testimony regarding the civil status of the respondent is not material because
even if he is single, still, the crime will prosper.

Perjury (2005)
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her
in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he has conducted himself in an
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition,
Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom he has
an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for naturalization. What
crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for naturalization that he is of good moral
character and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is material to his petition for
naturalization. He committed perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is
contained in a verified petition made for a legal purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14,
2003)

Notes:
In the case of Choa v. People, The Supreme Court held that the crime of perjury is committed
when a person declared untruthful statement under oath which is material to his cause. Accordingly, a
declaration under oath that a person is of good moral character in material to his petition for
naturalization; hence, he is liable for perjury.

Crimes Committed by Public Officers

Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001)
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case
of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas
went to her lawyer's office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and
expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced.

a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%)

b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210,
Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt
enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who receives a gift in consideration of an
execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed such act shall be
liable for direct bribery. Accordingly, the sheriff who received the money for the execution of the writ of
execution shall be liable for direct bribery.

Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the
preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be
a public officer.

Article 210. Direct bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not less than the value of
the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the
crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same penalty provided in the
preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such
gift.

Direct- receive gifts in consideration of the performance of an official duty

Indirect- receive gifts by reason of his office

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of
execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the
receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and
not as a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would
be committed by said sheriff.

b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005)
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence
Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in consideration for the
destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether
Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%)

1. Direct Bribery;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents.
When a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an official act in
exchange for a gift, present or consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code), the crime
committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official
custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of documents (removal, concealment,
destruction) under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who receives gifts in consideration of the
execution of an act constituting a crime shall be liable for direct bribery. Therefore, the evidence
custodian who destroyed the evidence in a drug case in consideration of the money he received from
the accused shall be liable for direct bribery.

Acts of Direct bribery- to refrain or act upon an official duty; for the execution of an act constitutiong a
crime in connection of his official duty

2.] Indirect bribery;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not receive the bribe because of his office
but in consideration of a crime in connection with his official duty.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who receives a gift in consideration of the act
constituting a crime shall be liable for direct bribery; but if he receives the gift in consideration of his
office, he shall be liable for indirect bribery.

3.] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
See. 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 was not committed because there was no actual injury to the
government. When there is no specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-Rueda vs
Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20, 2001)

Notes:
In a criminal case, the State is the injured person; if it cannot prosecute an offense because of no
evidence to support its cause since the evidence was destroyed by the evidence custodian, injury upon
itself is a fact.

4.] Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice although the higher penalty imposable on
direct bribery or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers
merely to the imposition of the higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for obstruction of
justice, even if the same does not constitute another offense.

Notes:
Sec. 1 of PD No. 1829, any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or
delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by
destroying, suppressing or concealing any record or document to impair its admissibility as
evidence shall be liable as principal for the crime of obstruction of justice.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because the act of destroying the evidence
in his custody is already penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty. (Sec. 1, P.I). No.
1829)

Jurisdiction; Impeachable Public Officers (2006)

Judge Rod Reyes was appointed by former President Fidel Ramos as Deputy Ombudsman for
the Visayas for a term of 7 years commencing on July 5,1995. Six months thereafter, a lady
stenographer filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint for acts of lasciviousness and
with the Supreme Court a petition for disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions to
dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment, claiming lack of jurisdiction
over his person and office. Are both motions meritorious? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss the complaint of the Deputy Ombudsman for the acts of lasciviousness
should be denied as only the Ombudsman is included in the list of impeachable officers found in
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over his prosecution
(Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. 146486, March 4, 2005). Likewise, the Supreme Court has
jurisdiction over the petition for disbarment, as he is a member of the bar. His motion to dismiss should
be denied (See Rule 139 and 139 of the Rules of Court).

Notes:
In the case of Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, the Supreme Court held that the Office of
Ombudsman has jurisdiction over a Deputy Ombudsman concerning a criminal case filed against him.
He is not an impeachable officer, so the complaint need not be filed before the Supreme court.

MALVERSATION
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer.

Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement; it is stealing of money or property that is

entrusted to you.

Any public officer who is accountable for public fund or property by reason of his office or duties
shall be liable for malversation if he takes or misappropriates such fund or property.
He shall also be liable for the same crime if he permits any other person to take such public fund
or property by consent, abandonment or negligence.
Malversation (1994)
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson
Revolver. Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy,
who reported for work that morning, did not show up during the inspection. He went on absence without
leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was
charged with malversation of government property before the Sandiganbayan.

Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his
own use, that the delay in accounting for them does not constitute conversion and that actually the
firearms were stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the firearms they issued to
him in his official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon demand created the
presumption that he converted them for his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government property is enough factual basis for a finding
of malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms
were actually stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to the authorities. (People vs.
Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)

Notes:
Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement; it is stealing of money or property that is
entrusted to you.

Any public officer who is accountable for public fund or property by reason of his office or duties
shall be liable for malversation if he takes or misappropriates such fund or property.
He shall also be liable for the same crime if he permits any other person to take such public fund
or property by consent, abandonment or negligence.

Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public

officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer

Malversation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any public officer who, by reason of the
duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall take or misappropriate or shall
consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds
or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of
such funds or property, (Art, 217, RPC)

Notes:
Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer

Malversation (1999)
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with public funds
private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in
the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds, violated
regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal
Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the check, the Municipal Treasurer will be
criminally liable as restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may be considered as a
mitigating circumstance similar or analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil 98),
He will be criminally liable for malversation. However, if the restitution was made immediately, under
vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and without leaving the office, he may not be
criminally liable.

Malversation (2001)

Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the Rustan
Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the owners-
incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their
application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they
were given custody and possession of the sequestered building and its contents, including various
vehicles used in the firm's operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was
discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and
Santos failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the
PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the trial, the two
accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if any crime was committed, it should
only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. What is the proper offense
committed? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public Property, not estafa, considering that
Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm
and were "given custody and possession" of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans
which later they could not account for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of
properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are
accountable for such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government through
the PCGG, are in custodia legis and therefore impressed with the character of public property, even
though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC)

The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing,
is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.

Notes:
The Revised Penal Code provides that a private individual shall be liable for malversation if he
misappropriates property under his administration which was seized or attached or under custodial legis.

Article 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions. - The provisions of this chapter shall
apply to private individuals who in any capacity whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or
municipal funds, revenues, or property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property
attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
Malversation (2006)
1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution, hired
Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and was employed by the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and controlled
corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the
bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust
funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged with malversation of public
funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an
employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? (2.5%)
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite, to which
he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no longer an employee of
the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela Renta may be prosecuted for
malversation even if he had ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of the commission of the
offense, PNB was a government owned and controlled corporation and therefore, any crime committed
by the Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(See R.A. 7975 as amended by RA. 8249).

2. Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite holding a different public office, the
PDIC, when he was charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 applies to any office which the
officer might currently be holding and not necessarily the office or position in relation to which he is
charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122740, March 30,1998).

Notes:
1. Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who misappropriates public funds or property
shall be liable for the crime of Malversation. Accordingly, this crime is the proper charge despite of the
fact that the person charged had ceased to be a public officer when he was charged with such crime.

2. Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, any public officer who is charged for the
violation of such Act may be suspended from office which he is currently holding even though the crime
was committed when he was holding another office. Accordingly, if the offender was a Governor when
he committed the act, he could be suspended from office even if he is now a Congressman.

Malversation vs. Estafa (1999)

How is malversation distinguished from estafa?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an accountable public
officer involving public funds or property under his custody and accountability; while estafa is committed
by non-accountable public officer or private individual involving funds or property for which he is not
accountable to the government.

Notes:

Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an accountable public

officer involving public funds or property under his custody and accountability, while estafa is committed
by a non-accountable public officer involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the
government. Likewise, it is committed by a private individual involving funds or property for which he is
not accountable to the government.

Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005)

Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his
office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially
assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a
bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20,000.00,
although the car was worth P800,000.00.

What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation committed through negligence or culpa.
The government car which was assigned to him is public property under his accountability by reason of
his duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another person, resulting in
malversation, consistent with the language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Danny violated the
Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item which is the subject of thievery.

P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) under Section 5 provides that mere possession of any good,
article, item, object or any thing of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing. Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent. (R.A. No. 6539)

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, any accountable public officer who permit other person to take
such property by negligence shall be liable for the crime of malversation. Accordingly, a treasurer who
forgot to remove the ignition key from the car issued to him by the government and such car was
carnapped is liable for malversation by negligence.

Under the Anti-Fencing Law, mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of
value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public

officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make reparation if not possible. Jules must
pay the amount he gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny must make reparation
corresponding to the value of the car which is P800,000.00.

Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001)

Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal
properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued by
the court. Among the properties levied upon and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of
Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs
and several lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim his
properties but found out that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, chairs and
lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case, these
missing items were found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he only borrowed
them temporarily. If you were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be the nature of the information to be
filed against the accused? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for Malversation against Juan Santos for
the cassette tapes, chain and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under his
accountability as a public officer. Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and thus
impressed with the character of public property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).

Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his own
private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of
merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after due and
diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were found in the
house of Santos, negates his pretension.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, any accountable public officer who misappropriates public
property shall be liable for the crime of malversation; accordingly, this may include a sheriff who uses
temporarily the items levied on account of the judgement rendered by a court because the properties
were in custodia legis and impressed with the character of public properties.

Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public

officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the sheriff had already deposited the
properties levied upon in the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have already been relieved
of his accountability therefor.
If Juan Santos was no longer the public officer who should be accountable for the properties
levied upon and found in his house, his taking of such properties would no longer constitute
Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with intent to gain, of personal property of another without
the consent of the latter.

Notes:
When a property in custodia legis is used by a public officer like a sheriff, the crime committed is
malversation.

Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996)

Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received,
as municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00
known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on proposal
of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was already exhausted while the concreting of
Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the Commission on Audit conducted a
spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, who was charged
with malversation of public funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was
nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth
argued that her conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public purpose
without violating any law or ordinance appropriating the said amount for any specific purpose . The
absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally
tenable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of public funds (technical malversation)
was erroneous, is legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of public funds under Art.
217 of the Revised Penal Code but was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined and
punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with malversation may not be validly
convicted of illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because the latter crime is not
necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation. The Sandiganbayan
should have followed the procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the
filing of the proper Information. (Parungao v. Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the facts, there is
no showing that there is a law or ordinance appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a
matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
established." So, procedurally and substantially , the Sandiganbayan's decision suffers from serious
Infirmity.

Notes:
In the case of Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that when the offender is
charged with malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, he cannot be convicted of
technical malversation under Article 220 of the same Code because the former crime does not include
the latter one.

Article 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public

officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds, or property, wholly or partially, or
shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:

Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who shall apply the public fund or property
under his administration other than for which such fund or property were appropriated by law or
ordinance shall be liable for technical malversation.

Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property. – Any public officer who shall apply any
public fund or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or
property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum misapplied, if by reason of such
misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall have resulted to the public service. In either case,
the offender shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a fine from
5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.

Public Officers; definition (1999)

Who are public officers? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the
Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class (Art. 203, RPC)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, public officers are those who take part in the performance of
public function in the Government of the Philippines either by popular election or by appointment by
competent authority.
Those who perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official of any rank or class are also public officers.

Article 203. Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the
preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a
public officer.

Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996)

A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day
sentence in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's house
because the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the
prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each morning, until the ten-day
sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to evasion, the
elements of which are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or
prisoner by final judgment, (c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.

Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual; although the
convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of the provision. It also includes
a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to
sleep in his house and eat there
(People vs. Revilla).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner
shall be liable to consenting to evasion of sentence. Therefore, a chief of police who allowed a prisoner
to sleep in his house because the jail is congested shall be liable for consenting to evasion of sentence.

Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the
escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished.

Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1997)

During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to
leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the
municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner since B is a detention
prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at 8:30 p.m.
A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he
permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping
the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of
service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any public officer who shall consent to the escape of a prisoner
shall be liable to consenting to evasion of sentence. Therefore, a chief of police who allowed a prisoner
to sleep in his house to entertain his visitor shall be liable for consenting to evasion of sentence.

Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the
escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in the
performance of his duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158).

Crimes Against Persons

Crimes against person are killing of fetus, an infant, among others.

Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault-Authority (1995)

Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of
the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to
Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile
rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was
fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation.
However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What
crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority (Arts.
148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in authority
and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony
of direct assault is committed.

Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave or less
grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to
death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime is committed when a single act constitutes two
grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means of committing another offense.

A complex crime of direct assault with murder is committed when a barangay chairman is killed
while in the performance of his official duty.
 Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion (1994)

Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife,
Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the
nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her
unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife,
Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art, 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal
Code, Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under
Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the
process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional
abortion as defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less
grave felonies, he falls under Art, 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime (People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA
401).

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Salufrancia, a complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion is committed when a husband kicks his wife and the unborn baby and his wife died. He
committed parricide for the death of his wife, and he committed unintentional abortion for the death of
the unborn baby. A single act of killing his wife produces another felony which is the death of the unborn
child. Thus, a complex crime was committed.

Article 257. Unintentional abortion. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but
unintentionally.

Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998 No)

King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming
three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King
killed Laura and took her jewelry.

Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her
body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.

Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew
that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did
King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a
complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft

Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)

During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous
affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D and E were
proven to be participants in the "rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained
who among them inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for
what?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven to have
inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally liable for the
latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A,
there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death
caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.

Notes:
Sentence 1: Under the Revised Penal Code, when several persons attack each other reciprocally
in a confused and tumultuous manner and that a person dies, that the offender cannot be ascertained,
the one who inflicted serious physical injury shall be held criminally liable.

Sentence 2: Under the Revised Penal Code, when several persons attack each other reciprocally
in a confused and tumultuous manner and that a person dies, the one who inflicted serious physical
injury shall be held criminally liable if the offender or offenders cannot be ascertained.

Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When, while several persons, not composing
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel
and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone
is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision
mayor.

If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who
shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.

Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)

In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns
were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses.
Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on
the victim a slight wound that did not cause the deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was
B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be
limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? 6%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability should be limited to slight physical injury
only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a
firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of
Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990])

Notes:

In the problem above, the one who inflicted physical injury was not a participant in a free-for-all
brawl. Thus, the provision under the Revised Penal Code which holds liable the one who inflicted
serious injury is not applicable to him. At most, he is liable for his act only.

Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When, while several persons, not composing
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel
and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone
is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision
mayor.

If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who
shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability should be for slight physical injury
only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club and therefore, without
intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A because
conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for
their respective act

Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)

A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark, his shift being
from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around
midnight after getting permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he
noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open.
Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He opened
the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse with their
neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out
of the window, A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle, managed also
to strangle him to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the
bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police arrived after
being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. a) Is A liable for C's death? Why? (5%) b) Is A liable for
B's injuries? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B
in the act of having sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as the
discovery, escape, pursuit and killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)

b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the
same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same reasons.

Notes:
a) Under the Revised Penal Code, any legally married person who surprised his wife in the act of
sexual intercourse with another man shall suffer the penalty of destierro if he shall kill them or one of
them. Accordingly, the man who killed his wife under this circumstance is criminally liable for destierro.
He has to pay civil liability because this is an exempting circumstance only, and as a rule, the offender is
just exempt from penalty, but not from civil liability.

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon
them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from
punishment.

These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their
daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their
parents.

Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall
otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this
article.

Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)

Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to
see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled
out his service gun and shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie.
Pete contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the
crime.

The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Pete of the
crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The
court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. (5%)

Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for death
or serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances is still criminally liable. However,
this is merely an exempting circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of physical injury. In the
case at bar, Pete will suffer the penalty of destierro for the death of Benjie.

Notes:
a) Under the Revised Penal Code, any legally married person who surprised his wife in the act of
sexual intercourse with another man shall suffer the penalty of destierro if he shall kill them or one of
them. Accordingly, the man who killed his wife under this circumstance is criminally liable for destierro.
He has to pay civil liability because this is an exempting circumstance only, and as a rule, the offender is
just exempt from penalty, but not from civil liability.

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon
them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Pete did not act in defense of his honor. For this defense to apply under Art. 11, there must
be an unlawful aggression which is defined as an attack or material aggression that poses a danger to
his life or personal safely. It must be a real aggression characterized by a physical force or with a
weapon to cause injury or damage to one's life. (People v. Nahayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-69, October 17,
1991; People v. Housing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991)

Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September 14, 1987, the Court ruled that Article
247 does not define a felony. However, it went on to state that the penalty is merely banishment of the
accused, intended for his protection. Punishment, therefore, is not inflicted on the accused.

Notes:
In the case of People v. Abarca, the Supreme Court held that the penalty of destierro is not a
penalty.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define and provide for a specific crime but
grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of Serious Physical
Injuries. Destierro is a punishment whereby a convict is banished to a certain place and is prohibited
from entering or coming near that place designated in the sentence, not less than 25 kms. (People v.
Araquel, G.R. No. L-12629, December 9, 1959)

Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the privilege defined under this Article exempts the offender from criminal liability
but not from civil liability. (People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483, September 14, 1987; Art. 12, Revised
Penal Code)

Notes:

a) Under the Revised Penal Code, any legally married person who surprised his wife in the act of
sexual intercourse with another man shall suffer the penalty of destierro if he shall kill them or one of
them. Accordingly, the man who killed his wife under this circumstance is criminally liable for destierro.
He has to pay civil liability because this is an exempting circumstance only, and as a rule, the offender is
just exempt from penalty, but not from civil liability.

Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon
them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)

At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay,
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen.
Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused
his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did
Dante commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay,
and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
 The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already performed all the
acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes
independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner
of committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries
for the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no intent to kill because Dante merely
assaulted Mamerto without using the knife.

Notes:
Any private person who enters the dwelling of another against the will of the latter shall be liable
for qualified trespass to dwelling.

Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a
third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and
other public houses, while the same are open.

Infanticide (2006)
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok,
the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead, went
home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents drove her away. So she returned to Manila
and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced
state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant
and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok
was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to
conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek.
However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who was
already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2
were charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted
of the crime charged. Was the conviction correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are liable for infanticide because they killed
a child less than three days of age (Art. 255, Revised Penal Code).

Notes:

Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article
248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.

If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of
them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.

MURDER
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it
not been attended by any of the following circumstances:

1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)

Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander
died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of
“shabu” at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido?
Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248
of the Revised Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes murder because the commission of a crime
under the influence of prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25, R.A. No.
9165)

Notes:
Under RA No. 9165, any person who shall kill another while under the influence of drugs shall be
liable for the crime of murder.

Murder (1999)
The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was
turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died
because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery
was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and fired at the
latter's leg, "not intending to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the
proximate cause of death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his
felonious act although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to kill is absent,
the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA
439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting the victim at the
leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person performing a felonious act is criminally
liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of such act although different from what he
intended. And since such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the
accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so
grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who, with treachery, shall kill another shall be liable for
murder. However, if the purpose of the offender is to shoot the victim in the leg only, and the victim dies,
treachery shall not be appreciated to qualify the crime of homicide to murder because such qualifying
circumstance is available only when the intended crime is homicide, not physical injury. In this case,
shooting in the leg clearly showed no intent to kill. Therefore, the offender shall be liable for homicide
only, and treachery shall be disregarded.

Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)

Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? [3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide, had
it not been attended by any of the following circumstances:

1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
use of any other
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was
attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) that the killing is not parricide nor
infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed the victim.

Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)

Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry their sister
Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in
Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to
Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two
days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred
commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248, RPC, the killing being qualified by
evident premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the two accused
occasioned by the victim's refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her.

In People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative of the crime
committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and
later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his
liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is
kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Alfeche, the Supreme Court held that the crime committed is murder
qualified by evident premeditation when the accused kidnapped the victim with the intent of killing the
latter. If the intention is to kill the victim, but the method was that the accused was kidnapped first, the
crime committed is murder.

Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)

A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was only
two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the following crimes: 1.] HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing
of his common-law wife who is not legally considered a "spouse"
2.] INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255,
RPC) However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child
within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.
3.] PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is
not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.

4.] MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and the said son
must be by blood in order for parricide to arise.

Murder; Reckless Imprudence (2001)

Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten-year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas
and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV Honda
van and were sent sprawling on the pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his
car after hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body
anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived
but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was
arrested and charged with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through
Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after
having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said
driver's deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body twice,
by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position to
defend himself or to retaliate.

As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of
having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence
which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree
to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which
help he could have given to the victims.

Murder; Treachery (1995)

On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men.
One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three
companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him.
The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or
crimes were committed? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which absorbed
abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally
defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not
complex the crime, as there is no showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a policeman;
even if there was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and
therefore there is no direct assault.

Notes:
When the attack is sudden and unexpected and the victim is defenseless, the crime committed is
murder attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)

PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information
against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and
illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct.
Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may
only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a
homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as
an aggravating circumstance PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an
unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance,
provided that such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.

Notes:
Under the New Firearms Law, the crime of illegal possession of firearms is committed when there
is no the crime committed. Therefore, when homicide is committed with the use of the unlicensed
firearms, the crime committed if only murder specially qualified by the use of unlicensed firearms.

PARRICIDE
Parricide (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or his
ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art. 246, RPC)

Notes:

Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate
or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and
shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

Parricide (1999)
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who was
then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in Olongapo City between
Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends, upon the other, without the father
and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later,
when his mother arrived from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own father.
1) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his
father, but he nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what
crime did Ricky commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the law punishing
the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be "knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be
prosecuted and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code
for Homicide (the crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum period.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide not parricide because the relationship
which qualified the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of twenty years already, such that
Ricky could not possibly be aware that his adversary was his father. In other words, the moral basis for
imposing the higher penalty for parricide is absent.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his
father, because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His having acted out of bitterness
for having been abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.

Parricide; Multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997

A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C. her husband, to whom she was
lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but
before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son, arrived.

C, D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E
died because of having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A and B commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her
illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the
Revised Penal Code because of her relationship with the victims.

B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C because the killing
was carried out by means of poison (Art. 248. par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing
the death of D and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C.
 RAPE
Rape (1995)
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on the floor
and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries.
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were
legally separated? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial
consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to
retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441
RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art.
263 [4], paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where the
offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of
parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of
the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a separation of the spouses
from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RPC, p. 853. 1981 edition),

In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the
victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim
may, however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender.
Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight

Notes:

In the case of People v. Jumawan, the Supreme Court held that rape can be committed by the
husband if he penetrated her wife against her will.

Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)

Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon
Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a child prostitute. Both
were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested
by the policemen despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance
celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on
Rowena's hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers showing that
no external force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The gravamen of the offense
is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84)
since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old
does not and cannot have a will of her own. In People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that
sexual intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the absence of
spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as the important consideration is not the emission
but the penetration of the female body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs.
Carandang. 52 SCRA 259).

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Dela Cruz, the Supreme Court held that the gravamen of the offense of
rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age. Therefore, rape is committed when
a man engages in sexual community with a woman who is below 12 years old.

Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)

What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised
Penal Code? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are: 1.] having carnal
knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, 2.]
having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required in
rape be present; and 3.] committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the
victim's mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.

Notes:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1) having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
2) having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances
required in rape be present; and
3) committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's mouth or anal
orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)

The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private offense, to that
of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a
crime against persons.

Notes:
Under the Anti-Rape Law, subsequent marriage between the offender and the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or penalty for rape.

Rape; Consented Abduction (2002)

A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual
intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man,
who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was
committed by A? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age, carried
out with her consent and with lewd designs. Although the problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin,
virginity should not be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good
reputation, since the essence of the crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to
her family (Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of consented abduction is committed when a person,
with lewd designs, abducted a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age who consented to such
abduction.

Article 343. Consented abduction. - The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under
eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse"
includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of
a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.

Notes:

Under RA 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, the crime of child abuse is committed when a person performs an act calculated to
debases, demeans, degrades the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being whose age is
below 18 years old; it includes sexual abuse committed against the child even though it was
accomplished with the consent of the child such that she infatuated with the man who is reach and
handsome.

Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993)

1. Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual Intercourse with
him. Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City
Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the
prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.

2. After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of desistance
executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case
and that they have pardoned Ariel. What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal
and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The case should not be dismissed. ...
2) The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not criminal
liability hence the case should still proceed.

Rape; Male Victim (2002)

A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation,
succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting
his penis into the anus of the latter.
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, rape by sexual assault is committed by any person against
another by inserting his penis into the mouth of another whether a male or a female.

Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000)

Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger,
Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation
but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead
of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained
for two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and
convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention.
Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be
punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only
incidental to the rape.

Notes:
Look at the intention of the offender. If the intention is to kidnap, then rape is committed as an
afterthought, a special complex crime of kidnapping with rape is committed. But if the intention is to rape
a victim, only the crime of rape is committed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention,
since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may
be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd
designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the
other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.

Notes:

Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd
designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal.

The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years
of age.

(See. Go beyond a perfect score).

Rape; Proper Party (1993)

Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual Intercourse with him.
Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City
Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the
prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case . Resolve with
reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is
enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's Office.

Notes:
Under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the crime of rape is now a public crime, thus can be
prosecuted by a person who has knowledge of the crime.

Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)

The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the
ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the
accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me much pleasure."

With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse,
and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the
judge trying the case? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with an
intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent to
the sexual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of
intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental
retardate, violence or Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-
42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by
adding the phrase "or is demented."

Notes:
In the case of People v. Trimor, the Supreme Court held that rape is committed by means of
sexual intercourse with a retardate even with her consent because the gravamen of this kind of rape is
having sexual intercourse with the mentally retardate victim. Violence or intimidation is not the crux of
the crime.

Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security

Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground committed by any public officer
or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, Revised Penal Code).
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities which is committed
by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to
deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or
offense punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional facilities, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses
punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).
 c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or employee who delays the release for the
period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of the
prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings
upon any petition for the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).

Notes:
The three ways to commit arbitrary detention are:
1. That a public officer or employee detains a person without legal ground.
2. That a public officer or employee delays in the delivery of a detained person to proper judicial
authorities within the period allowed by law although they were detained for some legal ground.
3. That a public officer delays the release of the prisoner after the former had received an order
for the release of the latter.

Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds,
detains a person, shall suffer.

1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the detention has
continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days but not
more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital, shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any
person.

Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The
penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee
who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause
of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his
attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987,
respectively).

Article 126. Delaying release. - The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon
any public officer or employee who delays for the period of time specified therein the performance of any
judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or unduly delays the service
of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of such
person.

2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory
confinement of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any person
(Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).

Notes:
 Under the Revised Penal Code, commission of a crime, violent insanity or other ailment requiring
the compulsory confinement of the patient in the hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the
detention of any person

3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful? Explain.

(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure).

Notes:
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a valid warrant.

2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

Grave Coercion (1998)

Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani
asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun
and told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and
against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani, What offense did Isagani commit? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means
of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will, whether it be right or
wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not grave
threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly
weapon.

The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery, is
absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.

Notes:
 Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall threaten another person, his honor or
property or of his family with an infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime shall be liable for grave
threat.

Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent
another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.

If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act
or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Article 282. Grave threats. - Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the
person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall
suffer:

1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition,
even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the offender shall not
have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition.

Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)

Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and maltreated by agents of
the law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to draw
from him a confession which was their intention to obtain through the employment of such means. What
crime was committed by the agents of the law? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a suspect and may have
been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment
of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to extort a confession would bring
about a higher penalty. In addition to the offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted.

But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit the crime
and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released because the agents
failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the violence employed to compel
such confession without the offended party being confined in jail. (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)

It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to the police headquarters and is thus not
a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would be maltreatment of
prisoners.

Notes:

Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage
caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the imposition of
punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel and
humiliating manner.

If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some information from the
prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special
disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused.

Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion

Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal
liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating violence, without authority of
law, to prevent a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to compel him to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual
restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not
committed.

Notes:
The distinctions between grave coercion and illegal detention are:
In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation
without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to compel
him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.

On the other hand, in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up
of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no intent to lock up
or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.

Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or
detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.

Notes:
Kidnapping is the act to forcibly take a person from the place where has the right to be (such as
his place of work, residence, rest and recreation, school, street, park, or public place) and bring him to
another place. The taking is always without the consent of the victim. It is usually for ransom.
 On the other hand, detention is the act of depriving a person of his liberty or restrict his freedom
of locomotion or movement, and may not involve a kidnapping.

Example: The Mayor confronted the DENR Inspection Team, calls for reinforcements, refuses
their request to leave, orders to go with him and allows them to leave only the following day.

Held: “The curtailment of the victim’s liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the
victim’s person. If the act and actuations of the accused produced such fear in the mind sufficient to
paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his actions and movements in
accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is detained against his will.” (Aslega v.
PP, Oct. 1, 2003)

Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed in the custody of A the
mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C in his company,
B decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him to the United States where he
intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 271, in relation to
Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly penalizes any parent who
shall take from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or guardian to whom
custody of the minor has been placed. Since the custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother
and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside
there permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.

Notes:

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately
fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.

Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. - The penalty of prision correccional and a
fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to
abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.

If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the
father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three
hundred pesos, or both.

Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to
his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario.
They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond
in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide
Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila
where they called up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil
and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a
shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan
where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a
barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation, they
confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later,
the 4 were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original intention was to
demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the kidnapping, however,
Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though
committed by another person, was a consequence of the detention. Hence, this properly qualified the
crime as the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
(People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).

b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand committed
murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable for kidnapping
because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code).

c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy
and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a
crime.

Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they
demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is separate from the
kidnapping having been committed by other persons, who had nothing to do with the kidnapping, and
who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par. of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).

b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand committed
murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because
they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were informed was
hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal Code)

c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy
and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a
crime.

Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)

Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses Martin
and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin
for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s
son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the box in the attic.
Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not
pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the
attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely
three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in any manner
deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable for kidnapping with homicide and
shall be penalized with the maximum penalty.
 In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was merely kept in the attic of
his house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of liberty and the
intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the means employed by Paz was attended
by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate charge of murder will not be proper in view of
the amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing
whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence shows the death of
the child took place three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took place in
the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that is, ransom was demanded.

Notes:
Under the law, if on the occasion of kidnapping homicide is committed, the crime committed is a
special complex crime of kidnapping with homicide.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only one week old. The offense was
attended with the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age of the victim, cruelty and
abuse of confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the Court found that a child
subjected to similar treatment as the infant in this case would have died instantly, negating any intent to
kidnap or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into
kidnapping with murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the
body of her victim.

Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)

DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU
even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the
defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-
day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper?
Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in
kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the
victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267,
Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated
only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])

Notes:
In the case of Asistio v. San Diego, the Supreme Court held that release of the victim of
kidnapping is not an absolutory cause.

Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)

Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that
he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This
angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home,
Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them
to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a
hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered
Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her
and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.

1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape for
the subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn. The victims, who
were kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed (as regards Dang) in the course of
their detention. The composite crime is committed regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were
purposely sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys,
2004).

Notes:
In the case of People v. Larranaga, the Supreme Court held that the crime of kidnapping with
homicide is committed when on the occasion of kidnapping, homicide is committed.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342,
Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The crime committed is
abduction because there was lewd design when they took the victims away and subsequently raped
them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of murder qualified by treachery.

Notes:
When a woman is abducted but the purpose of the abduction is to have carnal knowledge with
her against her will, the crime committed if forcible abduction with rape. If the woman is rape many
times, the crime is forcible abduction with rape and each rape is a separate and distich offense.

Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any woman against her will and with lewd
designs shall be punished by reclusion temporal.

The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the female abducted be under twelve years
of age.

2. What penalties should be imposed on them? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate
penalty (RA. 9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree lower (Art. 68,
Revised Penal Code).

3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the crime
was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However, if he was above 15
years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem
shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled to a suspension of sentence.

(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the coverage of the examination)

4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy?
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because
the corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been duly proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because
the corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has been duly proven.

Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)

Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so
that he may succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for
more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he
required, he reported Edgardo to the police.

May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap
or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises
was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The
attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal
to commit kidnapping is not a crime.

Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)

A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called up C's
wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she paid a ransom in the
amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had just
recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
released C during the early morning of the third day of detention.

Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B filed
a petition for bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily released C within three days from
commencement of the detention, without having been paid any amount of the ransom demanded and
before the institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal
detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC.

After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the
petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and serious
detention or slight Illegal detention? Decide

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because they made a
demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the same. Without the demand
for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention only.

The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from the
commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where the penalty
prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673).

They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the
information for kidnapping and serious Illegal detention is strong.

Notes:
The crime of slight illegal detention is committed when a person is detained for not more than 3
days, when the circumstance of simulation of public authority is absent, when the victim is not a minor,
etc.
 Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or
detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-
mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

Article 268. Slight illegal detention. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon
any private individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the
attendance of any of circumstances enumerated therein.

The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of
the crime.

If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days
from the commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of slight illegal detention is committed when a
person, without any legal ground, detains another and releases him before three days had elapsed.

Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)

Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or other
establishments without being liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for the
purpose of: a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a third person; and b)
Rendering service to humanity or justice;

Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same are
open will likewise not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another
against the latter's will shall not be liable for trespass to dwelling if:

1) He enters into another’s dwelling to prevent serious harm to himself, the occupant or third
person;
2) He enters another’s dwelling to render some service to humanity or justice;
3) He enters cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.

Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.
 If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's
dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a
third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and
other public houses, while the same are open.

Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)

At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay.
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen.
Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused
his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did
Dante commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and
less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.

The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide
because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense, trespass to
dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of
dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).

Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious
physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto..

Notes:
In the case of People v. Abedoza, the Supreme Court held that trespass to dwelling is absorbed if
the purpose of the entry is to commit a more serious crime like murder. Therefore, this crime cannot be
complexed with the intended crime.

Unjust Vexation v. Acts of Lasciviousness

When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust vexation instead of
acts of lasciviousness?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive and the
touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely unjust
vexation (People vs, Ignacio. CA GRNo. 5119-R, September 30, 1950). However, where the kissing,
embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute
acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA 753).

Notes:
In the case of People v. Ignacio, the supreme Court held that when the kissing and touching of
the breast were accomplished with lewd design, the crime committed is acts of lasciviousness;
otherwise, it is unjust vexation.
 Crimes Against Property
Arson; Destructive Arson (1994)
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to
construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for
P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to bum her building so
she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total
loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they collectively
caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger
the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as amended by RA No. 7659).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when a building is burned to collect an insurance proceeds, the
crime committed is arson.

Article 320. Destructive arson. - The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall burn:

Article 321. Other forms of arson. - When the arson consists in the burning of other property and
under the circumstances given hereunder, the offender shall be punishable:
1. By reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua:

(a) if the offender shall set fire to any building, farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in
port, knowing it to be occupied at the time by one or more persons;
(b) If the building burned is a public building and value of the damage caused exceeds 6,000
pesos;
(c) If the building burned is a public building and the purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein
to be used in instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, irrespective of the amount
of the damage;
(d) If the building burned is a public building and the purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein
to be used in legislative, judicial or administrative proceedings, irrespective of the amount of the
damage; Provided, however, That if the evidence destroyed is to be used against the defendant for the
prosecution of any crime punishable under existing laws, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua;

(e) If the arson shall have been committed with the intention of collecting under an
insurance policy against loss or damage by fire.

Arson; Destructive Arson (2000)

One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later that
evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying a plastic bag containing
gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside the house watching television, and then lit
it. The front wall of the house started blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario
poured water on the burning portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under
control before any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames have extensively spread. Only
a portion of the house was burned. Discuss Eddie's liability, (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive arson because
fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The
arson is consummated because the house was in fact already burned although not totally. In arson, it is
not required that the premises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the
premises suffer destruction by burning.

Notes:
Under the law, the crime of arson is consummated when there is discoloration of the object which
is the subject of the arson.

Arson; New Arson Law (2004)

CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in his college courses. In
his fury, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all its contents

1. What crime was committed by CD?

2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by CD is arson under Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law) which
punishes any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another (Section 1 of Pres. Decree
No. 1613).

CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt, because
such relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft,
swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332, Revised Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323)
of the Code to the effect that burning property of small value should be punished as malicious mischief
has long been repealed by Pres. Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider burning
property of small value as malicious mischief.

Notes:
Under the Law (PD 1613), any person who sets fire to the property of another of small value shall
commit the crime of arson.

Article 323 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes a person for malicious mischief only when
he set fire to the property of another person of small value was already repealed by PD 1613.

BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 22

(Anti-Bouncing Check Law)

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1994)

What is a memorandum check?
1. Is the "bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Blg. 22?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A "Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word "Memorandum", "Memo" or
"Mem" written across its face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely
thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within
the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan, G.R.
No. 75954, October 22, 1992).

2. Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because the law covers any
check whether it is an evidence of Indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a
deposit or guarantee (People versus Nita-fan).

Notes:
1) In the case of People vs. Judge David Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that a memorandum
check is an ordinary check with the word mem, memorandum or memo written across its face, signifying
that its maker or drawer engages to pay the holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of a promissory
note.
2) In the case of People vs. Judge David Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that a memorandum
check is covered by B.P. Blg. No. 22 because the law covers any check whether it is an evidence of
Indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee.

BP 22; Memorandum Check (1995)

1. Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds necessarily guilty of
violating B.P. Blg. 22? Explain.

2. Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been borrowing money from Jane
by rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. In March 1989, he borrowed P100,000 from Jane
and issued to her a check for the same amount. The check was dishonored by the drawee bank for
having been drawn against a closed account. When Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check
he promised to raise the amount within five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check
to Jane to serve as a memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed. Is
the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word "Memorandum", "Memo", or "Mem"
written across the face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus
partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the
purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. (People vs. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79)

2. Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of violating
B.P. Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment of a
preexisting obligation, or as deposit or guarantee. (People vs. Nitafan)

3. The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon presentment is generally
accepted by the bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the nature of a memorandum as
evidence of indebtedness. What the law punishes is the mere issuance of a bouncing check and not the
purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a
worthless check is a malum prohibitum. The understanding that the check will not be presented at
the bank but will be redeemed by the maker when the loan falls due is a mere private arrangement
which may not prevail to exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. Blg. 22. (People vs. Nitafan)

Notes:
1) In the case of People vs. Judge David Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that a memorandum
check is an ordinary check with the word mem, memorandum or memo written across its face, signifying
that its maker or drawer engages to pay the holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of a promissory
note.
2) In the case of People vs. Judge David Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that a memorandum
check is covered by B.P. Blg. No. 22 because the law covers any check whether it is an evidence of
Indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee.

3) In the case of People vs. Judge David Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that a mere issuance of
a worthless check is a crime which violates the provision of B.P. Blg. 22. It does not matter whether the
check was issued for the payment of indebtedness or for security purposes only; such agreement is not
the crux of the crime.

BP 22; Presumption of Knowledge (2002)

A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a
postdated check to be presented for payment 30 days after the transaction. Two days before the
maturity date of the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit the check on the date stated on the
face thereof, as A had not deposited in the drawee bank the amount needed to cover the check.
Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds.
A failed to settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22,
otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A Is liable for violation of BP. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), Although knowledge by the
drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an essential element of
the violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless within five (5) banking days of
notice of dishonor or nonpayment, the drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such checks.

A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the check will not defeat
the presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P. 22 will be
rendered useless.

Notes:
Under the BP 22, mere issuance of worthless check is a violation of the law; notice to the holder
of the check that it has no sufficient fund is not an absolutory cause. Hence, the offender is still liable for
the crime despite of his notice to the payee.

Estafa & Trust Receipt Law

Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to import auto tires from Japan. To
secure payment of his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust receipt in favor of the bank. Upon arrival of
the tires, Julio sold them but did not deliver the proceeds to the bank. Julio was charged with estafa
under P.D. No. 115 which makes the violation of a trust receipt agreement punishable as estafa under
Art. 315, par. (1), subpar. (b), of the Revised Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was
unconstitutional because it violated the Bill of Rights provision against imprisonment for non payment of
debt. Rule on the contention of Julio, Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't involve merely a simple loan
transaction but includes likewise a security feature where the creditor bank extends financial assistance
to the debtor-importer in return for the collateral or security title as to the goods or merchandise being
purchased or imported. The title of the bank to the security is the one sought to be protected and not the
loan which is a separate and distinct agreement. What is being penalized under P,D. No. 115 is the
misuse or misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realized from the sale of the goods, documents or
Instruments which are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In other words, the law punishes the
dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of the other, and
hence there is no violation of the right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. (People vs.
Nitafan, 207 SCRA 725)

Notes:
Under the Trust Receipt Law, failure of the importer to return the proceeds of the item to the
creditor bank will make him liable for estafa under the Revised Penal Code.

In the case of People vs. Nitafan, the Supreme Court held that when a person is prosecuted
under the Trust Receipt Law, his constitutional right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt is not
violated.

Estafa (1999)

Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry who does business in Timog, Quezon
City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet to Victoria on a
commission basis, on condition that, if these items cannot be sold, they may be returned to Victoria
forthwith. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City with
the understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to Victoria in Timog, Quezon City. Aurelia
dutifully returned the bracelet to Victoria but sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and
issued a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C.,
Victoria insisting that delivery to a third person of the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa.

a) Is there such a crime as estafa through negligence? Explain. (2%)

b) Is Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances? Explain, [4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be
obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere negligence in allowing another
to take advantage of or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v.
Nepomuceno, CA, 46OG 6135)

(b) No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she received the jewelry from
Victoria under an obligation to return the same or deliver the proceeds thereof, she did not
misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria. The
misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent the showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia and
Rosa, the latter cannot be held criminally liable for Amelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above,
Rosa's negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate the jewelry does not make her
criminally liable for estafa.

Notes:

a) In the case of People v. Nepomuceno, the Supreme court held that here is no such crime as
estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be obtained by the accused personally,
through his own acts, and his mere negligence in allowing another to take advantage of or benefit from
the entrusted chattel cannot constitute estafa. )

(b) In the case of People v. Nepomuceno, the Supreme court held that the person who
misappropriates the proceeds of the sale shall be liable for estafa. Therefore, the person who gave the
proceeds of the sale to another person with the instruction that such money shall be returned to the
owner of the object of the sale shall not be held criminally.

Estafa vs. BP 22 (1996)

1) The accused was convicted under B.P, Blg. 22 for having issued several checks which were
dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because the accused closed her account after the
issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not be convicted under Blg. 22 by reason of
the closing of her account because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of
insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in
the bank. While she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal
Code, she cannot however be found guilty of having violated Blg. 22. Is her contention correct?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the checks issued were issued to
apply on account or for value, and was dishonored upon presentation for payment to the drawee bank
for lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the ambit of B.P. Blg. 22 . Said law
expressly punishes any person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues the
check, but fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the
drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.

Notes:
Under BP 22, as long as the checks were issued and dishonored upon presentation for payment
to the drawee bank for lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the ambit of B.P.
Blg. 22. Said law expressly punishes any person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank
when he issues the check.

Estafa vs. BP 22 (2003)

A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of
A's car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he asked B to lend him (A) money to buy a new
spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating,
however, a replenishment of his account soon, B issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated
for a new tire. When presented, the check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal
case against A and B. What would be the criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain.
8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his car may only be prosecuted
for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the check has no sufficient funds in
the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable.

B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for having
issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the bank and that A will
negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the facts
indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously,
B issued the postdated check only to help A: criminal intent or dolo is absent.

Estafa vs. Money Market Placement (1996)

On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corporation received from Maricar the sum of
P500,000 as money market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) per cent interest, and the President
of said Corporation issued a check covering the amount including the interest due thereon, postdated
May 30, 1995. On the maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing Corporation failed to deliver back
Maricar's money placement with the corresponding interest earned, notwithstanding repeated demands
upon said Corporation to comply with its commitment.

Did the President of Orpheus Financing Corporation incur any criminal liability for estafa for
reason of the nonpayment of the money market placement? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the President of the financing corporation does not incur criminal liability for estafa because a
money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that nonpayment thereof would not give
rise to estafa through misappropriation or conversion. In money market placement, there is transfer of
ownership of the money to be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil in nature (Perez vs.
Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 636; Sebreno vs. Court of Appeals etal, G.R. 84096, 26 Jan 95).

Notes:
In the case of Perez vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that the crime of estafa is not
committed when the debtor in the money market placement failed to return the money and its interest
under the contract because it partakes of the nature of a loan, thus involves only civil liability.

Estafa vs. Theft (2005)

DD was engaged in the warehouse business. Sometime in November 2004, he was in dire need
of money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his warehouse to VR for P500,000.00. DD was
charged with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The court convicted DD of theft but acquitted
VR on the ground that he purchased the merchandise in good faith. However, the court ordered VR to
return the merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD to refund the P500,000.00 to VR.

DD moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should be acquitted of theft
because being the depositary, he had juridical possession of the merchandise. VR also moved for the
reconsideration of the decision insisting that since he was acquitted of the crime charged, and that he
purchased the merchandise in good faith, he is not obligated to return the merchandise to its owner.
Rule on the motions with reasons. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration should be granted. By depositing the merchandise in his
warehouse, he transferred not merely physical but also juridical possession. The element of taking in
the crime of theft is wanting. At the most, he could be held liable for estafa for misappropriation of the
merchandise deposited.
On the other hand, the motion of VR must also be denied. His acquittal is of no moment because
the thing, subject matter of the offense, shall be restored to the owner even though it is found in the
possession of a third person who acquired it by lawful means. (Art. 105, RPC)

Notes:
a) Under the law, theft shall not be committed when the warehouseman sold the goods deposited
in his warehouse because the element of taking is wanting since the juridical possession of the goods
were transferred to the warehouseman. However, he may be prosecuted for estafa for the
misappropriation of the goods.

b) On the other hand, under the Revised Penal Code, the object of theft shall be restored to its
lawful owner although the accused is acquitted of the crime of accessory to theft because such crime
was not committed due to lack of essential element of theft.

Article 105. Restitution; How made. - The restitution of the thing itself must be made whenever
possible, with allowance for any deterioration, or diminution of value as determined by the court.
 The thing itself shall be restored, even though it be found in the possession of a third person who
has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action against the proper person, who may be
liable to him.

This provision is not applicable in cases in which the thing has been acquired by the third person
in the manner and under the requirements which, by law, bar an action for its recovery.

Estafa; Elements (2005)

DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a counterfeit credit card. The owner
of the establishment had no inkling that the credit card used by DD was counterfeit. What crime or
crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DD committed the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code by falsely
pretending to possess credit. The elements of estafa under this penal provision are; (1) the accused
defrauded another by means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third party.

The accused also violated R.A. No. 8484, which punishes the use or possession of fake or
counterfeit credit card.

Notes:
The crime of estafa is committed when the following elements are present:
1) The accused defrauded another by means of deceit;
2) There is damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by pretending to possess
credit shall be liable for estafa if such pretention causes damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation to the offended party or third person.

Estafa; Falsification of Commercial Document (2000)

Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr, Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of
Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves as agents of Moonglow
Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr.
Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal
Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a
packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which declared
the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr.
Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila International Container Port. However,
before the shipment was released, a spot check was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James
Bandido, who discovered that the contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in
the shipping documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the District
Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr,
Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which
makes it unlawful among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the
Government. In the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was
erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in fact
the Government did not suffer any undue injury. Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the
violation charged is not punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished
by the Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial documents, a complex
crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of false commercial and public documents.
Damage is not necessary.

Estafa; Falsification of Commercial Documents (1997)

The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P2,000.00. A few
days later, he deposited in the savings account a Bank B check for P 10,000.00 drawn and endorsed
purportedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew P 10,000.00 from his savings account. C complained to
Bank B when the check was deducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused deposited in
another Bank B check of P 10,000.00 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. A week later, the accused
went to Bank A to withdraw P10,000.00. While withdrawing the amount, he was arrested.

Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa both through falsification of
commercial documents, he set up the defenses that, except for the showing that the signature of C had
been forged, no further evidence was presented to establish (a) that he was the forger of the signature
of C nor (b), that as to the second charge C suffered any damage. Rule on the defense.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the
author of the falsification (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120; Koh Tiek vs. People, et al, Dec. 21,
1990); (b) In estafa, a mere disturbance of property rights, even if temporary, would be sufficient to,
cause damage. Moreover, in a crime of falsification of a commercial document, damage or intent to
cause damage is not necessary because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Sendaydiego, the Supreme Court held that (a) the possessor of a
falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification; and (b) In estafa, a mere
disturbance of property rights, even if temporary, would be sufficient to, cause damage. Moreover, in a
crime of falsification of a commercial document, damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary
because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the
truth as therein solemnly proclaimed. Therefore, if the forger of the check is arrested before he could
withdraw the amount he is already liable for estafa because temporary disturbance of the account of the
offended party suffice the charge of estafa.

Estafa; Defense of Ownership (2002)

A sold a washing machine to B on credit, with the understanding that B could return the appliance
within two weeks if, after testing the same, B decided not to buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B
returning the appliance. A found out that B had sold the washing machine to a third party- Is B liable for
estafa? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an entrustee of the washing machine which he
sold; he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing machine to him. The sale being on
credit, B as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the washing machine; his obligation is only a civil
obligation. There is no felonious misappropriation that could constitute estafa.
Estafa; Swindling (1998)
Divina, is the owner of a 500-square meter residential lot in Makati City covered by TCT No.
1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad, Divina mortgaged her lot to her neighbor Dino for
P1,000,000. Later Divina sold the same lot to Angel for P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly
stated that the property is free from any lien or encumbrance. What crime, if any, did Divina commit?
[5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code because,
knowing that the real property being sold is encumbered, she still made a misrepresentation in
the Deed of Sale that the same is free from any lien or encumbrance. There is thus a deceit or fraud
causing damage to the buyer of the lot.

Notes:

Under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who knows that the real property is
encumbered shall dispose the same shall be liable for estafa. Therefore, estafa is committed when the
seller made a misrepresentation that the real property sold is not encumbered to the prejudice of the
buyer.

ROBBERY
Single Larceny Rule
Robbery (1996)
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different families located inside
a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence. How many robberies did the five commit?
Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they entered the
compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery
as they were not aware that there were five families inside said compound, considering that the same
was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence. The series of robbery committed in the same
compound at about the same time constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
Notes:
Under the Law, when robbers robbed impelled by a single indivisible criminal resolution to commit
robbery, they are liable for one count of robbery only regardless of how many houses were robbed. This
rule finds its applicability when the houses are in one compound.

Robbery under RPC (2000)

A, B, C, D and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At
about 1 o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money
together but they were still short of P2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would
go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the
beerhouse. A. B, C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they
encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they
needed P1 ,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again
robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to P1,000. On their way back to the beerhouse,
they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They
pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit? Explain fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal Code;
not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery
to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to pay the same.

Notes:

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

Robbery under RPC (2001)

A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay Kagawad and known
to be a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his industry and economic savvy which allowed
him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including registered and unregistered lands in several
barangays. Resenting B's riches and relying on his political influence, A decided to harass and intimidate
B into sharing with him some of his lands, considering that the latter was single and living alone. One
night, A broke into B's house, forced him to bring out some titles and after picking out a title covering 200
square meters in their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to him
for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of
B, who signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B summoned enough
courage and had A arrested and charged in court after preliminary investigation.
What charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be filed against A.
Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or
intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall be
held guilty of robbery.

The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to intimidate B and thus, used
in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no license or permit to possess
and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating circumstance to the crime of
robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, robbery is committed by any person who, with intent to defraud
another person, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any
public instrument or documents. Accordingly, a person who, with intimidation, forced another to sign a
deed of sale involving his parcel of land shall be guilty of robbery.

Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. - Any person who, with
intent to defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or
deliver any public instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by the penalties
respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not attained the character
of a "public" instrument or document, A should be charged for the crime of Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code for having intruded into B’s house, and for the
crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale
against his will.

Notes:

Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.

If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Article 286. Grave coercions. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent
another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.

If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act
or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Robbery vs. Highway Robbery (2000)

Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed on a
highway. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway
in these respects:
1. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately against persons
who commute in such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery
committed on a highway, the robbery is committed only against predetermined victims;

2. It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in
public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do
so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public
highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand: and
3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the robbery in
public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery in public highways is
only occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.
Notes:
Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway
in these respects:

1. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately against

persons who commute in highways, while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is
committed only against predetermined victims;

2. It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in
public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do
so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public
highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and

3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the robbery in
public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery in public highways is
only occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.

Robbery w/ force upon things (2000)

A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut shell
which is being used by B as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the presence of his friends.

What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)

Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a
brother of B? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut shell with the
coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of their home, (Art. 299 (b) (2). RPC).

b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies only to
theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, robbery is committed by taking an object to be broken or forced
open outside the place of the robbery. Accordingly, robbery is committed when a coin bank is brought
and broken outside of the place of robbery.

Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship . - Any
armed person who shall commit robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to
religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property taken shall exceed
250 pesos, and if:

(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was
committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Or if -
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place of the
robbery.
 Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. - No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result
from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually by the following persons:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.

2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse
before the same shall have passed into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.

The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.

ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P500,000.00
in the lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s house
and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who
was then having his dinner. Henry found the P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline
from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested
around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the
P500,000.00.

Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the
aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime.

Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime
and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice .
Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise,
moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide
with no aggravating circumstance, considering that he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000.00.
He further alleged that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not
aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of
Jose was lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and
Henry. (7%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert with Henry to commit robbery. Hence,
the act of one is the act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each individual conspirator
becomes secondary, each being held liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others. As a
conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who
may get killed in the course of implementing the criminal design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No.
78853, November 8, 1991)

Henry is incorrect, since he acquired possession of the money. The crime of robbery with force
and intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property, even if for a
short time. It is no defense that they had no opportunity to dispose of or benefit from the money taken.
(People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R. No. 88163, April 26, 1990)

Since the crime in robbery with force and intimidation against persons (robbery with homicide),
dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which accompanied the crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed
(Art. 294, RPC as amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not aggravating because the RPC does not
provide that such crime is an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5,
2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not aggravating. There is no showing that the same was purposely sought
by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or impunity.

Notes:
When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. In case of robbery with homicide, all
conspirators are liable for the resulting homicide; but in case of robbery with rape, only those who
consent or participate in the rape shall be made liable for the robbery with rape.

Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)

Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning,
robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the
four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four
carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside
the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime
did the four commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime
of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the
robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the robbery
was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for
the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22
June 1995}

b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the
fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances.
The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty, (People v.
Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)

Notes:
(a) In the case of People vs. Canturia et. al, the Supreme Court held that a complex crime of
robbery with rape is committed when on the occasion of robbery, rape is committed.

b) In the case of People v. Solis, the Supreme Court held that despite of many rapes committed
on the occasion of robbery because the culprits took turn in raping the victim, still, the crime committed
is robbery with rape and the multiple rapes may be considered as aggravating circumstance of ignominy,
and the additional killing is similar to cruelty.

Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)

A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank,
policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and
shot it out with them.

1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of
the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B. C and D? [3%]
 2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A, B
and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C) were not the ones
who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death
of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery.
They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a
robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

2. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be
different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide which is a single,
indivisible offense.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery
but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that
separate crimes of Robbery "and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed
was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.

Robbery w/ Homicide (2003)

A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his daughter
working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at
midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers,
shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the
bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B
to death, A turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging
with the dollar bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were
committed? 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A's
primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took
place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the
"occasion" of the robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime
of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.

Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)

Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the
store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that
he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife
as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl
Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people
next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up
the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, "Tumakbo na
kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang
Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor,
Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in
stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money
from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all
indicative of conspiracy.

The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery
with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218).
Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against the accused for pretending to
be customers of Mang Pandoy

Robbery w/ Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)

A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things. He was seen by
a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so because A threatened her with a gun.
A then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the taking that
qualifies the crime as robbery, instea d of simply theft. The non-employment of force upon things is of no
moment because robbery is committed not only by employing force upon things but also by employing
violence against or intimidation of persons.

Robbery w/ Rape (1999)

Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They
succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused
when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her.
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched the
happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with
rape? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1).
Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed
which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have
been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he
could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is
also liable for robbery with rape.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, robbery with rape is committed when on the occasion of robbery,
rape was committed.

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide shall have been committed.

2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the robbery
shall have been accompanied by rape.

Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)

Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the
windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA decided
on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom
and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and
what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single,
indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.

Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD,
the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-
conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in
the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA.

The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special complex
crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the
robbery is just a component.

Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)

Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings.
Knowing him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a
rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of a
lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to
take revenge on the three cheats.

Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as
they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked all
of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his victims and got
back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed.
The following day police investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel,
Dave and the caretaker of the resort.

After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime of
arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate
crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.

Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse
of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry
employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor
to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of
murder with impunity.

The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry
committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although
theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates
of the victims.

In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime,
arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he
committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's crime into a complex
crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime.
 Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide
and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.

Notes:
There is no crime of arson with homicide.

Robbery; Rape (1997)

After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette
before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her
wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her.
The accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was
the court correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the
primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the
robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape in order to give rise to the
special complex crime for which the court convicted the accused.

THEFT
Article 308. Who are liable for 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.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or
make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather
cereals, or other forest or farm products.

Theft (1998)

Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to him, he approached
policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to return the same to whoever may be found to be
the owner

P failed to return the watch to the owner and, instead, sold it and appropriated for himself the
proceeds of the sale.

Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he who
found the watch and, moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property. Is P's defense valid? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal property subject
thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant whether the person deprived of the
possession of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is committed by one who, with intent to
gain, appropriates property of another without the consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even
when the offender receives property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the same.

Theft (2001)
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working place in Makati and,
upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the inside. Remembering his
parents' admonition that he should not take anything which does not belong to him, he delivered the
bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and
return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent
events brought out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the
owner a block away from where Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last possessor
as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any crime
because it was not he who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it turned out to have been stolen.
Resolve the case with reasons. (10%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not committed any
crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is devoid
of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and the failure to restore the same to its
owner is characterized by intent to gain.

The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he only held
to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.

Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner, the
person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the relation of the
finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft
(People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Avila, the Supreme Court held that the crime of theft is committed when
the person misappropriated the personal property which was entrusted to him to be returned to its lawful
owner. In the eyes of the law he is deemed the finder of such property.

Article 308. Who are liable for 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.

Theft is likewise committed by:

1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local
authorities or to its owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or
make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather
cereals, or other forest or farm products.

Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)

 A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion, entered the store
and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the occasion of and taking
advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion of a calamity such as fire,
when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, qualified theft is committed when on the occasion of fire the
crime of theft was committed.

Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by
two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic
servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large
cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)

A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the first to arrive at the
scene of the accident was A, who found one of the victims already dead and the others unconscious.
Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victims, took their
wallets and jewelry. However, the police, who responded to the report of the accident, caught A. What
crime or crimes did A commit? Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry of the victims
with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident wherein he took advantage of
the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified theft was committed although there
were more than one victim divested of their valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were
made on one and the same occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when on the occasion of vehicular accident the crime of theft is
committed, the crime is qualified theft.

Article 310. Qualified theft. - The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by
two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic
servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large
cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance.

Theft; Qualified Theft (2006)

1. Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he
noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted around and after a
few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He
apprehended and charged them with the proper offense. What is that offense? Explain.
2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante contended that
if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the newly-cut logs found in their
possession but not to those found outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will be your ruling?
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D. 705, amending P.D. No. 330, which
penalizes any person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles timber, or
other forest products from any of the public forest. The Balara Watershed is protected by the cited
laws.

2) The contention is untenable, the presence of the newly cut logs outside the gate is
circumstantial evidence, which, if unrebutted, establishes that they are the offenders who gathered the
same.

Notes:
1) Under PD 705, any person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the public forest shall be liable for qualified theft.

2) Under the law, there is a prima facie presumption that logs are cut by the person who was
found in possession of some logs. Therefore, some cut logs in the surrounding also belong to him.

Theft; Stages of Execution (1998)

In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put
these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the
store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated,
or attempted? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia
succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting
them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is consummated.

Notes:
Theft is consummated when the offender had acquired control over the subject personal property.
Therefore, even if the thief was apprehended just right after the personal property was placed in his bag,
the crime is consummated

Theft; Stages of Execution (2000)

Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and
proceeded to the women's wear section. The saleslady was of the impression that she brought to the
fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she came out of the fitting room, she
returned only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became suspicious and alerted the store
detective. Sunshine was stopped by the detective before she could leave the store and brought to the
office of the store manager. The detective and the manager searched her and found her wearing the
third swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated or
attempted? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal property
being taken: in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and pants and was on
her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain, the taking constitutes theft and being complete, it is
consummated. It is not necessary that the offender is in a position to dispose of the property,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store when the
offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She does not have yet the freedom
to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45 O.G. 3446). Moreover, in case of
doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder
criminal responsibility.

Usurpation of Real Rights (1996)

Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to rice and corn. Upon
her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States, she was surprised to discover that her land
had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who forcibly evicted her tenant-caretaker Juliana, after
threatening to kill the latter if she would resist their taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo
plowed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest for themselves to the exclusion of Teresita.

1) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain.

2) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to surrender possession of
the land, what crime or crimes did the two commit? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under Art. 312 of the
Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or intimidation of persons. The threats to kill
employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the means of committing the crime and therefore
absorbed in the felony, unless the intimidation resulted in a more serious felony.

2} The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said
offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the Violence against persons" which is the means for
committing the crime and as such, determinative only. However, this gives way to the proviso that the
penalty provided for therein is "in addition to the penalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or
homicide] executed by them. The crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is committed by reason
thereof, giving rise only to one indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche, plus the fine mentioned
therein.

Notes:
1) Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons, shall take possession or usurp any real rights in property belonging to another shall be liable
for usurpation of real property.

2} In the case of People vs. Judge Alfeche, the Supreme Court held that the crime of usurpation
of real property is committed although it is attended by killing because the killing is the violence
employed by the usurper, but the penalty imposable shall be that of murder or homicide as the case may
be.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who, by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, shall take possession or usurp any real rights in property belonging to another shall be liable
for usurpation of real property.

Usurpation of real rights is similar to theft. In usurpation of real rights, the property taken is
immovable, while in theft, the property taken is movable. The above scenario is almost similar to the
taking made by the ILAGA in 1970.
 Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. - Any person
who, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real
property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty
incurred for the acts of violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum
of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less than 75 pesos.

Crimes Against Chastity

Acts of Lasciviousness vs. Unjust Vexation (1994)
When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust vexation instead of
acts of lasciviousness?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive and the
touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely unjust
vexation (People us, Ignacio. CA GRNo. 5119-R, September 30, 1950). However, where the kissing,
embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute
acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA 753).

Adultery (2002)
A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was not her husband. The man did
not know she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them commit? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while her marriage is still
subsisting. But the man who had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be married, shall not be
liable for adultery.

Notes:

Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery. - Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall
have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of
her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.

Concubinage (1994)
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe
and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
Calamba, Laguna. 1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? 2) If not, can he be prosecuted for any other
crime?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy

2) Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art. 334 of the
Revised Penal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. But concubinage being a private crime
requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Notes:

Article 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or
shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or
shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.

The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

Concubinage (2002)
A is married. He has a paramour with whom he has sexual relations on a more or less regular
basis. They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and other places where they can be alone. Is A
guilty of any crime? Why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife.
Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in hotels, motels and other places may be
considered a scandalous circumstance that offends public conscience, giving rise to criticism and
general protest such acts being imprudent and wanton and setting a bad example (People vs. Santos,
86 SCRA 705 [1978])

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Santos, the Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse in the motel on
a regular basis is scandalous, thus giving rise to the crime of concubinage.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur the crime of concubinage by
merely having a paramour, unless under scandalous circumstances, or he keeps her in the conjugal
dwelling as a mistress, or cohabits with her in any other place. His weekly meetings with his paramour
does not per se constitute scandalous circumstance.

Unjust Vexation vs. Act of Lasciviousness (2006)

Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave
him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high-powered
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second choice was to follow
sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While
ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on
her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and
charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct? (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The designation of the crime as acts of lasciviousness is not correct. There is no lewd design
exhibited by Eduardo when he placed his hand on the left hip of the victim and gently massaging it. The
act does not clearly show an exclusively sexual motivation. The crime he committed is only unjust
vexation for causing annoyance, irritation or disturbance to the victim (Art. 287, Revised Penal Code),
not acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336, Revised Penal Code)
Notes:
There is lewd design when the act of the offender is characterized by sexual motivation.

Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon
other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be
punished by prision correccional.

Article 287. Light coercions. - Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in
no case less than 75 pesos.

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging
from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of Section 3
that refers to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10 provides
criminal liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other condi tions prejudicial to
the child's development. The reaction of the victim, screaming for help upon the occurrence of the
touching indicates that she perceived her dignity was being debased or violated.

Notes:
Child abuse is committed when the act of the offender demeans, debases or degrades the
intrinsic worth of the child as a human being.

BIGAMY
Bigamy (1994)
Issa and Bobby, who were first cousins, were married in 1975. In 1993, Bobby was told that his
marriage to Issa was incestous under the law then in force and therefore void ab initio. He married
Caring.
Charged with bigamy, Bobby raised the defense that his first marriage is void ab initio and
therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of. Will you sustain Bobby's defense?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I will not sustain Bobby's defense, Bobby remarried in 1993, or after the Family Code took
effect on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry in 1993 shall be governed by said Code. In
Art. 40 of the Family Code, it is mandated that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage maybe invoked
for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
In short, there is a need of a judicial declaration of such nullity before Bobby may validly remarry
(Dorothy Terre vs. Jordan Terre, 211 SCRA 6).

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage
before the former marriage has been legally dissolved shall be liable for bigamy.
 Article 349. Bigamy. - The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved , or
before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in
the proper proceedings.

To avoid being prosecuted for bigamy, a person may contract a second marriage, provided that
the first marriage was legally dissolved or there has been an order of the court declaring other spouse as
presumptively dead.

Bigamy (1996)
Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995, only to learn later on that Ramona was previously married
to David, from whom Ramona had been separated for more than ten years. Believing that his marriage
to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito contracted a subsequent marriage with Anabelle. Can
Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? Explain

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent marriage with Anabelle even
though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity.

Despite the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed a case of dissolution of such
marriage under Art. 40, Family Code, before contracting a second marriage with Anabelle.

Bigamy (2004)
CBP is legally married to OEM. Without obtaining a marriage license, CBP contracted a second
marriage to RST. Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second marriage is
invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general rule, marriages solemnized
without license are null and void ab initio, there are marriages exempted from license requirement under
Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family Code, such as in Article 27 which is a marriage in articulo mortis. If the
second marriage was valid even without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for bigamy.

Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the Revised Penal
Code, specifically designated as "Marriage contracted against provisions of laws."

Bigamy; Prescriptive Period (1995)

Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered
in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who
remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint
for bigamy against Joe.

The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by
the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime,
more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of
Marcy's complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of
Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon
Marcy. Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice
which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as
marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well
within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October
1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)

Notes:
In the case of Sermonia vs. CA, the Supreme Court held that the prescriptive period for the crime
of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities
or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes
should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property.

Simulation of Birth & Child Trafficking (2002)

A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an unwed
mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be stated in the
birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in
the delivery of C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth, penalized
under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it appear in the birth
certificate of a child that the persons named therein are the parents of the child when they are not really
the biological parents of said child constitutes the crime of simulation of birth.

C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking", a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of
Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a child.

Notes:

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of simulation of birth is committed when a person
caused his name to be stated as the father of the child when in fact he is not.

The mother who sold the child to that person is liable for child trafficking under RA No. 7610.

Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child. - The simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another
shall be punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any
legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.

Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office,
shall cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs,
shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary special disqualification.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all involved in the simulation of
birth of the newborn child, violate Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute child trafficking which are
penalized under Article IV of said law.

Notes:
 The couple, A and B, C, the unwed mother and the Doctor are all liable for simulation of birth for
acting in unison to cause the name of the couple appear in the birth certificate of the child. They are also
liable for child trafficking because there is an implied conspiracy between them such that the act of one
is the act of all.

Crimes Against Honor

Libel (2002)
A. A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the government. His
nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. While the
Commission was considering the nomination, a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in
the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to A's appointment. They alleged that A was a drug
dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors
from parties transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to
which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and
damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers involved, from the crime of libel, because
obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice.

Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department Secretary, his
moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the
interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was made; hence,
bereft of malice.

B. If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by broadcast
over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code
punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast, inasmuch as the broadcast made
by radio is public and may be defamatory.

Notes:

Article 353. Definition of libel. - A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead.

Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention

and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
 Article 354. Requirement for publicity. - Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown, except in the following
cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral or social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of
their functions.

Article 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. - A libel committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods or a fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action which may be
brought by the offended party.

Libel (2003)
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau of Customs and
the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a
great majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following
morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants,
filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements of
the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the
ground that no crime were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a
crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by
innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a
malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all
during a seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not
actionable as defamatory.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, libel is committed when a person causes dishonor, discredit or
contempt of a person whether natural or juridical person. However, for the libel case to prosper, the
person defamed shall be identifiable.

Article 353. Definition of libel. - A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who
is dead.

Libel (2005)
In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against Erika, a
successful and reputable businesswoman. What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Cindee committed libel for uttering defamatory remarks tending to cause dishonor or
discredit to Erika. Libel can be committed in television programs or broadcasts, though it was not
specifically mentioned in the article since it was not yet in existence then, but is included as "any similar
means." Defamatory statements aired on television is similar to radio, theatrical exhibition or
cinematographic exhibition, which are among the modes for the commission of libel. (Arts. 353 and 355,
RPC)

Slander (1988)
For some time, bad blood had existed between the two families of Maria Razon and Judge
Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there was a boundary dispute between them which was still
pending in court. Maria's mother also filed an administrative complaint against the judge which was
however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the position and alleged influence of their
neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal
excrement into the Razon's premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma "land
grabber", "shameless", and "hypocrite." What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was under the
influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land grabber she imputed to
him the commission of crimes.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who imputes a crime to another person shall be liable
for slander. Therefore, one who called another a land grabber shall be liable for slander because the
former imputed a crime to the latter.

Slander (1996)
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked at
its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding office at
the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful
binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of
the town. 1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain, 2) What crime, if any, did the business
executives commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Pia did not commit a crime, The felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal,
but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive against decency and good
customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within public knowledge or view. As a
matter of fact it was discovered by the executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have
public and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.

2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness [as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town, resulting
from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides such topic is not
intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.

Notes:
The crime committed by the business executive is unjust vexation. By watching Pia through his
binocular, he is liable for unjust vexation because such act will annoy or vex Pia.

Slander by Deed vs. Maltreatment (1994 )

Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SLANDER BY DEED is a crime committed when a person publicly subjects another to an act
intended or calculated to cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the latter. Absent the intent to cast
dishonor, discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party, the crime is only MALTREATMENT under
Art, 266. par. 3, where, by deed, an offender ill-treats another without causing injury.

Notes:

Under the Revised Pena Code, any person who publicly casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt
upon another shall be liable for slander by deed; on the other hand, any person who ill-treat another
person without causing injury like publicly casting dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another shall be
liable for maltreatment.

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. - The crime of slight physical injuries shall
be punished:

1. By arresto menor 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.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 20 pesos and censure when the offender has caused
physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require
medical assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender
shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury.

Slander vs. Criminal Conversation (2004)

Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and criminal conversation.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Oral defamation, known as SLANDER, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission, condition
or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt,
embarassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised
Penal Code.

CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual

intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime.

Notes:
Slander or oral defamation is committed when an offender commits an act that will cast dishonor
or discredit another person. On the other hand, criminal conversation is a polite reference to certain
crimes like rape, seduction or adultery.

Criminal conversation is a phrase that refers to sexual intercourse. It is the euphemism for sexual
intercourse.

Miscellaneous
Corpus Delicti (2001)
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarrelling with B and C. At the
height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the party and
threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him, B ran up
a steep incline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the cliff into
the sea, A returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went home to
sleep. The next day, B's wife reported to the police station that her husband had not yet come home. A
search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could
not be located and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and
other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his
defense, he claimed that since B's body has not been found, there was no evidence of "corpus delicti'
and therefore, he should be acquitted. Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your
answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti" does not refer to the body of the purported
victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the
offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or "corpus
delicti" is established.
In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder,
but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Notes:
Corpus delicti does not refer to the body of the purported victim which had not been found. Even
without the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and
circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or "corpus delicti" is established.

In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of an
offender for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Wikipedia:
Corpus delicti or corpora refers to the principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred
before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that the property has
been stolen. Likewise, in order for a person to be tried for arson, it must be proven that a criminal act
resulted in the burning of a property; it is defined as the fact of the crime having been actually
committed.

Corpus Delicti; Definition & Elements (2000)

a) Define "corpus delicti". (2%) b) What are the elements of "corpus delicti"? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Corpus Delicti literally means "the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a crime has
been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual
44 OG 2789).

Notes:
 Corpus delicti means that body of the crime. It does not solely refer to the corpse, but corpse is a
corpus delicti. If the body of the victim cannot be recovered, circumstantial evidence may prove the body
of the crime.

Elements of corpus delicti:

The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made
up of two things:
1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge;
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result; and
3. The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti

Notes:
The elements of corpus delicti are:
1. The existence of the act which is the basis of the criminal charge;
2. The existence of the criminal agency which is the cause of the act; and
3. Identity of the offender but it is not a necessary element.

Entrapment vs. Instigation (1995)

Distinguished entrapment from Instigation.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In INSTIGATION, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused into commission of
the offense and himself becomes co-principal. In ENTRAPMENT, ways and means are resorted to for
the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan.

Notes:

In instigation, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused to commit the offense,
and he himself becomes a co-principal, while in entrapment, it is the ways and means that are crafted to
trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan.

Instigation (1995)
Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SPO2 Mercado, leader of the Narcom team, gave Juan
a Pl00-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SPO2 Mercado, Juan
went inside the shopping mall while the officer waited at the corner of the mall. After fifteen minutes,
Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he gave to SPO2 Mercado who thereupon
placed Juan under arrest and charged him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling
marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss
fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act. Although
Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere suspicion. By providing
the money with which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SPO2 Mercado practically induced and prodded Juan
to commit the offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the facts, instigation is a valid
defense available to Juan.

Entrapment vs. Instigation (2003)

Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law, Exemplify each. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In ENTRAPMENT –
1. the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even before
entrapment;
2. the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in
flagrante delicto- and
3. this circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.

In INSTIGATION-
1. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and developed in the
mind of the law enforcers;
2. the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and
would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and
3. this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 185
SCRA 154. [1990]).

Example of Entrapment:
A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated
with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A then issued marked money
to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A signaled his anti-narcotic team to close-in and
arrest B. This is a case of entrapment because the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with
him.

Example of Instigation:
Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug pushers. A, the team
leader, approached and persuaded B to act as a buyer of shabu and transact with C, the suspected drug
pusher. For the purpose, A gave B marked money to be used in buying shabu from C. After C handed
the sachet of shabu to B and the latter handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B
and C under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his participation in the transaction
because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.

Special Penal Laws

Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One
evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge.
Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several
times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes
did Raul commit? |5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act
No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion of a
carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in the definition of a
"motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no apparent
motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the
tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death

Notes:
In the case of People vs. De la Cruz, et al, the Supreme Court held that when on the occasion of
carnapping death resulted, the crime committed is carnapping with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The
killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.

Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997)

A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in
an Information that reads:
That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public
Works and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of
his land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B
only P1,000.00 of the approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the
balance of P4,000, thus causing undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion to quash
the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue injury to B and
the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross Inexcusable
negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of
the DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land
expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no
allegation in the information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was
disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having
followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and that the
accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for his
services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused
should be merely charged administratively

ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e) of Republic
Act 3019 applies only to officers and employees of government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a government corporation.

2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan, 151 SCRA 399, which involves a
substantially identical information as the Information quoted in the question, the Supreme Court held that
the Information was valid. While it is true that the information quoted In the question, failed to allege
evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, said Information Is nevertheless
adequate because it averred the three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3019 when it
stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, being employed
in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused undue Injury to B and the
Government, with the statement that BT the owner of the land, received only P1,000.00 instead of the
full value of P5,000.00; and (3) that in the discharge of A's official administrative functions, he "did then
and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and
unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or
use the very words or language of the statute. It may also use words or language of similar import.

Notes:
In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that an information is
sufficient if it averred the three essential element of the violation of RA 3019, (1) That the accused is a
public officer at the time of the commission of the crime; (2) That that the accused caused undue injury
to the government or to a private citizen; and (3) That he received an amount of money to facilitate the
transaction in the government. An information need not employ or use the very words or language of the
statute. It may also use words or language of similar import.

Notes:
The criminal act that may amount to a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is
similar to indirect bribery. For example, giving a fighting cock to an employee in Camp Crame for the
release of the commutation is either indirect bribery, bribery or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.

Anti-Hazing law – RA 8049 (2002)

What is hazing as defined by law? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into
membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks
or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.

What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites
may be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven (7)
days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the initiation
activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c)
an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004)

Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give
immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally
bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness.
The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come
home on time from school. Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent
him to bed without supper.

She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her
adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by her driver's negligence. She did
punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason
briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of a
child be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep.
Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in
Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.

Notes:
Under RA 7610, child abuse is committed when any person does an act that debases, demeans,
or degrades the intrinsic worth of a child as a human being. Accordingly, when a child was not given
immediate medical attention after he was accident; that he used to go to bed without supper and that he
was whipped, those acts give rise to child abused. Moreover, the act mentioned above need not be
habitual.

Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006)

Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave
him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high-powered
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second choice was to follow
sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While
ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on
her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and
charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct? (5%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of Section 3
that refers to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10 provides
criminal liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other condi tions prejudicial to
the child's development. The reaction of the victim, screaming for help upon the occurrence of the
touching indicates that she perceived her dignity was being debased or violated.

Notes:
Under RA. 7610, child abuse is committed by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades
or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10
provides criminal liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development. Accordingly, this crime is committed when a child screamed
because a person has touched her hips. When she shouted, she perceived that her dignity was debased
or violated.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (RA 9165)

Dangerous Drug Act: Plea-Bargaining (2005)
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or “shabu”. An entrapment operation was conducted by police officers, resulting in his
arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was
subjected to a drug test and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He
was subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the
possession of “shabu” and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana. (5%)

a) Are the charges proper? Explain.

b) So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
Can he do so? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. The use of dangerous drugs is not committed when Obie Juan was also found to have in
his possession such quantity of any dangerous drug. (See Secs. 11 and 16, RA. No. 9165)

b) No. Obie Juan cannot plead guilty to a lower offense as it is prohibited under the law. ( Section
23, RA. No. 9165). Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable
penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.
Notes:
Sec. 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.

Dangerous Drugs Act (1998)

Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police District, received
information that a certain Lee Lay of No. 8 Tindalo Street, Tondo, Manila is a member of the 14K Gang
selling shabu and marijuana. SPOl Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance
and buy-bust operations against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T.
Pinpin Restaurant at2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta,
acting as poseur-buyers, purchased from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay agreed to
sell to them one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops which he gave them at his residence.

The policemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. Found were 356 grams of marijuana
seeds, 932 grams of marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. What offense or
offenses did Lay commit? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs which should be made subject of separate informations. The crime of illegal selling of
dangerous drugs is committed as regards the 10 sticks of marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of
dried marijuana fruiting tops, which should be subject of two (2) separate informations because the acts
were committed at different times and in different places.

The crime of Illegal possession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the marijuana seeds,
marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana cigarettes which are not the subject of the sale. Another
information shall be filed for this.

Dangerous Drugs Act (2006)

After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on
PAL Flight NO. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents.
When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection
inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500
grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by
PO3 Pepito Lorbes.

On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector
Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and
got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining
plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the
latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the
transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team
followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged. What are their respective
criminal liabilities? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who conspired in taking the attache case are
liable for the following crimes defined under RA. 9165: a) Sec. 27 for misappropriation or failure to
account for the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 3(ee) for their acts
as protector/coddler of Dante Ong who imported drugs.

In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution for illegal importation or illegal

transportation of dangerous drugs, where the penalty is life imprisonment to death, they are also
liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-A of the Revised Penal Code.

With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4,
R.A. 9165, if PR 181 is an international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic flight, he is liable for violation of
Sec. 5, RA. 9165 for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.

Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Marked Money (2000)

At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and apprehend A, a long
suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation. At the appointed time, the poseur-buyer
approached A who was then with B. A marked P100 bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave the
poseur-buyer one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were then positioned
behind thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift enough since A and B were able to run away.
Two days later, A was arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that during the operations,
the police officers were not able to seize the marked money but were able to get possession of the
marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, During the trial, the marked money was not
presented. Can A be held liable? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked money will not create a hiatus in the
prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug
subject of the transaction is presented before the court. There was a perfected contract of sale of the
drug (People vs. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625).

Notes:
In the case of People vs. Ong Co, the Supreme Court held that despite of the absence of a mark
money used in the buy-bust, the accused can still be prosecuted.

Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Plea Bargaining (1998)

Edgardo was charged with importation of prohibited drugs in an information filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City on June 4, 1994. The offense is punishable by reclusion perpetua
to death. Can Edgardo avail of plea-bargaining? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo cannot avail of plea-bargaining because the imposable penalty for his violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425. as amended) is reclusion perpetua to death. Section 20-A
expressly provides that plea-bargaining shall not be allowed where the imposable penalty for the
violation of said law is reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 6425, as amended).

Notes:
Sec. 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Consummation of Sale (1996)

Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a suspected drug pusher, and offered
to buy P300 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back five minutes later and handed Pat,
Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing the shabu. However, before Pat, Buensuceso was able to
deliver the marked money to Ronnie, the latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie knew to
be connected with the Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away but
was arrested thirty minutes later by other policemen who pursued him. Under the circumstances, would
you consider the crime of sale of a prohibited drug already consummated? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Yes, the sale of prohibited drug is already consummated although the marked money was not yet
delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to
their agreed sale, the crime was consummated. Payment of the consideration is not an element of
requisite of the crime. If ever, the marked money is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the
prosecution.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Criminal Intent to Posses (2002)

A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when they met a group of policemen who had
earlier been tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and
sensing that they were after him, A handed a sachet containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide
it in her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A
was a drug user or pusher or that what was inside the sachet given to her was shabu, is she
nonetheless liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or of
the content of the sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal intent to possess the drug in
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal liability to her
in the absence of animus possidendi.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Plea-Bargaining (2004)

MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002. During pre-trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense concerning use of
dangerous drugs. Should the Judge allow MNO's plea to the lesser offense? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Judge should not allow MNO's plea to a lesser offense, because plea-bargaining in
prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty.

Notes:
Sec. 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. – Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.

Highway Robbery (2001)

Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the Western
Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less familiar with the
schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols,
from the pier area to the different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he
gave valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said
container vans. On several instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and
pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City and Bangkal,
Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the
valuable items and disposes of them through his own sources or "fences". When the highjackers were
traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan, and the
fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that
he should not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D. 532,
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of Sgt.
Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of P.D. 532,
Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands, such
as giving them information about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives property
taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage,
shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the
rules in the Revised Penal Code.

Notes:

Sec. 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting piracy or highway

robbery/brigandage. – Any person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects pirates or highway
robbers/brigands, such as giving the information about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property taken by such pirates or brigands shall be
liable as accomplice of the principal offender.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after the fact is not
tenable because he was a principal participant in the commission of the crime and in pursuing the
criminal design.

An accessory after the fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after the crime had
already been consummated, not before, For his criminal participation in the execution of the highjacking
of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by indispensable cooperation.

Notes:
Implied conspiracy is apparent in this case. Sgt. Chan would give the information to the group of
robbers while the latter would rob the van. After that, they share their loots. When there is conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. Consequently, Sgt. Chan, together with his conspirators, should be
charged with highway robbery.

Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996)

Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries
Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the use of
explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of
P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit
any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that they bought
the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however claimed that the three
vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in possession
of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the
three fish vendors? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such fish
without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives does not by
itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized in said
Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish
only when "knowingly" done that the fish were caught with the use of explosives ; hence criminal
intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which
they "duly identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove
that they have knowledge that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had
knowledge thereof.

Notes:
 Under PD 704 or the Anti-Illegal Fishing, a mere possession of the fish caught by illegal fishing is
not punishable except when he possesses such fish with knowledge that it is the source of illegal
fishing.

Generally, violation of a special law does not require intent to commit a crime because it is a
malum prohibitum; however, in the case of illegal fishing, intent to commit the crime is necessary.

Illegal Possession of Firearms – RA 8294 (1998)

Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What
crime or crimes did he commit? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use of an
unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A
prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm
was not used in the commission of another crime.

Notes:
Under the law on Anti-Illegal Possession of Firearms, when the unlicensed firearm is used to
commit a crime, it is absorbed in the crime actually committed. Accordingly, when coup d’ etat is
committed with the use of the unlicensed firearms, the crime of illegal possession of firearm will not
prosper because it is absorbed in the crime of coup d’ etat.

Illegal Possession of Firearms & Ammunitions (2000)

various crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to
an apartment where A was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed.
At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let the
policemen in inside, the team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag
which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the
authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand
grenade, it was established that only military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades.
Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During
trial, A maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to his
friend, and that he was not in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations
meritorious? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential element of the crime of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not
only actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and explosive are
subject to one's control and management. (People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23
Phil. 105: People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).

Notes:
In the case of People v. Soyag, the Supreme Court held that for an illegal possession of firearms
to prosper, ownership is not an essential element of the crime; what the law requires is merely
possession which includes actual physical and constructive possession where the firearm is subject to
one’s control and management.

PD 46 & RA 6713 & Indirect Bribery (2006)

 Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters
addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various
multinational corporations requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the
Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner
Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her
staff also received several envelopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon.
Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees did she
violate? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Commissioner Torres violated the following:
1. RA. 6713 — Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees when
he solicited and accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]).
2. P.D. 46 — Making it punishable for public officials and employees to receive, and for private
persons to give, gifts on any occasion, including Christmas.
Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, Revised Penal Code) for receiving gifts offered by reason of office.

Notes:
Under RA 6713 also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, any person who shall solicit or receive gift shall be held criminally liable.

PD 46 (1994)
Gino was appointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport. Gerry, an importer, hosted a dinner for 100 persons at the Westin Philippine Plaza in honor of
Gino. What are the offense or offenses committed by Gino and Gerry?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Both Gino and Gerry are liable for violation of Presidential Decree No. 46, which punishes any
public official or employee who receives, directly or indirectly, and for private persons who give,
offer any gift, present or valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift or
valuable thing is given by reason of his official position, regardless of whether or not the same is for
past favor or favors, or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future.
Being an importer, Gerry reasonably expects future favor from Gino. Included within the prohibition is the
throwing of parties or entertainment in honor of the official or employee or of his immediate relatives.

Notes:
PD 46 is similar to indirect bribery; it punishes act of public officials or employees who receive gift
from private person when the gift given is by reason of the office of the former.

PD 46 (1997)
A, who is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a Regional Trial Court Judge,
gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of
expensive wines, easily worth P10.000.00. The judge accepted the gift knowing it came from A. What
crime or crimes, if any, were committed?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Judge committed the crime of Indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code. The
gift was offered to the Judge by reason of his office. In addition, the Judge will be liable for the violation
of P.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts by pubic officials and employees on occasions like
Christmas.

Notes:
 Article 211. Indirect bribery. - The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to
him by reason of his office.

Plunder under RA 7080; Prescriptive Period (1993)

Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes /conveyances
and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets
amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and
connections and despite knowledge by the authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the
crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in.

1) May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why?

2) Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally ac quired, the bulk of which
is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the crime
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still
be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.

2) Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or
estoppel.

Notes:

Under the law, the crime of plunder will prescribe in 20 years. Hence, it is similar to homicide and
murder.

The Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover unlawfully acquired properties by
public officer shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.

R.A. No. 9160 Anti-Money Laundering Act (2005)

Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account
in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million.
From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay
clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don
Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng
operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9160) for knowingly
transacting money as property which involves or relates to the proceeds of an unlawful activity such as
jueteng. In addition, he may be prosecuted for liability as a jueteng operator. (R.A. No. 9287)

The mayor who allowed the opening of an account in his name is likewise guilty for violation of
the AMLA. He, knowing that the money instrument or property involves the proceeds of an unlawful
activity, performs or fails to perform any act which results in the facilitation of money laundering.

Notes:
Under the law, the offense of money laundering is committed when a person transacts any
monetary instruments which were the proceeds of unlawful activity like kidnapping, illegal gambling,
robbery, among others.

Sec. 4. Money Laundering offense. – Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an
unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
It is committed by the following:

a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to, the
proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property.

Under R.A. No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act is violated when a person shall knowingly
transact money, property which relates to the proceeds of an unlawful activity like jueteng.

Any person who knowingly transacts money which is the proceeds of unlawful activity like jueteng or
drugs shall be liable for the violation of the Anti-Money laundering Act because he make its appear that
the money comes from lawful source.

Ra 3019; Preventive Suspension (1999)

A public officer was accused before the Sandiganbayan of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No.
3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Just after arraignment and even before evidence was
presented, the Sandiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The accused
questioned the said Order contending that it is violative of the constitutional provision against an ex
post facto law.

(a) Will you sustain the objection of the accused? Why? [2%]

(c) What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before preventive suspension may
be ordered? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused. Suspension of the accused pendente lite is
not violative of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto law. Ex-post facto law means making
an innocent act a crime before it is made punishable.

(c) The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be ordered are:
(1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at a specific date of hearing why
he should not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to RA 3019, as amended; and (2) there must
be a determination of a valid information against the accused that warrants his suspension.

Notes:
(b) Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime before it is made punishable.

(c) The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be ordered are:
(1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause why he should not be ordered
suspended; and (2) the information must be determined that it is valid.

An ex-post facto law is a law enacted by the Congress which makes the act done in the past a
crime which was not yet a crime before the enactment of the law.
RA 3019; Preventive Suspension (2000)
A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 [Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to
Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the
motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional
validity of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before Judgment of conviction
is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also claimed that
this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to
appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of Brad Kit's
constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused public officers shall be
suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court (Sec. 13, RA. 3019). Such
preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the
investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan,279 SCRA 581 (1997); Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332
(1993)).

Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente lite applies
only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all public officials Indicted upon
a valid information under RA. No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective officials; or permanent or
temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or noncareer service (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288
SCRA 328 [1998]).
Notes:

a) In the case of Rios v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that suspension of public
officials who were administratively charged is not violative of his right to be presumed innocent. RA 3019
allows the suspension of the public officer while his criminal prosecution is pending. Such preventive
suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation.

b) In the case of Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court held that suspension pendente
lite applies to all public officials Indicted upon a valid information under RA. No. 3019, whether they be
appointive or elective officials or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or non -
career service.

RA 3019; Public Officer (2003)

The Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas}, by a resolution of the monetary board, hires
Theof Sto Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank, as a consultant. Theof later receives a
valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Central Bank.

May Theof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for
accepting such a gift? Explain. 8%

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Theof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for violation of
Pres, Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is punished.

Although Theof is a "public officer" within the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable
acts under Rep. Act 3019 since he is not to intervene in his official capacity in the investigation of the
bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Theof is
administratively liable.

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of indirect bribery is committed when a public officer
receives gift offered to him by reason of his office.

Article 211. Indirect bribery. - The penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, and public censure shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall accept gifts offered to
him by reason of his office. (RPC)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Theof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a "public officer" within the
purview of said law, and Theof received the valuable gift from a bank which is under investigation by the
Central Bank where he is employed as a "public officer". Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public
officer from a party who has a transaction with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is
under investigation by the government office to which the public officer is connected.

Notes:
Under RA 3019, receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a
transaction with the Government is wrong; accordingly, when the gift-giver is under investigation by the
government office to which the public officer is connected, such officer shall be liable under the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act if he receives such gift.

Ra 6713; Coverage (2001)

Robert Sy, a well known businessman and a founding member of the Makati Business Club,
aside from being a classmate of the newly-elected President of the Philippines, had Investments
consisting of shares of stocks in the Urban Bank, the PNB, the Rural Bank of Caloocan City and his
privately-owned corporation, the RS Builders Corporation and Trans-Pacific Air.

After the President had taken his oath and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as
Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam. Robert took his oath before the President and after
furnishing the Department of Foreign Affairs with his appointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi
Min City, where he organized his staff, put up an office and stayed there for three months attending to
trade opportunities and relations with local businessman. On the fourth month, he returned to the
Philippines to make his report to the President.

However, the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines filed a complaint against Robert for (1) failing to
file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities within thirty (30) days from assumption of office; (2) failing to
resign from his businesses, and (3) falling to divest his shares and investments in the banks and
corporations owned by him, as required by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees. Will the complaint prosper? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The complaint will not prosper because the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. No. 6713), expressly exempts those who serve the Government in
an honorary capacity from filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and from resigning and divesting
themselves of interest from any private enterprise (Secs. 8A and 9).

Notes:
 The requirement of a public official or employee to divest himself of any conflict of interest in the
business enterprise or to accomplish the declaration of the statement of assets, liabilities and net worth
is not applicable to those who serve the government in an honorary capacity.

Under R.A. No. 6713, all public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary
capacity, shall file under oath their statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

It is provided in the same law that a public official or employee shall avoid conflict of interest at all
times. When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private business
enterprise within 30 days from his assumption of office and divest himself of his shareholdings or interest
interest within 60 days from such assumption. However, the requirement of divestment shall not apply to
those who serve the government in an honorary capacity.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the complaint will prosper under Sec. 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep. Act
No. 3019, as amended], which requires all public officers within 30 days from assuming public office to
file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities. Violations of this law are mala prohibita
which admits of no excuses.

Notes:
The complaint will prosper because all public officers shall, within 30 days from assuming public
office, file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities and Robert Sy is considered a public
officer since he performs function under the Philippine government as a consul.

RA 7438-Economic Sabotage; Illegal Recruitment (2004)

RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to London to work there as
sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and received from them various amounts of money for
recruitment and placement fees totalling P400,000. After their dates of departure were postponed
several times, the four prospects got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment
Authority). There they found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail. Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain
briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment constituting the offense
of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of P100.000.00.

ECONOMIC SABOTAGE is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Pres.
Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a
syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties, individually or as a
group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons conspire or

cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or activity.

Notes:
Recruitment is illegal if carried out by a person who is a non-licensee and has not authority to do
so.

Sec. 38. Illegal Recruitment. - Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying
out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in
large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. (Labor Code)
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00
to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and
disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2
months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria
that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to
work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection,
Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work as a maid.

1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid for the
purpose of repaying her mother's loan? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by any
persons who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service ( Art.
273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable as an employer for the employment of a minor below
15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.

2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan's household to pay her
loan, did he commit a crime? (2.5%)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of exploitation of child labor is committed when a
person retains the services of a minor against his will for the payment of the debt incurred by an
ascendant.

Article 273. Exploitation of child labor. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the
pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the
custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service. (RPC)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services under
compulsion and payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in order to require or enforce
the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as household servant or
farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal Code)

Notes:
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who compels another to work for him, against his
will, for the payment of the debt incurred by the latter from the former shall be held criminally liable for
services rendered under compulsion in payment for debt.

Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. - The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for
him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.