a.

What is the crime committed by any person who, without reasonable ground, arrests or detains another for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authorities?

b. What are the three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention?

c. May the Clerk of the Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines be held liable under Article 124 of the
Revised Penal Code?
a. Unlawful Arrest is committed by any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground
therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
(Note: Question and Suggested Answer Basis: Question No. 20, 2012 Bar Examination, Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code)

b. (a) by detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause or ground therefor for purposely to restrain his liberty;
(b) by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant; and
(c) by delaying a release of a prisoner whose release has been ordered by competent authority.
The principal offender should be a public officer acting under color of his authority.
(Note: Question and Suggested Answer Basis: Question No. 3, 2006 Bar Examination, Article 124, 125 and 126 of the
Revised Penal Code)

c. No. Not all public officers are covered therein.

The public officers or employees must be those who are vested with authority or jurisdiction to order the detention of persons
accused of an offense like a Judge, a mayor, NBI agents or police authorities, or those whose duties are related to the maintenance
of peace and order or protection of life or property of the people.
(Note: Question and Suggested Answer Basis: The Revised Penal Code, Book II, Edilberto G. Sandoval, 2002)
Tom Cruz purchased 500 copies of Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law from Lexus Publishing Inc. Simultaneous with the delivery
of the books to him, Cruz issued to Lexus Publishing a check drawn on his bank account.
Cruz then sold the books to Pareto Law Bookstore, which paid for them in cash.
When Lexus Publishing deposited the check it bounced for reason of account closed.
Despite a written notice of dishonor given by Lexus Publishing to Cruz,
he failed to make good the check within ten banking days from notice.

a) What crime or crimes, if any, did Tom Cruz commit?

b) May Lexus Publishing recover the law books from Pareto Law Bookstore?
a) Tom Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Under the Revised Penal Code,
estafa is committed by issuing in payment of a simultaneous obligation a check which is dishonored for insufficiency or absence
of funds and the drawer fails to make good the check within three days from notice.
Here, the check was issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation for the delivery of the books and the check was dishonored
for reason of absence of funds as the account was already closed.
There was no payment within five banking days from notice by Cruz.
Under B.P. Blg. 22, the violation thereof is also committed by the issuance of a check which was dishonored for reason of
insufficiency or absence of funds and no payment was made within five banking days after notice.
Hence, Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

b) No, Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Law Bookstore.
The Supreme Court has held that the owner may no longer recover the movables of which he was unlawfully deprived of if the
ownership thereof had already been transferred to another person.
[EDCA Publishing v Santos, 186 SCRA 614 (1990); Art. 1506, Civil Code]
Here, the ownership of the books had already been transferred to Pareto Bookstore by virtue of the contract of sale and the
delivery of the books.
Hence, Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Bookstore.
Patricio and Pacu were having intense discussion about local politics.
The discussion resulted into physical scruples later.
In his anger, Patricio threw burning oil from the frying pan against Pacu.
Pacu was able to dodge it. Unfortunately, the burning oil landed on right arm of Alfonso,
9 years old, who was sitting nearby. Alfonso suffered burn injuries, which necessitated a week-long treatment. Alfonso’s
parents filed a criminal case for child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610, against Patricio. Patricio
claimed that his target was not the boy, but Pacu, and as such, he could not be deemed to have intended to violate or
demean or degrade his intrinsic worth and dignity as a human being, which is an essential element for child abuse
under the law. If ever, his liability towards the boy should only be less serious physical injuries, not child abuse.

Is Patricio correct?
No. If the accused has willful intention of committing a felonious act on another person but the injury falls on the victim
who is a minor child, as when he swung his arms to throw burning oil on his adversary but the burning oil hit a baby
instead, he would be criminally liable for child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI, of Republic Act 7610.
Physical assault on a child is deemed to be willful with the necessary criminal intention for child abuse
(Source: Patulot v. People, G.R. No. 235071, January 7, 2019).
When is a mental illness considered an exempting circumstance in a criminal offense?

Discuss the different tests to determine whether an accused should be held free of criminal responsibility on account of a
mental illness.
A mental illness per se is not an exempting circumstance. In order that it may be considered as an exempting circumstance, it must
result to the complete deprivation of intelligence on the part of the accused in the commission of the act or in his acting without
the least discernment. Mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.
(People v. Honorato Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 325).

To determine whether an accused was legally insane during the commission of the crime, two distinguishable tests are used: (a)
the test of cognition – whether there was a “complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act” and
(b) the test of volition – whether there was a “total deprivation of freedom of the will.”
Case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on the test of volition, and has failed to turn up any case
where an accused is exempted on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of the freedom of the will, i.e., without an
accompanying “complete deprivation of intelligence.”
This is expected, since a person’s volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is represented as desirable by his
intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy.
Establishing the insanity of an accused often requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately
acquainted with the accused; has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception;
or is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist.
(see People v. Anacito Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004, 425 SCRA 654)
Eddie was only seventeen (17) years old when he committed and charged with sale of drugs under Section 5 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. Five (5) years later, a decision was issued finding him guilty of violation of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 on sale of drugs.
He was meted with the penalty of Reclusion Temporal.
Eddie contends that his sentence must be suspended pursuant to R.A. No. 9165 since he committed the crime when
he was still a minor. Do you agree?
No. I disagree with Eddie.
Under Republic Act No. 9344, a child in conflict with the law who is found guilty of the offense charged shall be placed under
automatic suspended sentence.
The suspended sentence may continue even if the child in conflict with the law has reached 18 years of age until he/she
reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
In this case, five years has lapsed since the commission by Eddie of sale of prohibited drugs when he was still 17.
That makes him 22 years old upon the issuance of the decision finding him guilty of the crime charged,
or beyond the maximum age provided by law.
Consequently, the court may promulgate Eddie’s judgment of conviction without the need of placing him
under suspended sentence.
Pandoy’s savings account with VIP Bank, which had a balance of P1,000 was erroneously credited with P999,000
due to a systems glitch. Pandoy forthwith withdraw the P999,000.
He deposited P500,000 with BOD Bank, in the name of his friend Abet,
but with the agreement that it was really Pandoy who was the owner of the P500,000.
Abet is aware of how Pandoy came across the P500,000.
What crime or crimes if any was or were committed by Pandoy and/or Abet?
Pandoy committed the crime of estafa through misappropriation and the crime of money laundering,
while Abet committed the crime of money-laundering aside from being an accessory to the crime of
estafa through misappropriation.
Pandoy committed the crime of estafa through misappropriation [Art. 315(1)(b)].
Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed when a person misappropriates money received by
him in trust or received by him under a duty to return the same.
Here, the money was received by Pandoy by mistake and under the Civil Code he is considered a trustee of an implied trust for the
benefit of the person from whom the property came, that is the bank.
[Art. 1456] Pandoy misappropriated it by withdrawing it and depositing it under arrangement in the bank account of his friend
Abet. Hence, Pandoy committed the crime of estafa through misappropriation.
Pandoy also committed the crime of money-laundering.
Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, money laundering is committed by any person who knowing that any money relates to the
proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts said money.
Here, Pandoy knew that the money relates to the proceeds of estafa, an unlawful activity,
and he transacted the same by moving it to another bank account under the name of another person.
Hence, Pandoy committed money laundering. Abet also committed the crime of money laundering.
Here, like Pandoy, Abet knew that the money relates to the proceeds of estafa, an unlawful activity,
and he transacted the same by having the money deposited to his bank account.
Abet is also liable as an accessory to the crime of estafa.
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accessory is one who conceals the effects of the crime in order to prevent its discovery.
Enteng, a 60-year old bachelor, is fond of soliciting pictures of beautiful girls.
However, his collections were destroyed by rodents, which nested in the attic where he kept them.
To augment the loss of his collections, Enteng installed a hidden video camera in the adjacent dormitory for girls.
Every night, he would review the video footage and see, if something new showed up during the day.
However, his titillating adventure did not last as his secret video recorder was found by the girls from the dormitory.
When confronted, he did not deny the fact that he had recordings of the girls,
while they were undressing inside their room.
Because of this, the victims, who are all college students, filed charges against Enteng.

For what crime or crimes should Enteng be held criminally liable?

He may be held criminally liable for Unjust Vexation under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal
Code and for violation of Republic Act No. 9995 or the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 which penalizes
the taking of photo or video coverage of any person performing sexual act or any similar activity or the capturing of an
image of the private area of a person such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female
breast without consent of the person involved and under circumstances in which he or she has a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Juana sang the Philippine National Anthem in rap version during Pakyaw’s boxing match in Nevada, U.S.A.
This is in violation of the Philippine Heraldic Law.
Annoyed, ashamed, and furious, the Secretary of Justice wants to press charges against Juana for such violation and to serve as an
example for future performers should they sing the Philippine National Anthem in any event around the globe.

Is there basis for Juana’s prosecution? Decide.

No, there is no basis for Juana’s prosecution. As a general rule, the Philippine penal law only apply within Philippine territory,
except as provided under treaties, laws of preferential application, and those grounds enumerated under Section 2 of the Revised
Penal Code where penal laws may apply even outside Philippine territory.
[1. S - Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. F - 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. I - Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and securities mentioned in the
presiding number;
4. O - While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5. N - Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.]
Here, Juana’s act in violation of the Philippine Heraldic Law was committed in U.S.A. Thus, it is outside Philippine territory.
Further, it is not among the stated exceptions under Section 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, Philippine penal laws cannot apply against her.
When Aris saw Ben rushing towards him holding a bolo and poised to strike him,
he immediately picked up a pointed iron bar and believing that his life was in danger and Ben was close enough,
he made a thrust on Ben hitting him on the stomach which caused the death of Ben thereafter.
The truth, however, is that Ben was merely trying to play a joke on Carl who was then behind Aris.

Is Aris criminally liable for the death of Ben?

Aris is not criminally liable because he acted in self-defense due to mistake of fact.
As the facts of the problem state, Aris thrusted the pointed iron bar on Ben,
hitting him on the stomach as he believed that his life was in danger because Ben was close enough
when he rushed towards Aris holding a bolo and poised to strike him.
Under the circumstances, Aris had no time or opportunity to verify whether Ben was only playing a joke on
Carl who was behind Aris.
Hence, his mistake of the fact was without fault or carelessness.

Aris had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to him to justify his act.
So, Aris acted in good faith without criminal intent.
a. Jan, 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?

b. Mark is married to Anna. However, he has a paramour with whom he has sexual relations on a regular basis.
They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and other places where they can be alone.

Is Mark guilty of any crime? Why?

a) Jan, a married woman, committed the crime of Adultery for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while her
marriage is still subsisting. On the other hand, the man who had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be married,
shall not be liable for adultery.

b) Mark 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.
(PP v. Santos, 86 SCRA 705, 1978) UP Law Suggested Answer.)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Mark 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.
(Note: Question and Suggested Answer Basis: Question No. X, 2002 Bar Examination; UP Law Suggested Answer)
Rose was charged with Frustrated Homicide. She pleaded not guilty during arraignment.
The presentation of the prosecution’s evidence was scheduled after the pre-trial.
When the case was called for the presentation of the witness for the prosecution,
her lawyer manifested that she is willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of Attempted Homicide.

Assuming that she would be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense,

can she benefit from the mitigating circumstance of confession of guilt in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 13? Explain
fully.
No. She is no longer qualified to benefit from the mitigating circumstance of confession of guilt under paragraph 7 of Article 13.
Her act of pleading guilty to a lesser offense of Attempted Homicide is in itself an aggravating circumstance already.
She could have benefited from her plea of guilt if only the information for Frustrated Homicide had been amended to Attempted
Homicide prior to the re-arraignment.
a. Reydan Clamor was a minor when he committed the crime of attempted robbery.
The trial court found him guilty of said crime and sentenced him to suffer Prision Correccional.
He appealed but his penalty was affirmed. May he still apply for probation? Why?

b. Upon conviction of estafa, the trial court sentenced Eddie Cordero, Jr. to suffer the penalty of eight (8) years of Prision Mayor.
He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which then lowered the penalty to five (5) years of Prision Correccional.
May he now avail of probation? Why?

c. Pedrito Dubria, Jr. was sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) years of Prision Correccional for each of the
ten (10) counts of estafa.
When Dubria applied for probation, the trial court denied it on the ground that his total penalty is thirty (30) years.

Do you agree?
a. Yes. Reydan Clamor may still apply for probation.
Under the law, no probation shall be allowed if the accused has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction of a crime
with probationable penalty.
This rule, however, admits exception, that is, if the defendant is a minor as the law allows him/her to apply for probation at
any time.
In this case, Reydan was a minor when he committed the crime of attempted robbery.
Thus, he may still apply for probation even after the affirmation of his probationable penalty on appeal.

b. Yes. Eddie Cordero, Jr. may still avail of probation. Under the Probation Law of 1976, as amended,
when a judgment of conviction with non-probationable penalty is appealed and modified to a probationable penalty,
the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the modified decision.
In this case, the non-probationable penalty of Prision Mayor of Eddie was modified to the probationable penalty of
Prision Correccional on appeal.
Hence, Eddie may now apply for probation.

c. No. I disagree that Pedrito Dubria, Jr. is disqualified from probation.

The Supreme Court decided in one case that multiple probationable penalties contained in one decision should not be added up,
but instead taken separately, to determine the defendant’s eligibility for probation.
In this case, each of the penalties imposed on Pedrito, i.e., three years, is within the probationable period.
Thus, taken separately, Pedrito can apply for probation.
After a vehicular collision wherein one of the cars driven by Mr. W was involved,
he was charged of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple Less Serious Physical Injuries and Slight Physical Injuries with
Damage to Property. Prosecuted therefor before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Quezon City,
W was convicted and sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of four (4) months imprisonment.
He was also ordered to pay the victims the aggregate amounts of P23,535 for their hospitalization expenses and P87,105
representing the costs of repair of the damaged motor vehicles.

(a) Assuming that W appeals the MTC judgment to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and that during the pendency thereof, he was
killed by one of the victims, what are the legal consequence of his death as regards his liabilities as adjudged by the MTC?

(b) If at all, how should W’s civil liabilities be enforced?

a) The legal consequence of W’s death is that his criminal liability as well as his civil liability ex delicto is extinguished and thus
the criminal case should be dismissed.
The Supreme Court has held that the accused’s death during the pendency of the criminal case extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as his civil liability ex delicto thus necessitating the dismissal of the criminal case.
[People v. Lipata, 20 April 2016]

b) W’s civil liabilities should be enforced by filing an independent civil action against the executor or administrator of the
deceased accused’s estate or against the deceased’s heirs.
The Supreme Court has held that in case of the accused’s death, an independent civil action may be brought against the executor
or administrator of his estate since the action is based upon quasi-delict or physical injuries.
[People v. Lipata, 20 Apr 2016]
Joachim was charged with the case of malicious mischief.
Determine the effect of the following supervening events as far as it concerns Joachim’s civil liability:

a. Joachim died before the Order of the trial court finding him guilty of the said crime became final.

b. Joachim died pending appeal with the Court of Appeals

a. Joachim’s civil liability is also extinguished. Considering that Joachim’s death transpired before the judgment of conviction
became final, his criminal liability and civil liability ex delicto are totally extinguished.
(People v. Mendoza, GR 213608, August 26, 2020, citing Bayotas).

b. In People v. Bayotas, it was clarified that upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction,
the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused;
the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on the criminal."
[People v. Bayotas, GR 102007, September 2, 1994; People v. Lipata, GR 200302, April 20, 2016].
Bert was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (the “Act”).
Bert initially pleaded “not guilty” to the crimes charged, but he later on filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement to the lesser offense of Section 12, Article II of the Act.
The RTC issued an Order allowing Bert to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense under Section 12 in lieu of Section 5,
but expressly stated in its dispositive portion that Bert was “ineligible to apply for probation.”
Bert filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that probation is only prohibited if the accused is actually found guilty of sale of
illegal drugs (Section 5), and not when he is found guilty to a lesser offense of “possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus,
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs” (Section 12).
However, this was rejected by the RTC, stating that the current rules clearly intended that persons charged with sale of illegal
drugs would not be qualified for probation if they choose to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
Bert appeals to the Court of Appeals.

If you are the ponente of the case, how will you decide on the matter? Explain with basis.
I would reverse the decision of the RTC. Bert should be allowed to apply for probation.
Under AM 18-03-16-SC, "if accused applies for probation in offenses punishable under R.A. No. 9165,
other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 in relation to [Section] 24 thereof,
then the law on probation apply.”
For this purpose, the Supreme Court in Valdez v. People already clarified that in applying for probation,
what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which the accused is ultimately “found” guilty of.
In this regard, the accused upon accepting a plea bargain is “actually found” guilty of the lesser offense subject of the plea.
Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the Information,
the judgment would be for the lesser offense to which the accused pled guilty.
This means that the penalty to be meted out and other consequences under the law,
including eligibility for probation and parole, would be based on such lesser offense.
Here, even if Bert was originally charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 18805,
he was ultimately convicted of the lower offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of the same law.
This effectively removed Bert’s case from the coverage of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165.
Therefore, he should, at the very least, be allowed to apply for probation.
[see Valdez v. People, GR 250578, September 7, 2020]
Makapogi a popular vlogger in the Philippines known for his YouTube prank contents thought of making a joke
out of the recent corona virus pandemic.
Using his large internet followings, he logged in to his Facebook Account and posted a fake pandemic story,
which states that the corona vaccine produced in China contains a hallucinogenic compound that
induces people to lose their mind.
In minutes, Makapogi’s post garnered a hundred to a thousand comments and likes.
As a consequence of the post, the IATF has reported a significant reduction of Filipinos,
who are willing to be inoculated all because of the fake news.
Alarmed by the effect, the Office of the President ordered the NBI Anti Cyber Crime Prevention Task Force
to press charges against Makapogi.

What is/are the crime/s committed by Makapogi? Explain.

Makapogi is liable for the crime of unlawful use of means of publication (par. 1 of Art. 154 of the RPC as amended)
in relation to Republic Act 10175 or the Cyber Crime Prevention Act.
This provision punishes any person, who shall publish or cause to be published false news which may endanger the
public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State.
If the false news is published with the use of communication or information technology, the penalty for unlawful use of
means of publication shall be upgraded one degree higher.
In the instant case, Makapogi’s malicious post on the harmful effects of the China vaccine may cause panic to the
community disrupting the ongoing inoculation efforts by the government.
Considering further that the fake news was posted by way of using a social media account, the same qualifies the act
to be violative also of the Cyber Crime Prevention Act, further increasing its imposed penalty to a higher degree.
On January 1, 2005, Ella hired their family’s hairdresser, Gelo, as a taxi driver and assigned him to drive a Tata Indigo Diesel with
plate number ABX-311.
They agreed that Gelo would drive the taxi from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM, after which he would return it to Ella’s garage and remit
the boundary fee in the amount of Eight Hundred Pesos (Php 800.00) per day.
On October 20, 2005, Gelo reported for work and drove the taxi.
However, at the end of the day, he only earned Five Hundred Pesos (Php 500.00).
Gelo did not return the taxi because he was ashamed that he could not remit the required boundary fee.
The following day, Ella went to Gelo’s house and demanded the return of the taxi.
Gelo’s son told Ella that his father had not yet arrived.
Thus, Ella went to the police station and reported that her taxi was missing. Gelo was charged with Qualified Theft.
Gelo argued that he is not liable because there was no intent to gain on his part when he failed to return the taxi.

Is Gelo criminally liable?

Yes, Gelo is criminally liable.
Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is the taking of the motor vehicle without the consent of the owner.
It is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same.
On the other hand, intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the unlawful taking of the motor vehicle.
Here, the nature of Gelo’s possession of the taxi was initially lawful as he was hired as a taxi driver and
was entrusted possession thereof.
However, his act of not returning the taxi to its owner, which is contrary to company practice and against the owner’s consent,
transformed the character of the possession into an unlawful one.
Hence, Gelo should be held liable. However, the charge of Qualified Theft is not proper.
Gelo is liable under the Anti-Carnapping Law which penalizes the unlawful taking of motor vehicles.
(People v. Luisito Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233. June 8, 2004)
John gave Stephanie a post-dated check in the amount of P500,000.00, so that the latter can use it to pay
Louie for the second-hand car, which she bought from him.
When Louie presented the check for payment, it was dishonored for being drawn against a Closed Account.
Louie looked for Stephanie after the check bounced, but he could not find her.
He looked for John and after several attempts of finding him, he chanced upon him.
John then told him that the check was inadvertently issued,
because it has no consideration but his love and affection for Stephanie.
According to him, the check was not issued for account or for value.
Having no other recourse, Louie filed a case for violation of BP 22 against John, the maker, and Stephanie, the payee.
During the trial, Stephanie claimed that she could not be held criminal liable for violation of BP 22,
since only the maker or drawer may be held liable under the law.
As a mere payee and indorser, she could not be held liable for the issuance of a check without funds.

Can Stephanie be held liable for violation of BP 22?

Yes. While a payee or an indorser may not be held liable for violation of BP 22 in general, the suppletory application of
the principle of conspiracy can justify her or his liability for violation of the law if she or he conspired with the maker or
indorser in the issuance of a worthless check and in using the same to defraud another, as in this case.
(Source: Ladonga v. People, G.R. No. 141066, February 17, 2005).
Elena, a housekeeper, is married to Juno who is a construction worker. They have five (5) children.
Elena and Juno always argue over financial matters. The bickering would escalate to verbal abuse.
During what has become their normal word wars,
Juno would storm out of the house and spend the several hours of the night drinking alcohol.
He would only come back home to sleep.
One time, the biggest fight happened between Elena and Juno. For the first time, Juno slapped Elena on the face,
which made Elena even more furious. Elena left the house and waited until Juno was already asleep.
When she was sure that Juno was sleeping soundly, she hit the head of Juno several times with a metal.
Juno was brought to a nearby hospital but was declared dead on arrival.
An information for parricide was filed against Elena.
She however claims that she is suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome, and thus should be acquitted. Decide?
The defense of Elena is not tenable.
Republic Act No. 9262 defines Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
When a woman who commits violence against her partner is found suffering from BWS,
she may interpose self-defense despite the absence of the elements thereof.
In this case, while there was a history of a series of verbal fights between Juno and Elena,
There is only one noted physical abuse made by Juno on Elena, that is, when he slapped her on the face.
This is hardly considered as cumulative abuse as required under the law considering that it happened only once.
Hence, Elena may be convicted of Parricide.
Isko stabbed Lito who nearly died were it not for timely medical attendance.
Isko eluded arrest and went to the office of Mayor Benny, his uncle. Mayor Benny told him to cool down for a while.
He gave him P50,000.00 and directed him to go to the Visayas while he is trying to settle the case.
Isko hid in Cebu until he was arrested two months after the incident.

Is Mayor Benny criminally liable for helping Isko escape to Cebu?

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