ANSWERS TO BAR

EXAMINATION
QUESTIONS
IN
CRIMINAL
LAW
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
(1994 2006)
5
Con!n"
GENERAL PRINCIPLES............................................................3
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal La !"##$%&
General Principles; 'erritorialit( !"##&%..............................&
General Principles; 'erritorialit(; )uris*iction o+er ,essel !-...% &
/EL0NIES............................................................................... 5
Conspirac( !"##1%................................................................. 5
Conspirac(; A+oi*ance of Greater E+il !-..&%....................$
Conspirac(; Co2Conspirator !"##3%....................................$
Conspirac(; Common /elonious Purpose !"##&%................$
Conspirac(; Comple4 Crime ith Rape !"##$%...................1
Conspirac(; /light to E+a*e Apprehension !-..3%..............1
Conspirac(; /light to E+a*e Apprehension !-..3%..............3
Conspirac(; Implie* Conspirac( !"##3%..............................#
Conspirac(; Implie* Conspirac(; E5ects !-..3%.................#
Criminal Lia6ilit(7 8estructi+e Arson !-...%...........................#
Criminal Lia6ilit(7 /elonious Act of Scaring !"##$%...........".
Criminal Lia6ilit(7 /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !"##$% ".
Criminal Lia6ilit(7 Impossi6le Crimes !-...%....................".
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act of Scaring !-.."%...........""
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act of Scaring !-..5%...........""
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Imme*iate Cause !-..3%"-
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !"##&%"-
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !"##1%"3
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !"###%"3
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !-.."%"3
Criminal Lia6ilit(; /elonious Act; Pro4imate Cause !-..&%"&
Criminal Lia6ilit(; Impossi6le Crime !-..&%......................"&
Criminal Lia6ilit(; Impossi6le Crimes !"##&%...................."5
Criminal Lia6ilit(7 Impossi6le Crimes !"##3%...................."5
)9S'I/:ING ; E<E=P'ING CIRC9=S'ANCES........................"#
=I'IGA'ING CIRC9=S'ANCES..............................................-&
AGGRA,A'ING CIRC9=S'ANCES..........................................-1
AL'ERNA'I,E CIRC9=S'ANCES............................................3.
PERS0NS Criminall( Lia6le for /EL0NIES.............................3"
PENAL'IES........................................................................... 3&
5
E<'INC'I0N 0/ CRI=INAL LIA>ILI':................................5-
CI,IL LIA>ILI':.................................................................... 53
Crimes Against National Securit( an* the La of Nations....$.
Crimes Against the /un*amental La of the State..............$"
Crimes Against Pu6lic 0r*er................................................$"
Crimes against Pu6lic Interest.............................................$3
Crimes Committe* 6( Pu6lic 0?cers...................................1"
Crimes Against Persons.......................................................13
Crimes against Personal Li6ert( an* Securit(......................#.
Crimes Against Propert(......................................................#1
Crimes Against Chastit(....................................................""&
Crimes Against the Ci+il Status of Persons.........................""$
Crimes Against @onor........................................................""3
=iscellaneous.................................................................... "-.
Special Penal Las............................................................"--
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
5
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 enal Code belong!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
'here are to schools of thought in Criminal LaA an* these are !a%
the CLASSICAL '@E0R:A hich simpl( means that the 6asis of
criminal lia6ilities is human free illA an* the purpose of the penalt(
is retri6ution hich must 6e proportional to the gra+it( of the
o5ense; an* !6% the P0SI'I,IS' '@E0R:A hich consi*ers man as a
social 6eing an* his acts are attri6uta6le not Bust to his ill 6ut to
other forces of societ(. As suchA punishment is not the solutionA as
he is not entirel( to 6e 6lame*; la an* Burispru*ence shoul* not 6e
the (ar*sticC in the imposition of sanctionA instea* the un*erl(ing
reasons oul* 6e inDuire* into.
Ee follo the classical school of thought although some pro+isions
of eminentl( positi+ist in ten*enciesA liCe punishment of impossi6le
crimeA )u+enile circumstancesA are incorporate* in our Co*e.
General Principles; Territoriality (199)
A6eA marrie* to LiFaA contracte* another marriage ith Connie in
Singapore. 'hereafterA A6e an* Connie returne* to the Philippines
an* li+e* as hus6an* an* ife in the hometon of A6e in Calam6aA
Laguna.
"% Can A6e 6e prosecute* for 6igam(G
SUGGESTED ANSWER#
"% NoA A6e ma( not 6e prosecute* for 6igam( since the 6igamous
marriage as contracte* or solemniFe* in SingaporeA hence such
+iolation is not one of those here the Re+ise* Penal Co*eA un*er
Art. - thereofA ma( 6e applie* e4traterritoriall(. 'he general rule on
territorialit( of criminal la go+erns the situation.
General Principles; Territoriality; !uris"iction o#er
$essel (%&&&)
After *rinCing one !"% case of San =iguel 6eer an* taCing to plates
of HpulutanHA >ino(A a /ilipino
seamanA sta66e* to *eath Sio =(A a Singaporean seamanA a6oar*
=I, HPrincess of the PaciJcHA an o+erseas +essel hich as sailing in
the South China Sea. 'he +esselA although Panamanian registere*A is
one* 6( Lucio S(A a rich /ilipino 6usinessman. Ehen =I, HPrincess
of the PaciJcH reache* a Philippine Port at Ce6u Cit(A the Captain of
the +essel turne* o+er the assailant >ino( to the Philippine
authorities. An information for homici*e as Jle* against >ino( in
the Regional 'rial Court of Ce6u Cit(. @e mo+e* to "uash the information
for lac# of $urisdiction. %f you were the &udge' will you grant the motion! Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
+es' the ,otion to -uash the %nformation should be granted. The hili..ine court has
no $urisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or
outside of hili..ine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the
hili..ines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) %t is the registration of the vessel in
accordance with the laws of the hili..ines' not the citi/enshi. of her owner' which
ma#es it a hili..ine shi.. The vessel being registered in anama' the laws of
anama govern while it is in the high seas.
'se of (liases; )hen (llowe" (%&&6)
When can a 0ili.ino citi/en residing in this country use an alias legally! 1ive 2
instances. (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
seudonym for literary .ur.oses. 3se of aliases in cinema and television
entertainment. %n athletics and s.orts activities (R4. 567)). 3nder the witness
.rotection .rogram a .erson may ado.t a different identity (R4. 5871). When he has
been ba.ti/ed or customarily #nown by such alias. When authori/ed by a com.etent
court (C4. 9o. 1:2' as amended by R4. 567)). When .ro.erly indicated in a
Certificate of Candidacy (;mnibus <lection Code).
$ELONIES
Conspiracy (199*)
4 had a grudge against 0. =eciding to #ill 0' 4 and his friends' >' C' and =' armed
themselves with #nives and .roceeded to the house of 0' ta#ing a ta?icab for the
.ur.ose. 4bout 26 meters from their destination' the grou. alighted and after
instructing <' the driver' to wait' traveled on foot to the house of 0. > .ositioned
himself at a distance as the grou.@s loo#out. C and = stood guard outside the house.
>efore 4 could enter the house' = left the scene without the #nowledge of the
others. 4 stealthily entered the house and stabbed 0. 0 ran to the street but was
bloc#ed by C' forcing him to flee towards another direction. %mmediately after 4 had
stabbed 0' 4 also stabbed 1 who was visiting 0. Thereafter' 4 e?iled from the house
and' together with > and C' returned to the waiting ta?icab and motored away. 1
died. 0 survived. Who are liable for the death of 1 and the .hysical in$uries of 0!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 alone should be held liable for the death of 1. The ob$ect of the cons.iracy of 4.
>' C' and = was to #ill 0 only. Aince >' C' and = did not #now of the stabbing of 1 by
4' they cannot be held criminally therefor. <' the driver' cannot be also held liable
for the death of 1 since the former was com.letely unaware of said #illing. 0or the
.hysical in$uries of 0' 4' > and C. should be held liable therefore. <ven if it was only
4 who actually stabbed and caused .hysical in$uries to 1' > and C are nonetheless
liable for cons.iring with 4 and for contributing .ositive acts which led to the
reali/ation of a common criminal intent. > .ositioned himself as a loo#out' while C
bloc#ed 0@s esca.e. =' however' although .art of the cons.iracy' cannot be held
liable because he left the scene before 4 could enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. 4lthough he was earlier .art of the cons.iracy' he did not .ersonally
.artici.ate in the e?ecution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the
same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38), %n the same breath' <' the driver'
cannot be also held liable for the infliction of .hysical in$uries u.on 0 because there
is no showing that he had #nowledge of the .lan to #ill 0.
5
Conspiracy; (#oi"ance of Greater +#il (%&&)
>> and CC' both armed with #nives' attac#ed 0T. The victim@s son' AT' u.on seeing
the attac#' drew his gun but was .revented from shooting the attac#ers by 44' who
gra..led with him for .ossession of the gun. 0T died from #nife wounds. 44' >> and
CC were charged with murder. %n his defense' 44 invo#ed the $ustifying circumstance
of avoidance of greater evil or in$ury' contending that by .reventing AT from
shooting >> and CC' he merely avoided a greater evil. Will 44@s defense .ros.er!
Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 44@s defense will not .ros.er because obviously there was a cons.iracy among
>>' CC and 44' such that the .rinci.le that when there is a cons.iracy' the act of
one is the act of all' shall govern. The act of AT' the victim@s son' a..ears to be a
legitimate defense of relativesB hence' $ustified as a defense of his father against
the unlawful aggression by >> and CC. AT@s act to defend his father@s life' cannot be
regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is' in the eyes of the law' a lawful act. What 44
did was to sto. a lawful defense' not greater evil' to allow >> and CC achieve their
criminal ob$ective of stabbing 0T.
Conspiracy; Co,Conspirator (199-)
&uan and 4rturo devised a .lan to murder &oel. %n a narrow alley near &oel@s house'
&uan will hide behindthe big lam..ost and shoot &oel when the latter .asses through
on his way to wor#. 4rturo will come from the other end of the alley and
simultaneously shoot &oel from behind. ;n the a..ointed day' 4rturo was
a..rehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When &uan shot &oel as
.lanned' he was unaware that 4rturo was arrested earlier. =iscuss the criminal
liability of 4rturo' if any. C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4rturo' being one of the two who devised the .lan to murder &oel' thereby becomes
a coE.rinci.al by direct cons.iracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will
incur criminal liability. 4rturo@s liability as a cons.irator arose from his .artici.ation
in $ointly devising the criminal .lan with &uan' to #ill &ose. 4nd it was .ursuant to
that cons.iracy that &uan #illed &oel. The cons.iracy here is actual' not by inference
only.
The overt act was done .ursuant to that cons.iracy whereof 4rturo is coEcons.irator.
There being a cons.iracy' the act of one is the act of all. 4rturo' therefore' should
be liable as a coEcons.irator but the .enalty on him may be that of an accom.lice
only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SC! 1" People #s. $e%ra&o, 114 SC! 33') because he
was not able to actually .artici.ate in the shooting of &oel' having been
a..rehended before reaching the .lace where the crime was committed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4rturo is not liable because he was not able to .artici.ate in the #illing of &oel.
Cons.iracy itself is not .unishable unless e?.ressly .rovided by law and this is not
true in the case of ,urder. 4 coEcons.irator must .erform an overt act .ursuant to
the cons.iracy.
Conspiracy; Common .elonious Purpose (199)
5
4t about 8F26 in the evening' while =ino and Raffy were wal#ing along adre 0aura
Atreet' ,anila. &ohnny hit them with a roc# in$uring =ino at the bac#. Raffy
a..roached =ino' but suddenly' >obby' Ateve' =anny and 9onoy surrounded the duo.
Then >obby stabbed =ino. Ateve' =anny' 9onoy and &ohnny #e.t on hitting =ino and
Raffy with roc#s. 4s a result. =ino died' >obby' Ateve' =anny' 9onoy and &ohnny
were charged with homicide. %s there cons.iracy in this case!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' there is cons.iracy among the offenders' as manifested by their concerted
actions against the victims' demonstrating a common felonious .ur.ose of assaulting
the victims. The e?istence of the cons.iracy can be inferred or deduced from the
manner the offenders acted in commonly attac#ing =ino and Raffy with roc#s'
thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Conspiracy; Comple/ Crime with 0ape (1996)
&ose' =omingo' ,anolo' and 0ernando' armed with bolos' at about one o@cloc# in the
morning' robbed a house at a desolate .lace where =anilo' his wife' and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the .rocess of ransac#ing =anilo@s
house' 0ernando' noticing that one of =anilo@s daughters was trying to get away' ran
after her and finally caught u. with her in a thic#et somewhat distant from the
house.
0ernando' before bringing bac# the daughter to the house' ra.ed her first.
Thereafter' the four carted away the belongings of =anilo and his family.
a) What crime did &ose' =omingo' ,anolo and 0ernando commit! <?.lain.
b) Au..ose' after the robbery' the four too# turns in ra.ing the three daughters of
=anilo inside the latter@s house' but before they left' they #illed the whole family to
.revent identification' what crime did the four commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) &ose' =omingo' and ,anolo committed Robbery' while 0ernando committed
com.le? crime of Robbery with Ra.e' Cons.iracy can be inferred from the manner
the offenders committed the robbery but the ra.e was committed by 0ernando at a
.lace Gdistant from the houseG where the robbery was committed' not in the
.resence of the other cons.irators. Hence' 0ernando alone should answer for the
ra.e' rendering him liable for the s.ecial com.le? crime. (People vs. Ca&t#ria et.
al, (.. 1)849), ** +#&e 199',
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide ... (im.liedF there is still cons.iracy)
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)
4 and >' both store $anitors' .lanned to #ill their em.loyer C at midnight and ta#e
the money #e.t in the cash register. 4 and > together drew the s#etch of the store'
where they #new C would be slee.ing' and .lanned the se"uence of their attac#.
Ahortly before midnight' 4 and > were ready to carry out the .lan.
When 4 was about to lift C@s mos"uito net to thrust his dagger' a .olice car with
sirens blaring .assed by. Acared' > ran out of the store and fled' while 4 went on to
stab C to death' .ut the money in the bag' and ran outside to loo# for >. The latter
was nowhere in sight. 3n#nown to him' > had already left the .lace. What was the
.artici.ation and corres.onding criminal liability of each' if any! Reasons. 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an e?.ressed cons.iracy between 4 and > to #ill C and ta#e the latter@s
money. The .lanned #illing and ta#ing of the money a..ears to be intimately related
5
as com.onent crimes' hence a s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with homicide. The
cons.iracy being e?.ressed' not $ust im.lied' 4 and > are bound as coEcons.irators
after they have .lanned and agreed on the se"uence of their attac# even before
they committed the crime. Therefore' the .rinci.le in law that when there is a
cons.iracy' the act of one is the act of all' already governs them. %n fact' 4 and >
were already in the store to carry out their criminal .lan.
That > ran out of the store and fled u.on hearing the sirens of the .olice car' is not
s.ontaneous desistance but flight to evade a..rehension. %t would be different if >
then tried to sto. 4 from continuing with the commission of the crimeB he did not.
Ao the act of 4 in .ursuing the commission of the crime which both he and >
designed' .lanned' and commenced to commit' would also be the act of > because
of their e?.ressed cons.iracy. >oth are liable for the com.osite crime of robbery
with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4 shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide' but > shall
not incur criminal liability because he desisted. >@s s.ontaneous desistance' made
before all acts of e?ecution are .erformed' is e?cul.atory. Cons.iracy to rob and #ill
is not .er se .unishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. %t is enough that
the discontinuance comes from the .erson who has begun the commission of the
crime but before all acts of e?ecution are .erformed. 4 .erson 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 .ath of righteousness.
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)
4 and >' both store $anitors' .lanned to #ill their em.loyer C at midnight and ta#e
the money #e.t in the cash register. 4 and > together drew the s#etch of the store'
where they #new C would be slee.ing' and .lanned the se"uence of their attac#.
Ahortly before midnight' 4 and > were ready to carry out the .lan. When 4 was about
to lift C@s mos"uito net to thrust his dagger' a .olice car with sirens blaring .assed
by. Acared' > ran out of the store and fled' while 4 went on to stab C to death' .ut
the money in the bag' and ran outside to loo# for >. The latter was nowhere in sight.
3n#nown to him' > had already left the .lace. What was the .artici.ation and
corres.onding criminal liability of each' if any! Reasons. 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an e?.ressed cons.iracy between 4 and > to #ill C and ta#e the latter@s
money. The .lanned #illing and ta#ing of the money a..ears to be intimately related
as com.onent crimes' hence a s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with homicide. The
cons.iracy being e?.ressed' not $ust im.lied' 4 and > are bound as coEcons.irators
after they have .lanned and agreed on the se"uence of their attac# even before
they committed the crime. Therefore' the .rinci.le in law that when there is a
cons.iracy' the act of one is the act of all' already governs them. %n fact' 4 and >
were already in the store to carry out their criminal .lan.
That > ran out of the store and fled u.on hearing the sirens of the .olice car' is not
s.ontaneous desistance but flight to evade a..rehension. %t would be different if >
then tried to sto. 4 from continuing with the commission of the crimeB he did not.
Ao the act of 4 in .ursuing the commission of the crime which both he and >
designed' .lanned' and commenced to commit' would also be the act of > because
of their e?.ressed cons.iracy. >oth are liable for the com.osite crime of robbery
with homicide.
5
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4 shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with homicide' but > shall
not incur criminal liability because he desisted. >@s s.ontaneous desistance' made
before all acts of e?ecution are .erformed' is Criminal Law >ar <?amination - I 4
(188:E2665) e?cul.atory. Cons.iracy to rob and #ill is not .er se .unishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good motive. %t is enough that
the discontinuance comes from the .erson who has begun the commission of the
crime but before all acts of e?ecution are .erformed. 4 .erson 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 .ath of righteousness.
Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy (199-)
What is the doctrine of im.lied cons.iracy! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of im.lied cons.iracy holds two or more .ersons .artici.ating in the
commission of a crime collectively res.onsible and liable as coEcons.irators although
absent any agreement to that effect' when they act in concert' demonstrating unity
of criminal intent and a common .ur.ose or ob$ective. The e?istence of a cons.iracy
shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal .artici.ation in .ursuing the crime
and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy; +3ects (%&&1)
Atate the conce.t of Gim.lied cons.iracyG and give its legal effects. :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4n G%,L%<= C;9A%R4C+G is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner
the .artici.ants in the commission of crime carried out its e?ecution. Where the
offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime' meaning that their acts
are coordinated or synchroni/ed in a way indicative that they are .ursuing a
common criminal ob$ective' they shall be deemed to be acting in cons.iracy and
their criminal liability shall be collective' not individual.
The legal effects of an Gim.lied cons.iracyG areF
a) 9ot all those who are .resent at the scene of the crime will be considered
cons.iratorsB
b) ;nly those who .artici.ated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will
be considered as cocons.iratorsB and
c) ,ere ac"uiescence to or a..roval of the commission of the crime' without any act
of criminal .artici.ation' shall not render one criminally liable as coEcons.irator.
Criminal Lia4ility5 6estructi#e (rson (%&&&)
4' >' C and =' all armed with armalites' .roceeded to the house of J. +' a neighbor
of J' who ha..ened to be .assing by' .ointed to the four cul.rits the room that J
occu.ied. The four cul.rits .e..ered the room with bullets. 3nsatisfied' 4 even
threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed J@s room. However' un#nown to the four
cul.rits' J was not inside the room and nobody was hit or in$ured during the
%ncident. 4re 4' >' C and = liable for any crime! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. 4' >. C and = are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the
room of J with the use of an e?.losive' the hand grenade. Liability for an im.ossible
crime is to be im.osed only if the act committed would not constitute any other
5
crime under the Revised enal Code. 4lthough the facts involved are .arallel to the
case of -&to% vs. Co#rt o. !ppeals (*1' SC! '*)' where it was ruled that the
liability of the offender was for an im.ossible crime' no hand grenade was used in
said case' which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was
intended'
Criminal Lia4ility5 .elonious (ct of Scaring (1996)
4le?ander' an esca.ed convict' ran amuc# on board a Au.erlines >us bound for
,anila from >icol and #illed ten (16) .ersons. Terrified by the incident' Carol and
>en$amin who are .assengers of the bus' $um.ed out of the window and while lying
unconscious after hitting the .avement of the road' were ran over and crushed to
death by a fast moving =esert 0o? bus tailing the Au.erlines >us.
Can 4le?ander be held liable for the death of Carol and >en$amin although he was
com.letely unaware that the two $um.ed out of the bus! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 4le?ander can be held liable for the death of Carol and >en$amin because of
felonious act of running was the .ro?imate cause of the victim@s death. The rule is
that when a .erson' by a felonious act' generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger' .rom.ting the latter to esca.e from or avoid such danger and in
the .rocess' sustains in$uries or dies' the .erson committing the felonious act is
res.onsible for such in$uries or death. (US vs. /al%e0, 41 Phil, 1491" People vs. !pra,
*1 SC! 1)31.)
Criminal Lia4ility5 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(1996)
Kicente hac#ed 4nacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to .arry it with his
hand' causing u.on him a twoEinch wound on his right .alm. Kicente was not able to
hac# 4nacleto further because three .olicemen arrived and threatened to shoot
Kicente if he did not dro. his bolo. Kicente was accordingly charged by the .olice at
the .rosecutor@s office for attem.ted homicide. TwentyEfive days later' while the
.reliminary investigation was in .rogress' 4nacleto was rushed to the hos.ital
because of sym.toms of tetanus infection on the twoEinch wound inflicted by
Kicente. 4nacleto died the following day. Can Kicente be eventually charged with
homicide for the death of 4nacleto! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' Kicente may be charged of homicide for the death of 4nacleto' unless the
tetanus infection which develo.ed twenty five days later' was brought about by an
efficient su.ervening cause. Kicente@s felonious act of causing a twoEinch wound on
4nacleto@s right .alm may still be regarded as the .ro?imate cause of the latter@s
death because without such wound' no tetanus infection could develo. from the
victim@s right .alm' and without Criminal Law >ar <?amination - I 4 (188:E2665)
such tetanus infection the victim would not have died with it.
Criminal Lia4ility5 2mpossi4le Crimes (%&&&)
What is an im.ossible crime! (2*)
%s an im.ossible crime really a crime! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4n im.ossible crime is an act which would be an offense against .erson or .ro.erty'
were if not for the inherent im.ossibility of its accom.lishment or on account of the
5
em.loyment of inade"uate or ineffectual means (4rt. :' .ar. 2' RC) 9o' an
im.ossible crime is not really a crime. %t is only soEcalled because the act gives rise
to criminal liability. >ut actually' no felony is committed. The accused is to be
.unished for his criminal tendency or .ro.ensity although no crime was committed.
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1)
,ary$ane had two suitors E 0eli.e and Cesar. Ahe did not o.enly show her .reference
but on two occasions' acce.ted Cesar@s invitation to concerts by Regine and o.s.
0eli.e was a wor#ing student and could only as# ,ary to see a movie which was
declined. 0eli.e felt insulted and made .lans to get even with Cesar by scaring him
off somehow. ;ne day' he entered Cesar@s room in their boarding house and .laced a
rubber sna#e which a..eared to be real in Cesar@s bac#.ac#. >ecause Cesar had a
wea# heart' he suffered a heart attac# u.on o.ening his bac#.ac# and seeing the
sna#e. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The .olice investigation resulted
in .in.ointing 0eli.e as the cul.rit and he was charged with Homicide for Cesar@s
death. %n his defense' 0eli.e claimed that he did not #now about Cesar@s wea# heart
and that he only intended to .lay a .ractical $o#e on Cesar. %s 0eli.e liable for the
death of Cesar or will his defense .ros.er! Why! ()*}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 0eli.e 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 (4rt. 12' .ar. 2' RC). When 0eli.e intruded into Cesar@s room
without the latter@s consent and too# liberty with the letter@s bac#.ac# where he
.laced the rubber sna#e. 0eli.e was already committing a felony. 4nd any act done
by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful' considering that they were
.art of G.lans to get even with CesarG.
0eli.e@s claim that he intended only Gto .lay a .ractical $o#e on CesarG does not
.ersuade' considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting
,ary$ane. This case is .arallel to the case of People vs. P#2a3' et al.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9o' 0eli.e 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. >ecause the act which
caused the death of Cesar is not a crime' no criminal liability may arise therefrom.
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&7)
>elle saw 1aston stealing the .ri/ed coc# of a neighbor and re.orted him to the
.olice. Thereafter' 1aston' while driving a car saw >elle crossing the street.
%ncensed that >elle had re.orted him' 1aston decided to scare her by trying to ma#e
it a..ear that he was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his car and
drove towards her but he a..lied the bra#es. Aince the road was sli..ery at that
time' the vehicle s#idded and hit >elle causing her death. Was gaston criminally
liable! What is the liability of 1aston! Why! (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 1aston is liable for >elle@s death because even though 1aston has no intent to
#ill >elle rather $ust to scare >elle. GTo scareG does not indicate intent to #ill.
However' under 4rt. : of the Revised enal Code' .rovides in .art that criminal
liability shall be incurred by any .erson committing a felony although the wrongful
act done be different from that which he intended. %n other words' the rule is that
5
when a .erson' by a felonious act' generates in the mind of another a sense of
imminent danger' .rom.ting the latter to esca.e from or avoid such danger and in
the .rocess' sustains in$uries or dies' the .erson committing the felonious act is
res.onsible for such in$uries or death. (US vs. /al%e0, 41 Phil, 1491" People vs. !pra,
*1 SC! 1)31.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
+es' 1aston is liable for >elle@s death because by his acts of revving the engine of his
car and driving towards >elle is felonious' and such felonious act was the .ro?imate
cause of the vehicle to s#id and hit >elle' resulting % the latter@s death. Atated
otherwise' the death of >elle was the direct' natural and logical conse"uence of
1aston@s felonious act. (People v. !rpa, *1 SC! 1)31).
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; 2mme"iate Cause
(%&&1)
The conduct of wife 4 aroused the ire of her husband >. %ncensed with anger almost
beyond his control' > could not hel. but inflict .hysical in$uries on 4. ,oments after
> started hitting 4 with his fists' 4 suddenly com.lained of severe chest .ains. >'
reali/ing that 4 was indeed in serious trouble' immediately brought her to the
hos.ital. =es.ite efforts to alleviate 4@s .ains' she died of heart attac#. %t turned out
that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime' if any' could
> be held guilty of! 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
> could be held liable for .arricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows
and therewith inflicting .hysical in$uries on her' is felonious. 4 .erson committing a
felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful conse"uence is different
from what he intended (4rt. :' .ar. 1' Revised enal Code).
4lthough 4 died of heart attac#' the said attac# was generated by >@s felonious act of
hitting her with his fists. Auch felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart
attac#' having materially contributed to and hastened 4@s death. <ven though > may
have acted without intent to #ill his wife' lac# of such intent is of no moment when
the victim dies. However' > may be given the mitigating circumstance of having
acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (4rt. 12' .ar.
2' Revised enal Code).
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(199)
>hey elo.ed with Acott. Whereu.on' >hey@s father' Robin' and brother' Rustom' went
to Acott@s house. 3.on reaching the house' Rustom in"uired from Acott about his
sister@s whereabouts' while Robin shouted and threatened to #ill Acott. The latter
then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Acott@s) waist. ,eanwhile ;live' the elder
sister of Acott' carrying her twoEmonth old child' a..roached Rustom and Acott to
.acify them. ;live attem.ted to remove Rustom@s hand from Acott@s waist. >ut
Rustom .ulled ;live@s hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died
moments later. %s Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act
was the .ro?imate cause of such death. %t was Rustom@s act of .ulling ;live@s hand
which caused the latter to fall on her baby. Had %t not been for said act of Rustom'
which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for ;live
5
to fall over her baby. %n short' Rustom@s felonious act is the cause of the evil caused.
4ny .erson .erforming a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct' natural and
logical conse"uence thereof although different from what he intended (!rt. 4, par.
1, FC" People vs, P#2a3, et al, ( No. 143*4, Nov.18, 1988).
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(199*)
While the crew of a steamer .re.ared to raise anchor at the asig River' 4' evidently
im.atient with the .rogress of wor#' began to use abusive language against the men.
>' one of the members of the crew' remonstrated saying that they could wor# best if
they were not insulted. 4 too# >@s attitude as a dis.lay of insubordination and' rising
in a rage' moved towards > wielding a big #nife and threatening to stab >. 4t the
instant when 4 was only a few feet from >' the latter' a..arently believing himself
to be in great and immediate .eril' threw himself into the water' disa..eared
beneath the surface' and drowned. ,ay 4 be held criminally liable for the death of
>!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. 4 can be held criminally liable for the death of >' 4rticle : of the Revised enal
Code .rovides in .art that criminal liability shall be incurred by any .erson
committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended. %n U.S. vs. /al%e0 41 Phil. 491. where the victim who was threatened by
the accused with a #nife' $um.ed into the river but because of the strong current or
because he did not #now how to swim' he drowned' the Au.reme Court affirmed the
conviction for homicide of the accused because' if a .erson against whom a criminal
assault is directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm and
in order to esca.e $um.s into the water' im.elled by the instinct of selfE
.reservation' the assailant is res.onsible for the homicide in case death results by
drowning.
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(1999)
=uring the robbery in a dwelling house' one of the cul.rits ha..ened to fire his gun
u.ward in the ceiling without meaning to #ill anyone. The owner of the house who
was hiding thereat was hit and #illed as a result. The defense theori/ed that the
#illing was a mere accident and was not .er.etrated in connection with' or for
.ur.oses of' the robbery. Will you sustain the defense! Why! (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' % will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the .ro?imate cause
of the victim@s death' the offender is liable therefore although it may not be
intended or different from what he intended. The offender shall be .rosecuted for
the com.osite crime of robbery with homicide' whether the #illing was intentional
or accidental' as long as the #illing was on occasion of the robbery.
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(%&&1)
Luis Cru/ was dee.ly hurt when his offer of love was re$ected by his girlfriend
,arivella one afternoon when he visited her. When he left her house' he wal#ed as if
he was slee.wal#ing so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell
.hone and flee without being chased by Luis. 4t the ne?t LRT station' he boarded
5
one of the coaches bound for >aclaran. While seated' he ha..ened to read a
news.a.er left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sin#ing of
the Au.er 0erry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing .assengers
who were .resumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather who had
raised him from childhood after he was or.haned. He was shoc#ed and his mind
went blan# for a few minutes' after which he ran amuc# and' using his balisong'
started stabbing at the .assengers who then scam.ered away' with three of them
&um.ing out of the train and landing on the road below. 4ll the three .assengers
died later of their in$uries at the hos.ital. %s Luis liable for the death of the three
.assengers who $um.ed out of the moving train! Atate your reasons. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he
started stabbing at the .assengers and such wrongful act was the .ro?imate cause of
said .assengers@ $um.ing out of the trainB hence their deaths.
3nder 4rticle :' Revised enal Code' any .erson committing a felony shall incur
criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended. %n this case' the death of the three .assengers was the direct' natural and
logical conse"uence of Luis@ felonious act which created an immediate sense of
danger in the minds of said .assengers who tried to avoid or esca.e from it by
$um.ing out of the train. (People vs. !rpa, *1 SC! 1431" U.S. vs. /al%e0, 41 Phil.
491,
Criminal Lia4ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause
(%&&)
;n his way home from office' LL rode in a $ee.ney. Aubse"uently' JJ boarded the
same $ee.ney. 3.on reaching a secluded s.ot in -C' JJ .ulled out a grenade from
his bag and announced a holdEu.. He told LL to surrender his watch' wallet and
cell.hone. 0earing for his life' LL $um.ed out of the vehicle. >ut as he fell' his head
hit the .avement' causing his instant death . %s JJ liable for LL@s death! <?.lain
briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' JJ is liable for LL@s death because his acts of .ulling out a grenade and
announcing a holdEu.' cou.led with a demand for the watch' wallet and cell.hone
of LL is felonious' and such felonious act was the .ro?imate cause of LL@s $um.ing
out of the $ee.ney' resulting in the latter@s death. Atated otherwise' the death of LL
was the direct' natural and logical conse"uence of JJ@s felonious act which created
an immediate sense of danger in the mind of LL who tried to avoid such danger by
$um.ing out of the $ee.ney (People v. !rpa, *1 SC! 1)31).
Criminal Lia4ility; 2mpossi4le Crime (%&&)
;L and +; were both courting their coEem.loyee' A3<. >ecause of their bitter
rivalry' ;L decided to get rid of +; by .oisoning him. ;L .oured a substance into
+;@s coffee thin#ing it was arsenic. %t turned out that the substance was white sugar
substitute #nown as <"ual. 9othing ha..ened to +; after he dran# the coffee. What
criminal liability did ;L incur' if any! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
;L incurred criminal liability for an im.ossible crime of murder. Criminal liability
shall be incurred by any .erson .erforming an act which would be an offense against
.ersons or .ro.erty' were it not for the inherent im.ossibility of its accom.lishment
5
or on account of the em.loyment of inade"uate or ineffectual means (4rt. :' .ar. 2'
R0C).
%n the .roblem given' the im.ossibility of accom.lishing the crime of murder' a
crime against .ersons' was due to the em.loyment of ineffectual means which ;L
thought was .oison. The law im.utes criminal liability to the offender although no
crime resulted' only to su..ress his criminal .ro.ensity because sub$ectively' he is a
criminal though ob$ectively' no crime was committed.
Criminal Lia4ility; 2mpossi4le Crimes (199)
&' 4ries and Randal .lanned to #ill <lsa' a resident of >arangay ula' Laurel'
>atangas. They as#ed the assistance of <lla' who is familiar with the .lace. ;n 4.ril
2' 1882' at about 16F66 in the evening' &' 4ries and Randal' all armed with
automatic wea.ons' went to >arangay ula. <lla' being the guide' directed her
com.anions to the room in the house of <lsa. Whereu.on' &' 4ries and Randal fired
their guns at her room. 0ortunately' <lsa was not around as she attended a .rayer
meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. &' et al' were charged and
convicted of attem.ted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan' >atangas. ;n
a..eal to the Court of 4..eals' all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
error of finding them guilty of attem.ted murder. %f you were the .onente' how will
you decide the a..eal!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%f % were the .onente' % will set aside the $udgment convicting the accused of
attem.ted murder and instead find them guilty of im.ossible crime under 4rt. :'
.ar. 2' RC' in relation to 4rt. )8' RC. Liability for im.ossible crime arises not only
when the im.ossibility is legal' but li#ewise when it is factual or .hysical
im.ossibility' as in the case at bar. <lsa@s absence from the house is a .hysical
im.ossibility which renders the crime intended %nherently inca.able of
accom.lishment. To convict the accused of attem.ted murder would ma#e 4rt. :'
.ar. 2 .ractically useless as all circumstances which .revented the consummation of
the offense will be treated as an incident inde.endent of the actor@s will which is an
element of attem.ted or frustrated felony (-&to% vs. C!, *1' SC! '*).
Criminal Lia4ility5 2mpossi4le Crimes (199-)
>uddy always resented his classmate' &un. ;ne day. >uddy .lanned to #ill &un by
mi?ing .oison in his lunch. 9ot #nowing where he can get .oison' he a..roached
another classmate' &erry to whom he disclosed his evil .lan. >ecause he himself
harbored resentment towards &un' &erry gave >uddy a .oison' which >uddy .laced
on &un@s food. However' &un did not die because' un#nown to both >uddy and &erry'
the .oison was actually .owdered mil#.
1' What crime or crimes' if any' did &erry and >uddy commit! C2*D
2. Au..ose that' because of his severe allergy to .owdered mil#' &un had to be
hos.itali/ed for 16 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first "uestion be
the same! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. &erry and >uddy are liable for the soEcalled Gim.ossible crimeG because' with
intent to #ill' they tried to .oison &un and thus .er.etrate ,urder' a crime against
.ersons. &un was not .oisoned only because the wouldEbe #illers were unaware that
what they mi?ed with the food of &un was .owdered mil#' not .oison. %n short' the
act done with criminal intent by &erry and >uddy' would have constituted a crime
against .ersons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means em.loyed.
5
Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted' because their act
of trying to .oison &un is criminal.
2. 9o' the answer would not be the same as above. &erry and >uddy would be liable
instead for less serious .hysical in$uries for causing the hos.itali/ation and medical
attendance for 16 days to &un. Their act of mi?ing with the food eaten by &un the
matter which re"uired such medical attendance' committed with criminal intent'
renders them liable for the resulting in$ury.
Criminal Lia4ility; 2mpossi4le Crimes; 8i"napping
(%&&&)
Carla' : years old' was #idna..ed by <nri"ue' the tricycle driver .aid by her .arents
to bring and fetch her to and from school. <nri"ue wrote a ransom note demanding
)66'666.66 from Carla@s .arents in e?change for Carla@s freedom. <nri"ue sent the
ransom note by mail. However' before the ransom note was received by Carla@s
.arents' <nri"ue@s hideout was discovered by the .olice. Carla was rescued while
<nri"ue was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not
received by Carla@s .arents' the investigating .rosecutor merely filed a case of
G%m.ossible Crime to Commit Midna..ingG against <nri"ue. %s the .rosecutor correct!
Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the .rosecutor is not correct in filing a case for Gim.ossible crime to commit
#idna..ingG against <nri"ue. %m.ossible crimes are limited only to acts which when
.erformed would be a crime against .ersons or .ro.erty. 4s #idna..ing is a crime
against .ersonal security and not against .ersons or .ro.erty' <nri"ue could not have
incurred an Gim.ossible crimeG to commit #idna..ing. There is thus no im.ossible
crime of #idna..ing.
9ala in Se #s: 9ala Prohi4ita (199*)
=istinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala .rohibita. ,ay an act be
malum in se and be' at the same time' malum .rohibitum!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or cul.a as defined in the
Revised enal Code. Lac# of criminal intent is a valid defense' e?ce.t when the
crime results from criminal negligence. ;n the other hand' crimes mala .rohibita
are those considered wrong only because they are .rohibited by statute. They
constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' an act may be malum in se and malum .rohibitum at the same time. %n People
v. S#&i5o, et a6. (C! ')4( '88)) it was held that the omission or failure of election
ins.ectors and .oll cler#s to include a voter@s name in the registry list of voters is
wrong .er se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. %n this regard it
is considered as malum in se. Aince it is .unished under a s.ecial law (Aec. 161 and
162' Revised <lection Code)' it is considered malum .rohibitum.
9ala in Se #s: 9ala Prohi4ita (1999)
=istinguish G mala in seG from G mala .rohibitaG(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
%n Gmala in seG' the acts constituting the crimes are inherently evil' bad or wrong'
and hence involves the moral traits of the offenderB while in Gmala .rohibitaG' the
acts constituting the crimes are not inherently bad' evil or wrong but .rohibited and
made .unishable only for .ublic good. 4nd because the moral trait of the offender is
%nvolved in Gmala in seG. ,odifying circumstances' the offender@s e?tent of
.artici.ation in the crime' and the degree of accom.lishment of the crime are ta#en
into account in im.osing the .enaltyF these are not so in Gmala .rohibitaG where
criminal liability arises only when the acts are consummated.
9ala in Se #s: 9ala Prohi4ita (%&&1)
>riefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala .rohibita from a crime mala
in se. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n crimes mala .rohibita' the acts are not by nature wrong' evil or bad. They are
.unished only because there is a law .rohibiting them for .ublic good' and thus good
faith or lac# of criminal intent in doing the .rohibited act is not a defense.
%n crimes mala in se' the acts are by nature wrong' evil or bad' and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involvedB thus' good faith or lac# of
criminal %ntent on the .art of the offender is a defense' unless the crime is the
result of criminal negligence. Corres.ondingly' modifying circumstances are
considered in .unishing the offender.
9ala in Se #s: 9ala Prohi4ita (%&&1)
=istinguish' in their res.ective conce.ts and legal im.lications' between crimes
mala in se and crimes mala .rohibits. :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions .enali/ed are
inherently bad' evil' or wrong that they are almost universally condemned. Crimes
mala .rohibita are those where the acts .enali/ed are not inherently bad' evil' or
wrong but .rohibited by law for .ublic good' .ublic welfare or interest and whoever
violates the .rohibition are .enali/ed.
In legal implications:
%n crimes mala in se' good faith or lac# of criminal intentN negligence is a defense'
while in crimes mala .rohibita' good faith or lac# of criminal intent or malice is not
a defenseB it is enough that the .rohibition was voluntarily violated.
4lso' criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime
is only attem.ted or frustrated' while in crimes mala .rohibita' criminal liability is
generally incurred only when the crime is consummated.
4lso in crimes mala in se' mitigating and aggravating circumstances are a..reciated
in im.osing the .enalties' while in crimes mala .rohibita' such circumstances are
not a..reciated unless the s.ecial law has ado.ted the scheme or scale of .enalties
under the Revised enal Code.
9ala Prohi4ita; (ctual 2n;ury 0e<uire" (%&&&)
,r. Carlos 1abisi' a customs guard' and ,r. Rico +to' a .rivate %ndividual' went to
the office of ,r. =iether ;cuarto' a customs bro#er' and re.resented themselves as
agents of ,oonglow Commercial Trading' an %m.orter of children@s clothes and toys.
,r. 1abisi and ,r. +to engaged ,r. ;cuarto to .re.are and file with the >ureau of
5
Customs the necessary %m.ort <ntry and %nternal Revenue =eclaration covering
,oonglow@s shi.ment. ,r. 1abisi and ,r. +to submitted to ,r. ;cuarto a .ac#ing list'
a commercial invoice' a bill of lading and a Aworn %m.ort =uty =eclaration which
declared the shi.ment as children@s toys' the ta?es and duties of which were
com.uted at 56'666.66. ,r. ;cuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the
,anila %nternational Container ort. However' before the shi.ment was released' a
s.ot chec# was conducted by Customs Aenior 4gent &ames >andido' who discovered
that the contents of the van (shi.ment) were not children@s toys as declared in the
shi..ing documents but 1'666 units of video cassette recorders with ta?es and duties
com.uted at 566'666.66. 4 hold order and warrant of sei/ure and detention were
then issued by the =istrict Collector of Customs. 0urther investigation showed that
,oonglow is none?istent.
Conse"uently' ,r. 1abisi and ,r. +to were charged with and convicted for violation
of Aection 2(e) of R.4. 2618 which ma#es it unlawful among others' for .ublic
officers to cause any undue %n$ury to any .arty' including the 1overnment. %n the
discharge of official functions through manifest .artiality' evident bad faith or gross
ine?cusable negligence. %n their motion for reconsideration' the accused alleged that
the decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at
an attem.ted stage' and that in fact the 1overnment did not suffer any undue
in$ury.
a) %s the contention of both accused correct! <?.lain. (2*)
b) 4ssuming that the attem.ted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not
.unishable' may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense .unished by
the Revised enal Code under the facts of the case! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is correct'
R4. 2618 is a s.ecial law .unishing acts mala .rohibita. 4s a rule' attem.ted
violation of a s.ecial law is not .unished. 4ctual in$ury is re"uired. +es' both are
liable for attem.ted estafa thru falsification of commercial documents' a com.le?
crime. ...
9alum in Se #s: 9alum Prohi4itum (%&&7)
=istinguish malum in se from malum .rohibitum. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n crimes malum in se' an act is by nature wrong' evil or bad' and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involvedB thus' good faith or lac# of
criminal %ntent on the .art of the offender is a defense' unless the crime is the
result of criminal negligence. Corres.ondingly' modifying circumstances are
considered in .unishing the offender.
%n crimes mala .rohibitum' an act is not by nature wrong' evil or bad. +et' it is
.unished because there is a law .rohibiting them for .ublic good' and thus good
faith or lac# of criminal intent in doing the .rohibited act is not a defense.
9oti#e #s: 2ntent (1996)
=istinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.
,ay crime be committed without criminal intent!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
,otive is the moving .ower which im.els one to action for a definite resultB whereas
intent is the .ur.ose to use a .articular means to effect such results. ,otive is not
an essential element of a felony and need not be .roved for .ur.ose of conviction'
while intent is an essential element of felonies by dolo.
+es' a crime may be committed without criminal intent if such is a cul.able felony'
wherein %ntent is substituted by negligence or im.rudence' and also in a malum
.rohibitum or if an act is .unishable by s.ecial law.
9oti#e #s: 2ntent (1999)
=istinguish GmotiveG from GintentG.
When is motive relevant to .rove a case! When is it not necessary to be established!
<?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
G,otive G is the moving .ower which im.els a .erson to do an act for a definite
resultB while GintentG is the .ur.ose for using a .articular means to bring about a
desired result. ,otive is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of
intentional crimes. ,otive' if attending a crime' always .recede the intent.
,otive is relevant to .rove 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 .ro.er crime to be im.uted to the offender. %t is not
necessary to .rove motive when the offender is .ositively identified or the criminal
act did not give rise to variant crimes.
9oti#e #s: 2ntent (%&&)
=istinguish clearly but briefly between intent and motive in the commission of an
offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%ntent is the .ur.ose for using a .articular means to achieve the desired resultB
while motive is the moving .ower which im.els a .erson to act for a definite result.
%ntent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate feloniesB
while motive is not an element of a crime but only considered when the identity of
the offender is in doubt.
9oti#e; Proof thereof; =ot +ssential; Con#iction
(%&&6)
,otive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and the
liabilities of the .er.etrators. What are the instances where .roof of motive is not
essential or re"uired to $ustify conviction of an accused! 1ive at least 2 instances.
()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When there is an eyewitness or .ositive identification of the accused. When the
accused admitted or confessed to the commission of the crime. %n crimes mala
prohi7ita. %n direct assault' when the victim' who is a .erson in authority or agent of
a .erson in authority was attac#ed in the actual .erformance of his duty (4rt. 1:7'
Revised enal Code). %n crimes committed through rec#less im.rudence.
5
%USTI$YING & EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
+/empting Circumstances; Co#erage (%&&&)
4' brother of >' with the intention of having a night out with his friends' too# the
coconut shell which is being used by > as a ban# for coins from inside their loc#ed
cabinet using their common #ey. 0orthwith' 4 bro#e the coconut shell outside of
their home in the .resence of his friends.
What is the criminal liability of 4' if any! <?.lain. (2*)
%s 4 e?em.ted from criminal liability under 4rticle 222 of the Revised enal Code for
being a brother of >! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 4 is criminally liable for Robbery with force u.on things.....
b) 9o' 4 is not e?em.t from criminal liability under 4rt. 222 because said 4rticle
a..lies only to theft' swindling or malicious mischief. Here' the crime committed is
robbery.
+/empting Circumstances; 9inority (199-)
&ohn' an eightEyear old boy' is fond of watching the television .rogram GLeo
Rangers.G ;ne evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show'
etra' a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch GHome 4long the Riles.G
This enraged &ohn who got his father@s revolver' and without warning' shot etra at
the bac# of her head causing her instantaneous death. %s &ohn criminally liable! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' &ohn is not criminally liable for #illing etra because he is only 7 years old when
he committed the #illing. 4 minor below nine (8) years old is absolutely e?em.t from
criminal liability although not from civil liability. (4rt. 12' .ar. 2' RC).
+/empting; 9inority; 11 yrs >l"; (4sence of
6iscernment (%&&&)
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic'
om.ing re.eatedly .ulled the .onytail of Matreena' his 11 years' 2 months and 12
days old classmate in 1rade ) at the Aam.aloc <lementary Achool. %rritated'
Matreena turned around and swung at om.ing with a ball .en. The to. of the ball
.en hit the right eye of om.ing which bled .rofusely. Reali/ing what she had
caused. Matreena immediately hel.ed om.ing. When investigated' she freely
admitted to the school .rinci.al that she was res.onsible for the in$ury to om.ing@s
eye. 4fter the incident' she e?ecuted a statement admitting her cul.ability. =ue to
the in$ury. om.ing lost his right eye.
a) %s Matreena criminally liable! Why! (2*)
b) =iscuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 9o' Matreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. >eing a minor
less than fifteen (1)) years old although over nine (8) years of age' she is generally
e?em.t from criminal liability. The e?ce.tion is where the .rosecution .roved that
the act was committed with discernment. The burden is u.on the .rosecution to
.rove that the accused acted with discernment. The .resum.tion is that such minor
acted without discernment' and this is strengthened by the fact that Matreena only
5
reacted with a ball.en which she must be using in class at the time' and only to sto.
om.ing@s ve?atious act of re.eatedly .ulling her .onytail. %n other words' the in$ury
was accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered areF ,inority of the
accused as an e?em.ting circumstance under 4rticle 12. .aragra.h 2' Rev. enal
Code' where she shall be e?em.t from criminal liability' unless it was .roved that
she acted with discernment. She is howeve civill! lia"leB
%f found criminally liable' the minority of the accused as a .rivileged mitigating
circumstance. 4 discretionary .enalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that
.rescribed for the crime committed shall be im.osed in accordance with 4rticle 57.
.aragra.h 1' Rev. enal Code. The sentence' however' should automatically be
sus.ended in accordance with Aection )(a) of Re.. 4ct 9o. 7258 otherwise #nown as
the G0amily Courts 4ct of 188OGB 4lso if found criminally liable' the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of not %ntending to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed' under 4rticle 12' .aragra.h 2' Rev. enal CodeB and The ordinary
mitigating circumstance of sufficient .rovocation on the .art of the offended .arty
immediately .receded the act.
!ustifying #s: +/empting Circumstances (%&&)
=istinguish clearly but brieflyF >etween $ustifying and e?em.ting circumstances in
criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
&ustifying circumstance affects the act' not the actorB while e?em.ting
circumstance affects the actor' not the act. %n $ustifying circumstance' no criminal
and' generally' no civil liability is incurredB while in e?em.ting circumstance' civil
liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability. &ustifying vs.
<?em.ting Circumstances (1887) =istinguish between $ustifying and e?em.ting
circumstances. C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. %n #$sti%!ing &ic$mstancesF
The circumstance affects the act' not the actorB The act is done within legal bounds'
hence considered as not a crimeB Aince the act is not a crime' there is no criminalB
There being no crime nor criminal' there is no criminal nor civil liability. Whereas' in
an E'empting &ic$mstancesF
The circumstance affects the actor' not the actB The act is felonious and hence a
crime but the actor acted without voluntarinessB 4lthough there is a crime' there is
no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crimeB There
being a wrong done but no criminal.
!ustifying; 6efense of ?onor; 0e<uisites (%&&%)
When 4 arrived home' he found > ra.ing his daughter. 3.on seeing 4' > ran away. 4
too# his gun and shot >' #illing him. Charged with homicide' 4 claimed he acted in
defense of his daughter@s honor. %s 4 correct! %f not' can 4 claim the benefit of any
mitigating circumstance or circumstances! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 4 cannot validly invo#e defense of his daughter@s honor in having #illed > since
the ra.e was already consummatedB moreover' > already ran away' hence' there was
no aggression to defend against and no defense to s.ea# of. 4 may' however' invo#e
5
the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication
of a grave offense to a descendant' his daughter' under .ar. )' 4rticle 12 of the
Revised enal Code' as amended.
!ustifying; 6efense of Stranger (%&&%)
4 chanced u.on three men who were attac#ing > with fist blows. C' one of the men'
was about to stab > with a #nife. 9ot #nowing that > was actually the aggressor
because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight' 4 shot C as the latter
was about to stab >. ,ay 4 invo#e the defense of a stranger as a $ustifying
circumstance in his favor! Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. 4 may invo#e the $ustifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was
not involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab >. There
being no indication that 4 was induced by revenge' resentment or any other evil
motive in shooting C' his act is $ustified under .ar 2' 4rticle 11 of the Revised enal
Code' as amended.
!ustifying; .ul@llment of 6uty; 0e<uisites (%&&&)
Lucresia' a store owner' was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day'
at about ) o@cloc# in the afternoon' a neighbor' 22Eyear old &unE&un' who had an
unsavory re.utation' came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
bracelet wound around the right arm of &unE&un. 4s soon as the latter left' Lucresia
went to a nearby .olice station and sought the hel. of a .oliceman on duty' at.
Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of &unE&un to confront the latter.
at. Reyes introduced himself as a .oliceman and tried to get hold of &unE&un who
resisted and ran away. at. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air.
&unE&un continued to run and when he was about O meters away' at' Reyes shot him
in the right leg. &unE&un was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence'
intending to .ass through an o.ening underneath. When at. Reyes was about )
meters away' he fired another shot at &unE&un hitting him at the right lower hi..
at. Reyes brought &unE&un to the hos.ital' but because of .rofuse bleeding' he
eventually died. at Reyes was subse"uently charged with homicide. =uring the trial'
at Reyes raised the defense' by way of e?oneration' that he acted in the fulfillment
of a duty. %s the defense tenable! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the defense of at. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the
fulfillment of a duty re"uires as a condition' inter alia' that the in$ury or offense
committed be the unavoidable or necessary conse"uence of the due .erformance of
the duty (People vs. 4a&is, et.al., 14 Phil. *'1). %t is not enough that the accused
acted in fulfillment of a duty. 4fter &unE&un was shot in the right leg and was already
crawling' there was no need for at' Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly' at. Reyes
acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the cause of death of the victim.
!ustifying; S6; 6efense of ?onor; 0e<uisites (199-)
;ne night' 3na' a young married woman' was sound aslee. in her bedroom when she
felt a man on to. of her. Thin#ing it was her husband Tito' who came home a day
early from his business tri.' 3na let him have se? with her. 4fter the act' the man
said' G% ho.e you en$oyed it as much as % did.G 9ot recogni/ing the voice' it dawned
u.on Lina that the man was not Tito' her husband. 0urious' 3na too# out Tito@s gun
5
and shot the man. Charged with homicide 3na denies cul.ability on the ground of
defense of honor. %s her claim tenable! C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 3na@s claim that she acted in defense of honor' is not tenable because the
unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. =efense of honor as included
in selfEdefense' must have been done to .revent or re.el an unlawful aggression.
There is no defense to s.ea# of where the unlawful aggression no longer e?ists.
!ustifying; 6efense of ?onor; +lements (%&&&)
;sang' a married woman in her early twenties' was slee.ing on a banig on the floor
of their ni.a hut beside the seashore when she was awa#ened by the act of a man
mounting her. Thin#ing that it was her husband' 1ardo'who had returned from
fishing in the sea' ;sang continued her slee. but allowed the man' who was actually
their neighbor' &ulio' to have se?ual intercourse with her. 4fter &ulio satisfied
himself' he said GAalamat ;sangG as he turned to leave. ;nly then did ;sang reali/e
that the man was not her husband.
<nraged' ;sang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed &ulio to death. When
tried for homicide' ;sang claimed defense of honor. Ahould the claim be sustained!
Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' ;sangGs claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the
aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. %n defense of
rights under .aragra.h 1' 4rt. 11 of the RC' %t is re"uired inter alia that there be
(1) unlawful aggression' and (2) reasonable necessity of the means em.loyed to
.revent or re.el it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor
was in$ured or disabled by the .erson ma#ing a defense.
>ut if the aggression that was begun by the in$ured or disabled .arty already ceased
to e?ist when the accused attac#ed him' as in the case at bar' the attac# made is a
retaliation' and not a defense. aragra.h 1' 4rticle 11 of the Code does not govern.
Hence' ;sang@s act of stabbing &ulio to death after the se?ual intercourse was
finished' is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense
committed against her' which is only mitigating.
!ustifying; S6; 6efense of Property; 0e<uisites
(1996)
4 security guard' u.on seeing a man scale the wall of a factory com.ound which he
was guarding' shot and #illed the latter. 3.on investigation by the .olice who
thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting' it was discovered that the victim
was unarmed. When .rosecuted for homicide' the security guard claimed that he
merely acted in selfEdefense of .ro.erty and in the .erformance of his duty as a
security guard. %f you were the $udge' would you convict him of homicide! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. % would convict the security guard for Homicide if % were the &udge' because his
claim of having acted in defense of .ro.erty and in .erformance of a duty cannot
fully be $ustified. <ven assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory
com.ound to commit a crime inside the same' shooting him is never $ustifiable' even
5
admitting that such act is considered unlawful aggression on .ro.erty rights. %n
People vs. Narvaes, 1*1 SC! 3*9' a .erson is $ustified to defend his .ro.erty rights'
but all the elements of selfdefense under 4rt. 11' must be .resent. %n the instant
case' $ust li#e in 9arvaes' the second element (reasonable necessity of the means
em.loyed) is absent. Hence' he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to
incom.lete selfEdefense.
!ustifying; S6; 6efense of Property; 0e<uisites
(%&&1)
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of
fre"uent robberies. 4t one time' .ast midnight' the accused went downstairs with a
loaded gun to investigate what he thought were footste.s of an uninvited guest.
4fter seeing what a..eared to him an armed stranger loo#ing around and out to rob
the house' he fired his gun seriously in$uring the man. When the lights were turned
on' the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brotherEinElaw on his way to the
#itchen to get some light snac#s. The accused was indicted for serious .hysical
in$uries. Ahould the accused' given the circumstances' be convicted or ac"uitted!
Why! :*
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
.erson is not $ustified. =efense of .ro.erty or .ro.erty right does not $ustify the act
of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in
imminent and immediate danger. 4lthough the accused acted out of a
misa..rehension of the facts' he is not absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances' namelyB the fre"uent robberies in the
neighborhood' the time was .ast midnight' and the victim a..eared to be an armed
burglar in the dar# and inside his house' the accused could have entertained an
honest belief that his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate
and imminent danger. Hence' it may be reasonable to acce.t that he acted out of an
honest mista#e of fact and therefore without criminal intent. 4n honest mista#e of
fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.
Aualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1)
When would "ualifying circumstances be deemed' if at all' elements of a crime! :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 "ualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when E
it changes the nature of the crime' bringing about a more serious crime and a
heavier .enaltyB
it is essential to the crime involved' otherwise some other crime is committedB and
it is s.ecifically alleged in the %nformation and .roven during the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4 "ualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is s.ecifically
stated by law as included in the definition of a crime' li#e treachery in the crime of
murder.
5
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
9itigating; =on,2nto/ication (%&&&)
=es.ite the massive advertising cam.aign in media against firecrac#ers and gunE
firing during the 9ew +ear@s celebrations' &onas and &a$a bought ten bo?es of su.er
lolo and .laE.la in >ocaue' >ulacan. >efore midnight of =ecember 21' 1888' &onas
and &a$a started their celebration by having a drin#ing s.ree at &ona@s .lace by
e?.loding their highE.owered firecrac#ers in their neighborhood. %n the course of
their conversation' &onas confided to &a$a that he has been #ee.ing a longEtime
grudge against his neighbor &e.oy in view of the latter@s refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of li"uor' &onas started throwing lighted su.er
lolos inside &e.oy@s fence to irritate him and the same e?.loded inside the latter@s
yard. 3.on #nowing that the throwing of the su.er lolo was deliberate' &e.oy
became furious and sternly warned &onas to sto. his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. 4 heated argument between &onas and &e.oy ensued but &a$a tried
to calm down his friend. 4t midnight' &onas convinced &a$a to lend him his .:)
caliber .istol so that he could use it to #noc# down &e.oy and to end his arrogance.
&onas thought that after all' e?.losions were everywhere and nobody would #now
who shot &e.oy. 4fter &a$a lent his firearm to &onas' the latter again started started
throwing lighted su.er lolos and .laE.las at &e.oy@s yard in order to .rovo#e him so
that he would come out of his house. When &e.oy came out' &onas immediately shot
him with &a$a@s .:) caliber gun but missed his target. %nstead' the bullet hit &e.oy@s
five year old son who was following behind him' #illing the boy instantaneously'
a) What crime or crimes can &onas and &a$a be charged with! <?.lain. (2*)
b) %f you were &onas@ and &a$a@s lawyer' what .ossible defenses would you set u. in
favor of your clients! <?.lain. (2*)
c) %f you were the &udge' how would you decide the case! <?.lain. (1*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) &onas and &a$a' can be charged with the com.le? crime of attem.ted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (4rt. :7.
RC)....
b) %f % were &onas@ and &a$a@s lawyer' % will use the following defensesF That the
accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they
merely intended to frighten &e.oyB That &onas committed the crime in a state of
into?ication thereby im.airing his will .ower or ca.acity to understand the
wrongfulness of his act. 9onEintentional into?ication is a mitigating circumstance
(People#s. Forti5h, *81 SC! 6)) (1991)" !rt. 1', PC.).
9itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)
4n accused charged with the crime of homicide .leaded Gnot guiltyG during the
.reliminary investigation before the ,unici.al Court. 3.on the elevation of the case
to the Regional Trial Court the Court of com.etent $urisdiction' he .leaded guilty
freely and voluntarily u.on arraignment. Can his .lea of guilty before the RTC be
considered s.ontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of
s.ontaneous .lea of guilty under 4rt. 12(O)' RC! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' his .lea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered s.ontaneous'
for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of .lea of guilty. His .lea of
not guilty before the ,unici.al Court is immaterial as it was made during .reliminary
investigation only and before a court not com.etent to render $udgment.
5
9itigating; Plea of Guilty; 0e<uisites (1999)
%n order that the .lea of guilty may be mitigating' what re"uisites must be com.lied
with! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
0or .lea of guilty to be mitigating' the re"uisites areF That the accused
s.ontaneously .leaded guilty to the crime chargedB
That such .lea was made before the court com.etent to try the case and render
$udgmentB and That such .lea was made .rior to the .resentation of evidence for
the .rosecution.
9itigating; Plea of Guilty; $oluntary Surren"er
(199*)
4fter #illing the victim' the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the .olice
until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged
with murder' he .leaded not guilty but' after the .rosecution had .resented two
witnesses im.licating him to the crime' he changed his .lea to that of guilty. Ahould
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and .lea of guilty be considered
in favor of the accused!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Koluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. 4fter two
years' the .olice were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the
latter could have continued to elude arrest. 4ccordingly' the surrender of the
accused should be considered mitigating because it was done s.ontaneously'
indicative of the remorse or re.entance on the .art of said accused and therefore'
by his surrender' the accused saved the 1overnment e?.enses' efforts' and time.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Koluntary surrender may not be a..reciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too
long a time to consider the surrender as s.ontaneous (People #s. !7lao, 183 SC!
6'8). 0or sure the government had already incurred considerable efforts and
e?.enses in loo#ing for the accused.
lea of guilty can no longer be a..reciated as a mitigating circumstance because the
.rosecution had already started with the .resentation of its evidence (4rt. 12' .ar.
O. Revised enal Code).
9itigating; $oluntary Surren"er (1996)
Hilario' u.on seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene' stabbed and #illed the
latter. 4fter the stabbing' he brought his son home. The Chief of olice of the town'
accom.anied by several .olicemen' went to Hilario@s house' Hilario' u.on seeing the
a..roaching .olicemen' came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily
went with them to the olice Atation to be investigated in connection with the
#illing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide' Hilario' on a..eal'
faulted the trial court for not a..reciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance
of voluntary surrender. %s he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
cru? of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident' but
came down and met the .olice officers and went with them is considered GKoluntary
5
surrender'G The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is s.ontaneous
showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the
authorities. This must be either
(a) because he ac#nowledges his guilt' or
(b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and e?.enses necessarily incurred in
his search and ca.ture. (e3es8 Comme&taries, p. 3)3). Thus' the act of the accused
in hiding after commission of the crime' but voluntarily went with the .olicemen
who had gone to his hiding .lace to investigate' was held to be mitigating
circumstance.(People vs. 9a3rit, 5ite% i& e3es8 Comme&taries, p. *99)
9itigating; $oluntary Surren"er; +lements (1999)
When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary' and constitutive of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is s.ontaneous' indicative
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating' the
surrender must beF s.ontaneous' i.e.' indicative of ac#nowledgment of guilt and not
for convenience nor conditionalB made before the government incurs e?.enses' time
and effort in trac#ing down the offender@s whereaboutsB and made to a .erson in
authority or the latter@s agents.
AGGRA'ATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(ggra#ating Circumstances (1996)
&ose' =omingo' ,anolo' and 0ernando' armed with bolos' at about one o@cloc# in the
morning' robbed a house at a desolate .lace where =anilo' his wife' and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the .rocess of ransac#ing =anilo@s
house' 0ernando' noticing that one of =anilo@s daughters was trying to get away' ran
after her and finally caught u. with her in a thic#et somewhat distant from the
house.
0ernando' before bringing bac# the daughter to the house' ra.ed her first.
Thereafter' the four carted away the belongings of =anilo and his family. What crime
did &ose' =omingo' ,anolo and 0ernando commit! <?.lain.
Au..ose' after the robbery' the four too# turns in ra.ing the three daughters of
=anilo inside the latter@s house' but before they left' they #illed the whole family to
.revent identification' what crime did the four commit! <?.lain.
3nder the facts of the case' what aggravating circumstances may be a..reciated
against the four! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) &ose' =omingo' and ,anolo committed Robbery' while 0ernando committed
com.le? crime of Robbery with Ra.e...
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the #illings were by reason
(to .revent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multi.le ra.es
committed and the fact that several .ersons were #illed Chomicide)' would be
considered as aggravating circumstances. The ra.es are synonymous with %gnominy
5
and the additional #illing synonymous with cruelty' (People vs. Solis, 18* SC!"
People vs. Pla2a, *)* SC! '31)
c) The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the .remises areF
>and because all the four offenders are armedB 9octumity because evidently the
offenders too# advantage of nighttimeB dwellingB and 3ninhabited .lace because the
house where the crimes were committed was Gat a desolate .laceG and obviously the
offenders too# advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.
(ggra#ating Circumstances; Generis #s: Aualifying
(1999)
=istinguish generic aggravating circumstance from "ualifying aggravating
circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Geneic Aggavating &ic$mstancesF
affects only the im.osition of the .enalty .rescribed' but not the nature of the
crime committedB can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstancesB need not be
alleged in the %nformation as long as .roven during the trial' the same shall be
considered in im.osing the sentence.
($ali%!ing Aggavating &ic$mstances:
must be alleged in the %nformation and .roven during trialB cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstancesB affects the nature of the crime or brings about a .enalty
higher in degree than that ordinarily .rescribed.
(ggra#ating Circumstances; 8in"s B Penalties
(1999)
9ame the four (:) #inds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the
.enalty of crimes and nature thereof.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The four (:) #inds of aggravating circumstances areF
1) 1<9<R%C 411R4K4T%91 or those that can generally a..ly to all crimes' and can be
offset by mitigating circumstances' but if not offset' would affect only the ma?imum
of the .enalty .rescribed by lawB
2) A<C%0%C 411R4K4T%91 or those that a..ly only to .articular crimes and cannot be
offset by mitigating circumstancesF
2) -34L%0+%91 C%RC3,AT49C<A or those that change the nature of the crime to a
graver one' or brings about a .enalty ne?t higher in degree' and cannot be offset by
mitigating circumstancesB
:) %9H<R<9T 411R4K4T%91 or those that essentially accom.any the commission of
the crime and does not affect the .enalty whatsoever.
(ggra#ating; Cruelty; 0elationship (199)
>en' a widower' driven by bestial desire' .o#ed a gun on his daughter Leny' forcibly
undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted
cigarrete. Li#e a madman' he laughed while ra.ing her. What aggravating
circumstances are .resent in this case!
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty' for burning the victim@s face with a lighted cigarrete' thereby
deliberately augmenting the victim@s suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the
ra.e' while the offender delighted and en$oyed seeing the victim suffer in .ain
(People vs. 6#5as, 181 SC! 316).b) Relationshi.' because the offended .arty is a
descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one against
chastity.
(ggra#ating; 9ust 4e allege" in the information
(%&&&)
Rico' a member of the 4l.ha Rho fraternity' was #illed by ocholo' a member of the
rival grou.' Aigma hi ;mega. ocholo was .rosecuted for homicide before the
Regional Trial Court in >inan' Laguna. =uring the trial' the .rosecution was able to
.rove that the #illing was committed by means of .oison in consideration of a
.romise or reward and with cruelty. %f you were the &udge' with what crime will you
convict ocholo! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating
circumstances which should "ualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the
%nformation. The circumstances of using .oison' in consideration of a .romise or
reward' and cruelty which attended the #illing of Rico could only be a..reciated as
generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the
information to "ualify the #illing to murder. 4 "ualifying circumstance must be
alleged in the %nformation and .roven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be
a..reciated as such.
(ggra#ating; =ighttime; Can" (199)
4t about 8F26 in the evening' while =ino and Raffy were wal#ing along adre 0aura
Atreet' ,anila. &ohnny hit them with a roc# in$uring =ino at the bac#. Raffy
a..roached =ino' but suddenly' >obby' Ateve' =anny and 9onoy surrounded the duo.
Then >obby stabbed =ino. Ateve' =anny' 9onoy and &ohnny #e.t on hitting =ino and
Raffy with roc#s. 4s a result. =ino died' >obby' Ateve' =anny' 9onoy and &ohnny
were charged with homicide. Can the court a..reciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' nighttime cannot be a..reciated as an aggravating circumstance because there
is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of dar#ness to
facilitate the commission of the crime or that they too# advantage of nighttime
(People vs. 9e los e3es, *)3 SC! 1)1). >esides' $udicial notice can be ta#en of the
fact that adre 0aura Atreet is wellElighted. However' band should be considered as
the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactorsB in
a recent Au.reme Court decision' stones or roc#s are considered deadly wea.ons.
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)
&uan de Castro already had three (2) .revious convictions by final $udgment for theft
when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. %n the last case' the trial &udge
considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delin"uency. The
accused a..ealed and contended that in his last conviction' the trial court cannot
consider against him a finding of recidivism and' again' of habitual delin"uency. %s
the a..eal meritorious! <?.lain. ()*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the a..eal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delin"uency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of
habitual delin"uency. &uan is a recidivist because he had been .reviously convicted
by final $udgment for theft and again found
guilty for Robbery with Homicide' which are both crimes against .ro.erty' embraced
under the same Title (Title Ten' >oo# TwoD of the Revised enal Code. The
im.lication is that he is s.eciali/ing in the commission of crimes against .ro.erty'
hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual
delin"uency' which brings about an additional .enalty when an offender is convicted
a third time or more for s.ecified crimes' is correctly considered ...
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism #s: Auasi,0eci"i#ism
(199-)
=istinguish between recidivism and "uasiErecidivism. C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n eci)ivism E The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same
Title of the Revised enal CodeB and This circumstance is generic aggravating and
therefore can be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in *$asi+eci)ivlsm E The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the
same Title of the Revised enal Code' .rovided that it is a felony that was
committed by the offender before serving sentence by final $udgment for another
crime or while serving sentence for another crimeB and This circumstance is a s.ecial
aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
(ggra#ating; Treachery B 'nlawful +ntry (199*)
The accused and the victim occu.ied ad$acent a.artments' each being a se.arate
dwelling unit of one big house. The accused sus.ected his wife of having an illicit
relation with the victim. ;ne afternoon' he saw the victim and his wife together on
board a vehicle. %n the evening of that day' the accused went to bed early and tried
to slee.' but being so annoyed over the sus.ected relation between his wife and the
victim' he could not slee.. Later in the night' he resolved to #ill victim. He rose
from bed and too# hold of a #nife.
He entered the a.artment of the victim through an unloc#ed window. %nside' he saw
the victim soundly aslee.. He thereu.on stabbed the victim' inflicting several
wounds' which caused his death within a few hours.
Would you say that the #illing was attended by the "ualifying or aggravating
circumstances of evident .remeditation' treachery' nighttime and unlawful entry!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. <vident .remeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he
resolved to #ill the victim Glater in the nightG and there was no sufficient la.se of
time between the determination and e?ecution' to allow his conscience to overcome
the resolution of his will.
2. TR<4CH<R+ may be .resent because the accused stabbed the victim while the
latter was sound aslee.. 4ccordingly' he em.loyed means and methods which
directly and s.ecially insured the e?ecution of the act without ris# himself arising
from the defense which the victim might have made (People vs. 9e:#i&a. 6) Phil.
*19 People vs. $ira&%a, et at. 9) Phil. 91).
5
2. 9ighttime cannot be a..reciated because there is no showing that the accused
deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The
%ntention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People
vs Par%o. 19 Phil, '68). ,oreover' nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
:. 39L4W03L <9TR+ may be a..reciated as an aggravating circumstance' inasmuch
as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window' which is not the
.ro.er .lace for entrance into the house (!rt. 14. par. 18. evise% Pe&al Co%e,
People vs. ;ar#2a 61 Phil. 318).
ALTERNATI'E CIRCUMSTANCES
(lternati#e Circumstances; 2nto/ication (%&&%)
4 was invited to a drin#ing s.ree by friends. 4fter having had a drin# too many' 4 and
> had a heated argument' during which 4 stabbed >. 4s a result' > suffered serious
.hysical in$uries. ,ay the into?ication of 4 be considered aggravating or mitigating!
()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The into?ication of 4 may be .rima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. %t 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 .art of 4. 4ggravating circumstances are not to be .resumedB they
should be .roved beyond reasonable doubt.
PERSONS C()*)n+,,- L)+.,! /o( $ELONIES
(nti,.encing Law; .encing (1996)
0lora' who was engaged in the .urchase and sale of $ewelry' was .rosecuted for the
violation of .=. 1512' otherwise #nown as the 4ntiE0encing Law' for having been
found to be in .ossession of recently stolen &ewelry valued at 166'666.66 at her
$ewelry sho. at La.ote Criminal Law >ar <?amination - I 4 (188:E2665)
Road' Las inas' ,etro ,anila. Ahe testified during the trial that she merely bought
the same from one named Cecilino and even .roduced a recei.t covering the sale.
Cecilino' in the .ast' used to deliver to her $ewelries for sale but is .resently
nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the 4ntiE0encing
Law' she argued (or her ac"uittal on a..eal' contending that the .rosecution failed
to .rove that she #new or should have #nown that the &ewelries recovered from her
were the .roceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 0lora@s defense is not wellEta#en because mere .ossession of any article of value
which has been the sub$ect of theft or robbery shall be .rima facie evidence of
fencing (.=.9o. 1512). The burden is u.on the accused to .rove that she ac"uired
the $ewelry legitimately. Her defense of having bought the &ewelry from someone
whose whereabouts is un#nown' does not overcome the .resum.tion of fencing
against her (Pami&t#a& vs People, (. 1114*6, 11 +#l3 1994). >uying .ersonal
.ro.erty .uts the buyer on caveat because of the .hrases that he should have #nown
or ought to #now that it is the .roceed from robbery or theft. >esides' she should
have followed the administrative .rocedure under the decree that of getting a
5
clearance from the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to esca.e
liability.
(nti,.encing Law; .encing #s: Theft or 0o44ery
(1997)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery!
<?.lain. %s there any similarity between them!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
;ne difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the .enalty
involvedB a fence is .unished as a .rinci.al under .=. 9o. 1512 and the .enalty is
higher' whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised enal Code is
.unished two degrees lower than the .rinci.al' unless he bought or .rofited from
the .roceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in hili..ine highways under
.=. 9o. )22 where he is .unished as an accom.lice' hence the .enalty is one degree
lower.
4lso' fencing is a malum .rohibitum and therefore there is no need to .rove criminal
intent of the accusedB this is not so in violations of Revised enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 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. %n fact'
the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be .rosecuted as such under
the Revised enal Code or as a fence under .=. 9o. 1512. (9i0o&< Pami&t#a& vs.
People, *34 SC! 63=
(nti,.encing Law; .encing; +lements (1997)
What are the elements of fencing!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The elements of fencing areF a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committedB
accused' who is not a .rinci.al or accom.lice in the crime' buys' receives'
.ossesses' #ee.s' ac"uires' conceals' or dis.oses' or buys and sells' or in any manner
deals in any article' item ' ob$ect or anything of value' which has been derived from
the .roceeds of said crimeB the accused #nows or should have #nown that said
article' item' ob$ect or anything of value has been derived from the from the
.roceeds of the crime of robbery or theftB and there is on the .art of the accused'
intent to gain for himself or for another.
Criminal Lia4ility; (ccessories B .ence (199-)
Ming went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drin# and after
consuming three bottles of beer. Ming made advances to her and with force and
violence' ravished her. Then Ming #illed Laura and too# her $ewelry. =oming' Ming@s
ado.ted brother' learned about the incident. He went to Laura@s house' hid her body'
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later' Ming gave &ose' his legitimate brother' one .iece of $ewelry belonging to
Laura. &ose #new that the $ewelry was ta#en from Laura but nonetheless he sold it
for 2'666. What crime or crimes did Ming' =oming and &ose commit! =iscuss their
criminal liabilities. C16*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ming committed the com.osite crime of Ra.e with homicide as a single indivisible
offense' not a com.le? crime' and Theft.
5
=oming@s acts' having been done with #nowledge of the commission of the crime and
obviously to conceal the body of the crime to .revent its discovery' ma#es him an
accessory to the crime of ra.e with homicide under 4rt. 18' .ar. 2 of the Rev. enal
Code' but he is e?em.t from criminal liability therefor under 4rticle 26 of the Code'
being an ado.ted brother of the .rinci.al. &ose incurs criminal liability either as an
accessory to the crime of theft committed by Ming' or as fence. 4lthough he is a
legitimate brother of Ming' the e?em.tion under 4rticle 26 does not include the
.artici.ation he did' because he .rofited from the effects of such theft by selling
the $ewelry #nowing that the same was ta#en from Laura. ;r &ose may be
.rosecuted for fencing under the 4ntiE0encing Law of 18O8 (= 9o. 1512) since the
$ewelry was the .roceeds of theft and with intent to gain' he received it from Ming
and sold it.
Criminal Lia4ility; =on,+/emption as (ccessory
(%&&)
=C>' the daughter of ,C>' stole the earrings of J+L' a stranger. ,C> .awned the
earrings with T>% awnsho. as a .ledge for )66 loan. =uring the trial' ,C> raised
the defense that being the mother of =C>' she cannot be held liable as an accessory.
Will ,C>@s defense .ros.er! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' ,C>@s defense will not .ros.er because the e?em.tion from criminal liability of
an accessory by virtue of relationshi. with the .rinci.al does not cover accessories
who themselves .rofited from or assisted the offender to .rofit by the effects or
.roceeds of the crime. This nonEe?em.tion of an accessory' though related to the
.rinci.al of the crime' is e?.ressly .rovided in 4rt. 26 of the Revised enal Code.
Criminal Lia4ility; Principal 4y 6irect Participation;
Co,Principal 4y 2n"ispensa4le Cooperation (%&&&)
=es.ite the massive advertising cam.aign in media against firecrac#ers and gunE
firing during the 9ew +ear@s celebrations' &onas and &a$a bought ten bo?es of su.er
lolo and .laE.la in >ocaue' >ulacan. >efore midnight of =ecember 21' 1888' &onas
and &a$a started their celebration by having a drin#ing s.ree at &ona@s .lace by
e?.loding their highE.owered firecrac#ers in their neighborhood. %n the course of
their conversation' &onas confided to &a$a that he has been #ee.ing a longEtime
grudge against his neighbor &e.oy in view of the latter@s refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of li"uor' &onas started throwing lighted su.er
lolos inside &e.oy@s fence to irritate him and the same e?.loded inside the latter@s
yard. 3.on #nowing that the throwing of the su.er lolo was deliberate' &e.oy
became furious and sternly warned &onas to sto. his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. 4 heated argument between &onas and &e.oy ensued but &a$a tried
to calm down his friend. 4t midnight' &onas convinced &a$a to lend him his .:)
caliber .istol so that he could use it to #noc# down &e.oy and to end his arrogance.
&onas thought that after all' e?.losions were everywhere and nobody would #now
who shot &e.oy. 4fter &a$a lent his firearm to &onas' the latter again started started
throwing lighted su.er lolos and .laE.las at &e.oy@s yard in order to .rovo#e him so
that he would come out of his house. When &e.oy came out' &onas immediately shot
him with &a$a@s .:) caliber gun but missed his target. %nstead' the bullet hit &e.oy@s
five year old son who was following behind him' #illing the boy instantaneously' %f
you were the &udge' how would you decide the case! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
% would convict &onas as .rinci.al by direct .artici.ation and &a$a as coE.rinci.al by
%ndis.ensable coo.eration for the com.le? crime of murder with homicide. &a$a
should be held liable as coE.rinci.al and not only as an accom.lice because he #new
of &onas@ criminal design even before he lent his firearm to &onas and still he
concurred in that criminal design by .roviding the firearm.
Criminal Lia4ility; Principal 4y 2n"ucement (%&&%)
4 as#ed > to #ill C because of a grave in$ustice done to 4 by C. 4 .romised > a
reward. > was willing to #ill C' not so much because of the reward .romised to him
but because he also had his own longEstanding grudge against C' who had wronged
him in the .ast. %f C is #illed by >' would 4 be liable as a .rinci.al by inducement!
()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 4 would not be liable as a .rinci.al by inducement because the reward he
.romised > is not the sole im.elling reason which made > to #ill C. To bring about
criminal liability of a coE.rinci.al' the inducement made by the inducer must be the
sole consideration which caused the .erson induced to commit the crime and
without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
indicate that >' the #iller su..osedly induced by 4' had his own reason to #ill C out
of a long standing grudge.
Criminal Lia4ility; Principal; 2n"ucement B
Participation (199)
Tata owns a threeEstorey building located at 9o. 2 Herran Atreet. aco' ,anila. Ahe
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction.
Ao' she insured the building for 2'666'666.66. Ahe then urged +oboy and +ongsi' for
monetary consideration' to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
.roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
is their res.ective criminal liability!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata is a .rinci.al by inducement because she directly induced +oboy and +ongsi' for
a .rice or monetary consideration' to commit arson which the latter would not have
committed were it not for such reason. +oboy and +ongsi are .rinci.als by direct
.artici.ation (!rt. 11, pars. *1 a&% 3, PC).
6estructi#e (rson (199)
Tata owns a threeEstorey building located at 9o. 2 Herran Atreet. aco' ,anila. Ahe
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction.
Ao' she insured the building for 2'666'666.66. Ahe then urged +oboy and +ongsi' for
monetary consideration' to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
.roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
crime did Tata' +oboy and +ongsi commit!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata' +oboy and +ongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of .ro.erty by means of fire under the
circumstances which e?.osed to danger the life or .ro.erty of others (!rt, 3*), par.
', PC. as ame&%e% 73 ! No. 16'9).
5
PENALTIES
Comple/ Crime #s: Compoun" Crime (%&&)
=istinguish clearly but brieflyF >etween com.ound and com.le? crimes as conce.ts
in the enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C;,;39= CR%,<A result when the offender committed only a single felonious act
from which two or more crimes resulted. This is .rovided for in modified form in the
first .art of 4rticle :7' Revised enal Code' limiting the resulting crimes to only
grave andNor less grave felonies. Hence' light felonies are e?cluded even though
resulting from the same single act.
C;,L<J CR%,<A result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary
means for committing another offense. ;nly one information shall be filed and if
.roven' the .enalty for the more serious crime shall be im.osed.
Comple/ Crime #s: Special Comple/ Crime #s:
6elito Continua"o (%&&7)
=istinguish the following from each otherF
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4n ;R=%94R+ C;,L<J CR%,< is made u. of two or more crimes being .unished in
distinct .rovisions of the Revised enal 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 .enalty shall be im.osed. 4s to .enalties' ordinary
com.le? crime' the .enalty for the most serious crime shall be im.osed and in its
ma?imum .eriod
4 A<C%4L C;,L<J CR%,<' on the other hand' is made u. of two or more crimes
which are considered only as com.onents of a single indivisible offense being
.unished in one .rovision of the Revised enal Code. 4s to .enalties' s.ecial com.le?
crime' only one .enalty is s.ecifically .rescribed for all the com.onent crimes which
are regarded as one indivisible offense. The com.onent crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the .enalty for the most serious crime is not the .enalty to be
im.osed nor in its ma?imum .eriod. %t is the .enalty s.ecifically .rovided for the
s.ecial com.le? crime that shall be a..lied according to the rules on im.osition of
the .enalty.
=<L%T; C;9T%934=;' or C;9T%93;3A CR%,<' is a term used to denote as only one
crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution' not
susce.tible of division' which are carried out in the same .lace and at about the
same time' and violating one and the same .enal .rovision. The acts done must be
im.elled by one criminal intent or .ur.ose' such that each act merely constitutes a
.artial e?ecution of a .articular crime' violating one and the same .enal .rovision.
%t involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right' a common
.enal .rovision' and %m.elled by a single criminal im.ulse (People vs. 6e%esma, 13
SC! 11).
Comple/ Crime; (4erratio ictus #s: error in
personae (199)
=istinguish aberratio ictus from error in .ersonae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
4berratio ictus or mista#e in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the .erson
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended
victim.
<rror in .ersonae' or mista#e in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed
at the .erson intended' but who turned out to be somebody else. 4berratio ictus
brings about at least two (2) felonious conse"uence' ie. the attem.ted felony on the
intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was
hit. 4 com.le? crime of the first form under 4rt. :7' RC generally result. %n error in
.ersonae only one crime is committed
Comple/ Crime; (4erratio 2ctusD +rror 2n Personae
B Praeter 2ntentionem (1999)
What do you understand by aberratio ictusF error in .ersonaeB and .raeter
intentionem! =o they alter the criminal liability of an accused! <?.lain. (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4><RR4T%; %CT3A or mista#e 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 com.le? crimes where from
a single act' two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted' namely the attem.t
against the intended victim and the conse"uence on the unintended victim. 4s
com.le? crimes' the .enalty for the more serious crime shall be the one im.osed
and in the ma?imum .eriod. %t is only when the resulting felonies are only light that
com.le? crimes do not result and the .enalties are to be im.osed distinctly for each
resulting crime.
<RR;R %9 <RA;94< or mista#e in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
.erson 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
mista#e in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to
commit' in which case the lesser .enalty between the crime intended and the crime
committed shall be im.osed but in the ma?imum .eriod (!rt. 49, FC).
R4<T<R %9T<9T%;9<, or where the conse"uence went beyond that intended or
e?.ected. This is a mitigating circumstance (4rt. 12. .ar. 2' RC) when there is a
notorious dis.arity between the act or means em.loyed by the offender and the
resulting felony' i'e.' the resulting felony could not be reasonably antici.ated or
foreseen by the offender from the act or means em.loyed by him.
Comple/ Crime; (4erratio 2ctus; (ttempte" 9ur"er
with ?omici"e (%&&&)
=es.ite the massive advertising cam.aign in media against firecrac#ers and gunE
firing during the 9ew +ear@s celebrations' &onas and &a$a bought ten bo?es of su.er
lolo and .laE.la in >ocaue' >ulacan. >efore midnight of =ecember 21' 1888' &onas
and &a$a started their celebration by having a drin#ing s.ree at &ona@s .lace by
e?.loding their highE.owered firecrac#ers in their neighborhood. %n the course of
their conversation' &onas confided to &a$a that he has been #ee.ing a longtime
grudge against his neighbor &e.oy in view of the latter@s refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of li"uor' &onas started throwing lighted su.er
lolos inside &e.oy@s fence to irritate him and the same e?.loded inside the latter@s
yard. 3.on #nowing that the throwing of the su.er lolo was deliberate' &e.oy
became furious and sternly warned &onas to sto. his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. 4 heated argument between &onas and &e.oy ensued but &a$a tried
to calm down his friend. 4t midnight' &onas convinced &a$a to lend him his .:)
5
caliber .istol so that he could use it to #noc# down &e.oy and to end his arrogance.
&onas thought that after all' e?.losions were everywhere and nobody would #now
who shot &e.oy. 4fter &a$a lent his firearm to &onas' the latter again started
throwing lighted su.er lolos and .laE.las at &e.oy@s yard in order to .rovo#e him so
that he would come out of his house. When &e.oy came out' &onas immediately shot
him with &a$a@s .:) caliber gun but missed his target. %nstead' the bullet hit &e.oy@s
five year old son who was following behind him' #illing the boy instantaneously' a)
What crime or crimes can &onas and &a$a be charged with! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
&onas and &a$a' can be charged with the com.le? crime of attem.ted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (4rt. :7. RC).
4ttem.ted murder is a less grave felony' while consummated homicide is a grave
felonyF both are .unishable by afflictive .enalties.
Comple/ Crime; 6octrine of (4erratio 2ctus; =ot
(pplica4le (1996)
4t the height of an altercation' edrito shot aulo but missed' hitting Tiburcio
instead' resulting in the death of the latter. edrito' invo#ing the doctrine of
aberratio ictus' claims e?em.tion from criminal liability. %f you were the $udge' how
would you decide the case!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%f % were the &udge' % will convict edrito and find him guilty of the com.le? crime of
Homicide with 4ttem.ted Homicide. The single act of firing at aulo resulted in the
commission of two felonies' one grave (homicide) and the other less grave
(attem.ted homicide) thus falling s"uarely under 4rt. :7' RCB hence' the .enalty
would be for the more serious crime (homicide} in its ma?imum .eriod (1O years :
months and 1 day to 26 years).
4berratio ictus (mista#e in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an
e?em.ting circumstance. edrito is liable under the .rinci.le of 4rt. :' RC' which
ma#es a .erson criminally liable for all the natural and logical conse"uences of his
felonious act
Comple/ Crimes; Coup "Eetat B re4ellion B
se"ition (%&&1)
1) Can there be a com.le? crime of cou. d@etat with rebellion! 2* 2) Can there be a
com.le? crime of cou. d@etat with sedition! 2*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) +es' if there was cons.iracy between the offenderN offenders committing the
cou. d@etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. >y cons.iracy' the crime of
one would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is .ossible because the
offender in cou. d@etat may be any .erson or .ersons belonging to the military or the
national .olice or a .ublic officer' whereas rebellion does not so re"uire. ,oreover'
the crime of cou. d@etat may be committed singly' whereas rebellion re"uires a
.ublic u.rising and ta#ing u. arms to overthrow the duly constituted government.
Aince the two crimes are essentially different and .unished with distinct .enalties'
there is no legal im.ediment to the a..lication of 4rt. :7 of the Revised enal Code.
2) +es' cou. d@etat can be com.le?ed with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly .unished under the Revised enal Code. Aedition
may not be directed against the 1overnment or nonE.olitical in ob$ective' whereas
cou. d@etat is always .olitical in ob$ective as it is directed against the 1overnment
and led by .ersons or .ublic officer holding .ublic office belonging to the military or
5
national .olice. 4rt. :7 of the Code may a..ly under the conditions therein
.rovided.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of cou. d@etat cannot be com.le?ed with the crime of rebellion because
both crimes are directed against the 1overnment or for .olitical .ur.oses' although
the .rinci.al offenders are different. The essence may be the same and thus
constitute only one crime. %n this situation' the two crimes are not distinct and
therefore' may not be .ro.er to a..ly 4rticle :7 of the Code.
Comple/ Crimes; 6etermination of the Crime
(1999)
4' actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic ,E1: subEmachine gun'
shot a grou. of .ersons who were seated in a coc#.it with one burst of successive'
continuous' automatic fire. 0our (:) .ersons were #illed thereby' each having hit by
different bullets coming from the subEmachine gun of 4. 0our (:) cases of murder
were filed against 4. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed
by 4 for the reason that' since 4 .erformed only one act' he having .ressed the
trigger of his gun only once' the crime committed was murder. Conse"uently' the
trial $udge sentenced 4 to $ust one .enalty of reclusion .er.etua. Was the decision
of the trial $udge correct! <?.lain. (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the decision of the trial $udge 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 .ress
the trigger once and it would fire continually. 0or each death caused by a distinct
and se.arate bullet' the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence' it is not the
act of .ressing the trigger which should be considered as .roducing the several
felonies' but the number of bullets which actually .roduced them.
Comple/ Crimes; =ature B Penalty 2n#ol#e" (1999)
What constitutes a com.le? crime! How many crimes maybe involved in a com.le?
crime! What is the .enalty therefor!(:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 com.le? 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 (4rt. :7' RC). 4t least two (2) crimes are involved in a com.le?
crimeB 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 .enalty
for the more serious crime shall be im.osed and in its ma?imum .eriod. (4rt. :7'
RC)
Comple/ Crimes; >r"inary Comple/ Crime #s:
Special Comple/ Crime (%&&1)
=istinguish between an ordinary com.le? crime and a s.ecial com.le? crime as to
their conce.ts and as to the im.osition of .enalties. 2*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
IN &,N&E-T + 4n ;R=%94R+ C;,L<J CR%,< is made u. of two or more crimes being
.unished in distinct .rovisions of the Revised enal Code but alleged in one
%nformation 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 %nformation so that only one .enalty shall be
im.osed.
4 A<C%4L C;,L<J CR%,<' on the other hand' is made u. of two or more crimes
which are considered only as com.onents of a single indivisible offense being
.unished in one .rovision of the Revised enal Code.
AS T, -ENALTIES E%n ;R=%94R+ C;,L<J CR%,<' the .enalty for the most serious
crime shall be im.osed and in its ma?imum .eriod.
%n A<C%4L C;,L<J CR%,<' only one .enalty is s.ecifically .rescribed for all the
com.onent crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The com.onent
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the .enalty for the most serious
crime is not the .enalty to be im.osed nor in its ma?imum .eriod. %t is the .enalty
s.ecifically .rovided for the s.ecial com.le? crime that shall be a..lied according to
the rules on im.osition of the .enalty.
Continuing >3ense #s: 6elito Continua"o (199)
=ifferentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=<L%T; C;9T%934=;' or C;9T%93;3A CR%,<' is a term used to denote as only one
crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution' not
susce.tible of division' which are carried out in the same .lace and at about the
same time' and violating one and the same .enal .rovision. The acts done must be
im.elled by one criminal intent or .ur.ose' such that each act merely constitutes a
.artial e?ecution of a .articular crime' violating one and the same .enal .rovision.
%t involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right' a common
.enal .rovision' and im.elled by a single criminal im.ulse (People vs. 6e%esma, 13
SC! 11).
;n the other hand' a C;9T%93%91 ;00<9A< is one whose essential ingredients too#
.lace in more than one munici.ality or city' so much so that the criminal .rosecution
may be instituted and the case tried in the com.etent court of any one of such
munici.ality or city.
The term GC;9T%93<= CR%,<G or delito continuado mandates that only one
information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts
were .erformedB the term Gcontinuing crimeG is more .ertinently used with
reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted.
6eath Penalty (%&&)
The death .enalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstancesF
1) When the guilty .erson is at least 17 years of age at the time of the commission of
the crime. 2) When the guilty .erson is more than O6 years of age. 2) When' u.on
a..eal to or automatic review by the Au.reme Court' the re"uired ma$ority for the
im.osition of the death .enalty is not obtained. :) When the .erson is convicted of a
ca.ital crime but before e?ecution becomes insane. )) When the accused is a woman
while she is .regnant or within one year after delivery. <?.lain your answer or
choice briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
3nderstanding the word GinflictedG to mean the im.osition of the death .enalty' not
its e?ecution' the circumstance in which the death .enalty cannot be inflicted is no.
2F Gwhen the guilty .erson is more than O6 years of ageG (4rt. :O' Revised enal
Code). %nstead' the .enalty shall be commuted to reclusion .er.etua' with the
accessory .enalties .rovided in 4rticle :6' R0C. %n circumstance no. 1 when the
guilty .erson is at least 17 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime'
the death .enalty can be im.osed since the offender is already of legal age when he
committed the crime. Circumstance no. 2 no longer o.erates' considering the
decision of the S#preme Co#rt i& People vs. >.re& $ateo ((.. 141618<81, +#l3 1,
*))4) .roviding an intermediate review for such cases where the .enalty im.osed is
death' reclusion .er.etua or life im.risonment before they are elevated to the
Au.reme Court. %n circumtances nos. : I )' the death .enalty can be im.osed if
.rescribed by the law violated although its e?ecution shall be sus.ended when the
convict becomes insane before it could be e?ecuted and while he is insane.
Li#ewise' the death .enalty can be im.osed u.on a woman but its e?ecution shall be
sus.ended during her .regnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The word G%90L%CT<=G is found only in 4rt. 72 to the effect that the death .enalty
may not be G%90L%CT<=G u.on a .regnant woman' such .enalty is to be sus.ended. %f
G%90L%CT<=G is to be construed as G<J<C3T%;9G' then 9o. ) is the choice.
6eath Penalty; Auali@e" 0ape; 0e<uisites (%&&)
1K was convicted of ra.ing TC' his niece' and he was sentenced to death. %t was
alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old' and
her mother testified that she was only si? 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 .roved by the .rosecution.
;n automatic review before the Au.reme Court' accusedEa..ellant contends that
ca.ital .unishment could not be im.osed on him because of the inade"uacy of the
charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to .rove all the elements of the
heinous crime of ra.e beyond reasonable doubt. %s a..ellant@s contention correct!
Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' a..ellant@s contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned.
The age of the victim ra.ed has not been .roved beyond reasonable doubt to
constitute the crime as "ualified ra.e and deserving of the death .enalty. The
guidelines in a..reciating age as a "ualifying circumstance in ra.e cases have not
been met' to witF
1) The .rimary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificateB
2) %n the absence of the birth certificate' age of the victim maybe .roven by
authentic document' such as ba.tismal certificate and school recordsB
2) %f 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 "ualified to testify on
matters res.ecting .edigree such as the e?act age or date of birth of the offended
.arty .ursuant to Aection :6' Rule 126 of the Rules on <vidence shall be sufficient
but only under the following circumstancesF
(a) %f the victim is alleged to be below 2 years of age and what is sought to be
.roved is that she is less than O years oldB
(b) %f the victim is alleged to be below O years of age and what is sought to be
.roved is that she is less than 12 years oldB (c) %f the victim is alleged to be below 12
5
years of age and what is sought to be .roved is that she is less than 17 years old. 4)
%n 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
aboveEstated' com.lainant@s sole testimony can suffice' .rovided that it is e?.ressly
and clearly admitted by the accused (People #s. Pr#&a, 39) SC! '11 ?*))*=).
?a4itual 6elin<uency B 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)
&uan de Castro already had three (2) .revious convictions by final $udgment for theft
when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. %n the last case' the trial &udge
considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delin"uency. The
accused a..ealed and contended that in his last conviction' the trial court cannot
consider against him a finding of recidivism and' again' of habitual delin"uency. %s
the a..eal meritorious! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the a..eal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delin"uency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of
habitual delin"uency. &uan is a recidivist. Habitual delin"uency' which brings about
an additional .enalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for
s.ecified crimes' is correctly considered because &uan had already three (2) .revious
convictions by final $udgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With
Homicide. 4nd the crimes s.ecified as basis for habitual delin"uency includes' inter
alia' theft and robbery.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (199)
%tos was convicted of an offense .enali/ed by a s.ecial law. The .enalty .rescribed
is not less than si? years but not more than twelve years. 9o modifying circumstance
attended the commission of the crime. %f you were the $udge' will you a..ly the
%ndeterminate Aentence Law! %f so' how will you a..ly it!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%f % were the $udge' % will a..ly the .rovisions of the %ndeterminate Aentence Law' as
the last sentence of Aection 1 4ct :162' s.ecifically .rovides the a..lication thereof
for violations of s.ecial laws. 3nder the same .rovision' the minimum must not be
less than the minimum .rovided therein (si? years and one day) and the ma?imum
shall not be more than the
ma?imum .rovided therein' i.e. twelve years. (People vs. osali&a e3es, 186 SC!
184)
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999)
4ndres is charged with an offense defined by a s.ecial law. The .enalty .rescribed
for the offense is im.risonment of not less than five ()) years but not more than ten
C16) years. 3.on arraignment' he entered a .lea of guilty. %n the im.osition of the
.ro.er .enalty' should the %ndeterminate Aentence Law be a..lied!
%f you were the &udge trying the case' what .enalty would you im.ose on 4ndres!
(:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the %ndeterminate Aentence Law should be a..lied because the minimum
im.risonment is more than one (1) year.
%f % were the &udge' % will im.ose an indeterminate sentence' the ma?imum of which
shall not e?ceed the ma?imum fi?ed by law and the minimum shall not be less than
5
the minimum .enalty .rescribed by the same. % have the discretion to im.ose the
.enalty within the said minimum and ma?imum.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (1999)
4 was convicted of illegal .ossession of grease guns and two Thom.son subEmachine
guns .unishable under the old law CR4 9o':D with im.risonment of from five ()) to
ten (16) years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer im.risonment of five
()) years and one (1) day. %s the .enalty thus im.osed correct!
<?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%ndeterminate Aentence Law does not a..ly toF The .enalty im.osed' being only a
straight .enalty' is not correct because it does not com.ly with the %ndeterminate
Aentence Law which a..lies to this case. Aaid law re"uires that if the offense is
.unished by any law other than the Revised enal Code' the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence' the ma?imum term of which shall not e?ceed
the ma?imum .enalty fi?ed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum .enalty .rescribed by the same.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&%)
How are the ma?imum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for
offenses .unishable under the Revised enal Code determined! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
0or crimes .unished under the Revised enal Code' the ma?imum term of the
%ndeterminate sentence shall be the .enalty .ro.erly im.osable under the same
Code after considering the attending mitigating andNor aggravating circumstances
according to 4rt' 5: of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be
fi?ed within the range of the .enalty ne?t lower in degree to that .rescribed for the
crime under the said Code.
Un)e the law. what is the p$pose %o %i'ing the ma'im$m an) the minim$m
tems o% the in)eteminate sentence/ (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .ur.ose of the law in fi?ing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the
grace .eriod at which the convict may be released on .arole from im.risonment'
unless by his conduct he is not deserving of .arole and thus he shall continue serving
his .rison term in &ail but in no case to go beyond the ma?imum term fi?ed in the
sentence.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&7)
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and .enali/ed by a s.ecial .enal law where
the im.osable .enalty is from 5 months' as minimum' to 2 years' as ma?imum. Atate
with reasons whether the court may correctly im.ose the following .enaltiesF
a) a straight .enalty of 16 monthsB
b) 5 months' as minimum' to 11 months' as ma?imumB
c) a straight .enalty of 2 years. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
+es' because the .enalty is less than one year' a straight .enalty may be im.osed.
(People v. !rella&o, (..No, 46')1, 45to7er ', 1939) a. a straight .enalty of 16
monthsB
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
3nder the %ndeterminate Aentence Law' the minimum im.osable .enalty shall be
im.osed but the ma?imum shall not e?ceed the ma?imum im.osable by law. >. 5
months' as minimum' to 11 months' as ma?imumB
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' because %ndeterminate Aentence Law does not a..ly when the .enalty im.osed
is less than one year (Aec. 2' 4rt. :162' as amended). C. a straight .enalty of 2
years. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' because the %ndeterminate Aentence Law will a..ly when the minimum of the
.enalty e?ceeds one year.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER0
%f the im.osition of straight .enalty which consists of the minimum .eriod of the
.enalty .rescribed by law' then it may be allowed because it favors the accused.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (1999)
3nder what circumstances is the %ndeterminate Aentence Law not a..licable! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1)ersons convicted of offenses .unished with death .enalty or life im.risonmentB
2) Those convicted of treason' cons.iracy or .ro.osal to commit treasonB
2) Those convicted of mis.rision of treason' rebellion' sedition or es.ionageB
:) Those convicted of .iracyB
)) Those who are habitual delin"uentsB
5) Those who shall have esca.ed from confinement or evaded sentenceB
O) Those who violated the terms of conditional .ardon granted to them by the Chief
<?ecutiveB
7) Those whose ma?imum term of im.risonment does not e?ceed one yearB
8) Those who' u.on the a..roval of the law (=ecember )' 1822). had been
sentenced by final &udgmentB
16) Those sentenced to the .enalty of destierro or sus.ension.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (%&&1)
When would the %ndeterminate Aentence Law be ina..licable! :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The %ndeterminate Aentence Law is not a..licable toF
1) those .ersons convicted of offenses .unished with death .enalty or lifeE
im.risonment or reclusion .er.etuaB
2) those convicted of treason' cons.iracy or .ro.osal to commit treasonB
2) those convicted of mis.rision of treason' rebellion'
sedition or es.ionageB
:) those convicted of .iracyB
5
)) those who are habitual delin"uentsB
5) those who shall have esca.ed from confinement or evaded sentenceB
O) those who having been granted conditional .ardon by the Chief <?ecutive shall
have violated the
terms thereofB
7) those whose ma?imum term of im.risonment does not e?ceed one yearB
8) those already sentenced by
final $udgment at the time of a..roval of this 4ctB and
16) those whose sentence im.oses .enalties which
do not involve im.risonment' li#e destierro.
Penalties5 .ine or 2mprisonment #s: Su4si"iary
2mprisonment (%&&7)
< and , are convicted of a .enal law that im.oses a .enalty of fine or im.risonment
or both fine and im.risonment. The $udge sentenced them to .ay the fine' $ointly
and severally' with subsidiary im.risonment in case of insolvency. %s the .enalty
.ro.er! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .enalty is not .ro.er. The two accused must se.arately .ay the fine' which is
their .enalty. Aolidary liability a..lies only to civil liabilities.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9;' because in .enal law when there are several offenders' the court in the e?ercise
of its discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender de.ending
u.on the degree of .artici.ation P as .rinci.al' accom.lice or accessory. %f within
each class of offender' there are more of them' such as more than one .rinci.al or
more than one accom.lice or accessory' the liability in each class of offender shall
be subsidiary. 4nyone of the may be re"uired to .ay the civil liability .ertaining to
such offender without .re$udice to recovery from those whose share have been .aid
by another.
,ay the $udge i m.ose an al ternati ve .enal ty of fi ne or i m.ri sonment! <?.l ai n.
(:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 4 fine' whether im.osed as a single or as an alternative .enalty' should not and
cannot be reduced or converted into a .rison term. There is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of im.risonment. (People v.
9a5#35#3, (.. No. 6<4'1*1 $a3 ', 1989)
Penalties5 Pecuniary Penalties #s: Pecuniary
Lia4ilities (%&&7)
=istinguish .ecuniary .enalties from .ecuniary liabilities. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ecuniary liabilities do not include restitution' but include re.aration of damages
caused' the indemnification for conse"uential damages' as well as fines and cost of
the .roceedings. ecuniary .enalties include fines and cost of the .roceedings.
5
Penalties; Comple/ Crime of +stafa (199*)
4 was convicted of the com.le? crime of estafa through falsification of .ublic
document. Aince the amount %nvolved did not e?ceed 266.66' the .enalty
.rescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and ma?imum .eriods.
The .enalty .rescribed by law for falsification of .ublic document is .rision mayor
.lus fine not to e?ceed )'666.66. %m.ose the .ro.er .rison .enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .ro.er .enalty is 49+ R491< W%TH%9 .rision correccional (si? (5) months and
one (1) day to si? (5) years) as ,%9%,3,' to 49+ R491< within .rision mayor
ma?imum (ten (16) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as ,4J%,3,. This is
in accordance with eo.le us' 1on/ales' O2 hil' ):8' where %t was ruled that for the
.ur.ose of determining the .enalty ne?t lower in degree' the .enalty that should be
considered as a starting .oint is the whole of .rision mayor' it being the .enalty
.rescribed by law' and not .rision mayor in its ma?imum .eriod' which is only the
.enalty actually a..lied because of 4rticle :7 of the Revised enal Code. The
.enalty ne?t lower in degree therefor is .rision correccional and it is w
within the range of this .enalty that the minimum should be ta#en.
Penalties; .actors to Consi"er (1991)
%magine that you are a &udge trying a case' and based on the evidence .resented
and the a..licable law' you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. %ndicate
the five ()) ste.s you would follow to determine the e?act .enalty to be im.osed.
Atated differently' what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct
.enalty!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the crime committedB
Atage of e?ecution and degree of .artici.ationB
=etermine the .enaltyB
Consider the modifying circumstancesB
=etermine whether %ndeterminate Aentence Law is a..licable or not.
Penalties; ?omici"e wF 9o"ifying Circumstance
(1997)
Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court a..reciated the following
modifying circumstancesF the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity' and the
mitigating circumstances of .assion and obfuscation' no intent to commit so grave a
wrong' illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The im.osable .enalty for homicide is
reclusion tem.oral the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(26) years. Ta#ing into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating
circumstances' and a..lying the %ndeterminate Aentence Law' determine the .ro.er
.enalty to be im.osed on the accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%t a..ears that there is one aggravating circumstance (nocturnity)' and four
mitigating circumstances (.assion and obfuscation' no intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed and voluntary surrender). ar. :' 4rt. 5: should be a..lied.
Hence there will be offEsetting of modifying circumstances' which will now result in
the e?cess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore $ustify in reducing
the .enalty to the minimum .eriod. The e?istence of an aggravating circumstance'
albeit there are four aggravating' will not $ustify the lowering of the .enalty to the
5
ne?t lower degree under .aragra.h ) of said 4rticle' as this is a..licable only if
TH<R< %A 9; 411R4K4T%91 C%RC3,AT49C< .resent. Aince the crime committed is
Homicide and the .enalty therefor is reclusion tem.oral' the ,4J%,3, sentence
under the %ndeterminate Aentence Law should be the minimum of the .enalty' which
is 12 years and 1 day to 1: years and 7 months. The ,%9%,3, .enalty will thus be
the .enalty ne?t lower in degree' which is .rision mayor in its full e?tent (5 years
and 1 day to 12 years). <rgo' the .ro.er .enalty would be 5 years and 1 day' as
minimum' to 12 years and 1 day' as ma?imum. % believe that because of the
remaining mitigating circumstances after the offEsetting it would be very logical to
im.ose the minimum of the ,%9%,3, sentence under the %AL and the minimum of the
,4J%,3, sentence.
Penalties; 9itigating Circumstances wFout
(ggra#ating Circumstance (199*)
4ssume in the .receding .roblem that there were two mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstance. %m.ose the .ro.er .rison .enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance'
the .ro.er .rison .enalty is arresto mayor (in any of its .eriods' ie. ranging from one
(1) month and one (1) day to si? (5) months) as ,%9%,3, to .rision correccional in its
ma?imum .eriod four (:) years' two (2) months' and one (1) day to si? (5) years as
,4J%,3,.
3nder 4rt. 5:' .ar. ) of the Revised enal Code' when a .enalty contains three
.eriods' each one of which forms a .eriod in accordance with 4rticle O5 and OO of
the same Code' and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggravating circumstances' the .enalty ne?t lower in degree should be im.osed. 0or
.ur.oses of the %ndeterminate Aentence Law' the .enalty ne?t lower in degree
should be determined without regard as to whether the basic .enalty .rovided by
the Revised enal Code should be a..lied in its ma?imum or minimum .eriod as
circumstances modifying liability may re"uire.
The .enalty ne?t lower in degree to .rision correccional. Therefore' as .reviously
stated' the minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor and the ma?imum
is within the range of .rision correctional in its ma?imum .eriod.
Penalties; Parrici"e wF 9itigating Circumstance
(199*)
4 and > .leaded guilty to the crime of .arricide. The court found three mitigating
circumstances' namely' .lea of guilty' lac# of %nstruction and lac# of intent to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The .rescribed .enalty for .arricide is
reclusion .er.etua to death. %m.ose the .ro.er .rinci.al .enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .ro.er .enalty is reclusion .er.etua. <ven if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances' a court cannot lower the .enalty by one degree (4rt. 52. .ar. 2'
Revised enal CodeB eo.le vs. 0ormigones' 7O hil. 57)). %n 3.A. vs. Relador 56 hil.
)82' where the crime committed was .arricide with the two (2) mitigating
circumstances of illiteracy and lac# of intention to commit so grave a wrong' and
with no aggravating circumstance' the Au.reme Court held that the .ro.er' .enalty
to be im.osed is reclusion .er.etua.
Penalties; Pre#enti#e 2mprisonment (199)
5
When is there .reventive im.risonment! 2) When is the accused credited with the
full time of his .reventive im.risonment' and when is he credited with :N) thereof!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) There is .reventive im.risonment when Ca) an offender is detained while the
criminal case against him is being heard' either because the crime committed is a
ca.ital offense and not bailable' or even if the crime committed was bailable' the
offender could not .ost the re"uired bail for his .rovisional liberty.
2) 4n accused is credited with the full time of his .reventive im.risonment if he
voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution im.osed u.on its
.risoners' .rovided thatF
a) the .enalty im.osed on him for the crime committed consists of a de.rivation of
libertyB
b) he is not dis"ualified from such credit for being a recidivist' or for having been
.reviously convicted for two or more times of any crime' or for having failed to
surrender voluntarily for the e?ecution of the sentence u.on being so summoned
(4rt. 28' RC). Where the accused however did not agree he would only be credited
with :N) of the time he had undergone
.reventive im.risonment.
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua (0() =o: *979
(%&&7)
3nder 4rticle 2O of the Revised enal Code' as amended by Re.ublic 4ct (R4) 9o.
O8)8' reclusion .er.etua shall be from 26 years and 1 day to :6 years. =oes this
mean that reclusion .er.etua is now a divisible .enalty! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' because the Au.reme Court has re.eatedly called the attention of the >ench and
the >ar to the fact that the .enalties of reclusion .er.etua and life im.risonment
are not synonymous and should be a..lied correctly and as may be s.ecified by the
a..licable law. Reclusion .er.etua has a s.ecific duration of 26 years and 1 day to
:6 years (4rt. 2O) and accessory .enalties (4rt. :1)' while life im.risonment has no
definite term or accessory .enalties. 4lso' life im.risonment is im.osable on crimes
.unished by s.ecial laws' and not on felonies in the Code (People vs. 9e (#0ma&,
(.. Nos. '138'<86, +a&. **, 1993" People vs. >strella, (.. Nos. 9*')6<)1, !pril *8,
1993" People vs. !lvero, (.. No. 1*319, +#&e 3),1993" People vs. 6apiroso, (..
No. 1**')1, Fe7. *', 1999).?see Crimi&al 6aw Co&spe5t#s, pa2e 1'6=
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s: Life
2mprisonment (199)
=ifferentiate reclusion .er.etua from life im.risonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
R<CL3A%;9 <R<T34 is that .enalty .rovided for in the Revised enal Code for
crimes defined in and .enali/ed therein e?ce.t for some crimes defined by s.ecial
laws which im.ose reclusion .er.etua' such as violations of Re.ublic 4ct 5:2)' as
amended by Re.ublic 4ct O5)8 or of = 1756B
while L%0< %,R%A;9,<9T is a .enalty usually .rovided for in s.ecial laws. Reclusion
.er.etua has a duration of twenty (26) years and one (1) day to forty C:6D years
under Re.ublic 4ct O5)8' while life im.risonment has no durationB reclusion
.er.etua may be reduced by one or two degreesB reclusion .er.etuates accessory
5
.enalties while life im.risonment does not have any accessory .enalties (People vs.
;a2#io, 196 SC! 4'9, People vs. Pa&ellos, *)' SC! '46).
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s: Life
2mprisonment (%&&1)
4fter trial' &udge &uan Laya of the ,anila RTC found >en$amin 1arcia guilty of
,urder' the victim having sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he died
des.ite medical assistance given in the ;s.ital ng ,anila. >ecause the wea.on used
by >en$amin was unlicensed and the "ualifying circumstance of treachery was found
to be .resent. &udge Laya rendered his decision convicting >en$amin and sentencing
him to Greclusion .er.etua or life im.risonmentG.
4re Greclusion .er.etuaG and life im.risonment the same and can be im.osed
interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence! ;r are they totally different! Atate
your reasons. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .enalty of reclusion .er.etua and the .enalty of life %m.risonment are totally
different from each other and therefore' should not be used interchangeably.
Reclusion .er.etua is a .enalty .rescribed by the Revised enal Code' with a fi?ed
duration of im.risonment from 26 years and 1 day to :6 years' and carries it with
accessory .enalties.
Life im.risonment' on the other hand' is a .enalty .rescribed by s.ecial laws' with
no fi?ed duration of im.risonment and without any accessory .enalty.
Pro4ation Law5 Proper Perio" (%&&7)
,aganda was charged with violation of the >ouncing Chec#s Law (> 22) .unishable
by im.risonment of not less than 26 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not
less than but not more than double the amount of the chec#' which fine shall not
e?ceed 266'666.66' or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced
her to .ay a fine of )6'666.66 with subsidiary im.risonment in case of insolvency'
and to .ay the .rivate com.lainant the amount of the chec#. ,aganda was unable to
.ay the fine but filed a .etition for .robation. The court granted the .etition
sub$ect to the condition' among others' that she should not change her residence
without the courtQs .rior a..roval.
a) What is the .ro.er .eriod of .robation!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .eriod shall not be less than twice the total number of days of subsidiary
im.risonment. 3nder 4ct 9o. 1O22' subsidiary im.risonment for violations of s.ecial
laws shall not e?ceed 5 months at the rate of one day of im.risonment for every
02.)6. Hence' the .ro.er .eriod of .robation should not be less than (5 months nor
more than 12 months. Aince )6'666.66 fine is more than the ma?imum subsidiary
im.risonment of 5 months at 2.)6 a day. b) Au..osing before the ;rder of =ischarge
was issued by the court but after the la.se of the .eriod of .robation' ,aganda
transferred residence without .rior a..roval of the court. ,ay the court revo#e the
;rder of robation and order her to serve the subsidiary im.risonment! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. The Court may revo#e her .robation. robation is not coterminous with its
.eriod. There must first be issued by the court an order of final discharge based on
the re.ort and recommendation of the .robation officer. ;nly then can the case of
5
the .robationer be terminated. (;ala v. $arti&e0, (.. No. 613)1, +a&#ar3 *9, 199),
5iti&2 Se5. 16 o. P.9. No. 968)
Pro4ation Law; Carre" 4y (ppeal (199)
;n 0ebruary 2' 1875' Roberto was convicted of arson through rec#less im.rudence
and sentenced to .ay a fine of 1)'666.66' with subsidiary im.risonment in case of
insolvency by the Regional Trial Court of -ue/on City. ;n 0ebruary 16' 1875' he
a..ealed to the Court of 4..eals. Aeveral months later' he filed a motion to
withdraw the a..eal on the ground that he is a..lying for .robation. ;n ,ay O'
187O' the Court of 4..eals granted the motion and considered the a..eal
withdrawn. ;n &une 16' 187O' the records of the case were remanded to the trial
court. Roberto filed a G,otion for robationG .raying that e?ecution of his sentence
be sus.ended' and that a .robation officer be ordered to
conduct an %nvestigation and to submit a re.ort on his .robation.
The $udge denied the motion on the ground that .ursuant to residential =ecree 9o.
1886' which too# effect on &uly 15'1875' no a..lication for .robation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has .erfected an a..eal from the $udgment
of conviction. %s the denial of Roberto@s motion correct!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. <ven if at the time of his conviction Roberto was "ualified for .robation but
that at the time of his a..lication for .robation' he is no longer "ualified' he is not
entitled to .robation. The "ualification for.robation must be determined as of the
time the a..lication is filed in Court (;er&ar%o vs. +#%2e, etal.
(No. 686'61,Nov, 1). 199*" >%wi& %e la Cr#0 vs. +#%2e Calle@o. et al, SP<196'',
!pril 18, 199), 5iti&26lama%o vs. C!, et al, ( No. 848'9, +#&e *8, 1989" ;er&ar%o
#s. +#%2e ;ala2ot, etal, ( 86'61, Nov.1), 199*). A
Pro4ation Law; Carre" 4y (ppeal (%&&1)
4' a subdivision develo.er' was convicted by the RTC of ,a#ati for failure to issue
the subdivision title to a lot buyer des.ite full .ayment of the lot' and sentenced to
suffer one year %m.risonment. 4 a..ealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of
4..eals but his a..eal was dismissed. ,ay 4 still a..ly for .robation! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 4 is no longer "ualified to a..ly for .robation after he a..ealed from the
$udgment of conviction by the RTC. The .robation law (= 857' as amended by
=1886) now .rovides that no a..lication for .robation shall be entertained or
granted if the accused has .erfected an a..eal from the $udgment of conviction
(Aec. :' = 857).
Pro4ation Law; 9a/imum Term #s: Total Term
(199*)
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in si?teen (15) informations
which were tried $ointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a
.rison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (7) months of
.rision correccional. Within the .eriod to a..eal' he filed an a..lication for
.robation under the robation Law of 18O5' as amended. Could he .ossibly "ualify
for .robation!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. %n Fra&5is5o vs. Co#rt o. !ppeals, *43 SC! 384' the Au.reme Court held that in
case of one decision im.osing multi.le .rison terms' the totality of the .rison terms
5
should not be ta#en into account for the .ur.oses of determining the eligibility of
the accused for the .robation. The law uses the word Gma?imum termG' and not total
term. %t is enough that each of the .rison terms does not e?ceed si? years. The
number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the .enalties im.osed' when ta#en
individually and se.arately' are within the .robationable .eriod.
Pro4ation Law; >r"er 6enying Pro4ation; =ot
(ppeala4le (%&&%)
4 was charged with homicide. 4fter trial' he was found guilty and sentenced to si?
(5) years and one (1) day in .rision mayor' as minimum' to twelve (12) years and one
(1) day of reclusion tem.oral' as ma?imum. rior to his conviction' he had been
found guilty of vagrancy and im.risoned for ten (16) days of arresto manor and fined
fifty .esos ()6.66). %s he eligible for .robation! Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' he is not entitled to the benefits of the robation Law (= 857' as amended)
does not e?tend to those sentenced to serve a ma?imum term of im.risonment of
more than si? years (Aec. 8a). %t is of no moment that in his .revious conviction 4
was given a .enalty of only ten (16) days of arresto mayor and a fine of )6.66. >.
,ay a .robationer a..eal from the decision revo#ing the grant of .robation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 3nder Aection : of the robation Law' as amended' an order granting or denying
.robation is not a..ealable.
Pro4ation Law; Perio" Co#ere" (%&&)
J was convicted and sentenced to im.risonment of thirty days and a fine of one
hundred .esos. reviously' J was convicted of another crime for which the .enalty
im.osed on him was thirty days only. %s J entitled to .robation! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' J may a..ly for .robation. His .revious conviction for another crime with a
.enalty of thirty days im.risonment or not e?ceeding one (1) month does not
dis"ualify him from a..lying for .robationB the .enalty for his .resent conviction
does not dis"ualify him either from a..lying for .robation' since the im.risonment
does not e?ceed si? (5) years (Se5. 9, Pres. 9e5ree No. 968).
Pro4ation Law; 0ight; Carre" 4y (ppeal (1997)
%n a case for violation of Aec. 7' R4 5:2)' otherwise #nown as the =angerous =rugs
4ct' accused Kincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of
voluntary .lea of guilt and drun#enness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to
suffer a .enalty of si? (5) years and one (1) day and to .ay a fine of 5'666.66 with
the accessory .enalties .rovided by law' .lus costs. Kincent a..lied for .robation.
The .robation officer favorably recommended his a..lication. %f you were the
&udge' what action will you ta#e on the a..lication! =iscuss fully.
Au..ose that Kincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a
ma?imum .enalty of ten (16) years. 3nder the law' he is not eligible for .robation.
He seasonably a..ealed his conviction. While affirming the $udgment of conviction'
the a..ellate court reduced the .enalty to a ma?imum of four (:) years and four (:)
5
months ta#ing into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Kincent now
a..lies for .robation. How will you rule on his a..lication! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. %f % were the $udge' % will deny the a..lication for .robation. The accused is
not entitled to .robation as Aec. 8 of the robation Law' = 9;. 857' as
amended' s.ecifically mentions that those who Gare sentenced to serve a
ma?imum term of im.risonment of more than si? yearsG are not entitled to
the benefits of the law.
2. The law and $uris.rudence are to the effect that a..eal by the accused
from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to .robation.(Se5. 4, P9 No.
968. as ame&%e% 73 P9 199)" ;er&ar%o #s. ;ala2ot" Fra&5is5o vs. C!B
6lama%o vs. C!" 9e la Cr#0 vs. +#%2e Calle@o, C! 5ase). This is the se5o&%
5o&se5#tive 3ear that this :#estio& was asCe%. -t is the si&5ere 7elie. o.
the Committeethat there is a &ee% to re<eDami&e the %o5tri&e. Firstl3,
m#5h as the a55#se% wa&te% to appl3 .or pro7atio& he is pros5ri7e% .rom
%oi&2 so as the maDim#m pe&alt3 is N4T P4;!T-4N!;6>. Se5o&%l3, whe&
the maDim#m pe&alt3 was re%#5e% to o&e whi5h allows pro7atio& it is 7#t
.air a&% @#st to 2ra&t him that ri2ht 7e5a#se it is appare&t that the trial
@#%2e 5ommitte% a& error a&% .or whi5h the a55#se% sho#l% &ot 7e ma%e to
s#..er. +#%i5ial tri7#&als i& this @#ris%i5tio& are &ot o&l3 5o#rts o. law 7#t
also o. e:#it3. Thir%l3, the @#%2me&t o. the appellate 5o#rt sho#l% 7e
5o&si%ere% a &ew %e5isio& as the trial 5o#rt8s %e5isio& was va5ate%" he&5e,
he 5o#l% taCe a%va&ta2e o. the law whe& the %e5isio& is rema&%e% to the
trial 5o#rt .or eDe5#tio& (Please see 9isse&ti&2 opi&io& i& Fra&5is5o vs.
C!). -t is s#22este%, there.ore, that a& eDami&ee a&sweri&2 i& this te&or
sho#l% 7e 5re%ite% with some poi&ts.
Pro4ation Law; 0ight; Carre" 4y (ppeal (%&&1)
&uan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer
the .enalty of im.risonment for a minimum of eight years. He a..ealed both his
conviction and the .enalty im.osed u.on him to the Court of 4..eals. The a..ellate
court ultimately sustained &uan@s conviction but reduced his sentence to a ma?imum
of four years and eight months im.risonment. Could &uan forthwith file an
a..lication for .robation! <?.lain. 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' &uan can no longer avail of the .robation because he a..ealed from the
$udgment of conviction of the trial court' and therefore' cannot a..ly for .robation
anymore. Aection : of the robation Law' as amended' mandates that no a..lication
for .robation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has .erfected an a..eal
from the $udgment of conviction.
Suspension of Sentence; ("ultsF9inors (%&&6)
There are at least O instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused'
either as an adult or as a minor' can a..ly for andNor be granted a sus.ended
sentence. <numerate at least ) of them. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Aus.ension of sentence of minor under .=. 562 as amended by R.4. 82::.
2. Aus.ension of sentence of minor above 1) but below 17 years of age at the time
of trial under R.4. 82::.
5
2. Aus.ension of sentence of minor above 1) but below 17 years of age at the
commission of the offense' while acting with discernment.
:. Aus.ension of sentence by reason of insanity (4rt. O8' Revised enal Code).
). Aus.ension of sentence for first offense of a minor violating R&K. 815). (Aec. 22)
5. Aus.ension of sentence under the .robation law. (.=. 857)
O. Aus.ension of death sentence of a .regnant woman. (4rt. 72' Revised enal Code)
(N4T! ;>N>B .!. 9344 is o#tsi%e the 5overa2e o. the eDami&atio&)
Suspension of Sentence; 9inors (%&&1)
4 was 2 months below 17 years of age when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 2 months later. He was 22 when he was finally convicted and
sentenced. %nstead of .re.aring to serve a $ail term' he sought a sus.ension of the
sentence on the ground that he was a $uvenile offender Ahould he be entitled to a
sus.ension of sentence! Reasons. :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 4 is not entitled to a sus.ension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor
at the time of .romulgation of the sentence. 0or .ur.oses of sus.ension of sentence'
the offender@s age at the time of .romulgation of the sentence is the one
considered' not his age when he committed the crime. Ao although 4 was below 17
years old when he committed the crime' but he was already 22 years old when
sentenced' he is no longer eligible for sus.ension of the sentence.
&an 1$venile o%%en)es. who ae eci)ivists. vali)l! as2 %o s$spension o%
sentence/ E'plain0 34
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the .romulgation of the
sentence. The law establishing 0amily Courts' Re.. 4ct 7258' .rovides to this effectF
that if the minor is found guilty' the court should .romulgate the sentence and
ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. However' the
sentence shall be sus.ended without the need of a..lication .ursuant to = 562'
otherwise #nown as the GChild and +outh Welfare CodeG (R4 7258' Aec. )a)' %t is
under = 562 that an a..lication for sus.ension of the sentence is re"uired and
thereunder it is one of the conditions for sus.ension of sentence that the offender
be a first time convictF this has been dis.laced by R4 7258.
Suspension of Sentence; Gouthful >3en"er (1997)
Kictor' Ric#y' Rod and Ronnie went to the store of ,ang andoy. Kictor and Ric#y
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie .osted themselves at the door. 4fter
ordering beer Ric#y com.lained that he was shortchanged although ,ang andoy
vehemently denied it. Auddenly Ric#y whi..ed out a #nife as he announced GHoldEu.
itoRG and stabbed ,ang andoy to death. Rod bo?ed the store@s salesgirl Lucy to
.revent her from hel.ing ,ang andoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to see# hel.
from .eo.le ne?t door she was chased by Ronnie. 4s soon as Ric#y had stabbed ,ang
andoy' Kictor scoo.ed u. the money from the cash bo?. Then Kictor and Ric#y
dashed to the street and shouted' GTuma#bo na #ayoRG Rod was 1: and
Ronnie was 1O. The money and other articles looted from the store of ,ang andoy
were later found in the houses of Kictor and Ric#y.
=iscuss fully the criminal liability of Kictor' Ric#y' Rod and Ronnie.
4re the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to sus.ended sentence under The Child and
+outh Welfare Code! <?.lain.
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 . 4ll are liable for the s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with homicide....
2. 9o' because the benefits of sus.ension of sentence is not available where the
youthful offender has been
convicted of an offense .unishable by life im.risonment or death' .ursuant to .=.
9o. 562' 4rt. 182' The
com.le? crime of robbery with homicide is .unishable by reclusion .er.etua to
death under 4rt. 28: (1)'
R0C CPeople vs. (alit. *3) SC! 486).
EXTINCTION O$ CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(mnesty #s: P6 116& (%&&6)
Can former =AW= Aecretary =in#y Aoliman a..ly for amnesty! How about columnist
Randy =avid! (+ou are su..osed to #now the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as
.ublished in almost all news.a.ers for the .ast several months.) (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
roclamation 1156' which amended roclamation O2:' a..lies only to offenses
committed .rior to 1888. Thus' their a..lications shall be ineffectual and useless.
1eneral Lim and 1eneral -uerubin of the Acout Rangers and hili..ine ,arines'
res.ectively' were changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
under the 4rticles of War. Can they a..ly for amnesty! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
roclamation 1156' which amended roclamation O2:' a..lies only to offenses
committed .rior to 1888. Thus' their a..lications shall be ineffectual and useless.
(mnesty; Crimes Co#ere" (%&&6)
3nder residential roclamation 9o. O2:' amending residential roclamation 9o.
2:O' certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. 9ame at least ) of these
crimes. (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes covered under residential roclamation 9o. O2:F
1. Cou. d@etat'
2. Rebellion or insurrectionB
2. =isloyalty of .ublic officers or em.loyeesB
:. %nciting to rebellion or insurrectionB
). Cons.iracy to commit rebellion or insurrectionB
5. ro.osal to commit rebellion or insurrectionB
O. AeditionB
7. Cons.iracy to commit seditionB
8. %nciting to seditionB
16. %llegal 4ssemblyB
11. %llegal 4ssociationB
12. =irect 4ssaultB
12. %ndirect 4ssaultB
1:. Resistance and disobedience to a .erson in authorityB
1). Tumults and other disturbancesB
15. 3nlawful use of means of .ublications and unlawful utterrancesB
5
1O. 4larm and scandalB
17. %llegal ossession of firearms.
+/tinction; Criminal B Ci#il Lia4ilities; +3ects;
6eath of accuse" pen"ing appeal (%&&)
4J was convicted of rec#less im.rudence resulting in homicide. The trial court
sentenced him to a .rison term as well as to .ay 1)6'666 as civil indemnity and
damages. While his a..eal was .ending' 4J met a fatal accident. He left a young
widow' 2 children' and a millionE.eso estate. What is the effect' if any' of his death
on his criminal as well as civil liability! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of 4J while his a..eal from the $udgment of the trial court is .ending'
e?tinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime
and recoverable under the Revised enal Code is also e?tinguishedB but indemnity
and damages may be recovered in a civil action if .redicated on a source of
obligation under 4rt. 11)O' Civil Code' such as law' contracts' "uasiEcontracts and
"uasiEdelicts' but not on the basis of delicts. (People v. ;a3otas, *36 SC! *39 ).
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised enal Code are recoverable only if
the accused had been convicted with finality before he died.
+/tinction; Criminal B Ci#il Lia4ilities; +3ects;
6eath of >3en"e" Party (%&&&)
0or defrauding Lorna' 4lma was charged before the ,unici.al Trial Court of ,alolos'
>ulacan. 4fter a .rotracted trial' 4lma was convicted. While the case was .ending
a..eal in the Regional Trial Court of the same .rovince' Lorna who was then
suffering from breast cancer' died. 4lma manifested to the court that with Lorna@s
death' her (4lma@s) criminal and civil liabilities are now e?tinguished. %s 4lma@s
contention correct! What if it were 4lma who died' would it affect her criminal and
civil liabilities! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 4lma@s contention is not correct. The death of the offended .arty does not
e?tinguish the criminal liability of the offender' because the offense is committed
against the Atate ?People vs. $isola, 81 Phil. 83), 833). Hence' it follows that the
civil liability of 4lma based on the offense committed by her is not e?tinguished. The
estate of Lorna can continue the case. ;n the other hand' if it were 4lma who died
.ending a..eal of her conviction' her criminal liability shall be e?tinguished and
therewith the civil liability under the Revised enal Code (4rt. 78' .ar. 1' RC).
However' the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil Code (4rt.
11)O) if .redicated on a source of obligation other than delict' such as law'
contracts' "uasiEcontracts and "uasiEdelicts (People vs. ;a3otas *36 SC! *39, (..
1'*))1, Septem7er *. 1994)
Par"on #s: (mnesty (%&&6)
<numerate the differences between .ardon and amnesty. (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
a) 4R=;9 includes any crime and is e?ercised individually by the resident' while
4,9<AT+ a..lies to classes of .ersons or communities who may be guilty of .olitical
offenses.
b) 4R=;9 is e?ercised when the .erson is already convicted' while 4,9<AT+ may be
e?ercised even before trial or investigation.
c) 4R=;9 loo#s forward and relieves the offender of the .enalty of the offense for
which he has been convictedB it does not wor# for the restoration of the rights to
hold .ublic office' or the right of suffrage' unless such rights are e?.ressly restored
by means of .ardon' while 4,9<AT+ loo#s bac#ward and abolishes the offense and
its effects' as if the .erson had committed no offense.
d) 4R=;9 does not alter the fact that the accused is criminally liable as it .roduces
only the e?tinction of the .enalty' while 4,9<AT+ removes the criminal liability of
the offender because it obliterates every vestige of the crime.
e) 4R=;9 being a .rivate act by the resident' must be .leaded and .roved by the
.erson .ardoned' while 4,9<AT+ which is a roclamation of the Chief <?ecutive with
the concurrence of Congress is a .ublic act of which the courts should ta#e $udicial
notice.
Par"on; +3ect; Ci#il 2nter"iction (%&&)
TR+ was sentenced to death by final $udgment. >ut subse"uently he was granted
.ardon by the resident. The .ardon was silent on the .er.etual dis"ualification of
TR+ to hold any .ublic office. 4fter his .ardon' TR+ ran for office as ,ayor of 4' his
hometown. His o..onent sought to dis"ualify him. TR+ contended he is not
dis"ualified because he was already .ardoned by the resident unconditionally. %s
TR+@A contention correct! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' TR+@s contention is not correct. 4rticle :6 of the Revised enal Code e?.ressly
.rovides that when the death .enalty is not e?ecuted by reason of commutation or
.ardon' the accessory .enalties of .er.etual absolute dis"ualification and civil
interdiction during thirty (26) years from the date of the sentence shall remain as
effects thereof' unless such accessory .enalties have been e?.ressly remitted in the
.ardon. This is because .ardon only e?cuses the convict from serving the sentence
but does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless e?.ressly remitted in
the .ardon.
Par"on; +3ect; 0einstatement (199)
Linda was convicted by the Aandiganbayan of estafa' through falsification of .ublic
document. Ahe was sentenced accordingly and ordered to .ay' among others'
)'666.66 re.resenting the balance of the amount defrauded. The case reached the
Au.reme Court which affirmed the $udgment of conviction. =uring the .endency of
Linda@s motion for reconsideration in the said Court' the resident e?tended to her
an absolute .ardon which she acce.ted. >y reason of such .ardon' she wrote the
=e.artment of 0inance re"uesting that she be restored to her former .ost as
assistant treasurer' which is still vacant. The =e.artment ruled that Linda may be
reinstated to her former .osition without the necessity of a new a..ointment and
directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum of )'666.66 be satisfied.
Claiming that she should not be made to .ay )'666.66' Linda a..ealed to the ;ffice
of the resident. The ;ffice of the resident dismissed the a..eal and held that
ac"uittal' not absolute .ardon. %s the only ground for reinstatement to one@s former
5
.osition and that the absolute .ardon does not e?em.t the cul.rit from .ayment of
civil liability. %s Linda entitled to reinstatement!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former .osition inasmuch as her
right thereto had been relin"uished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The
absolute .ardon merely e?tinguished her criminal liability' removed her
dis"ualification' and restored her eligibility for a..ointment to that office. Ahe has
to reEa..ly for such .osition and under the usual .rocedure re"uired for a new
a..ointment. ,oreover' the .ardon does not e?tinguish the civil liability arising from
the crime. ($o&sa&to vs.Fa5tora&, +r., 11) SC! 191)" see !rt. 36, PC)
Prescription of Crimes; Cigamy (1997)
&oe and ,arcy were married in >atanes in 18)). 4fter two years' &oe left ,arcy and
settled in ,indanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 &une 1856. The
second marriage was registered in the civil registry of =avao City three days after its
celebration. ;n 16 ;ctober 18O) ,arcy who remained in >atanes discovered the
marriage of &oe to Linda. ;n 1 ,arch 18O5 ,arcy filed a com.laint for bigamy
against &oe.
The crime of bigamy .rescribed in fifteen years com.uted from the day the crime is
discovered by the offended .arty' the authorities or their agents. &oe raised the
defense of .rescri.tion of the crime' more than fifteen years having ela.sed from
the celebration of the bigamous marriage u. to the filing of ,arcy@s com.laint. He
contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of =avao
City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus
binding u.on ,arcy. Has the crime of bigamy charged against &oe already .rescribed!
=iscuss fully'
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. The .rescri.tive .eriod for the crime of bigamy is com.uted from the time the
crime was discovered by the offended .arty' the authorities or their agents. The
.rinci.le of constructive notice which ordinarily a..lies to land or .ro.erty dis.utes
should not be a..lied to the crime of bigamy' as marriage is not .ro.erty. Thus when
,arcy filed a com.laint for bigamy on O ,arch 18O5' it was well within the
reglamentary .eriod as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 16
;ctober 18O). (Sermo&ia vs. C!, *33 SC! 1'')
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&&)
;ne fateful night in &anuary 1886' while )Eyear old 4lbert was urinating at the bac#
of their house' he heard a strange noise coming from the #itchen of their neighbor
and .laymate' 4ra. When he .ee.ed inside' he saw ,ina' 4ra@s ste.mother' very
angry and strangling the )Eyear old 4ra to death. 4lbert saw ,ina carry the dead
body of 4ra' .lace it inside the trun# of her car and drive away. The dead body of
4ra was never found. ,ina s.read the news in the neighborhood that 4ra went to
live with her grand.arents in ;rmoc City. 0or fear of his life' 4lbert did not tell
anyone' even his .arents and relatives' about what he witnessed.
Twenty and a half (26 I 1N2) years after the incident' and right after his graduation
in Criminology' 4lbert re.orted the crime to 9>% authorities. The crime of homicide
.rescribes in 26 years. Can the state still .rosecute ,ina for the death of 4ra des.ite
the la.se of 26 I 1N2 years! <?.lain' ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
+es' the Atate can still .rosecute ,ina for the death of 4ra des.ite the la.se of 26 I
1N2 years. 3nder 4rticle 81' RC' the .eriod of .rescri.tion commences to run from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended .arty' the authorities or
their agents. %n the case at bar' the commission of the crime was #nown only to
4lbert' who was not the offended .arty nor an authority or an agent of an authority.
%t was discovered by the 9>% authorities only when 4lbert revealed to them the
commission of the crime. Hence' the .eriod of .rescri.tion of 26 years for homicide
commenced to run only from the time 4lbert revealed the same to the 9>%
authorities.
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&)
;W is a .rivate .erson engaged in cattle ranching. ;ne night' he saw 4, stab CK
treacherously' then throw the dead man@s body into a ravine. 0or 2) years' CKs body
was never seen nor foundB and ;W told no one what he had witnessed. +esterday
after consulting the .arish .riest' ;W decided to tell the authorities what he
witnessed' and revealed that 4, had #illed CK 2) years ago. Can 4, be .rosecuted
for murder des.ite the la.se of 2) years! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 4, can be .rosecuted for murder des.ite the la.se of 2) years' because the
crime has not yet .rescribed and legally' its .rescri.tive .eriod has not even
commenced to run. The .eriod of .rescri.tion of a crime shall commence to run only
from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended .arty' the
authorities or their agents (4rt. 81' Revised enal Code). ;W' a .rivate .erson who
saw the #illing but never disclosed it' is not the offended .arty nor has the crime
been discovered by the authorities or their agents.
Prescription of Crimes; Concu4inage (%&&1)
;n &une 1' 1877' a com.laint for concubinage committed in 0ebruary 187O was filed
against Roberto in the ,unici.al Trial Court of Tan/a' Cavite for .ur.oses of
.reliminary investigation. 0or various reasons' it was only on &uly 2' 1887 when the
&udge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lac# of $urisdiction since the
crime was committed in ,anila. The case was subse"uently filed with the City 0iscal
of ,anila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already .rescribed.
The law .rovides that the crime of concubinage .rescribes in ten (16) years. Was the
dismissal by the fiscal correct! <?.lain' ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the 0iscal@s dismissal of the case on alleged .rescri.tion is not correct. The filing
of the com.laint with the ,unici.al Trial Court' although only for .reliminary
investigation' interru.ted and sus.ended the .eriod of .rescri.tion in as much as
the $urisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
com.laint or information' not by the result of .roof. (People vs. (ala&o. 1' SC!
193)
Prescription of Crimes; .alse Testimony (199)
aolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of ,anila. 4ndrew'
a .rosecution witness' testified that he saw aolo shoot 4bby during their heated
argument. While the case is still .ending' the City Hall of ,anila burned down and
the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later' the records were
reconstituted. 4ndrew 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
5
too# .lace. The $udge immediately ordered the .rosecution of 4ndrew for giving a
false testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case.
Will the case against 4ndrew .ros.er!
aolo was ac"uitted. The decision became final on &anuary 16' 187O. ;n &une 17'
188: a case of giving false testimony was filed against 4ndrew. 4s his lawyer' what
legal ste. will you ta#e!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) +es. ...
2) 4s lawyer of 4ndrew' % will file a motion to "uash the %nformation on the ground of
.rescri.tion. The crime of false testimony under 4rt. 176 has .rescribed because
aolo' the accused in the .rinci.al case' was ac"uitted on &anuary 16' 187O and
therefore the .enalty .rescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under 4rt. 176' .ar.
:' RC. Crimes .unishable by arresto mayor .rescribes in five ()) years (4rt. 86' .ar.
2' RC). >ut the case against 4ndrew was filed only on &une 17' 188:' whereas the
.rinci.al criminal case was decided with finality on &anuary 16' 187O and' thence
the .rescri.tive .eriod of the crime commenced to run. 0rom &anuary 16' 187O to
&une 17' 188: is more than five ()) years.
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan"er (199*)
4 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 sim.le slander. He filed a
motion for reconsideration contending that' under the law' the crime of sim.le
slander would have .rescribed 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 .rescribed. The Aolicitor 1eneral
o..osed the motion on two groundsF first' in determining the .rescri.tive .eriod'
the nature of the offense charged in the %nformation should be considered' not the
crime .rovedB second' assuming that the offense had already .rescribed' the
defense was waived by the failure of 4 to raise it in a motion to "uash. Resolve the
motion for reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.E
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of sim.le slander although it is
necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information'
because' the lesser offense had already .rescribed at the time the information was
filed (People #s. ara&2, (C!) 6* 4.(. 6468" Fra&5is5o vs. C!, 1** SC! '38" $a2at
vs. People. *)1 SC! *1) otherwise .rosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of
.rescri.tion in light offenses by the sim.le e?.ediment 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 "uash before
he .leads to the com.laint or information' shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds
of a motion to "uash' the e?ce.tions to this areF (1) no offense was charged in the
com.laint or informationB (2) lac# of &urisdictionB (2) e?tinction of the offense or
.enaltyB and (:) double $eo.ardy. Aince the ground invo#ed by the accused in his
motion for reconsideration is e?tinction of the offense' then it can be raised even
after .lea. %n fact' it may even be invo#ed on a..eal (People vs. ;ala2tas)
5
CI'IL LIABILITY
Ci#il lia4ility; +3ect of (c<uittal (%&&&)
9ame at least two e?ce.tions to the general rule that in case of ac"uittal of the
accused in a criminal case' his civil liability is li#ewise e?tinguished. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
<?ce.tions to the rule that ac"uittal from a criminal case e?tinguishes civil liability'
areF
1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act com.lained
of as a felonyB
2) When ac"uittal is based on reasonable doubt or ac"uittal is on the ground that
guilt has not been .roven beyond reasonable doubt (4rt. 28' 9ew Civil Code)B
2) 4c"uittal due to an e?em.ting circumstance' li#e %nsanityB
:) Where the court states in its &udgment that
the case merely involves a civil obligationB
)) Where there was a .ro.er reservation for the filing of a se.arate civil actionB
5) %n cases of inde.endent civil actions .rovided for in 4rts. 21' 22' 22 and 2: of the
9ew Civil CodeB
1) When the $udgment of ac"uittal includes a declaration that the fact from which
the civil liability might arise did not e?ist (Sapiera vs. C!, 314 SC! 31))"
7) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is ac"uitted (Sapiera vs. C!. 314 SC! 31)).
Ci#il lia4ility; +3ect of (c<uittal (%&&&)
4 was a 1OEyear old wor#ing student who was earning his #ee. as a cigarette vendor.
> was driving a car along busy <s.ana Atreet at about OF66 ..m. >eside > was C. The
car sto..ed at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While
waiting for the green signal' C bec#oned 4 to buy some cigarettes. 4 a..roached the
car and handed two stic#s of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was ta#ing .lace'
the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately s.ed off. 4s the car
continued to s.eed towards -uia.o' 4 clung to the window of the car but lost his
gri. and fell down on the .avement. The car did not sto.. 4 suffered serious in$uries
which eventually caused his death. C was charged with R;>><R+ with H;,%C%=<. %n
the end' the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has
been established beyond reasonable doubt and' thus' ac"uitted him on the ground of
reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of
the ac"uittal of C! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' as against C' 4@s family can still recover civil damages des.ite C@s ac"uittal.
When the accused in a criminal .rosecution is ac"uitted on the ground that his guilt
has not been .roved beyond reasonable doubt' a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission may be instituted. Auch action re"uires only a .re.onderance
of evidence S4rt. 28' CC). %f 4@s family can .rove the negligence of > by
.re.onderance of evidence' the civil action for damages against > will .ros.er based
on "uasiEdelict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another' there being
fault or negligence' is obliged to .ay for the damage done. Auch fault or negligence'
5
about .ree?isting contractual relation between the .arties' is called a "uasiEdelict
C4rt. 21O5' CC). This is entirely se.arate and distinct from civil liability arising from
negligence under the enal Code C4rts' 21' 21O5' 21OO' CC}.
Ci#il Lia4ility; Su4si"iary; +mployers (199-)
1uy' while driving a .assenger $ee.ney owned and o.erated by ,a?' bum.ed =emy'
a .edestrian crossing the street. =emy sustained in$uries which re"uired medical
attendance for three months. 1uy was charged with rec#less im.rudence resulting to
.hysical in$uries. Convicted by the ,etro.olitan Trial Court. 1uy was sentenced to
suffer a straight .enalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify
=emy in the sum of )'666 and to .ay 1'666 as attorney@s fees. 3.on finality of the
decision' a writ of e?ecution was served u.on 1uy' but was returned unsatisfied due
to his insolvency. =emy moved for a subsidiary writ of e?ecution against ,a?. The
latter o..osed the motion onEthe ground that the decision made no mention of his
subsidiary liability and that he was not im.leaded in the case. How will you resolve
the motion!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion is to be granted. ,a? as an em.loyer of 1uy and engaged in an industry
(trans.ortation business) where said em.loyee is utili/ed' is subsidiarily civilly liable
under 4rticle 162 of the Revised enal Code. <ven though the decision made no
mention of his subsidiary liability' the law violated (Revised enal Code) itself
mandates for such liability and ,a? is deemed to #now it because ignorance of the
law is never e?cused.
4nd since his liability is not .rimary but only subsidiary in case his em.loyee cannot
.ayB he need not be im.leaded in the in the criminal case. %t suffices that he was
duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of e?ecution and thus
given the o..ortunity to be heard.
Ci#il Lia4ility; )hen 9an"atory; Criminal Lia4ility
(%&&7)
The accused was found guilty of 16 counts of ra.e for having carnal #nowledge with
the same woman. %n addition to the .enalty of im.risonment' he was ordered to .ay
indemnity in the amount of )6'666.66 for each count. ;n a..eal' the accused
"uestions 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! <?.lain.
(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention is unmeritorious. 3nder the law' every .erson criminally liable is
civilly liable. (4rt. 166' Revised enal Code) Aince each count charges different
felonious acts and ought to be .unished differently' the concomitant civil indemnity
e? delicto for every criminal act should be ad$udged. Aaid civil indemnity is
mandatory u.on a finding of the fact of ra.eB it is distinct from and should not be
denominated as moral damages which are based on different $ural foundations.
(People v. +alos@os, (.. Nos. 13*81'<16, Novem7er 16, *))1)
6amages; ?omici"e; Temperate 6amages (%&&6)
%n a crime of homicide' the .rosecution failed to .resent any recei.t to substantiate
the heirs@ claim for an award of actual damages' such as e?.enses for the wa#e and
burial. What #ind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much! ()*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The court may award tem.erate damages in the amount of twentyEfive (2)'666.66)
thousand .esos. 3nder $uris.rudence' tem.erate damages is awarded in homicide
when no sufficient .roof of actual damages is offered or if the actual damages
.roven is less than twentyEfive thousand (2)'666) (People v. Salo&a, (.. No.
1'1*'1, $a3 19, *))4).
C()*!" A0+)n" N+)on+, S!12()- +n3 4!
L+5 o/ N+)on"
Piracy in the ?igh Seas B Auali@e" Piracy (%&&6)
While the A.A. 9agoya ,aru was negotiating the sea route from Hong#ong towards
,anila' and while still 266 miles from 4.arri' Cagayan' its engines malfunctioned.
The Ca.tain ordered the shi. to sto. for emergency re.airs lasting for almost 1)
hours. =ue to e?haustion' the officers and crew fell aslee.. While the shi. was
anchored' a motorboat manned by renegade +banags from Claveria' Cagayan' .assed
by and too# advantage of the situation. They cut the shi.@s engines and too# away
several heavy crates of electrical e"ui.ment and loaded them in their motorboat.
Then they left hurriedly towards 4.arri. 4t daybrea#' the crew found that a robbery
too# .lace. They radioed the 4.arri ort 4uthorities resulting in the a..rehension of
the cul.rits.
What cime was committe)/ E'plain0 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
iracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade +banags. The cul.rits' who
are neither members of the com.lement nor .assengers of the shi.' sei/ed .art of
the e"ui.ment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles away from 4.arri'
Cagayan (4rt. 122' Revised enal Code).
S$pposing that while the o""e! was ta2ing place. the c$lpits sta""e) a
mem"e o% the cew while
sleeping0 What cime was committe)/ E'plain0 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is "ualified .iracy' because it was accom.anied by .hysical
in$uriesNhomicide. The cul.rits stabbed a member of the crew while slee.ing (4rt.
122' Revised enal Code).
C()*!" A0+)n" 4! $2n3+*!n+, L+5 o/
4! S+!
$iolation of 6omicile #s: Trespass to 6welling
(%&&%)
What is the difference between violation of domicile and tres.ass to dwelling! (2*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of domicile and tres.ass to dwelling areB
1) The offender in violation of domicile is a .ublic officer acting under color of
authorityB in tres.ass to dwelling' the offender is a .rivate .erson or .ublic officer
acting in a .rivate ca.acity.
2) Kiolation of domicile is committed in 2 different waysF
(1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latterB
(2) searching .a.ers and other effects inside the dwelling without the
.revious consent of the ownerB or
(2) refusing to leave the .remises which he entered surre.titiously' after
being re"uired to leave the .remises.
2) Tres.ass to dwelling is committed only in one wayB that is' by entering the
dwelling of another against the e?.ress or im.lied will of the latter.
C()*!" A0+)n" P2.,)1 O(3!(
(rt 11; 0e4ellion; Politically 9oti#ate";
Committe" 4y =P( 9em4ers (199-)
;n ,ay )' 1882' at about 5F66 a.m.' while 1overnor 4legre of Laguna was on board
his car traveling along the 9ational Highway of Laguna' &oselito and Kicente shot him
on the head resulting in his instant death. 4t that time' &oselito and Kicente were
members of the li"uidation s"uad of the 9ew eo.le@s 4rmy and they #illed the
governor u.on orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. 4ccording to &oselito
and Kicente' they were ordered to #ill 1overnor 4legre because of his corru.t
.ractices. %f you were the .rosecutor' what crime will you charge &oselito and
Kicente! C)*&
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%f % were the .rosecutor' % would charge &oselito and Kicente with the crime of
rebellion' considering that the #illers were members of the li"uidation s"uad of the
9ew eo.le@s 4rmy and the #illing was u.on orders of their commanderB hence'
.oliticallyEmotivated. This was the ruling in People vs. !vila, *)1 SC! 1'68
involving identical facts which is a movement ta#en $udicial notice of as engaged in
rebellion against the 1overnment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
%f % were the .rosecutor' % would charge &oselito and Kicente for the crime of murder
as the .ur.ose of the #illing was because of his Gcorru.t .ractices G' which does not
a..ear to be .olitically motivated. There is no indication as to how the #illing would
.romote or further the ob$ective of the 9ew eo.les 4rmy. The #illing is murder
because it was committed with treachery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that 4rt. 12) of the Revised
enal Code has already been amended by Re.. 4ct 9o. 5857' deleting from said
4rticle' common crimes which used to be .unished as .art and .arcel of the crime of
rebellion. The ruling in People vs. Eer&a&%e0, 99 Phil. '1' (1994), that rebellion
may not be com.leted with common crimes committed in furtherance thereof' was
because the common crimes were then .enali/ed in 4rt. 12) together with the
rebellion' with one .enalty and 4rt. :7 of the Rev. enal Code cannot be a..lied.
4rt. 12) of said Code remained e?actly the same when the case of <nrile vs' Aala/ar'
5
175 ACR4 21O (1886) was resolved. recisely for the reason that 4rt. :7 cannot a..ly
because the common crimes were .unished as .art of rebellion in 4rt. 12)' that this
4rticle was amended' deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common
crimes were deleted from said 4rticle' demonstrates a clear legislative intention to
treat the common crimes as distinct from rebellion and remove the legal
im.ediment to the a..lication of 4rt. :7. %t is noteworthy that in >&rile vs. Sala0ar
(s#pra) the Au.reme Court said theseF
GThere is an a..arent need to restructure the law on rebellion' either to raise the
.enalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered
as absorbed thereby' so that if it cannot be conveniently utili/ed as the umbrella for
every sort of illegal activity underta#en in its name. The Court has no .ower to
effect such change' for it can only inter.ret the law as it stands at any given time'
and what is needed lies beyond inter.retation. Ho.efully' Congress will .erceive the
need for .rom.tly sei/ing the initiative in this matter' which is .urely with in its
.rovince'G 4nd significantly the said amendment to 4rt. 12) of the Rev. enal Code
was made at around the time the ruling in Aala/ar was handled down' obviously to
neutrali/e the Hernande/ and the Aala/ar rulings. The amendment was sort of a rider
to the cou. d@etat law' Re.. 4ct 9o 5857.
(rt 11,(5 Coup "E etat B 0ape; .rustrate" (%&&7)
Ta#ing into account the nature and elements of the felonies of cou. dQ etat and
ra.e' may one be criminally liable for frustrated cou. dQ etat or frustrated ra.e!
<?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated cou. dQ etat or frustrated ra.e
because in cou. dQ etat the mere attac# directed against the duly constituted
authorities of the Re.ublic of the hili..ines' or any military cam. or installation'
communication networ#s' .ublic utilities or other facilities needed for the e?ercise
and continued .ossession of .ower would consummate the crime. The ob$ective may
not be to overthrow the government but only to destabili/e or .araly/e the
government through the sei/ure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued
.ossession and e?ercise of governmental .owers.
;n the other hand' in the crime of ra.e there is no frustrated ra.e it is either
attem.ted or consummated ra.e. %f the accused who .laced himself on to. of a
woman' raising her s#irt and unbuttoning his .ants' the endeavor to have se? with
her very a..arent' is guilty of 4ttem.ted ra.e. ;n the other hand' entry on the labia
or li.s of the female organ by the .enis' even without ru.ture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina' consummates the crime of ra.e. ,ore so' it has long
abandoned its TstrayU decision in People vs. >ri&a ') Phil 998 where the accused
was found guilty of 0rustrated ra.e.
(rt 11,(; Coup "Eetat (%&&%)
%f a grou. of .ersons belonging to the armed forces ma#es a swift attac#'
accom.anied by violence' intimidation and threat against a vital military installation
for the .ur.ose of sei/ing .ower and ta#ing over such installation' what crime or
crimes are they guilty of! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .er.etrators' being .ersons belonging to the 4rmed 0orces' would be guilty of
the crime of cou. d@etat' under 4rticle 12:E4 of the Revised enal Code' as
5
amended' because their attac# was against vital military installations which are
essential to the continued .ossession and e?ercise of governmental .owers' and
their .ur.ose is to sei/e .ower by ta#ing over such installations.
80 I% the attac2 is *$elle) "$t the lea)e is $n2nown. who shall "e )eeme) the
lea)e theeo%/ 564)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being un#nown' any .erson who in fact directed the others' s.o#e for
them' signed recei.ts and other documents issued in their name' or .erformed
similar acts' on behalf of the grou. shall be deemed the leader of said cou. d@etat
(4rt 12)' R..C.)
(rt 11,(; Coup "Eetat; =ew .irearms Law (199-)
1. How is the crime of cou. d@etat committed! C2*D
2. Au..osing a .ublic school teacher .artici.ated in a cou. d@etat using an
unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime of cou. d@etat is committed by a swift attac#' accom.anied by
violence' intimidation' threat' strategy or stealth against the duly constituted
authorities of the Re.ublic of the hili..ines' military cam.s and installations'
communication networ#s' .ublic utilities and facilities needed for the e?ercise and
continued .ossession of .ower' carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the
hili..ines by .ersons belonging to the military or .olice or holding .ublic office'
with or without civilian su..ort or .artici.ation' for the .ur.ose of sei/ing or
diminishing state .ower. (4rt 12:E4' RC).
2. The .ublic school teacher committed only cou. d@etat for his .artici.ation
therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the cou. d@etat under the
new firearms law (Re.. 4ct 9o. 728:).
(rt 116; Conspiracy to Commit 0e4ellion (199)
KC' &1. 11 and &1 cons.ired to overthrow the hili..ine 1overnment. K1 was
recogni/ed as the titular head of the cons.iracy. Aeveral meetings were held and the
.lan was finali/ed. &&' bothered by his conscience' confessed to 0ather 4braham
that he' K1' &1 and 11 have cons.ired to overthrow the government. 0ather
4braham did not re.ort this information to the .ro.er authorities. =id 0ather
4braham commit a crime! %f so' what crime was committed! What is his criminal
liability!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' 0ather 4braham did not commit a crime because the cons.iracy involved is one
to commit rebellion' not a cons.iracy to commit treason which ma#es a .erson
criminally liable under 4rt 115' R0C. 4nd even assuming that it will fall as mis.rision
of treason' 0ather 4braham is e?em.ted from criminal liability under 4rt. 12' .ar. O'
as his failure to re.ort can be considered as due to Ginsu.erable causeG' as this
involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession. Cons.iracy to commit
rebellion results in criminal liability to the coEcons.irators' but not to a .erson who
learned of such and did not re.ort to the .ro.er authorities (US vs. /er2ara, 3 Phil.
43*" People vs. !tie&0a. '6 Phil. 3'3).
5
(rt 1-; 6irect (ssault #s: 0esistance B
6iso4e"ience (%&&1)
4' a teacher at ,a.a High Achool' having gotten mad at J' one of his .u.ils' because
of the latter@s throwing .a.er cli.s at his classmates' twisted his right ear. J went
out of the classroom crying and .roceeded home located at the bac# of the school.
He re.orted to his .arents + and L what 4 had done to him. + and L immediately
.roceeded to the school building and because they were running and tal#ing in loud
voices' they were seen by the barangay chairman' >' who followed them as he
sus.ected that an untoward incident might ha..en. 3.on seeing 4 inside the
classroom' J .ointed him out to his father' +' who administered a fist blow on 4'
causing him to fall down. When + was about to #ic# 4' > rushed towards + and
.inned both of the latter@s arms. Aeeing his father being held by >' J went near and
.unched > on the face' which caused him to lose his gri. on +. Throughout this
incident' L shouted words of encouragement at +' her husband' and also threatened
to sla. 4. Aome security guards of the school arrived' intervened and surrounded J'
+ and L so that they could be investigated in the .rinci.al@s office. >efore leaving' L
.assed near 4 and threw a small flower .ot at him but it was deflected by >. a)
What' if any' are the res.ective criminal liability of J + and L! (5*) b) Would your
answer be the same if > were a barangay tanod only! (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) J is liable for =irect 4ssault only' assuming the .hysical in$uries inflicted on >' the
>arangay Chairman' to be only slight and hence' would be absorbed in the direct
assault. 4 >arangay Chairman is a .erson in authority (4rt. 1)2' RC) and in this
case' was .erforming his duty of maintaining .eace and order when attac#ed. + is
liable for the com.le? crimes of =irect 4ssault With Less Aerious hysical %n$uries for
the fist blow on 4' the teacher' which caused the latter to fall down. 0or .ur.oses of
the crimes in 4rts. 1:7 and 1)1 of the Revised enal Code' a teacher is considered a
.erson in authority' and having been attac#ed by + by reason of his .erformance of
official duty' direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious .hysical
in$uries com.leted. L' the mother of J and wife of + may only be liable as an
accom.lice to the com.le? crimes of direct assault with less serious .hysical in$uries
committed by +. Her .artici.ation should not be considered as that of a co.rinci.al'
since her reactions were only incited by her relationshi. to J and +. as the mother of
J and the wife of +.
b) %f > were a >arangay Tanod only' the act of J of laying hand on him' being an
agent of a .erson in authority only' would constitute the crime of Resistance and
=isobedience under 4rticle 1)1' since J' a high school .u.il' could not be considered
as having acted out of contem.t for authority but more of hel.ing his father get free
from the gri. of >. Laying hand on an agent of a .erson in authority is not i.so facto
direct assault' while it would always be direct assault if done to a .erson in
authority in defiance to the latter is e?ercise of authority.
(rt 1-; 6irect (ssault; Teachers B Professors
(%&&%)
4' a lady .rofessor' was giving an e?amination. Ahe noticed >' one of the students'
cheating. Ahe called the student@s attention and confiscated his e?amination
boo#let' causing embarrassment to him. The following day' while the class was going
on' the student' >' a..roached 4 and' without any warning' sla..ed her. > would
have inflicted further in$uries on 4 had not C' another student' come to 4@s rescue
and .revented > from continuing his attac#. > turned his ire on C and .unched the
latter. What crime or crimes' if any' did > commit! Why! ()*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
> committed two (2) counts of direct assaultF one for sla..ing the .rofessor' 4' who
was then conducting classes and thus e?ercising authorityB and another one for the
violence on the student C' who came to the aid of the said .rofessor. >y e?.ress
.rovision of 4rticle 1)2' in relation to 4rticle 1:7 of the Revised enal Code'
teachers and .rofessors of .ublic or duly recogni/ed .rivate schools' colleges and
universities in the actual .erformance of their .rofessional duties or on the occasion
of such .erformance are deemed .ersons in authority for .ur.oses of the crimes of
direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in 4rticles 1:7 and 1)1 of said
Code. 4nd any .erson who comes to the aid of .ersons in authority shall be deemed
an agent of a .erson in authority. 4ccordingly' the attac# on C is' in the eyes of the
law' an attac# on an agent of a .erson in authority' not $ust an attac# on a student.
(rt 1-; Persons in (uthorityF(gents of Persons in
(uthority (%&&&)
Who are deemed to be .ersons in authority and agents of .ersons in authority! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
-esons in a$thoit! are .ersons directly vested with $urisdiction' whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or government cor.oration' board' or
commission. >arrio ca.tains and barangay chairmen are also deemed .ersons in
authority. (4rticle 1)2' RC)
Agents o% pesons in a$thoit! are .ersons who by direct .rovision of law or by
election or by a..ointment by com.etent authority' are charged with maintenance
of .ublic order' the .rotection and security of life and .ro.erty' such as barrio
councilman' barrio .oliceman' barangay leader and any .erson who comes to the aid
of .ersons in authority (4rt. 1)2' RC)' %n a..lying the .rovisions of 4rticles 1:7 and
1)1 of the Rev. enal Code' teachers' .rofessors and .ersons charged with the
su.ervision of .ublic or duly recogni/ed .rivate schools' colleges and universities'
and lawyers in the actual .erformance of their .rofessional duties or on the occasion
of such .erformance' shall be deemed .ersons in authority. (.=. 9o. 288' and >atas
ambansa >lg. 7O2).
(rt 176; 6eli#ery of Prisoners from !ail (%&&%)
4' a detention .risoner' was ta#en to a hos.ital for emergency medical treatment.
His followers' all of whom were armed' went to the hos.ital to ta#e him away or
hel. him esca.e. The .rison guards' seeing that they were outnumbered and that
resistance would endanger the lives of other .atients' dec#led to allow the .risoner
to be ta#en by his followers. What crime' if any' was committed by 4@s followers!
Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4@s followers shall be liable as .rinci.als in the crime of delivery of .risoner from &ail
(4rt. 1)5' Revised enal Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from
any $ail or .enal establishment any .erson confined therein but also by hel.ing in
the esca.e of such .erson outside of said establishments by means of violence'
intimidation' bribery' or any other means.
(rt 17*; +#asion of Ser#ice of Sentence (199-)
5
,anny #illed his wife under e?ce.tional circumstances and was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court of =agu.an City to suffer the .enalty of destierro during which
he was not to enter the city. While serving sentence' ,anny went to =agu.an City to
visit his mother. Later' he was arrested in ,anila.
1. =id ,anny commit any crime! C2*D
2. %f so' where should he be .rosecuted! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. +es. ,anny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went
to =agu.an City' which Vhe was .rohibited from entering under his sentence of
destierro. 4 sentence im.osing the .enalty of destierro is evaded when the convict
enters any of the .laceN.laces he is .rohibited from entering under the sentence or
come within the .rohibited radius. 4lthough destierro does not involve
im.risonment' it is nonetheless a de.rivation of liberty. (eo.le vs. 4bilong. 72 hil.
1O2).
2. ,anny may be .rosecuted in =agu.an City or in ,anila where he was arrested.
This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense' as the
convict is a fugitive from $ustice in such case. (Par#la& vs. 9ir. o. Priso&s, 6<*8'19,
11 Fe7. 1968)
(rt: 11; 0e4ellion #s: Coup "Hetat (%&&)
=istinguish clearly but brieflyF >etween rebellion and cou. d@etat' based on their
constitutive elements as criminal offenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
R<><LL%;9 is committed when a multitude of .ersons rise .ublicly in arms for the
.ur.ose of overthrowing the duly constituted government' to be re.laced by a
government of the rebels. %t is carried out by force and violence' but need not be
.artici.ated in by any member of the military' national .olice or any .ublic officer.
C;3 =@<T4T is committed when members of the military' hili..ine 9ational olice'
or .ublic officer' acting as .rinci.al offenders' launched a swift attac# thru strategy'
stealth' threat' violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the
Re.ublic of the hili..ines' military cam. or installation' communication networ#s'
.ublic facilities or utilities needed for the e?ercise and continued .ossession of
governmental .owers' for the .ur.ose of sei/ing or diminishing state .owers. 3nli#e
rebellion which re"uires a .ublic u.rising' cou. d@etat may be carried out singly or
simultaneously and the .rinci.al offenders must be members of the military'
national .olice or .ublic officer' with or without civilian su..ort. The criminal
ob$ective need not be to overthrow the e?isting government but only to destabili/e
or .araly/e the e?isting government.
Comple/ Crime; 6irect (ssault with mur"er (%&&&)
>ecause of the a..roaching town fiesta in Aan ,iguel' >ulacan' a dance was held in
>arangay Camias. 4' the >arangay Ca.tain' was invited to deliver a s.eech to start
the dance. While 4 was delivering his s.eech. >' one of the guests' went to the
middle of the dance floor ma#ing obscene dance movements' brandishing a #nife
and challenging everyone .resent to a fight. 4 a..roached > and admonished him to
#ee. "uiet and not to disturb the dance and .eace of the occasion. >' instead of
heeding the advice of 4' stabbed the latter at his bac# twice when 4 turned his bac#
to .roceed to the micro.hone to continue his s.eech. 4 fell to the ground and died.
5
4t the time of the incident 4 was not armed. What crime was committed! <?.lain.
(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The com.le? crime of direct assault with murder was committed. 4' as a >arangay
Ca.tain' is a .erson in authority and was acting in an official ca.acity when he tried
to maintain .eace and order during the .ublic dance in the >arangay' by
admonishing > to #ee. "uiet and not to disturb the dance and .eace of the occasion.
When >' instead of heeding 4@s advice' attac#ed the latter' > acted in contem.t and
lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault' which
characteri/ed the stabbing of 4. 4nd since 4 was stabbed at the bac# when he was
not in a .osition to defend himself nor retaliate' there was treachery in the
stabbing. Hence' the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having
beencommitted with direct assault' a com.le? crime of direct assault with murder
was committed by >.
(rt 1-; 6irect (ssault with mur"er (1997)
ascual o.erated a rice thresher in >arangay 9a.nud where he resided. Renato' a
resident of the neighboring >arangay 1uihaman' also o.erated a mobile rice
thresher which he often brought to >arangay 9a.nud to thresh the .alay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by ascual' one afternoon ascual' and his
two sons confronted Renato and his men who were o.erating their mobile rice
thresher along a feeder road in 9a.nud. 4 heated argument ensued. 4 barangay
ca.tain who was fetched by one of ascual@s men tried to a..ease ascual and
Renato to .revent a violent confrontation.
However' ascual resented the intervention of the barangay ca.tain and hac#ed him
to death. What crime was committed by ascual! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ascual committed the com.le? crime of homicide with assault u.on a .erson in
authority (4rts. 1:7 and 2:8 in relation to 4rt' :7' RC). 4 barangay chairman' is in
law (4rt. 1)2)' a .erson in authority and if he is attac#ed while in the .erformance
of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is
committed.
4rt. :7' RC' on the other hand' .rovides that if a single act .roduces two or more
grave or less grave felonies' a com.le? crime is committed. Here' the single act of
the offender in hac#ing the victim to death resulted in two felonies' homicide which
is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
C()*!" +0+)n" P2.,)1 In!(!"
.alse =otes; 2llegal Possession (1999)
%s mere .ossession of false money bills .unishable under 4rticle 157 of the Revised
enal Code! <?.lain. (2*)
The accused was caught in .ossession of 166 counterfeit 26 bills. He could not
e?.lain how and why he .ossessed the said bills. 9either could he e?.lain what he
intended to do with the fa#e bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such
.ossession! =ecide. (2*}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
9o. ossession of false treasury or ban# note alone without an intent to use it' is not
.unishable. >ut the circumstances of such .ossession may indicate intent to utter'
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal .ossession of false notes.
+es. Mnowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. Ao' .ossession of 166 false bills revealF (a) #nowledge that
the bills are fa#eB and (b) intent to utter the same.
.alse Testimony (199)
aolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of ,anila. 4ndrew'
a .rosecution witness' testified that he saw aolo shoot 4bby during their heated
argument. While the case is still .ending' the City Hall of ,anila burned down and
the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later' the records were
reconstituted. 4ndrew 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
too# .lace.
The $udge immediately ordered the .rosecution of 4ndrew for giving a false
testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. 1.D Will the case against
4ndrew .ros.er! 2.D aolo was ac"uitted. The decision became final on &anuary 16'
187O. ;n &une 17' 188: a case of giving false testimony was filed against 4ndrew. 4s
his lawyer' what legal ste. will you ta#e!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) +es. 0or one to be criminally liable under 4rt. 171' R0C' it is not necessary that
the criminal case where 4ndrew testified is terminated first. %t is not even re"uired
of the .rosecution to .rove which of the two statements of the witness is false and
to .rove the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory
statements (People vs. !ra0ola, 13 Co#rt o. !ppeals eport, *&% series, p. 8)8).
2) 4s lawyer of 4ndrew' % will file a motion to "uash the %nformation on the ground of
.rescri.tion. The crime of false testimony under 4rt. 176 has .rescribed because
aolo' the accused in the .rinci.al case' was ac"uitted on &anuary 16' 187O and
therefore the .enalty .rescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under 4rt. 176' .ar.
:' RC. Crimes .unishable by arresto mayor .rescribes in five ()) years (4rt. 86' .ar.
2' RC). >ut the case against 4ndrew was filed only on &une 17' 188:' whereas the
.rinci.al criminal case was decided with finality on &anuary 16' 187O and' thence
the .rescri.tive .eriod of the crime commenced to run. 0rom &anuary 16' 187O to
&une 17' 188: is more than five ()) years.
.alsi@cation; Presumption of .alsi@cation (1999)
4 falsified official or .ublic document was found in the .ossession of the accused. 9o
evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the
falsification. 4s a matter of fact' the trial court convicted the accused of
falsification of official or .ublic document mainly on the .ro.osition that Gthe only
.erson who could have made the erasures and the su.erim.osition mentioned is the
one who will be benefited by the alterations thus madeG and that Ghe alone could
have the motive for ma#ing such alterationsG.
Was the conviction of the accused .ro.er although the conviction was .remised
merely on the aforesaid ratiocination! <?.lain your answer. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the conviction is .ro.er because there is a .resum.tion in law that the
.ossessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.
.orgery B .alsi@cation (1999)
How are GforgingG and GfalsificationG committed! (2*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
0;R1%91 or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or ban# note or any
instrument .ayable to bearer or to order the a..earance of a true and genuine
documentB or by erasing' substituting' counterfeiting' or altering by any means the
figures' letters' words or signs contained therein.
04LA%0%C4T%;9' on the other hand' is committed byF
Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting' signature or rubricB
Causing it to a..ear that .ersons have .artici.ated in any act or .roceeding when
they did not in fact so .artici.ateB
4ttributing to .ersons who have .artici.ated in an act or .roceeding statements
other than those in fact made by themB
,a#ing untruthful statements in a narration of factsB
4ltering true datesB
,a#ing any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaningB
%ssuing in an authenticated form a document .ur.orting to be a co.y of an original
document when no such original e?ists' or including in such co.y a statement
contrary to' or different from' that of the genuine originalB or
%ntercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a .rotocol'
registry' or official boo#.
Gra#e Scan"al (1996)
ia' a bold actress living on to. floor of a .lush condominium in ,a#ati City
sunbathed na#ed at its .enthouse every Aunday morning. Ahe was unaware that the
business e?ecutives holding office at the ad$oining tall buildings re.orted to office
every Aunday morning and' with the use of .owerful binoculars' #e.t on ga/ing at
her while she sunbathed. <ventually' her sunbathing became the tal# of the town.
1) What crime' if any' did ia commit! <?.lain'
2) What crime' if any' did the business e?ecutives commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) ia did not commit a crime' the felony closest to ma#ing ia criminally liable is
1rave Acandal' but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
offensive against decency and good customs. %n the first .lace' it was not done in a
.ublic .lace and within .ublic #nowledge or view. 4s a matter of fact it was
discovered by the e?ecutives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have
.ublic and full view of ia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business e?ecutives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness Cas there was no overt lustful act)' or slander' as the eventual tal# of
the town' resulting from her sunbathing' is not directly im.uted to the business
e?ecutives' and besides such to.ic is not intended to defame or .ut ia to ridicule.
Per;ury (1996)
Aisenando .urchased the share of the stoc#holders of <strella Cor.oration in two
installments' ma#ing him the ma$ority stoc#holder thereof and eventually' its
.resident. >ecause the stoc#holders who sold their stoc#s failed to com.ly with their
warranties attendant to the sale' Aisenando withheld .ayment of the second
installment due on the shares and de.osited the money in escrow instead' sub$ect to
release once said stoc#holders com.ly with their warranties. The stoc#holders
concerned' in turn' rescinded the sale in "uestion and removed Aisenando from the
residency of the <strella Cor.oration' Aisenando then filed a verified com.laint for
damages against said stoc#holders in his ca.acity as .resident and .rinci.al
5
stoc#holder of <strella Cor.oration. %n retaliation' the stoc#holders concerned' after
.etitioning the Aecurities and <?change Commission to declare the rescission valid'
further filed a criminal case for .er$ury against Aisenando' claiming that the latter
.er$ured himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his com.laint for
damages that he is the resident of the <strella Cor.oration when in fact he had
already been removed as such. 3nder the facts of the case' could Aisenando be held
liable for .er$ury! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' Aisenando may not be held liable for .er$ury because %t cannot be reasonably
maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when
he alleged in the com.laint that he is the resident of the Cor.oration' obviously' he
made the allegation on the .remise that his removal from the .residency is not valid
and that is .recisely the issue brought about by his com.laint to the A<C. %t is a fact
that Aisenando has been the resident of the cor.oration and it is from that .osition
that the stoc#holders concerned .ur.ortedly removed him' whereu.on he filed the
com.laint "uestioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood which is a re"uisite of .er$ury.
Per;ury (199*)
4' a government em.loyee' was administratively charged with immorality for having
an affair with >' a coem.loyee in the same office who believed him to be single. To
e?cul.ate himself' 4 testified that he was single and was willing to marry >' He
induced C to testify and C did testify that > was single. The truth' however' was that
4 had earlier married =' now a neighbor of C. %s 4 guilty of .er$ury! 4re 4 and C
guilty of subordination of .er$ury!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 4 is not guilty of .er$ury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not
material to the charge of immorality. Whether 4 is single or married' the charge of
immorality against him as a government em.loyee could .roceed or .ros.er. %n other
words' 4@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 .er$ury. The crime is now treated as .lain
.er$ury with the one inducing another as the .rinci.al inducement' and the latter' as
.rinci.al by direct .artici.ation (People vs. Po%ol 66 Phil. 36'). Aince in this case 4
cannot be held liable for .er$ury' the matter that he testified to being immaterial'
he cannot therefore be held res.onsible as a .rinci.al by inducement when he
induced C to testify on his status. Conse"uently' C is not liable as .rinci.al by direct
.artici.ation in .er$ury' having testified on matters not material to an
administrative case.
Per;ury (%&&7)
4l Chua' a Chinese national' filed a .etition under oath for naturali/ation' with the
Regional Trial Court of ,anila. %n his .etition' he stated that he is married to Leni
ChuaB that he is living with her in Aam.aloc' ,anilaB that he is of good moral
characterB and that he has conducted himself in an irre.roachable manner during his
stay in the hili..ines. However' at the time of the filing of the .etition' Leni Chua
was already living in Cebu' while 4l was living with >abes Toh in ,anila' with whom
he has an amorous relationshi..
4fter his direct testimony' 4l Chua withdrew his .etition for naturali/ation. What
crime or crimes' if any' did 4l Chua commit! <?.lain. ()*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4l Chua committed .er$ury. His declaration under oath for naturali/ation that he is
of good moral character and residing at Aam.aloc' ,anila are false. This information
is material to his .etition for naturali/ation. He committed .er$ury for this willful
and deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified .etition made
for a legal .ur.ose. (Choa v. People, (.. No. 14*)11, $ar5h 14, *))3)
C()*!" Co**)!3 .- P2.,)1 O61!("
Cri4ery B Corruption of Pu4lic >Icial (%&&1)
=e.uty Aheriff >en Rivas received from the RTC Cler# of Court a Writ of <?ecution in
the case of <$ectment filed by ,rs. ,aria <strada vs. Luis 4blan. The $udgment being
in favor of <strada' Rivas went to her lawyer@s office where he was given the
necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and e?.enses for e?ecution in the
total amount of ))6.66' aside from 2'666.66 in consideration of .rom.t
enforcement of the writ from <strada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully
enforced.
a) What crime' if any' did the sheriff commit! (2*)
b) Was there any crime committed by <strada and her lawyer and if so' what crime!
(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of =irect >ribery under the second
.aragra.h of 4rticle 216' Revised enal Code' since the 2'666 was received
by him Gin considerationG of the .rom.t enforcement of the writ of
e?ecution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER9
a) ;n the .remise that even without the 2'666' Aheriff >en Rivas had to carry out
the writ of e?ecution and not that he would be im.lementing the writ only because
of the 2'666.66' the recei.t of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift
received by reason of his office and not as a GconsiderationG for the .erformance of
an official dutyB hence' only indirect >ribery would be committed by said sheriff.
b) ;n the .art of the .laintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribeEmoney' the crime
is Corru.tion of ublic ;fficials under 4rticle 212' Revised enal Code.
6irect Cri4ery5 2n@"elity in the Custo"y of
6ocuments (%&&7)
=uring a 9 buyEbust o.eration' Cao Ahih was arrested for selling 26 grams of
metham.hetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a .oseurEbuyer. Cao Ahih' through an
intermediary' .aid atric#' the <vidence Custodian of the 9 0orensic Chemistry
Aection' the amount of )66'666.66 in consideration for the destruction by atric# of
the drug. atric# managed to destroy the drug. Atate with reasons whether atric#
committed the following crimesF (O*)
1.D Diect 8i"e!B
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
atric# committed the crimes of =irect >ribery and %nfidelity in the Custody of
=ocuments. When a .ublic officer is called u.on to .erform or refrain from
.erforming an official act in e?change for a gift' .resent or consideration given to
5
him (4rt. 216' Revised enal Code)' the crime committed is direct bribery. Aecondly'
he destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official custody' thus' constituting
infidelity in the custody of documents under 4rt. 225 of the Revised enal Code.
60: In)iect "i"e!9
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%ndirect 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.
;0: Section ;5e) o% RA ;<=> 5Anti+Ga%t an) &o$pt -actices Act)9
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aee. 2(e)' R.4. 9o. 7618 was not committed because there was no actual in$ury to
the government. When there is no s.ecific "uantified in$ury' violation is not
committed. ((ar5ia<#e%a vs !mor, et al., (.. No. 116938, Septem7er *), *))1)
30: ,"st$ction o% #$stice $n)e -D =?6>9
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
atric# committed the crime of obstruction of $ustice although the feigner .enalty
im.osable on direct bribery or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be
im.osed. Aec. 1 of .=. 9o. 1728 refers merely to the im.osition of the higher
.enalty and does not .reclude .rosecution for obstruction of $ustice' even if the
same not constitute another offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
;bstruction of &ustice is not committed in this case' because the act of destroying
the evidence in his custody is already .enali/ed by another law which im.oses a
higher .enalty. (Aec. 1' .%). 9o. 1728)
!uris"iction; 2mpeacha4le Pu4lic >Icers (%&&6)
&udge Rod Reyes was a..ointed by former resident 0idel Ramos as =e.uty
;mbudsman for the Kisayas for a term of O years commencing on &uly )'188). Ai?
months thereafter' a lady stenogra.her filed with the ;ffice of the ;mbudsman a
com.laint for acts of lasciviousness and with the Au.reme Court a .etition for
disbarment against him. 0orthwith' he filed se.arate motions to dismiss the
com.laint for acts of lasciviousness and .etition for disbarment' claiming lac# of
$urisdiction over his .erson and office. 4re both motions meritorious! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to dismiss the com.laint of the =e.uty ;mbudsman for the acts of
lasciviousness should be denied as only the ;mbudsman is included in the list of
im.eachable officers found in 4rticle J% of the 187O Constitution. Therefore' the
Aandiganbayan has $urisdiction over his .rosecution (4..i5e o. the 4m7#%sma& vs.
C!, (.. 146486, $ar5h 4, *))'). Li#ewise' the Au.reme Court has $urisdiction over
the .etition for disbarment' as he is a member of the bar. His motion to dismiss
should be denied (Aee Rule 128 and 128 of the Rules of Court).
9al#ersation (199)
5
Randy' an 9>% agent' was issued by the 9>% an armalite rifle (,l5) and a Amith and
Wesson Revolver. Cal. 27. 4fter a year' the 9>% =irector made an ins.ection of all the
firearms issued. Randy' who re.orted for wor# that morning' did not show u. during
the ins.ection. He went on absence without leave (4W;L). 4fter two years' he
surrendered to the 9>% the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with
malversation of government .ro.erty before the Aandiganbayan. Randy .ut u. the
defense that he did not a..ro.riate 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. =ecide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under 4rt. 21O' RC. He is accountable for the firearms
they issued to him in his official ca.acity. The failure of Randy to submit the
firearms u.on demand created the .resum.tion that he converted them for his own
use. <ven if there is no account for the government .ro.erty is enough factual basis
for a finding of malversation. %ndeed' even his e?.lanation that the guns were stolen
is incredible. 0or if the firearms were actually stolen' he should have re.orted the
matter immediately to the authorities. (People vs. ;a2#ira& , *) SC! 4'3" Feli5il%a
#s. (rospe, ( No. 1)*94, +#l3 3, 199*)
9al#ersation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of .ublic funds or .ro.erty! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
,alversation of .ublic funds or .ro.erty is committed by any .ublic officer who' by
reason of the duties of his office' is accountable for .ublic funds or .ro.erty' shall
ta#e or misa..ro.riate or shall consent' or through abandonment or negligence'
shall .ermit any other .erson to ta#e such .ublic funds or .ro.erty' wholly or
.artially' or shall otherwise be guilty of the misa..ro.riation or malversation of such
funds or .ro.erty' (4rt' 21O' RC)
9al#ersation (1999)
4 ,unici.al Treasurer' accountable for .ublic funds or .ro.erty' encashed with .ublic
funds .rivate chec#s drawn in favor of his wife. The chec#s bounced' the drawer not
having enough cash in the drawee ban#. The ,unici.al Treasurer' in encashing
.rivate chec#s from .ublic funds' violated regulations of his office. 9otwithstanding
restitution of the amount of the chec#s' can the ,unici.al Treasurer nevertheless be
criminally liable! What crime did he commit! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the chec#' the ,unici.al
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. /elas:#e0, 13 Phil 98)' He will be criminally liable
for malversation. However' if the restitution was made immediately' under
vehement .rotest against an im.utation of malversation and without leaving the
office' he may not be criminally liable.
9al#ersation (%&&1)
4le? Reyes' together with &ose Aantos' were former warehousemen of the Rustan
=e.artment Atore. %n 1875' the C11 se"uestered the assets' fund and .ro.erties of
the ownersEincor.orators of the store' alleging that they constitute G%llEgotten
wealthG of the ,arcos family. 3.on their a..lication' Reyes and Aantos were
5
a..ointed as fiscal agents of the se"uestered firm and they were given custody and
.ossession of the se"uestered building and its contents' including various vehicles
used in the firm@s o.erations. 4fter a few months' an inventory was conducted and it
was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing.
4fter demand was made u.on them' Reyes and Aantos failed to give any satisfactory
e?.lanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the C11B hence'
they were charged with ,alversation of ublic ro.erty. =uring the trial' the two
accused claimed that they are not .ublic accountable officers and' if any crime was
committed' it should only be <stafa under 4rt. 21)' .ar. l(b) of the Revised enal
Code. What is the .ro.er offense committed! Atate the reason(s) for your answer.
()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .ro.er offense committed was ,alversation of ublic ro.erty' not estafa'
considering that Reyes and Aantos' u.on their a..lication' were constituted as Gfiscal
agentsG of the se"uestered firm and were Ggiven custody and .ossessionG of the
se"uestered .ro.erties' including the delivery vans which later they could not
account for. They were thus made the de.ositary and administrator of .ro.erties
de.osited by .ublic authority and hence' by the duties of their officeN.osition' they
are accountable for such .ro.erties. Auch .ro.erties' having been se"uestered by
the 1overnment through the C11' are in custodia legis and therefore im.ressed
with the character of .ublic .ro.erty' even though the .ro.erties belong to a .rivate
individual (4rt. 222' RC). The failure of Reyes and Aantos to give any satisfactory
e?.lanation why the vans were missing' is .rima facie evidence that they had .ut
the same to their .ersonal use.
9al#ersation (%&&6)
1. %n 1872' the hili..ine 9ational >an# (9>)' then a government ban#ing
institution' hired Henry dela Renta' a C4' as Regional >an# 4uditor. %n 1882' he
resigned and was em.loyed by the hili..ine =e.osit %nsurance Cor.oration (=%C)'
another governmentEowned and controlled cor.oration. %n 188)' after the 9>
management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the ban#@s rules and
regulations' dela Renta was found to have mani.ulated certain accounts involving
trust funds and time de.osits of de.ositors. 4fter investigation' he was charged with
malversation of .ublic funds before the Aandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss
contending he was no longer an em.loyee of the 9> but of the =%C. %s dela Renta@s
contention tenable! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. =ela Renta may be .rosecuted
for malversation even if he had ceased to be an em.loyee of the 9>. 4t the time of
the commission of the offense' 9> was a government owned and controlled
cor.oration and therefore' any crime committed by the Regional >an# 4uditor' who
is a .ublic officer' is sub$ect to the $urisdiction of the Aandiganbayan (Aee R.4. O8O)
as amended by R4. 72:8).
2. 4fter his arraignment' the .rosecution filed a motion for his sus.ension .endente
lite' to which he filed an o..osition claiming that he can no longer be sus.ended as
he is no longer an em.loyee of the 9> but that of the =%C. <?.lain whether he
may or may not be sus.ended. (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=ela Renta may still be sus.ended .endente lite des.ite holding a different .ublic
office' the =%C' when he was charged. The term GofficeG in Aec. 12 of R.4. 2618
5
a..lies to any office which the officer might currently be holding and not necessarily
the office or .osition in relation to which he is charged (Se2ovia v. Sa&%i2a&7a3a&,
(.. No. 1**14), $ar5h 3),1998).
9al#ersation #s: +stafa (1999)
How is malversation distinguished from estafa!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
,alversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an accountable
.ublic officer involving .ublic funds or .ro.erty under his custody and
accountabilityB while estafa is committed by nonaccountable .ublic officer or
.rivate individual involving funds or .ro.erty for which he is not accountable to the
government.
,alversationF 4ntiE0encingF Carna..ing (266)) 4llan' the ,unici.al Treasurer of the
,unici.ality of 1erona' was in a hurry to return to his office after a dayElong official
conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to
him' leaving the ignition #ey and the car unloc#ed' and rushed to his office. &ules' a
bystander' drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother' =anny for
26'666.66' although the car was worth 766'666.66.
What ae the espective cimes. i% an!. committe) "! Allan. Dann! an) #$les/
E'plain0
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4llan' the munici.al treasurer is liable for malversation committed through
negligence or cul.a. The government car which was assigned to him is .ublic
.ro.erty under his accountability by reason of his duties. >y his act of negligence'
he .ermitted the ta#ing of the car by another .erson' resulting in malversation'
consistent with the language of 4rt. 21O of the Revised enal Code.
=anny violated the 4ntiE0encing Law. He is in .ossession of an item which is the
sub$ect of thievery. .=. 9o. 1512 (4ntiE0encing Law) under Aection ) .rovides that
mere .ossession of any good' article' item' ob$ect or any thing of value which has
been the sub$ect of robbery or thievery shall be .rima facie' evidence of fencing.
&ules is guilty of carna..ing. He too# the motor vehicle belonging to another without
the latter@s consent. (R.4. 9o. 5)28)
What. i% an!. ae thei espective civil lia"ilities/ E'plain0 574)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4llan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or ma#e re.aration if not .ossible.
&ules must .ay the amount he gained from the sale of the car which is 26'666.66.
=anny must ma#e re.aration corres.onding to the value of the car which is
766'666.66.
9al#ersation; Properties; Custo"ia Legis (%&&1)
4ccused &uan Aantos' a de.uty sheriff in a Regional Trial Court' levied on the
.ersonal .ro.erties of a defendant in a civil case before said court' .ursuant to a
writ of e?ecution duly issued by the court. 4mong the .ro.erties levied u.on and
de.osited inside the Gevidence roomG of the Cler# of Court for ,ulti.le RTC Aalas
were a refrigerator' a stoc# of cassette ta.es' a dining table set of chairs and several
lam.shades. 3.on the defendant@s .aying off the $udgment creditor' he tried to
claim his .ro.erties but found out that several items were missing' such as the
cassette ta.es' chairs and lam.shades. 4fter due and diligent sleuthing by the .olice
detectives assigned to the case' these missing items were found in the house of
5
accused Aantos' who reasoned out that he only borrowed them tem.orarily. %f you
were the fiscal N.rosecutor' what would be the nature of the information to be filed
against the accused! Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%f % were the fiscalN.rosecutor' % would file an information for ,alversation against
&uan Aantos for the cassette ta.es' chain and lam.shades which he' as de.uty
sheriff' levied u.on and thus under his accountability as a .ublic officer. Aaid
.ro.erties being under levy' are in custodia legis and thus im.ressed with the
character of .ublic .ro.erty' misa..ro.riation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said .ro.erties belonged to a .rivate individual (4rt. 222'
RC).
&uan Aantos misa..ro.riated such .ro.erties when' in breach of trust' he a..lied
them to his own .rivate use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such
.ro.erties is a lame e?cuse' devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he
borrowed the same. The fact that it was only Gafter due and diligent sleuthing by the
.olice detectives assigned to the caseG' that the missing items were found in the
house of Aantos' negates his .retension.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4n information for Theft may be filed' considering that the sheriff had already
de.osited the .ro.erties levied u.on in the Gevidence roomG of the Cler# of Court
and may have already been relieved of his accountability therefor. %f &uan Aantos
was no longer the .ublic officer who should be accountable for the .ro.erties levied
u.on and found in his house' his ta#ing of such .ro.erties would no longer
constitute ,alversation but Theft' as there was ta#ing with intent to gain' of
.ersonal .ro.erty of another without the consent of the latter.
9al#ersation; Technical 9al#ersation (1996)
<li/abeth is the munici.al treasurer of ,asinloc' Lambales. ;n &anuary 16' 188:' she
received' as munici.al treasurer' from the =e.artment of ublic Wor#s and
Highways' the amount of 166'666.66 #nown as the fund for construction'
rehabilitation' betterment' and %m.rovement (CR>%) for the concreting of >arangay
hani? Road located in ,asinloc' Lambales' a .ro$ect underta#en on .ro.osal of the
>arangay Ca.tain. %nformed that the fund was already e?hausted while the
concreting of >arangay hani? Road remained unfinished' a re.resentative of the
Commission on 4udit conducted a s.ot audit of <li/abeth who failed to account for
the l66'666 CR>% fund. <li/abeth' who was charged with malversation of .ublic
funds' was ac"uitted by the Aandiganbayan of that charge but was nevertheless
convicted' in the same criminal case' for illegal use of .ublic funds. ;n a..eal'
<li/abeth argued that her conviction was erroneous as she a..lied the amount of
)6'666.66 for a .ublic .ur.ose without violating any law or ordinance a..ro.riating
the said amount for any s.ecific .ur.ose. The absence of such law or ordinance was'
in fact' established. %s the contention of <li/abeth legally tenable! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
<li/abeth@s contention that her conviction for illegal use of .ublic funds (technical
malversation) was erroneous' is legally tenable because she was charged for
malversation of .ublic funds under 4rt. 21O of the Revised enal Code but was
convicted for %llegal use of .ublic funds which is defined and .unished under 4rt. 226
of said Code. 4 .ublic officer charged with malversation may not be validly
convicted of illegal use of .ublic funds (technical malversation) because the latter
crime is not necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of
5
malversation. The Aandiganbayan should have followed the .rocedure .rovided in
Aec. 11' Rule 118 of the Rules of Court and order the filing of the .ro.er
%nformation.
(Par#&2ao #s. Sa&%i2a&7a3a&. 191 SC! 113.) 0rom the facts' there is no showing
that there is a law or ordinance a..ro.riating the amount to a s.ecific .ublic
.ur.ose. 4s a matter of fact' the .roblem categorically states that the absence of
such law or ordinance was' in fact' established.G Ao' .rocedurally and substantially '
the Aandiganbayan@s decision suffers from serious %nfirmity.
Pu4lic >Icers; "e@nition (1999)
Who are .ublic officers! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ublic ;fficers are .ersons who' by direct .rovision of the law' .o.ular election or
a..ointment by com.etent authority' ta#es .art in the .erformance of .ublic
functions in the 1overnment of the hili..ines' or .erforms in said 1overnment or in
any of its branches .ublic duties as an em.loyee' agent or subordinate official' of
any ran# or class (4rt. 262' RC)
Pu4lic >Icers; 2n@"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners
(1996)
4 chief of .olice of a munici.ality' believing in good faith that a .risoner serving a
tenEday sentence in the munici.al $ail' would not esca.e' allowed said .risoner to
slee. at the latter@s house because the munici.al &ail was so congested and there
was no bed s.ace available. 4ccordingly' the .risoner went home to slee. every
night but returned to $ail early each morning' until the tenEday sentence had been
fully served. =id the Chief of olice commit any crime! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief of olice is guilty of violation of 4rt. 222' RC' consenting or conniving to
evasion' the elements of which are (a) he is a .ublic officer' (b) he is in charge or
custody of a .risoner' detention or .risoner by final $udgment' (c) that the .risoner
esca.ed' and (d) there must be connivance. Rela?ation of a .risoner is considered
infidelity' thus ma#ing the .enalty ineffectualB although the convict may not have
fled (US vs. ;a&%i&o, 9 Phil. 4'9) it is still violative of the .rovision. %t also includes
a case when the guard allowed the .risoner' who is serving a si?Eday sentence in the
munici.al &ail' to slee. in his house and eat there (People vs. evilla).
Pu4lic >Icers; 2n@"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners
(199*)
=uring a town fiesta. 4' the chief of .olice' .ermitted >' a detention .risoner and
his com.adre' to leave the munici.al $ail and entertain visitors in his house from
16F66 a.m. to 7F66 ..m. > returned to the munici.al $ail at 7F26 ..m. Was there any
crime committed by 4!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 4 committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a .risoner. Aince > is a
detention .risoner. 4s Chief of olice' 4 has custody over >. <ven if > returned to the
munici.al &ail at 7F26 ..m. 4' as custodian of the .risoner' has maliciously failed to
.erform the duties of his office' and when he .ermits said .risoner to obtain a
rela?ation of his im.risonment' he consents to the .risoner esca.ing the .unishment
5
of being de.rived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of
service under 4rticle 222 of the Revised enal Code (People vs. 6eo& ;a&%i&o *9
Phil. 4'9).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9o crime was committed by the Chief of olice. %t was only an act of leniency or
la?ity in the .erformance of his duty and not in e?cess of his duty (People vs.
>va&2elista (C!) 38 4.(. 1'8).
C()*!" A0+)n" P!("on"
Comple/ Crime; ?omici"e wF (ssault,(uthority
(1997)
ascual o.erated a rice thresher in >arangay 9a.nud where he resided. Renato' a
resident of the neighboring >arangay 1uihaman' also o.erated a mobile rice
thresher which he often brought to >arangay 9a.nud to thresh the .alay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by ascual' ;ne afternoon ascual' and his
two sons confronted Renato and his men who were o.erating their mobile rice
thresher along a feeder road in 9a.nud. 4 heated argument ensued. 4 barangay
ca.tain who was fetched by one of ascual@s men tried to a..ease ascual and
Renato to .revent a violent confrontation. However' ascual resented the
intervention of the barangay ca.tain and hac#ed him to death. What crime was
committed by ascual! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ascual committed the com.le? crime of homicide with assault u.on a .erson in
authority (4rts. 1:7 and 2:8 in relation to 4rt' :7' RC). 4 barangay chairman' is in
law (4rt. 1)2)' a .erson in authority and if he is attac#ed while in the .erformance
of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is
committed. 4rt. :7' RC' on the other hand' .rovides that if a single act .roduces
two or more grave or less grave felonies' a com.le? crime is committed. Here' the
single act of the offender in hac#ing the victim to death resulted in two felonies'
homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
Comple/ Crime; Parrici"e wF unintentional
a4ortion (199)
4ldrich was dismissed from his &ob by his em.loyer. 3.on reaching home' his
.regnant wife' Carmi' nagged him about money for her medicines. =e.ressed by his
dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife' 4ldrich struc# Carmi with his fist.
Ahe fell to the ground. 4s a result' she and her unborn baby died. What crime was
committed by 4ldrich!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4ldrich committed the crime of .arricide with unintentional abortion. When 4ldrich
struc# his wife' Carmi' with his fist' he committed the crime of maltreatment under
4rt' 255' .ar. 2 of the Revised enal Code' Aince Carmi died because of the felonious
act of 4ldrich' he is criminally liable of .arricide under 4rt. 2:5' RC in relation to
4rt. :' .ar. 1 of the same Code. Aince the unborn baby of Carmi died in the .rocess'
but 4ldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife' 4ldrich committed
unintentional abortion as defined in 4rt. 2)O' RC. %nasmuch as the single act of
5
4ldrich .roduced two grave or less grave felonies' he falls under 4rt' :7' RC' ie. a
com.le? crime (People vs. Sal#.ra&5ia, 1'9 SC! 4)1).
Criminal Lia4ilities; 0ape; ?omici"e B Theft (199-
=o)
Ming went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drin# and after
consuming three bottles of beer. Ming made advances to her and with force and
violence' ravished her. Then Ming #illed Laura and too# her $ewelry. =oming' Ming@s
ado.ted brother' learned about the incident. He went to Laura@s house' hid her body'
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later' Ming gave &ose' his legitimate brother' one .iece of $ewelry belonging to
Laura. &ose #new that the $ewelry was ta#en from Laura but nonetheless he sold it
for 2'666. What crime or crimes did Ming' =oming and &ose commit! =iscuss their
criminal liabilities. C16*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ming committed the com.osite crime of Ra.e with homicide as a single indivisible
offense' not a com.le? crime' and Theft. The ta#ing of Laura@s $ewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
Criminal Lia4ility; Tumultous (3ray (199*)
=uring a town fiesta' a freeEforEall fight eru.ted in the .ublic .la/a. 4s a result of
the tumultuous affray' 4 sustained one fatal and three su.erficial stab wounds. He
died a day after. >' C' = and < were .roven to be .artici.ants in the GrumbleG' each
using a #nife against 4' but it could not be ascertained who among them inflicted
the mortal in$ury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of 4 and for what!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
>' C' =' and < being .artici.ants in the tumultuous affray and having been .roven to
have inflicted serious .hysical in$uries' or at least' em.loyed violence u.on 4' are
criminally liable for the latter@s death. 4nd because it cannot be ascertained who
among them inflicted the mortal in$ury on 4' there being a freeEforEall fight or
tumultuous affray. >' C' =' and < are all liable for the crime of death caused in a
tumultuous affray under 4rticle 2)1 of the Revised enal Code.
Criminal Lia4ility; Tumultuous (3ray (%&&1)
%n a freeEforEall brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became
unruly' guns were fired by a grou.' among them 4 and >' that finally .ut the
customers bac# to their senses. 3nfortunately' one customer died. Aubse"uent
investigation revealed that 4@s gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
that did not cause the deceased@s death nor materially contribute to it. %t was >@s
gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. 4 contended that his liability
should' if at all' be limited to slight .hysical in$ury. Would you agree! Why! 5*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' % beg to disagree with 4@s contention that his liability should be limited to slight
.hysical in$ury only. He should be held liable for attem.ted homicide because he
inflicted said in$ury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal wea.on. %ntent to #ill
is inherent in the use of a firearm. (!ra&eta, +r. v. Co#rt o. !ppeals, 181 SC! 1*3
?199)=)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
5
+es' % would agree to 4@s contention that his criminal liability should be for slight
.hysical in$ury only' because he fired his gun only to .acify the unruly customers of
the night club and therefore' without intent to #ill. >@s gunshot that inflicted a fatal
wound on the deceased may not be im.uted to 4 because cons.iracy cannot e?ist
when there is a freeEforEall brawl or tumultuous affray. 4 and > are liable only for
their res.ective act
6eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&1)
4 and > are husband and wife. 4 is em.loyed as a security guard at Landmar#' his
shift being from 11F66 ..m. to OF66 a.m. ;ne night' he felt sic# and cold' hence' he
decided to go home around midnight after getting .ermission from his duty officer.
3.on reaching the front yard of his home' he noticed that the light in the master
bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was o.en. 4..roaching the front
door' he was sur.rised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He o.ened the
door very carefully and .ee.ed inside where he saw his wife > having se?ual
intercourse with their neighbor C. 4 rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter
managed to wrest himself free and $um.ed out of the window' 4 followed suit and
managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle' managed also to strangle him
to death. 4 then rushed bac# to his bedroom where his wife > was cowering under
the bed covers. Atill enraged' 4 hit > with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
The .olice arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested 4 who was
detained' in"uested and charged for the death of C and serious .hysical %n$uries of
>. a) %s 4 liable for C@s death! Why! ()*) b) %s 4 liable for >@s in$uries! Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) +es' 4 is liable for C@s death but under the e?ce.tional circumstances in 4rticle 2:O
of the Revised enal Code' where only destierro is .rescribed. 4rticle 2:O governs
since 4 sur.rised his wife > in the act of having se?ual intercourse with C' and the
#illing of C was G%mmediately thereafterG as the discovery' esca.e' .ursuit and #illing
of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. /ar2as, * Phil. 194) b) Li#ewise' 4 is liable for
the serious .hysical in$uries he inflicted on his wife > but under the same
e?ce.tional circumstances in 4rticle 2:O of the Revised enal Code' for the same
reasons.
6eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&7)
ete' a security guard' arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was
shoc#ed to see 0lor' his wife' and >en$ie' his best friend' com.letely na#ed having
se?ual intercourse. ete .ulled out his service gun and shot and #illed >en$ie. ete
was charged with murder for the death of >en$ie. ete contended that he acted in
defense of his honor and that' therefore' he should be ac"uitted of the crime. The
court found that >en$ie died under e?ce.tional circumstances and e?onerated ete
of the crime' but sentenced him to destierro' conformably with 4rticle 2:O of the
Revised enal Code. The court also ordered ete to .ay indemnity to the heirs of the
victim in the amount of )6'666.66. ()*)
Is the )e%ense o% -ete meitoio$s/ E'plain0
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. 4 .erson who commits acts .enali/ed under 4rticle 2:O of the Revised enal
Code for death or serious .hysical in$uries inflicted under e?ce.tional circumstances
is still criminally liable. However' this is merely an e?em.ting circumstance when
the victim suffers any other #ind of .hysical in$ury. %n the case at bar' ete will
suffer the .enalty of destierro for the death of >en$ie.
5
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9o. ete did not act in defense of his honor. 0or this defense to a..ly under 4rt. 11'
there must be an unlawful aggression which is defined as an attac# or material
aggression that .oses a danger to his life or .ersonal safely. %t must be a real
aggression characteri/ed by a .hysical force or with a wea.on to cause in$ury or
damage to one@s life. (People v. Naha3ra, (.. Nos. 96368<69, 45to7er 11, 1991"
People v. Eo#si&2, (.. No. 6496', +#l3 18, 1991)
Un)e Aticle 63@ o% the Revise) -enal &o)e. is )estieo a penalt!/ E'plain0
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n the case of People v. !7ar5a, (.. No. 14433, Septem7er 14, 1981' the Court
ruled that 4rticle 2:O does not define a felony. However' it went on to state that the
.enalty is merely banishment of the accused' intended for his .rotection.
unishment' therefore' is not inflicted on the accused.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
+es. 4rticle 2:O of the Revised enal Code does not define and .rovide for a s.ecific
crime but grants a .rivilege or benefit to the accused for the #illing of another or
the infliction of Aerious hysical %n$uries. =estierro is a .unishment whereby a
convict is banished to a certain .lace and is .rohibited from entering or coming near
that .lace designated in the sentence' not less than 2) #ms. (People v. !ra:#el,
(.. No. 6< 1*6*9, 9e5em7er 9, 19'9)
Di) the co$t coectl! o)e -ete to pa! in)emnit! )espite his e'oneation
$n)e Aticle 63@ o% the
Revise) -enal &o)e/ E'plain0
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' because the .rivilege defined under this 4rticle e?em.ts the offender from
criminal liability but not from civil liability. (People v. !7ar5a, (., No. 6<14483,
Septem7er 14, 1981" !rt. 1*, evise% Pe&al Co%e)
?omici"e; .raustrate"; Physical 2n;uries (199)
4t about 11F66 in the evening' =ante forced his way inside the house of ,amerto.
&ay' ,amerto@s son' saw =ante and accosted him' =ante .ulled a #nife and stabbed
&ay on his abdomen. ,amerto heard the commotion and went out of his room.
=ante' who was about to esca.e' assaulted ,amerto. &ay suffered in$uries which'
were it not for the timely medical attendance' would have caused his death.
,amerto sustained %n$uries that inca.acitated him for 2) days. What crime or crimes
did =ante commit!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=ante committed "ualified tres.ass to dwelling' frustrated homicide for the stabbing
of &ay' and less serious .hysical in$uries for the assault on ,amerto. The crime of
"ualified tres.ass to dwelling should not be com.le?ed with frustrated homicide ...
=ante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of &ay because he had already
.erformed all the acts of
e?ecution which would have .roduced the intended felony of homicide were it not
for causes inde.endent of the act of =ante. =ante had the intent to #ill $udging from
the wea.on used' the manner of committing the crime and the .art of the body
stabbed. =ante is guilty of less serious .hysical in$uries for the wounds sustained by
,amerto. There a..ears to be no intent to #ill because =ante merely assaulted
,amerto without using the #nife.
5
2nfantici"e (%&&6)
4na has been a bar girlN1R; at a beer house for more than 2 years. Ahe fell in love
with ;nio#' the bartender' who im.regnated her. >ut 4na did not inform him about
her condition and instead' went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However' her
.arents drove her away. Ao she returned to ,anila and stayed with ;nio# in his
boarding house. 3.on learning of her .regnancy' already in an advanced state' ;nio#
tried to .ersuade her to undergo an abortion' but she refused. >ecause of their
constant and bitter "uarrels' she suffered birth .angs and gave birth .rematurely to
a live baby girl while ;nio# was at his .lace of wor#. 3.on coming home and
learning what ha..ened' he .revailed u.on 4na to conceal her dishonor. Hence' they
.laced the infant in a shoe bo? and threw it into a nearby cree#. However' an
in"uisitive neighbor saw them and with the hel. of others' retrieved the infant who
was already dead from drowning. The incident was re.orted to the .olice who
arrested 4na and ;nio#. The 2 were charged with .arricide under 4rticle 2:5 of the
Revised enal Code. 4fter trial' they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the
conviction correct!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction of 4na and ;nio# is not correct. They are liable for infanticide
because they #illed a child less than three days of age (4rt. 2))' Revised enal
Code).
9ur"er B Sec: %7D 0:(: =o: 9167 (%&&7)
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bum.ed him. The innocent
bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to
be .ositive for the use of TshabuU at the time he committed the stabbing. What
should be the .ro.er charge against Candido! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The #illing was not attended by any of the "ualifying circumstances enumerated
under 4rticle 2:7 of the Revised enal Code. The #illing' however' constitutes
murder because the commission of a crime under the influence of .rohibited drugs is
a "ualifying' aggravating circumstance. (Aec. 2)' R.4. 9o. 815))
9ur"er (1999)
The accused' not intending to #ill the victim' treacherously shot the victim while the
victim was turning his bac# 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 attem.t to #ill! <?.lain your answer. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and
fired at the latter@s leg' Gnot intending to #ill the victimG' considering that the
gunshot was felonious and was the .ro?imate cause of death. 4n offender is liable
for all the direct' natural' and logical conse"uences of his felonious act although
different from what he intended. However' since s.ecific intent to #ill is absent' the
crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. P#2a3 a&% Samso&,
161 SC! 439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
5
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 .ro?imate cause of death. 4 .erson
.erforming a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct' natural' and logical
conse"uences of such act although different from what he intended. 4nd 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 (4rt. 12(2)' RC)
9ur"er; 6e@nition B +lements (1999)
=efine murder. What are the elements of the crime! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) ,urder is the unlawful #illing of a .erson which otherwise would constitute only
homicide' had it not been attended by any of the following circumstancesF
1. With treachery or ta#ing advantage of su.erior strength' or with the aid of armed
men' or em.loying means to wea#en the defense or of means or .ersons to insure or
afford im.unityB
2. %n consideration of a .rice' reward or .romiseB
2. >y means or on the occasion of inundation' fire' .oison' e?.losion' shi.wrec#'
stranding of a vessel' derailment or assault u.on a railroad' fall of an airshi.' or by
means of motor vehicles' or with the use of any other means involving great waste
and ruinB
:. ;n occasion of an earth"ua#e' eru.tion of a volcano' destructive cyclone'
e.idemic or other .ublic calamityB
). With evident .remeditationB
5. With cruelty' by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim' or outraging or scoffing at his .erson or cor.se.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The elements of murder areF (1) that a .erson was unlawfully #illedB (2) that
such a #illing was attended by any of the aboveEmentioned circumstancesB (2) that
the #illing is not .arricide nor infanticideB and (:)
that the accused #illed the victim.
9ur"er; +#i"ent Preme"itation (1996)
0idel and 0red harbored a long standing grudge against &orge who refused to marry
their sister Lorna' after the latter got .regnant by &orge. 4fter wee#s of
surveillance' they finally cornered &orge in <rmita' ,anila' when the latter was
wal#ing home late at night. 0idel and 0red forcibly brought &orge to Lambales where
they #e.t him hogEtied in a small ni.a house located in the middle of a rice field.
Two days later' they #illed &orge and dum.ed his body into the river. What crime or
crimes did 0idel and 0red commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
0idel and 0red committed the crime of ,urder under 4rt 2:7' RC' the #illing being
"ualified by evident .remeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge
entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim@s refusal to marry their
sister after im.regnating her. %n People vs. !l.e5he. *19 SC! 8'' the intention of
the accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the intention is to #ill
the victim and the latter is forcibly ta#en to another .lace and later #illed' it is
murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to de.rive the victim of
his liberty. Whereas' if the victim is #idna..ed' and ta#en to another situs and #illed
as an afterthought' it is #idna..ing with homicide under 4rt. 25O' RC.
5
9ur"er; ?omici"e; 2nfantici"e; Parrici"e (1999)
4 #illedF (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy' (2) their child
who was only two days old' (2) their daughter' and (:) their ado.ted son. What
crime or crimes did 4 commit! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 committed the following crimesF
1.D H;,%C%=< or murder as the case may be' for the #illing of his commonElaw wife
who is not legally considered a Gs.ouseG
2.D %9049T%C%=< for the #illing of the child as said child is less than three (2) days
old. (4rt. 2))' RC) However' the .enalty corres.onding to .arricide shall be
im.osed since 4 is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of
.arricide.
2.D 4RR%C%=< for the #illing of their daughter' whether legitimate or illegitimate' as
long as she is not less than three (2) days old at the time of the #illing.
:.D ,3R=<R for the #illing of their ado.ted son as the relationshi. between 4 and the
said son must be by blood in order for .arricide to arise.
9ur"er; 0ecJles 2mpru"ence (%&&1)
,ang &ose' a se.tuagenarian' was wal#ing with his tenEyear old grandson along aseo
de Ro?as and decided to cross at the intersection of ,a#ati 4venue but both were hit
by a s.eeding CRK Honda van and were sent s.rawling on the .avement a meter
a.art. The driver' a Chinese mesti/o' sto..ed his car after hitting the two victims
but then reversed his gears and ran over ,ang &ose@s .rostrate body anew and third
time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered bro#en legs only and
survived but ,ang &ose suffered multi.le fractures and bro#en ribs' causing his
instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with ,urder for the death of
,ang &ose and Aerious hysical %n$uries through Rec#less %m.rudence with res.ect to
the grandson. 4re the charges correct! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the charges are correct. 0or deliberately running over ,ang &ose@s .rostrate
body after having bum.ed him and his grandson' the driver indeed committed
,urder' "ualified by treachery. Aaid driver@s deliberate intent to #ill ,ang &ose was
demonstrated by his running over the latter@s body twice' by bac#ing u. the van and
driving it forward' whereas the victim was hel.less and not in a .osition to defend
himself or to retaliate.
4s to the serious .hysical in$uries sustained by ,ang &ose@s 16Eyear old grandson' as a
result of having been hit by the s.eeding vehicle of said driver' the same were the
result of rec#less im.rudence which is .unishable as a "uasiEoffense in 4rticle 25) of
the Revised enal Code. The charge of Rec#less %m.rudence Resulting to Aerious
hysical %n$uries is correct. The .enalty ne?t higher in degree to what ordinarily
should be im.osed is called for' since the driver did not lend hel. on the s.ot' which
hel. he could have given to the victims.
9ur"er; Treachery (1997)
;n his way to buy a lotto tic#et' a .oliceman suddenly found himself surrounded by
four men. ;ne of them wrestled the .olice officer to the ground and disarmed him
while the other three com.anions who were armed with a hunting #nife' an ice .ic#'
and a balisong' re.eatedly stabbed him. The .oliceman died as a result of the
5
multi.le stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
committed! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4ll the assailants are liable for the crime of murder' "ualified by treachery' (which
absorbed abuse of su.erior strength) as the attac# was sudden and une?.ected and
the victim was totally defenseless. Cons.iracy is obvious from the concerted acts of
the assailants. =irect assault would not com.le? the crime' as there is no showing
that the assailants #new that the victim was a .olicemanB even if there was
#nowledge' the fact is that he was not in the .erformance of his official duties' and
therefore there is no direct assault.
9ur"er; 'se of 2llegal .irearms (%&&)
H #illed ;&' his .olitical rival in the election cam.aign for ,ayor of their town. The
%nformation against H alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the #illing of
the victim' and this was .roved beyond reasonable doubt by the .rosecution. The
trial court convicted H of two crimesF murder and illegal .ossession of firearms. %s
the conviction correct! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the conviction of H for two crimes' murder and illegal .ossession of firearm is
not correct. 3nder the new law on illegal .ossession of firearms and e?.losives' Re..
4ct 9o. 728:' a .erson may only be criminally liable for illegal .ossession of firearm
if no other crime is committed therewithB if a homicide or murder is committed with
the use of an unlicensed firearm' such use shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
H therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm
in its commission may only be a..reciated as a s.ecial aggravating circumstance'
.rovided that such use is alleged s.ecifically in the information for ,urder.
Parrici"e (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of .arricide! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4ny .erson who #ills his father' mother' or child' whether legitimate or illegitimate'
or his ascendants or descendants' or s.ouse' shall be guilty of .arricide. (4rt. 2:5'
RC)
Parrici"e (1999)
%n 18O)' edro' then a resident of ,anila' abandoned his wife and their son' Ric#y'
who was then only three years old. Twenty years later' an affray too# .lace in a bar
in ;longa.o City between edro and his com.anions' on one hand' and Ric#y and his
friends' u.on the other' without the father and son #nowing each other. Ric#y
stabbed and #illed edro in the fight' only to find out' a wee# later' when his mother
arrived from ,anila to visit him in $ail' that the man whom he #illed was his own
father. 1) What crime did Ric#y commit! <?.lain. 2) Au..ose Ric#y #new before the
#illing that edro is his father' but he nevertheless #illed him out of bitterness for
having abandoned him and his mother' what crime did Ric#y commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"% Ric#y committed .arricide because the .erson #illed was his own father'
and the law .unishing the crime (4rt. 2:5' RC) does not re"uire that the crime be
G#nowinglyG committed. Ahould Ric#y be .rosecuted and found guilty of .arricide'
the .enalty to be im.osed is 4rt. :8 of the Revised enal Code for Homicide (the
crime he intended to commit) but in its ma?imum .eriod.
5
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ric#y should be held criminally liable only for homicide not .arricide because the
relationshi. which "ualified the #illing to .arricide is virtually absent for a .eriod of
twenty years already' such that Ric#y could not .ossibly be aware that his adversary
was his father. %n other words' the moral basis for im.osing the higher .enalty for
.arricide is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
-% The crime committed should be .arricide if Ric#y #new before the #illing
that edro is his father' because the moral basis for .unishing the crime already
e?ists. His having acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by his father
may be considered mitigating.
-aici)e9 A$ltiple -aici)e9 Bomici)e 5=>>@)
4' a young housewife' and >' her .aramour' cons.ired to #ill C. her husband' to
whom she was lawfully married' 4 and > bought .ancit and mi?ed it with .oison. 4
gave the food with .oison to C' but before C could eat it. =' her illegitimate father'
and <' her legitimate son' arrived. C. = and < shared the food in the .resence of 4
who merely watched them eating. C' = and < died because of having .arta#en of the
.oisoned food. What crime or crimes did 4 and > commit!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 committed the crime of multi.le .arricide for the #illing of C' her lawful husband'
=' her illegitimate father' and <' her legitimate son. 4ll these #illings constitute
.arricide under 4rticle 2:5 of the Revised enal Code because of her relationshi.
with the victims. > committed the crime of murder as a coEcons.irator of 4 in the
#illing of C because the #illing was carried out by means of .oison (4rt. 2:7. .ar. 2'
Revised enal Code). >ut for feloniously causing the death of =
and <' > committed two counts of homicide. The .lan was only to #ill C.
0ape (1997)
1avino bo?ed his wife 4lma for refusing to slee. with him. He then violently threw
her on the floor and forced her to have se?ual intercourse with him. 4s a result 4lma
suffered serious .hysical in$uries.
(a) Can 1avino be charged with ra.e! <?.lain.
(b) Can 1avino be charged with serious .hysical in$uries! <?.lain
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident 1avino and
4lma were legally se.arated! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) 9o. 4 husband cannot be charged with the ra.e of his wife because of the
matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation' and
the law will not .ermit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the
offense (Sate vs. Eai&es, 11 6a. !&&. 131 So. 31*" 441 ! 831).
(b) +es' he may be guilty of serious .hysical in$uries. This offense is s.ecially
mentioned in 4rt. 252 C:D' .aragra.h 2 which im.oses a higher .enalty for the crime
of .hysical in$uries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against
any of the .ersons enumerated in 4rt 2:5 (the crime of .arricide).
(c) 9o' my answer will not be the same. %f 1avino' and 4lma were legally se.arated
at the time of the incident' then 1avino could be held liable for ra.e. 4 legal
se.aration is a se.aration of the s.ouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. +oh&so&, *1
Phil. 411, 5ite% i& -- e3es, FC, p. 8'3. 1981 e%itio&),
5
%n the crime of ra.e' any crime resulting from the infliction of .hysical in$uries
suffered by the victim on the occasion of the ra.e' is absorbed by the crime of ra.e.
The in$uries suffered by the victim may' however' be considered in determining the
.ro.er .enalty which shall be im.osed on the offender. Aerious .hysical in$uries
cannot be absorbed in ra.eB it can be so if the in$ury is slight.
0ape; (4sence of .orce B 2ntimi"ation (1997)
Three .olicemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in 4nti.ole
chanced u.on Ruben' a 1)E year old tricycle driver' on to. of Rowena who was #nown
to be a child .rostitute. >oth were na#ed from the waist down and a..eared to be
en$oying the se?ual activity. Ruben was arrested by the .olicemen des.ite his
.rotestations that Rowena enticed him to have se? with her in advance celebration
of her twelfth birthday. The town .hysician found no semen nor any bleeding on
Rowena@s hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal o.ening easily admitted two
fingers showing that no e?ternal force had been em.loyed on her. %s Ruben liable for
any offense! =iscuss fully. 4nswerB
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for ra.e' even if force or intimidation is not .resent. The gravamen
of the offense is the carnal #nowledge of a woman below twelve years of age
(People vs. 9ela Cr#0, '6 SC! 84) since the law doesn@t consider the consent
voluntary and .resumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have
a will of her own. %n People #s. Pere0, C! 31 4( 116*' it was held that se?ual
intercourse with a .rostitute below twelve years old is ra.e. Aimilarly' the absence
of s.ermato/oa does not dis.rove the consummation as the im.ortant consideration
is not the emission but the .enetration of the female body by the male organ
(People vs. +ose 31 SC! 4')" People vs. Cara&%a&2. '* SC! *'9).
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%)
What other acts are considered ra.e under the 4ntiERa.e Law of 188O' amending the
Revised enal Code! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered ra.e under the 4ntiERa.e Law of 188O areF
1.D having carnal #nowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority'
2.D having carnal #nowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the
circumstances re"uired in
ra.e be .resentB and
2.D committing an act of se?ual assault by inserting a .erson@s .enis into the victim@s
mouth or anal orifice' or by inserting any instrument or ob$ect' into the genital or
anal orifice of another .erson.
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%)
The 4ntiERa.e Law of 188O reclassified ra.e from a crime against honor' a .rivate
offense' to that of a crime against .ersons. Will the subse"uent marriage of the
offender and the offended .arty e?tinguish the criminal action or the .enalty
im.osed! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. >y e?.ress .rovision of 4rticle 255EC of the Revised enal Code' as amended'
the subse"uent valid marriage between the offender and offended .arty shall
5
e?tinguish the criminal action or the .enalty im.osed' although ra.e has been
reclassified from a crime against chastity' to that of a crime against .ersons.
0ape; Consente" (4"uction (%&&%)
4 with lewd designs' too# a 12Eyear old girl to a ni.a hut in his farm and there had
se?ual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man' who was goodEloo#ing and belonged to a rich and
.rominent family in the town. What crime' if any' was committed by 4! Why!(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 committed the crime of consented abduction under 4rticle 2:2 of the Revised
enal Code' as amended. The said 4rticle .unishes the abduction of a virgin over 12
and under 17 years of age' carried out with her consent and with lewd designs.
4lthough the .roblem did not indicate the victim to be virgin' virginity should not be
understood in its material sense' as to e?clude a virtuous woman of good re.utation'
since the essence of the crime is not the in$ury to the woman but the outrage and
alarm to her family (/al%epe&as vs. People,16 SC! 811 ?1966=).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4 committed GChild 4buseG under Re.. 4ct 9o. O516. 4s defined in said law' Gchild
abuseG includes se?ual 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
(17) years.
0ape; +3ect; (I"a#it of 6esistance (1991)
4riel intimidated Rachel' a mental retardate' with a bolo into having se?ual
%ntercourse with him. Rachel@s mother immediately filed a com.laint' su..orted by
her sworn statement' before the City rosecutor@s ;ffice. 4fter the necessary
.reliminary investigation' an information was signed by the .rosecutor but did not
contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing 4rt. 2:: of the RC
(.rosecution of the crimes of ra.e' etc.)' 4riel moves for the dismissal of the case.
Resolve with reasons. 4fter the .rosecution had rested its case' 4riel .resented a
sworn affidavit of desistance e?ecuted by Rachel and her mother stating that they
are no longer interested in .rosecuting the case and that they have .ardoned 4riel.
What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil as.ects
of the case! <?.lain 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 .roceed.
0ape; 9ale $ictim (%&&%)
4' a male' ta#es >' another male' to a motel and there' through threat and
intimidation' succeeds in inserting his .enis into the anus of >. What' if any' is 4Qs
criminal liability! Why!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 shall be criminally liable for ra.e by committing an act of se?ual assault against >'
by inserting his .enis into the anus of the latter. <ven a man may be a victim of ra.e
by se?ual assault under .ar. 2 of 4rticle 255E4 of the Revised enal Code' as
amended' Gwhen the offender@s .enis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice.G
5
0ape; 9ultiple 0apes; .orci4le (4"uction (%&&&)
0lordeluna boarded a ta?i on her way home to -ue/on City which was driven by
Roger' 0lordeluna noticed that Roger was always .lacing his car freshener in front of
the car aircon ventilation but did not bother as#ing Roger why. Auddenly' 0lordeluna
felt di//y and became unconscious. %nstead of bringing her to -ue/on City' Roger
brought 0lordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) wee#s.
Ahe was ra.ed for the entire duration of her detention. ,ay Roger be charged and
convicted of the crime of ra.e with serious illegal detention! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of ra.e with serious illegal
detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multi.le ra.es. <ach ra.e is a
distinct offense and should be .unished se.arately. <vidently' his .rinci.al intention
was to abuse 0lordelunaB the detention was only incidental to the ra.e.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9o' Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of ra.e with serious illegal
detention' since the detention was incurred in ra.ing the victim during the days she
was held. 4t most' Roger may be .rosecuted for forcible abduction for ta#ing
0lordeluna to Cavite against the latter@s will and with lewd designs. The forcible
abduction should be com.le?ed with one of the multi.le ra.es committed' and the
other ra.es should be .rosecuted and .unished se.arately' in as many ra.es were
charged and .roved.
0ape; Proper Party (1991)
4riel intimidated Rachel' a mental retardate' with a bolo into having se?ual
%ntercourse with him. Rachel@s mother immediately filed a com.laint' su..orted by
her sworn statement' before the City rosecutor@s ;ffice. 4fter the necessary
.reliminary investigation' an information was signed by the .rosecutor but did
not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing 4rt. 2:: of the RC
(.rosecution of the crimes
of ra.e' etc.)' 4riel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People #s. -lar%e, 1*'
SC! 11). %t is enough that a com.laint was filed by the offended .arty or the
.arents in the 0iscal@s ;ffice.
0ape; Statutory 0ape; 9ental 0etar"ate $ictim
(1996)
The com.lainant' an eighteenEyear old mental retardate with an intellectual
ca.acity between the ages of nine and twelve years' when as#ed during the trial
how she felt when she was ra.ed by the accused' re.lied G,asara.' it gave me much
.leasure.G
With the claim of the accused that the com.lainant consented for a fee to the
se?ual intercourse' and with the foregoing answer of the com.lainant' would you
convict the accused of ra.e if you were the $udge trying the case! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' % would convict the accused of ra.e. Aince the victim is a mental retardate with
an intellectual ca.acity of a child less than 12 years old' she is legally inca.able of
giving a valid consent to the se?ual %ntercourse. The se?ual intercourse is
5
tantamount to a statutory ra.e because the level of intelligence is that of a child
less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of ra.e is a mental retardate'
violence or %ntimidation is not essential to constitute ra.e. (People #s. Trimor, (,.
1)6'41<4*, 31 $ar 9') 4s a matter of fact' R4 9o. O5)8' the Heinous Crimes Law'
amended 4rt. 22)' RC' by adding the .hrase Gor is demented.G
C()*!" +0+)n" P!("on+, L).!(- +n3
S!12()-
(r4itrary 6etention; +lements; Groun"s (%&&6)
1. What ae the ; wa!s o% committing a"ita! )etention/ E'plain each0
560704)
60 What ae the legal go$n)s %o )etention/ 56074)
;0 When is an aest "! a peace o%%ice o "! a pivate peson consi)ee)
law%$l/ E'plain0 574)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 2 ways of arbitrary detention areF
a) 4rbitrary detention by detaining a .erson without legal ground committed by any
.ublic officer or
em.loyee who' without legal grounds' detains a .erson (4rt. 12:' Revised enal
Code).
b) =elay in the delivery of detained .ersons to the .ro.er $udicial authorities which
is committed by
a .ublic officer or em.loyee who shall detain any .erson for some legal ground and
shall fail to deliver
such .erson to the .ro.er $udicial authorities within the .eriod ofF twelve (12)
hours' for crimes or offense
.unishable by light .enalties' or their e"uivalentB eighteen hours (17)' for crimes or
offenses .unishable by
correctional facilities' or their e"uivalentB and thirtyEsi? (25) hours for crimes or
offenses .unishable by
afflictive or ca.ital .enalties' or their e"uivalent (4rt. 12)' Revised enal Code).
c) =elaying release is committed by any .ublic officer or em.loyee who delays the
release for the
.eriod of time s.ecified therein the .erformance of any $udicial or e?ecutive order
for the release of the
.risoner' or unduly delays the service of the notice of such order to said .risoner or
the .roceedings u.on any .etition for the liberation of such .erson (4rt. 125'
Revised enal Code).
60 What ae the legal go$n)s %o )etention/ 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime' or violent insanity or any other ailment re"uiring the
com.ulsory confinement of the .atient in a hos.ital shall be considered legal
grounds for the detention of any .erson (4rt. 12:C2D' Revised enal Code).
5
;0 When is an aest "! a peace o%%ice o "! a pivate peson consi)ee) law%$l/
E'plain0 574)
1. When the arrest by a .eace officer is made .ursuant to a valid warrant.
2. 4 .eace officer or a .rivate .erson may' without a warrant' arrest a .ersonF
i. When' in his .resence' the .erson to be arrested has committed' is actually
committing' or is attem.ting to commit an offense' ii. When an offense has in fact
$ust been committed' and he has .ersonal #nowledge of facts indicating that the
.erson to be arrested has committed it' and iii. When the .erson to be arrested is a
.risoner who has esca.ed from .enal establishment or .lace where he is serving
final $udgment or tem.orarily confined while his case is .ending' or has esca.ed
while being transferred from one confinement to another (Aec. )' Rule 112'187)
Rules on Criminal rocedure).
Gra#e Coercion (199-)
%sagani lost his gold nec#lace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said
nec#lace. %sagani as#ed Roy to return to him the nec#lace as it belongs to him' but
Roy refused. %sagani then drew his gun and told Roy' G%f you will not give bac# the
nec#lace to me' % will #ill youRG ;ut of fear for his life and against his will' Roy gave
the nec#lace to %sagani' What offense did %sagani commit! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%sagani committed the crime of grave coercion (4rt. 275' RC) for com.elling Roy' by
means of serious threats or intimidation' to do something against the latter@s will'
whether it be right or wrong. Aerious threats or intimidation a..ro?imating violence
constitute grave coercion' not grave threats. Auch is the nature of the threat in this
case because it was committed with a gun' is a deadly wea.on. The crime is not
robbery because intent to gain' which is an essential element of robbery' is absent
since the nec#lace belongs to %sagani.
Gra#e Coercion #s: 9altreatment of Prisoner
(1999)
0orcibly brought to the .olice head"uarters' a .erson was tortured and maltreated
by agents of the law in order to com.el him to confess a crime im.uted to him. The
agents failed' however' to draw from him a confession which was their intention to
obtain through the em.loyment of such means. What crime was committed by the
agents of the law! <?.lain your answer. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
<vidently' the .erson tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a sus.ect
and may have been detained by them. %f so and he had already been boo#ed and .ut
in $ail' the crime is maltreatment of .risoner and the fact that the sus.ect was
sub$ected to torture to e?tort a confession would bring about a higher .enalty. %n
addition to the offender@s liability for the .hysical in$uries inflicted. >ut if the
sus.ect was forcibly brought to the .olice head"uarters to ma#e him admit the
crime and torturedN maltreated to ma#e 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 em.loyed to
com.el such confession without the offended .arty being confined in $ail. (US vs.
C#si, 1) Phil 143) %t is noted that the offended .arty was merely GbroughtG to the
.olice head"uarters and is thus not a detention .risoner. Had he been validly
arrested' the crime committed would be maltreatment of .risoners.
5
2llegal 6etention #s: Gra#e Coercion (1999)
=istinguish coercion from illegal detention. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as followsF in coercion' the
basis of criminal liability is the em.loyment of violence or serious intimidation
a..ro?imating violence' without authority of law' to .revent a .erson from doing
something not .rohibited by law or to com.el him to do something against his will'
whether it be right or wrongB while in %llegal detention' the basis of liability is the
actual restraint or loc#ing u. of a .erson' thereby de.riving him of his liberty
without authority of law. %f there was no intent to loc# u. or detain the offended
.arty unlawfully' the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
8i"napping (%&&%)
4 and > were legally se.arated. Their child C' a minor' was .laced in the custody of
4 the mother' sub$ect to monthly visitations by >' his father. ;n one occasion' when
> had C in his com.any' > decided not to return C to his mother. %nstead' > too# C
with him to the 3nited Atates where he intended for them to reside .ermanently.
What crime' if any' did > commit! Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
> committed the crime of #idna..ing and failure to return a minor under 4rticle 2O1'
in relation to 4rticle 2O6' of the Revised enal Code' as amended. 4rticle 2O1
e?.ressly .enali/es any .arent who shall ta#e from and deliberately fail to restore
his or her minor child to the .arent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has
been .laced. Aince the custody of C' the minor' has been given to the mother and >
has only the right of monthly visitation' the latter@s act of ta#ing C to the 3nited
Alates' to reside there .ermanently' constitutes a violation of said .rovisions of law.
8i"napping (%&&6)
&aime' 4ndy and &immy' laborers in the noodles factory of Lu#e Tan' agreed to #ill
him due to his arrogance and miserliness. ;ne afternoon' they sei/ed him and
loaded him in a ta?i driven by ,ario. They told ,ario they will only teach Lu#e a
lesson in Christian humility. ,ario drove them to a fish.ond in 9avotas where Lu#e
was entrusted to <mil and Louie' the fish.ond careta#ers' as#ing them to hide Lu#e
in their shac# because he was running from the 9>%. The trio then left in ,ario@s car
for ,anila where they called u. Lu#e@s family and threatened them to #ill Lu#e
unless they give a ransom within 2: hours. 3n#nown to them' because of a lea#' the
#idna..ing was announced over the radio and TK. <mil and Louie heard the
broadcast and .anic#ed' es.ecially when the announcer stated that there is a shootE
toE#ill order for the #idna..ers. <mil and Louie too# Lu#e to the seashore of =agatE
dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand.
However' they were seen by a barangay #agawad who arrested them and brought
them to the .olice station. 3.on interrogation' they confessed and .ointed to
&aime' 4ndy' &immy and ,ario as those res.onsible for the #idna..ing. Later' the :
were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 5 sus.ects commit! ()*)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) &aime' 4ndy and &immy committed #idna..ing with homicide. The original
intention was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of #illing. 4s a
conse"uence of the #idna..ing' however' Lu#e was #illed. Thus' the victim was
de.rived of his freedom and the subse"uent #illing' though committed by another
5
.erson' was a conse"uence of the detention. Hence' this .ro.erly "ualified the
crime as the s.ecial com.le? crime of #idna..ing for ransom with homicide
(People v. $amario&, (.. No. 131''4, 45to7er 1, *))3" !rt. *61, evise% Pe&al
Co%e).
b) <mil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the
sand committed murder "ualified by treachery or abuse of su.erior strength. They
are not liable for #idna..ing because they did not cons.ire' nor are they aware of
the intention to detain Lu#e whom they were informed was hiding from the 9>% (4rt.
2:7' Revised enal Code).
c) ,ario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
&aime' 4ndy and &immy. His act of bringing Lu#e to 9avotas for Ga lesson in Christian
humilityG does not constitute a crime.
Altenative Answe:
a) &aime' 4ndy and &immy committed #idna..ing with ransom. 4fter #idna..ing
Lu#e' they demanded ransom with the threat of #illing him. However' the #illing of
Lu#e is se.arate from the #idna..ing having been committed by other .ersons' who
had nothing to do with the #idna..ing' and who will be liable for a different crime
(enultimate .ar. of 4rt. 25O' Revised enal Code).
b) <mil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the
sand committed murder "ualified by treachery or abuse of su.erior strength. They
are not liable for #idna..ing because they did not cons.ire' nor are they aware of
the intention to detain Lu#e whom they were informed was hiding from the 9>% (4rt.
2:7' Revised enal Code).
c) ,ario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
&aime' 4ndy and &immy. His act of bringing Lu#e to 9avotas for Ga lesson in Christian
humilityG does not constitute a crime.
8i"napping wF ?omici"e (%&&7)
a/ ,asi.ag wor#ed as a housemaid and yaya of the oneEwee# old son of the s.ouses
,artin and o.s Muri.ot. When a/ learned that her O6 yearEold mother was seriously
ill' she as#ed ,artin for a cash advance of 1'666.66 but ,artin refused. ;ne
morning' a/ gagged the mouth of ,artinQs son with stoc#ingsB .laced the child in a
bo?B sealed it with mas#ing ta.e and .laced the bo? in the attic. Later in the
afternoon' she demanded )'666.66 as ransom for the release of his son. ,artin did
not .ay the ransom. Aubse"uently' a/ disa..eared. 4fter a cou.le of days' ,artin
discovered the bo? in the attic with his child already dead. 4ccording to the auto.sy
re.ort' the child died of as.hy?iation barely three minutes after the bo? was sealed.
What crime or crimes did a/ commit! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a/ committed the com.osite crime of #idna..ing with homicide under 4rt. 25O' R0C
as amended by R.4. 9o. O5)8. 3nder the law' any .erson who shall detain another or
in any manner de.rive him of liberty and the victim dies as a conse"uence is liable
for #idna..ing with homicide and shall be .enali/ed with the ma?imum .enalty.
%n this case' notwithstanding the fact that the oneEwee# old child was merely #e.t in
the attic of his house' gagged with stoc#ings and .laced in a bo? sealed with ta.e'
the de.rivation of liberty and the intention to #ill becomes a..arent. Though it may
a..ear that the means em.loyed by a/ was attended by treachery (#illing of an
infant)' nevertheless' a se.arate charge of murder will not be .ro.er in view of the
amendment. Here' the term GhomicideG is used in its generic sense and covers all
forms of #illing whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. %t is of no moment
that the evidence shows the death of the child too# .lace three minutes after the
5
bo? was sealed and the demand for the ransom too# .lace in the afternoon. The
intention is controlling here' that is' ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
,urder "ualified by treachery because the victim was only one wee# old. The
offense was attended with the aggravating circumstance of lac# of res.ect due to
the age of the victim' cruelty and abuse of confidence. %n People v. 6ora ((.. No,
6<4943), $ar5h 3), 198*), the Court found that a child sub$ected to similar
treatment as the infant in this case would have died instantly' negating any intent to
#idna. or detain when ransom was sought. =emand for ransom did not convert the
offense into #idna..ing with murder because the demand was merely a scheme by
the offender (a/) to conceal the body of her victim.
8i"napping; +3ects; $oluntary 0elease (%&&)
=49' a .rivate individual' #idna..ed CH3' a minor. ;n the second day' =49 released
CH3 even before any criminal information was filed against him. 4t the trial of his
case' =49 raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he
released the child before the la.se of the 2Eday .eriod and before criminal
.roceedings for #idna..ing were instituted. Will =49@s defense .ros.er! Reason
briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. =49@s defense will not .ros.er. Koluntary release by the offender of the
offended .arty in #idna..ing is not absolutory. >esides' such release is irrelevant
and immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor' the crime committed
is #idna..ing and serious illegal detention under 4rt. 25O' Revised enal Code' to
which such circumstance does not a..ly. The circumstance may be a..reciated only
in the crime of Alight %llegal =etention in 4rt. 257 (!sistio v. Sa& 9ie2o, 1) SC! 613
?1964=)
8i"napping; 2llegal 6etention; 9inority (%&&6)
=ang was a beauty "ueen in a university. &ob' a rich classmate' was so enamored
with her that he .ersistently wooed and .ursued her. =ang' being in love with
another man' re$ected him. This angered &ob' Aometime in Ae.tember 2662' while
=ang and her sister Lyn were on their way home' &ob and his minor friend 9onoy
grabbed them and .ushed them inside a white van. They brought them to an
abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance na#ed. Thereafter' they
brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they too# turns ra.ing them. 4fter
satisfying their lust' &ob ordered 9onoy to .ush =ang down a ravine' resulting in her
death. Lyn ran away but &ob and 9onoy chased her and .ushed her inside the van.
Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
=0 What cime o cimes wee committe) "! #o" an) Nono!/ 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
&ob and 9onoy committed 1) #idna..ing and serious illegal detention with homicide
and ra.e for the subse"uent death of =ang' and 2) #idna..ing with ra.e against her
sister' Lyn. The victims' who were #idna..ed and detained' were subse"uently ra.ed
and #illed (as regards =ang) in the course of their detention. The com.osite crime is
committed regardless of whether the subse"uent crimes were .ur.osely sought or
merely an afterthought (People v. 6arra&a2a, (.. Nos. 138814<', Fe7r#ar3s, *))4).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
5
&ob and 9onoy committed 2 counts of the com.le? crime of forcible abduction with
ra.e (4rt. 2:2' Revised enal Code) and the se.arate offense of murder against
=ang. The crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they
too# the victims away and subse"uently ra.ed them. The #illing thereafter'
constitutes the se.arate offense of murder "ualified by treachery.
60 What penalties sho$l) "e impose) on them/ 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aince the death .enalty has already been .rohibited' reclusion .er.etua is the
a..ro.riate .enalty (R4. 82:5). %n the case of the minor 9onoy' his .enalty shall be
one degree lower (4rt. 57' Revised enal Code).
;0 Will Nono!Cs minoit! e'c$lpate him/ 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3nder R4. 82::' the &uvenile &ustice and Reform 4ct' which retroacts to the date
that the crime was committed' 9onoy will be e?cul.ated if he was 1) years old or
below. However' if he was above 1) years old but below 17 years of age' he will be
liable if he acted with discernment. 4s the .roblem shows that 9onoy acted with
discernment' he will be entitled to a sus.ension of sentence.(N4T!;>N>B .!. 9344
is o#tsi%e the 5overa2e o. the eDami&atio&)
30 Is the non+ecove! o% L!nCs "o)! mateial to the ciminal lia"ilit! o% #o"
an) Nono!/ 56074)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The nonErecovery of Lyn@s body is not material to the criminal liability of &ob and
9onoy' because the cor.us delicti of the crime which is #idna..ing with ra.e of Lyn
has been duly .roven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The nonErecovery of Lyn@s body is not material to the criminal liability of &ob and
9onoy' because the cor.us delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with ra.e
of Lyn has been duly .roven.
8i"napping; Proposal to 8i"nap (1996)
<dgardo induced his friend Kicente' in consideration of money' to #idna. a girl he is
courting so that he may succeed to ra.ing her and eventually ma#ing her accede to
marry him. Kicente as#ed for more money which <dgardo failed to .ut u.. 4ngered
because <dgardo did not .ut u. the money he re"uired' he re.orted <dgardo to the
.olice. ,ay <dgardo be charged with attem.ted #idna..ing! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' <dgardo may not be charged with attem.ted #idna..ing inasmuch as no overt
act to #idna. or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. 4t most' what
<dgardo has done in the .remises was a .ro.osal to Kicente to #idna. the girl' which
is only a .re.aratory act and not an overt act. The attem.t to commit a felony
commences with the commission of overt act' not .re.aratory act. ro.osal to
commit #idna..ing is not a crime.
8i"napping; Serious 2llegal 6etention (199*)
5
4 and > cons.iring with each other' #idna..ed C and detained him. The duo then
called u. C@s wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him
only if she .aid a ransom in the amount of 16'666'666 and that' if she were to fail'
they would #ill him. The ne?t day' C' who had $ust recovered from an illness had a
rela.se. 0earing he might die if not treated at once by a doctor' 4 and > released C
during the early morning of the third day of detention. Charged with #idna..ing and
serious illegal detention .rovided in 4rticle 25O' RC' 4 and > filed a .etition for
bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily released C within three days
from commencement of the detention' without having been .aid any amount of the
ransom demanded and before the institution of criminal .roceedings against them'
the crime committed was only slight illegal detention .rescribed in 4rticle 257' RC.
4fter hearing' the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore
denied the .etition for bail. ;n a..eal' the only issue wasF Was the crime
committed #idna..ing and serious detention or slight %llegal detention! =ecide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by 4 and > is #idna..ing and serious illegal detention because
they made a demand for ransom and threatened to #ill C if the latter@s wife did not
.ay the same. Without the demand for ransom' the crime could have been slight
illegal detention only. The contention of 4 and > 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 .enalty .rescribed is death (!sistio vs. Sa&
9ie2o. 1)SC!613). They were .ro.erly denied bail because the trial court found
that the evidence of guilt in the information for #idna..ing and serious %llegal
detention is strong.
Trespass to 6welling; Pri#ate Persons (%&&6)
3nder what situations may a .rivate .erson enter any dwelling' residence' or other
establishments without being liable for tres.ass to dwelling! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tres.ass to dwelling is not a..licable to any .erson who shall enter another@s
dwelling for the .ur.ose ofF
a) reventing some serious harm to himself' its occu.ants' or a third .ersonB and b)
Rendering service to humanity or $usticeB 4ny .erson who shall enter cafes' taverns'
inns' and other .ublic houses' while the same are o.en will
li#ewise not be liable (4rt. 276' Revised enal Code).
Tresspass to 6welling; 0ule of (4sorption (199)
4t about 11F66 in the evening' =ante forced his way inside the house of ,amerto.
&ay. ,amerto@s son' saw =ante and accosted him' =ante .ulled a #nife and stabbed
&ay on his abdomen. ,amerto heard the commotion and went out of his room.
=ante' who was about to esca.e' assaulted ,amerto. &ay suffered %n$uries which'
were it not for the timely medical attendance' would have caused his death.
,amerto sustained %n$uries that inca.acitated him for 2) days. What crime or crimes
did =ante commit!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=ante committed "ualified tres.ass to dwelling' frustrated homicide for the stabbing
of &ay' and less serious .hysical in$uries for the assault on ,amerto. The crime of
"ualified tres.ass to dwelling should not be com.le?ed with frustrated homicide
because when the tres.ass is committed as a means to commit a more serious
5
offense' tres.ass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime' and the former
constitutes an aggravating circumstance of dwelling (People vs. !7e%o0a, '3
Phil.188). =ante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of &ay.... =ante is
guilty of less serious .hysical in$uries for the wounds sustained by ,amerto...
'n;ust $e/ation #s (cts of Lasci#iousness (199)
When is embracing' #issing and touching a girl@s breast considered only un$ust
ve?ation instead of acts of lasciviousness!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing' #issing of a woman arising either out of .assion or other
motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without
lewd design constitutes merely un$ust ve?ation (People vs, -2&a5io. C! (No. '119<
, Septem7er 3), 19')). However' where the #issing' embracing and the touching of
the breast of a woman are done with lewd design' the same constitute acts of
lasciviousness (People vs. Per5ival (ilo, 1) SC! 1'3).
C()*!" A0+)n" P(o7!(-
(rson; 6estructi#e (rson (199)
Tata owns a threeEstorey building located at 9o. 2 Herran Atreet. aco' ,anila. Ahe
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction.
Ao' she insured the building for 2'666'666.66. Ahe then urged +oboy and +ongsi' for
monetary consideration' to bum her building so she could collect the insurance
.roceeds. +oboy and +ongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
crime did Tata' +oboy and +ongsi commit!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata' +oboy and +ongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of .ro.erty by means of fire under the
circumstances which e?.osed to danger the life or .ro.erty of others (!rt, 3*), par.
', PC. as ame&%e% 73 ! No. 16'9).
(rson; 6estructi#e (rson (%&&&)
;ne early evening' there was a fight between <ddie 1utierre/ and ,ario Corte/.
Later that evening' at about 11 o@cloc#' <ddie .assed by the house of ,ario carrying
a .lastic bag containing gasoline' threw the bag at the house of ,ario who was
inside the house watching television' and then lit it. The front wall of the house
started bla/ing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. 0orthwith' ,ario .oured
water on the burning .ortion of the house. 9eighbors also rushed in to hel. .ut the
fire under control before any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames
have e?tensively s.read. ;nly a .ortion of the house was burned. =iscuss <ddie@s
liability' (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
<ddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. %t is destructive
arson because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of ,ario which is an
inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house was in
fact already burned although not totally. %n arson' it is not re"uired that the
5
.remises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. %t is enough that the
.remises suffer destruction by burning.
(rson; =ew (rson Law (%&&)
C= is the ste.father of 0<L. ;ne day' C= got very mad at 0<L for failing in his college
courses. %n his fury' C= got the leather suitcase of 0<L and burned it together with
all its contents.
1. What crime was committed by C=!
2. %s C= criminally liable! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by C= is arson under res. =ecree 9o. 1512 (the new 4rson
Law) which .unishes any .erson who burns or sets fire to the .ro.erty of another
(Aection 1 of res. =ecree 9o. 1512). C= is criminally liable although he is the
ste.father of 0<L whose .ro.erty he burnt' because such relationshi. is not
e?em.ting from criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft'
swindling or estafa' and malicious mischief (4rticle 222' Revised enal Code). The
.rovision (4rt. 222) of the Code to the effect that burning .ro.erty of small value
should be .unished as malicious mischief has long been re.ealed by res. =ecree
1512B hence' there is no more legal basis to consider burning .ro.erty of small value
as malicious mischief.
CP %%; 9emoran"um ChecJ (199)
What is a memorandum chec#!
%s the GbouncingG thereof within the .urview of > >lg. 22!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 G,emorandum Chec#G is an ordinary chec#' with the word G,emorandumG' G,emoG
or G,emG written across its face' signifying that the ma#er or drawer engages to .ay
its holder absolutely thus .arta#ing the nature of a .romissory note. %t is drawn on a
ban# and is a bill of e?change within the .urview of Aection 17) of the 9egotiable
%nstruments Law (People vs. +#%2e 9avi% Nita.a&, (.. No. 1'9'4, 45to7er **,
199*). +es' a memorandum chec# is covered by >atas ambansa 9o. 22 because the
law covers any chec# whether it is an evidence of %ndebtedness' or in .ayment of a
.reEe?isting obligation or as a de.osit or guarantee (People vers#s Nita<.a&).
CP %%; 9emoran"um ChecJ (1997)
What is a memorandum chec# !
%s a .erson who issues a memorandum chec# without sufficient funds necessarily
guilty of violating >.. >lg. 22! <?.lain. &ane is a money lender. <dmund is a
businessman who has been borrowing money from &ane by rediscounting his .ersonal
chec#s to .ay his loans. %n ,arch 1878' he borrowed 166'666 from &ane and issued
to her a chec# for the same amount. The chec# was dishonored by the drawee ban#
for having been drawn against a closed account. When <dmund was notified of the
dishonor of his chec# he .romised to raise the amount within five days. He failed.
Conse"uently' &ane sued <dmund for violation of the >ouncing Chec#s Law (>. >lg.
22). The defense of <dmund was that he gave the chec# to &ane to serve as a
memorandum of his indebtedness to her and was not su..osed to be encashed. %s
the defense of <dmund valid! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
1. 4 memorandum chec# is an ordinary chec# with the word G,emorandumG' G,emoG'
or G,emG written across the face' signifying that the ma#er or drawer engages to .ay
its holder absolutely thus .arta#ing the nature of a .romissory note. %t is drawn on a
ban# and is a bill of e?change within the .urview of Aection 17) of the 9egotiable
%nstruments Law. (People vs. Nita.a&, *1' SC! 19)
2. +es' a .erson who issued a memorandum chec# without sufficient funds is guilty
of violating >.. >lg. 22 as said law covers all chec#s whether it is an evidence of
indebtedness' or in .ayment of a .ree?isting obligation' or as de.osit or guarantee.
(People vs. Nita.a&)
2. The defense of <dmund is 9;T valid. 4 memorandum chec# u.on .resentment is
generally acce.ted by the ban#. %t does not matter whether the chec# is in the
nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What the law .unishes is the
mere issuance of a bouncing chec# and not the .ur.ose for which it was issued nor
the terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worthless chec#
is a malum .rohibitum. The understanding that the chec# will not be .resented at
the ban# but will be redeemed by the ma#er when the loan falls due is a mere
.rivate arrangement which may not .revail to e?em.t it from the .enal sanction of
>.. >lg. 22. (eo.le vs. 9itafan)
CP %%; Presumption of 8nowle"ge (%&&%)
4 a businessman' borrowed )66'666.66 from >' a friend. To .ay the loan' 4 issued a
.ostdated chec# to be .resented for .ayment 26 days after the transaction. Two
days before the maturity date of the chec#' 4 called u. > and told him not to de.osit
the chec# on the date stated on the face thereof' as 4 had not de.osited in the
drawee ban# the amount needed to cover the chec#. 9evertheless' > de.osited the
chec# in "uestion and the same was dishonored of insufficiency of funds. 4 failed to
settle the amount with > in s.ite of the latter@s demands. %s 4 guilty of violating >..
>lg. 22' otherwise #nown as the >ouncing Chec#s Law! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' 4 %s liable for violation of >. >lg. 22 (>ouncing Chec#s Law)' 4lthough
#nowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lac# of funds at the time of the issuance
of the chec# is an essential element of the violation' the law .resumes .rima facie
such #nowledge' unless within five ()) ban#ing days of notice of dishonor or
non.ayment' the drawer .ays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or ma#es
arrangements for .ayment in full by the drawee of such chec#s. 4 mere notice by
the drawer 4 to the .ayee > before the maturity date of the chec# will not defeat
the .resum.tion of #nowledge created by the lawB otherwise' the .ur.ose and s.irit
of >.. 22 will be rendered useless.
+stafa B Trust 0eceipt Law (1997)
&ulio obtained a letter of credit from a local ban# in order to im.ort auto tires from
&a.an. To secure .ayment of his letter of credit' &ulio e?ecuted a trust recei.t in
favor of the ban#. 3.on arrival of the tires' &ulio sold them but did not deliver the
.roceeds to the ban#. &ulio was charged with estafa under .=. 9o. 11) which ma#es
the violation of a trust recei.t agreement .unishable as estafa under 4rt. 21)' .ar.
(1)' sub.ar. (b)' of the Revised enal Code. &ulio contended that .=. 9o. 11) was
unconstitutional because it violated the >ill of Rights .rovision against im.risonment
for non.ayment of debt. Rule on the contention of &ulio' =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
Auch contention is invalid. 4 trust recei.t arrangement doesn@t involve merely a
sim.le loan transaction but includes li#ewise a security feature where the creditor
ban# e?tends financial assistance to the debtorim.orter in return for the collateral
or security title as to the goods or merchandise being .urchased or im.orted. The
title of the ban# to the security is the one sought to be .rotected and not the loan
which is a se.arate and distinct agreement. What is being .enali/ed under '=. 9o.
11) is the misuse or misa..ro.riation of the goods or .roceeds reali/ed from the
sale of the goods' documents or %nstruments which are being held in trust for the
entrusteeEban#s. %n other words' the law .unishes the dishonesty and abuse of
confidence in the handling of money or goods to the .re$udice of the other' and
hence there is no
violation of the right against im.risonment for nonE.ayment of debt. (People vs.
Nita.a&, *)1 SC! 1*')
+stafa (1999)
%s there such a crime as estafa through negligence! <?.lain. (2*) 4urelia introduced
Rosa to Kictoria' a dealer in $ewelry who does business in Timog' -ue/on City. Rosa'
a resident of Cebu City' agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet to Kictoria on a
commission basis' on condition that' if these items can not be sold' they may be
returned to Kictoria forthwith. 3nable to sell the ring and bracelet' Rosa delivered
both items to 4urelia in Cebu City with the understanding that 4urelia shall' in turn'
return the items to Kictoria in Timog' -ue/on City. 4urelia dutifully returned the
bracelet to Kictoria but sold the ring' #e.t the cash .roceeds thereof to herself' and
issued a chec# to Kictoria which bounced. Kictoria sued Rosa for estafa under 4rticle
21)' R..C.' Kictoria insisting that delivery to a third .erson of the thing held in trust
is not a defense in estafa. %s Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the
circumstances! <?.lain' C:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. %n estafa' the .rofit or gain
must be obtained by the accused .ersonally' through his own acts' and his mere
negligence in allowing another to ta#e advantage of or benefit from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. Nepom#5e&o, C!, 464( 613')
(b) 9o' Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. 4lthough she received the
$ewelry from Kictoria under an obligation to return the same or deliver the .roceeds
thereof' she did not misa..ro.riate it. %n fact' she gave them to 4urelia s.ecifically
to be returned to Kictoria. The misa..ro.riation was done by 4urelia' and absent the
showing of any cons.iracy between 4urelia and Rosa' the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for 4melia@s acts. 0urthermore' as e?.lained above' Rosa@s
negligence which may have allowed 4urelia to misa..ro.riate the $ewelry does not
ma#e her criminally liable for estafa.
+stafa #s: CP %% (1996)
The accused was convicted under >.' >lg. 22 for having issued several chec#s which
were dishonored by the drawee ban# on their due date because the accused closed
her account after the issuance of chec#s. ;n a..eal' she argued that she could not
be convicted under >lg. 22 by reason of the closing of her account because said law
a..lies solely to chec#s dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that at
the time she issued the chec#s concerned' she had ade"uate funds in the ban#.
While she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under 4rticle 21) of the
Revised enal Code' she cannot however be found guilty of having violated >lg. 22. %s
her contention correct! <?.lain.
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the contention of the accused is not correct. 4s long as the chec#s issued were
issued to a..ly on account or for value' and was dishonored u.on .resentation for
.ayment to the drawee ban# for lac# of insufficient funds on their due date' such
act falls within the ambit of >.. >lg. 22. Aaid law e?.ressly .unishes any .erson who
may have insufficient funds in the drawee ban# when he issues the chec#' but fails
to #ee. sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the chec# when .resented to the
drawee ban# within ninety (86) days from the date a..earing thereon.
+stafa #s: CP %% (%&&1)
4 and > agreed to meet at the latter@s house to discuss >@s financial .roblems. ;n his
way' one of 4@s car tires blew u.. >efore 4 left following the meeting' he as#ed > to
lend him (4) money to buy a new s.are tire. > had tem.orarily e?hausted his ban#
de.osits' leaving a /ero balance. 4ntici.ating' however' a re.lenishment of his
account soon' > issued 4 a .ostdated chec# with which 4 negotiated for a new tire.
When .resented' the chec# bounced for lac# of funds. The tire com.any filed a
criminal case against 4 and >. What would be the criminal liability' if any' of each of
the two accused! <?.lain. 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 who negotiated the unfunded chec# of > in buying a new tire for his car may only
be .rosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the
chec# has no sufficient funds in the drawee ban#B otherwise' he is not criminally
liable. > who accommodated 4 with his chec# may nevertheless be .rosecuted under
> 22 for having issued the
chec#' #nowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the ban# and that 4
will negotiate it to buy a new tire' i.e.' for value. > may not be .rosecuted for
estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in
issuing the chec# which 4 negotiated. ;bviously' > issued the .ostdated chec# only
to hel. 4F criminal intent or dolo is absent.
+stafa #s: 9oney 9arJet Placement (1996)
;n ,arch 21' 188)' ;r.heus 0inancing Cor.oration received from ,aricar the sum of
)66'666 as money mar#et .lacement for si?ty days at fifteen (1)) .er cent interest'
and the resident of said Cor.oration issued a chec# covering the amount including
the interest due thereon' .ostdated ,ay 26' 188). ;n the maturity date' however'
;r.heus 0inancing Cor.oration failed to deliver bac# ,aricar@s money .lacement
with the corres.onding interest earned' notwithstanding re.eated demands u.on
said Cor.oration to com.ly with its commitment. =id the resident of ;r.heus
0inancing Cor.oration incur any criminal liability for estafa for reason of the
non.ayment of the money mar#et .lacement! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the resident of the financing cor.oration does not incur criminal liability for
estafa because a money mar#et transaction .arta#es of the nature of a loan' such
that non.ayment thereof would not give rise to estafa through misa..ro.riation or
conversion. %n money mar#et .lacement' there is transfer of ownershi. of the money
to be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil in nature (Pere0 vs.
Co#rt o. !ppeals, 1*1 SC! 636" Se7re&o vs. Co#rt o. !ppeals etal, (.. 84)96, *6
+a& 9').
5
+stafa #s: Theft (%&&7)
== was engaged in the warehouse business. Aometime in 9ovember 266:' he was in
dire need of money. He' thus' sold merchandise de.osited in his warehouse to KR for
)66'666.66. == was charged with theft' as .rinci.al' while KR as accessory. The
court convicted == of theft but ac"uitted KR on the ground that he .urchased the
merchandise in good faith. However' the court ordered KR to return the merchandise
to the owner thereof and ordered == to refund the )66'666.66 to KR. == moved for
the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should be ac"uitted of theft
because being the de.ositary' he had $uridical .ossession of the merchandise. KR
also moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that since he was
ac"uitted of the crime charged' and that he .urchased the merchandise in good
faith' he is not obligated to return the merchandise to its owner. Rule on the
motions with reasons. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration should be granted. >y de.ositing the merchandise in
his warehouse' he transferred not merely .hysical but also $uridical .ossession. The
element of ta#ing in the crime of theft is wanting. 4t the most' he could be held
liable for estafa for misa..ro.riation of the merchandise de.osited. ;n the other
hand' the motion of KR must also be denied. His ac"uittal is of no moment because
the thing' sub$ect matter of the offense' shall be restored to the owner even though
it is found in the .ossession of a third .erson who ac"uired it by lawful means. (4rt.
16)' R0C)
+stafa; +lements (%&&7)
== .urchased a television set for )6'666.66 with the use of a counterfeit credit
card. The owner of the establishment had no in#ling that the credit card used by ==
was counterfeit. What crime or crimes did == commit! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
== committed the crime of estafa under 4rt. 21)' .ar. 2(a) of the Revised enal
Code by falsely .retending to .osses credit. The elements of estafa under this .enal
.rovision areB
(1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceitB and
(2) damage or .re$udice ca.able of .ecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
.arty or third .arty. The accused also violated R.4. 9o. 7:7:' which .unishes the use
or .ossession of fa#e or counterfeit credit card.
+stafa; .alsi@cation of Commercial 6ocument
(%&&&)
,r. Carlos 1abisi' a customs guard' and ,r' Rico +to' a .rivate %ndividual' went to
the office of ,r. =iether ;cuarto' a customs bro#er' and re.resented themselves as
agents of ,oonglow Commercial Trading' an %m.orter of children@s clothes and toys.
,r. 1abisi and ,r. +to engaged ,r. ;cuarto to .re.are and file with the >ureau of
Customs the necessary %m.ort <ntry and %nternal Revenue =eclaration covering
,oonglow@s shi.ment. ,r. 1abisi and ,r. +to submitted to ,r. ;cuarto a .ac#ing list'
a commercial invoice' a bill of lading and a Aworn %m.ort =uty =eclaration which
declared the shi.ment as children@s toys' the ta?es and duties of which were
com.uted at 56'666.66. ,r. ;cuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the
,anila %nternational Container ort. However' before the shi.ment was released' a
s.ot chec# was conducted by Customs Aenior 4gent &ames >andido' who discovered
that the contents of the van (shi.ment) were not children@s toys as declared in the
5
shi..ing documents but 1'666 units of video cassette recorders with ta?es and duties
com.uted at 566'666.66. 4 hold order and warrant of sei/ure and detention were
then issued by the =istrict Collector of Customs. 0urther investigation showed that
,oonglow is none?istent.
Conse"uently' ,r' 1abisi and ,r. +to were charged with and convicted for violation
of Aection 2(e) of R.4. 2618 which ma#es it unlawful among others' for .ublic
officers to cause any undue %n$ury to any .arty' including the 1overnment. %n the
discharge of official functions through manifest .artiality' evident bad faith or gross
ine?cusable negligence. %n their motion for reconsideration' the accused alleged that
the decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at
an attem.ted stage' and that in fact the 1overnment did not suffer any undue
in$ury. 4ssuming that the attem.ted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is
not .unishable' may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an
offense .unished by the Revised enal Code under the facts of the case! <?.lain.
(2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' both are liable for attem.ted estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents' a com.le? crime. They tried to defraud the 1overnment with the use of
false commercial and .ublic documents. =amage is not necessary.
+stafa; .alsi@cation of Commercial 6ocuments
(199*)
The accused o.ened a saving account with >an# 4 with an initial de.osit of
2'666.66. 4 few days later' he de.osited in the savings account a >an# > chec# for
16'666.66 drawn and endorsed .ur.ortedly by C. Ten days later' he withdrew
16'666.66 from his savings account. C com.lained to >an# > when the chec# was
deducted from his account. Two days thereafter' the accused de.osited another
>an# > chec# of 16'666.66 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. 4 wee# later' the
accused went to >an# 4 to withdraw 16'666.66. While withdrawing the amount' he
was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attem.ted estafa both through
falsification of commercial documents' he set u. the defenses that' e?ce.t for the
showing that the signature of C had been forged' no further evidence was .resented
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 tenableB (a) the .ossessor of a falsified document is .resumed to
be the author of the falsification (People vs. Se&%a3%te2o, 81 SC! 1*)" Foh TieC vs.
People, et al, 9e5. *1, 199))B (b) %n estafa' a mere disturbance of .ro.erty rights'
even if tem.orary' would be sufficient to' cause damage. ,oreover' in a crime of
falsification of a commercial document' damage or intent to cause damage is not
necessary because the .rinci.al thing .unished is the violation of the .ublic faith
and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly .roclaimed.
<stafaB =efense of ;wnershi. (2662) 4 sold a washing machine to > on credit' with
the understanding that > could return the a..liance within two wee#s if' after
testing the same' > decided not to buy it. Two wee#s la.sed without > returning the
a..liance. 4 found out that > had sold the washing machine to a third .artyE %s >
liable for estafa! Why! ()*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWERF 9o' > is not liable for estafa because he is not $ust an
entrustee of the washing machine which he soldB he is the owner thereof by virtue of
the sale of the washing machine to him. The sale being on credit' > as buyer is only
liable for the un.aid .rice of the washing machineB his obligation is only a civil
obligation. There is no felonious misa..ro.riation that could constitute estafa.
+stafa; Swin"ling (199-)
=ivina' is the owner of a )66Es"uare meter residential lot in ,a#ati City covered by
TCT 9o. 1887. 4s her son needed money for his tri. abroad' =ivina mortgaged her lot
to her neighbor =ino for 1'666'666. Later =ivina sold the same lot to 4ngel for
2'666'666. %n the =eed of Aale' she e?.ressly stated that the .ro.erty is free from
any lien or encumbrance. What crime' if any' did =ivina commit! C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=ivina committed estafa or swindling under 4rt. 215' .ar. 2 of the Revised enal
Code because' #nowing that the real .ro.erty being sold is encumbered' she still
made a misre.resentation in the =eed of Aale 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.
0o44ery (1996)
0ive robbers robbed' one after the other five houses occu.ied by different families
located inside a com.ound enclosed by a si?Efeet high hollow bloc# fence. How many
robberies did the five commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they
entered the com.ound' they were im.elled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families
inside said com.ound' considering that the same was enclosed by a si?feet high
hollowEbloc# fence. The series of robbery committed in the same com.ound at about
the same time constitutes one continued crime' motivated by one criminal im.ulse.
0o44ery un"er 0PC (%&&&)
4' >' C' = and > were in a beerhouse along ,ac4rthur Highway having a drin#ing
s.ree. 4t about 1 o@cloc# in the morning' they decided to leave and so as#ed for the
bill. They .ooled their money together but they were still short of 2'666.66. < then
orchestrated a .lan whereby 4' >' C and = would go out' flag a ta?icab and rob the
ta?i driver of all his money while < would wait for them in the beerhouse. 4. >' C
and = agreed. 4ll armed with balisongs' 4' >' C and = hailed the first ta?icab they
encountered. 4fter robbing J' the driver' of his earnings' which amounted to
1'666.66 only' they needed 1 '666.66 more to meet their bill. Ao' they decided to
hail another ta?icab and they again robbed driver T of his hardEearned money
amounting to 1'666. ;n their way bac# to the beerhouse' they were a..rehended
by a .olice team u.on the com.laint of J' the driver of the first cab. They .ointed
to < as the mastermind. What crime or crimes' if any' did 4' >' C' = and > commit!
<?.lain fully. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4' >' C' = and < are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under 4rticle 28: of the Rev.
enal CodeB not for highway Robbery under = )22. The offenders are not brigands
5
but only committed the robbery to raise money to .ay their bill because it ha..ened
that they were short of money to .ay the same.
0o44ery un"er 0PC (%&&1)
4 and > are neighbors in >arangay 9uevo %' Ailang' Cavite. 4 is a barangay Magawad
and #nown to be a bully' while > is re.uted to be gay but noted for his industry and
economic savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in lea.s and bounds' including
registered and unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting >@s riches and
relying on his .olitical influence' 4 decided to harass and intimidate > into sharing
with him some of his lands' considering that the latter was single and living alone.
;ne night' 4 bro#e into >@s house' forced him to bring out some titles and after
.ic#ing out a title covering 266 s"uare meters in their barangay' com.elled > to ty.e
out a =eed of Aale conveying the said lot to him for 1.66 and other valuable
considerations. 4ll the while' 4 carried a .alti# caliber .:) in full view of >' who
signed the deed out of fear. When 4 later on tried to register the deed' > summoned
enough courage and had 4 arrested and charged in court after .reliminary
investigation. What charge or charges should be filed against 4! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under 4rticle 287 of the Revised enal Code should be filed
against 4. Aaid 4rticle .rovides that any .erson who' with intent to defraud another'
by means of violence or intimidation' shall com.el him to sign' e?ecute and deliver
any .ublic instrument or document shall be held guilty of robbery. The .alti#
caliber .:) firearm carried by 4 was obviously intended to intimidate > and thus'
used in the commission of the robbery. %f it could be established that 4 had no
license or .ermit to .ossess and carry such firearm' it should be ta#en only as
s.ecial aggravating circumstance to the crime of robbery' not sub$ect of a se.arate
.rosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
;n the .remise that the =eed of Aale which 4 com.elled > to sign' had not attained
the character of a G.ublicG instrument or document' 4 should be charged for the
crime of -ualified Tres.ass to =welling under 4rticle 276 of the Revised enal Code
for having intruded into >Qs house' and for the crime of 1rave Coercion under 4rticle
275 of same Code' for com.elling > to sign such deed of sale against his will.
0o44ery #s: ?ighway 0o44ery (%&&&)
=istinguish Highway Robbery under residential =ecree 9o. )22 from Robbery
committed on a highway. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Highway Robbery under res. =ecree )22 differs from ordinary Robbery committed
on a highway in these res.ectsF
%n Highway Robbery under = )22' the robbery is committed indiscriminately against
.ersons who commute in such highways' regardless of the .otentiality they offerB
while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway' the robbery is committed only
against .redetermined victimsB %t is Highway Robbery under = )22' when the
offender is a brigand or one who roams in .ublic highways and carries out his
robbery in .ublic highways as venue' whenever the o..ortunity to do so arises. %t is
ordinary Robbery under the Revised enal Code when the commission thereof in a
.ublic highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigandF and 2. %n
Highway Robbery under = )22' there is fre"uency in the commission of the robbery
5
in .ublic highways and against .ersons travelling thereatB whereas ordinary Robbery
in .ublic highways is only occasional against a .redetermined victim' without
fre"uency in .ublic highways.
0o44ery wF force upon things (%&&&)
4' brother of >' with the intention of having a night out with his friends' too# the
coconut shell which is being used by > as a ban# for coins from inside their loc#ed
cabinet using their common #ey. 0orthwith' 4 bro#e the coconut shell outside of
their home in the .resence of his friends. What is the criminal liability of 4' if any!
<?.lain. (2*) %s 4 e?em.ted from criminal liability under 4rticle 222 of the Revised
enal Code for being a brother of >! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 is criminally liable for Robbery with force u.on things' because the coconut shell
with the coins inside' was ta#en with intent to gain and bro#en outside of their
home' (4rt. 288 (b) (2). RC). b) 9o' 4 is not e?em.t from criminal liability under
4rt. 222 because said 4rticle a..lies only to theft' swindling or malicious mischief.
Here' the crime committed is robbery.
0o44ery wF ?omici"e , 0:(: =o: *679 (%&&7)
&ose em.loyed ,ario as gardener and Henry as coo#. They learned that &ose won
)66'666.66 in the lotto' and decided to rob him. ,ario .ositioned himself about 26
meters away from &oseQs house and acted as loo#out. 0or his .art' Henry
surre.titiously gained entry into the house and #illed &ose who was then having his
dinner. Henry found the )66'666.66 and too# it. Henry then too# a can of gasoline
from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. ,ario and Henry fled' but
were arrested around 266 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods.
The tanods recovered the )66'666.66. ,ario and Henry were charged with and
convicted of robbery with homicide' with the aggravating circumstances of arson'
dwelling' and nighttime.
,ario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of
the crime and was not aware that Henry #illed the victimB hence' he was guilty only
of robbery' as an accom.lice. ,ario also claimed that he cons.ired with Henry to
commit robbery but not to #ill &ose. Henry' li#ewise' moved to reconsider the
decision' asserting that he is liable only for attem.ted robbery with homicide with
no aggravating circumstance' considering that he and ,ario did not benefit
from the )66'666.66. He further alleged that arson is a felony and not an
aggravating circumstanceB dwelling is not aggravating in attem.ted robbery with
homicideB and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of &ose was lighted at
the time he was #illed. Resolve with reasons the res.ective motions of ,ario and
Henry. (O*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
,ario is not correct. ,ario cons.ired and acted in concert with Henry to commit
robbery. Hence' the act of one is the act of all and the e?tent of the s.ecific
.artici.ation of each individual cons.irator becomes secondary' each being held
liable for the criminal deed(s) e?ecuted by another or others. 4s a cons.irator' ,ario
casts his lot with his fellow cons.irators and becomes liable to any third .erson who
may get #illed in the course of im.lementing the criminal design. (People v.
P#&0ala&, et al.. (.. No. 188'3, Novem7er 8, 1991)
Henry is incorrect' since he ac"uired .ossession of the money. The crime of robbery
with force and intimidation is consummated when the robber ac"uires .ossession of
5
the .ro.erty' even if for a short time. %t is no defense that they had no o..ortunity
to dis.ose of or benefit from the money ta#en. (People v. Salvilia, et al., (.. No.
88163, !pril *6, 199)) Aince the crime in robbery with force and intimidation against
.ersons (robbery with homicide)' dwelling is aggravating. 4rson' which accom.anied
the crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed (!rt. *94, FC as ame&%e% 73 .!.
No. 16'9) and is not aggravating because the RC does not .rovide that such crime is
an aggravating circumstance. (People v. e2ala, (.. No. 13)')8, !pril ', *))))
9ighttime' li#ewise' is not aggravating. There is no showing that the same was
.ur.osely sought by the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime or
im.unity.
0o44ery wF ?omici"e (1996)
&ose' =omingo' ,anolo' and 0ernando' armed with bolos' at about one o@cloc# in the
morning' robbed a house at a desolate .lace where =anilo' his wife' and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the .rocess of ransac#ing =anilo@s
house' 0ernando' noticing that one of =anilo@s daughters was trying to get away' ran
after her and finally caught u. with her in a thic#et somewhat distant from the
house.
0ernando' before bringing bac# the daughter to the house' ra.ed her first.
Thereafter' the four carted away the belongings of =anilo and his family. a) What
crime did &ose' =omingo' ,anolo and 0ernando commit! <?.lain. b) Au..ose' after
the robbery' the four too# turns in ra.ing the three daughters of =anilo inside the
latter@s house' but before they left' they #illed the whole family to .revent
identification' what crime did the four commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) &ose' =omingo' and ,anolo committed Robbery' while 0ernando committed
com.le? crime of Robbery with Ra.e. Cons.iracy can be inferred from the manner
the offenders committed the robbery but the ra.e was committed by 0ernando at a
.lace Gdistant from the houseG where the robbery was committed' not in the
.resence of the other cons.irators. Hence' 0ernando alone should answer for the
ra.e' rendering him liable for the s.ecial com.le? crime. (People vs. Ca&t#ria et.
al, (.. 1)849), ** +#&e 199',
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the #illings were by reason
(to .revent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multi.le ra.es
committed and the fact that several .ersons were #illed Chomicide)' would be
considered as aggravating circumstances. The ra.es are synonymous with %gnominy
and the additional #illing synonymous with cruelty' (People vs. Solis, 18* SC!"
People vs. Pla2a, *)* SC! '31)
0o44ery wF ?omici"e (199-)
4' >' C and = all armed' robbed a ban#' and when they were about to get out of the
ban#' .olicemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the .olice
officers who fired bac# and shot it out with them.
1. Au..ose a ban# em.loyee was #illed and the bullet which #illed him came from
the firearm of the .olice officers' with what crime shall you charge 4' >. C and =!
C2*D
2. Au..ose it was robber = who was #illed by the .olicemen and the .rosecutor
charged 4' > and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (4'
> and C) were not the ones who #illed robber =' hence' the charge should only be
Robbery. How would you resolve their argument! (2*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4' >' C and = should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because
the death of the ban# em.loyee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on
the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the .oliceman' thereby causing
such death by reason or on the occasion of a robberyB hence' the com.osite crime of
robbery with homicide. The argument is valid' considering that a se.arate charge for
Homicide was filed. %t would be different if the charge filed was for the com.osite
crime of robbery with homicide which is a single' indivisible offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by 4' > and C is not correct because their liability is not only
for Robbery but for the s.ecial com.le? crime of Robbery with homicide. >ut the
facts stated im.resses that se.arate crimes of Robbery GandG Homicide were
charged' which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense
of Robbery with homicide' not two crimes.
0o44ery wF ?omici"e (%&&1)
4 learned two days ago that > had received dollar bills amounting to W16'666 from
his daughter wor#ing in the 3nited Atates. With the intention of robbing > of those
dollars' 4 entered >@s house at midnight' armed with a #nife which he used to gain
entry' and began "uietly searching the drawers' shelves' and other li#ely rece.tacles
of the cash. While doing that' > awo#e' rushed out from the bedroom' and gra..led
with 4 for the .ossession of the #nife which 4 was then holding. 4fter stabbing > to
death' 4 turned over >@s .illow and found the latter@s wallet underneath the .illow'
which was bulging with the dollar bills he was loo#ing for. 4 too# the bills and left
the house. What crime or crimes were committed! 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide' a com.osite crime. This is so
because 4@s .rimordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of
the robbery' the #illing of > too# .lace. >oth the robbery and the #illing were
consummated' thus giving rise to the s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with
homicide. The .rimary criminal intent being to commit a robbery' any #illing on the
GoccasionG of the robbery' though not by reason thereof' is considered a com.onent
of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.
0o44ery wF ?omici"e; Special Comple/ Crime
(1997)
Kictor' Ric#y' Rod and Ronnie went to the store of ,ang andoy. Kictor and Ric#y
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie .osted themselves at the door. 4fter
ordering beer Ric#y com.lained that he was shortchanged although ,ang andoy
vehemently denied it. Auddenly Ric#y whi..ed out a #nife as he announced GHoldEu.
itoRG and stabbed ,ang andoy to death. Rod bo?ed the store@s salesgirl Lucy to
.revent her from hel.ing ,ang andoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to see# hel.
from .eo.le ne?t door she was chased by Ronnie. 4s soon as Ric#y had stabbed ,ang
andoy' Kictor scoo.ed u. the money from the cash bo?. Then Kictor and Ric#y
dashed to the street and shouted' GTuma#bo na #ayoRG Rod was 1: and
Ronnie was 1O. The money and other articles looted from the store of ,ang andoy
were later found in the houses of Kictor and Ric#y. =iscuss fully the criminal liability
of Kictor' Ric#y' Rod and Ronnie.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
4ll are liable for the s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of
Ric#y in stabbing ,ang andoy to death' of Rod in bo?ing the salesgirl to .revent her
from hel.ing ,ang andoy' of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to .revent her in
see#ing hel.' of Kictor in scoo.ing u. money from the cash bo?' and of Ric#y and
Kictor in dashing to the street and announcing the esca.e' are all indicative of
cons.iracy. The rule is settled that when homicide ta#es .lace as a conse"uence or
on the occasion of a robbery' all those who too# .art in the robbery are guilty as
.rinci.als of the crime of robbery with homicide' unless the accused tried to .revent
the #illing (People vs. ;aello, **4 SC! *18). 0urther' the aggravating circumstance
of craft could be assessed against the accused for .retending to be customers of
,ang andoy.
0o44ery wF 2ntimi"ation #s: Theft (%&&%)
4 entered the house of another without em.loying force or violence u.on things. He
was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was .revented from doing so because
4 threatened her with a gun. 4 then too# money and other valuables and left. %s 4
guilty of theft or of robbery! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he em.loyed on the maid before
the ta#ing of the money and other valuables. %t is the intimidation of .erson relative
to the ta#ing that "ualifies the crime as robbery' instead of sim.ly theft. The nonE
em.loyment of force u.on things is of no moment because robbery is committed not
only by em.loying force u.on things but also by em.loying violence against or
intimidation of .ersons.
0o44ery wF 0ape (1999)
Two young men' 4 and >' cons.ired to rob a residential house of things of value.
They succeeded in the commission of their original .lan to sim.ly rob. 4' however'
was se?ually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so' ra.ed her.
The lady victim testified that > did not in any way .artici.ate in the ra.e but >
watched the ha..ening from a window and did nothing to sto. the ra.e. %s > as
criminally liable as 4 for robbery with ra.e! <?.lain. (:*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' > is as criminally liable as 4 for the com.osite crime of robbery with ra.e under
4rt. 28: (1). 4lthough the cons.iracy of 4 and > was only to rob' > was .resent when
the ra.e was being committed which gave rise to a com.osite crime' a single
indivisible offense of robbery with ra.e. > would not have been liable had he
endeavored to .revent the commission of the ra.e. >ut since he did not when he
could have done so' he in effect ac"uiesced with the ra.e as a com.onent of the
robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with ra.e.
0o44ery wF 0ape; Conspiracy (%&&)
Together J4' +> and LC .lanned to rob ,iss ;=. They entered her house by brea#ing
one of the windows in her house. 4fter ta#ing her .ersonal .ro.erties and as they
were about to leave' J4 decided on im.ulse to ra.e ;=. 4s J4 was molesting her' +>
and LC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to .revent J4 from
ra.ing ;=. What crime or crimes did J4' +> and LC commit' and what is the criminal
liability of each! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
The crime committed by J4' +> and LC is the com.osite crime of Robbery with
Ra.e' a single' indivisible offense under 4rt. 28:(1) of the Revised enal Code.
4lthough the cons.iracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only
J4 ra.ed C=' the other robbers' +> and LC' were .resent and aware of the ra.e
being committed by their coEcons.irator. Having done nothing to sto. J4 from
committing the ra.e' +> and LC thereby concurred in the commission of the ra.e by
their coEcons.irator J4. The criminal liability of all' J4' +L and LC' shall be the
same' as .rinci.als in the s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with ra.e which is a
single' indivisible offense where the ra.e accom.anying the robbery is $ust a
com.onent.
0o44ery; ?omici"e; (rson (1997)
Harry' an overseas contract wor#er' arrived from Aaudi 4rabia with considerable
savings. Mnowing him to be GloadedG' his friends &ason' ,anuel and =ave invited him
to .o#er 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. 4ngered by the betrayal he decided to ta#e revenge on the three
cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his
com.anions to drin#' as they did' until they all fell aslee.. When Harry saw his
com.anions already sound aslee. he hac#ed all of them to death. Then he
remembered his losses. He rifled through the .oc#ets of his victims and got bac# all
the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his
misdeed. The following day .olice investigators found among the debris the charred
bodies of &ason' ,anuel' =ave and the careta#er of the resort. 4fter .reliminary
investigation' the rovincial rosecutor charged Harry with the com.le? crime of
arson with "uadru.le homicide and robbery. Was Harry .ro.erly charged! =iscuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' Harry was net .ro.erly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (2)
se.arate crimes' namelyF murder' theft and arson. Harry #illed &ason' ,anuel and
=ave with evident .remeditation' as there was considerable la.se of time before he
decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. %n addition'
Harry em.loyed means which wea#ened the defense of &ason' ,anuel and =ave.
Harry gave them the li"uor to drin# until they were drun# and fell aslee.. This gave
Harry the o..ortunity to carry out his .lan of murder with im.unity.
The ta#ing of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the #illings.
Hence' Harry committed the se.arate crime of theft and not the com.le? crime of
robbery with homicide. 4lthough theft was committed against dead .ersons' it is still
legally .ossible as the offended .arty are the estates of the victims.
%n burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another se.arate
crime' arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two
(2) .revious offenses he committed. The fact that the careta#er died from the bla/e
did not "ualify Harry@s crime into a com.le? crime of arson with homicide for there is
no such crime. Hence' Harry was im.ro.erly charged with the com.le? crime of
arson with "uadru.le homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with
three (2) se.arate crimes' murder' theft and arson.
0o44ery; 0ape (199*)
4fter ra.ing the com.lainant in her house' the accused struc# a match to smo#e a
cigarette before de.arting 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.
5
When she refused' he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with
and convicted of the s.ecial com.le? crime of robbery with ra.e. Was the court
correct!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. the court erred in convicting the accused of the s.ecial com.le? crime of
robbery with ra.e. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) se.arate
crimes of robbery and ra.e' since the .rimary intent or ob$ective of the accused was
only to ra.e the com.lainant' and his commission of the robbery was merely an
afterthought. The robbery must .recede the ra.e. %n order to give rise to the s.ecial
com.le? crime for which the court convicted the accused.
Theft (199-)
,ario found a watch in a $ee. he was riding' and since it did not belong to him' he
a..roached .oliceman and delivered the watch with instruction to return the same
to whoever may be found to be the owner. failed to return the watch to the owner
and' instead' sold it and a..ro.riated for himself the .roceeds of the sale. Charged
with theft' reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not he who
found the watch and' moreover' the watch turned out to be stolen .ro.erty. %s @s
defense valid! C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' @s defense is not valid. %n a charge for theft' it is enough that the .ersonal
.ro.erty sub$ect thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (). %t is
irrelevant whether the .erson de.rived of the .ossession of the watch has or has no
right to the watch. Theft is committed by one who' with intent to gain' a..ro.riates
.ro.erty of another without the consent of its owner. 4nd the crime is committed
even when the offender receives .ro.erty of another but ac"uires only
.hysical .ossession to hold the same.
Theft (%&&1)
0rancis 1arcia' a &ollibee waiter' found a gold bracelet in front of his wor#ing .lace
in ,a#ati and' u.on ins.ecting it' saw the name and address of the owner engraved
on the inside. Remembering his .arents@ admonition that he should not ta#e anything
which does not belong to him' he delivered the bracelet to ;1 &esus Reyes of the
,a#ati -uad .recinct with the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him.
;1 Reyes' instead' sold the bracelet and misa..ro.riated the .roceeds. Aubse"uent
events brought out the fact that the bracelet was dro..ed by a snatcher who had
grabbed it from the owner a bloc# away from where 0rancis had found it and further
investigation traced the last .ossessor as ;1 Reyes. Charged with theft' ;1 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. (16*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft' ;1 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. %t is enough that the bracelet
belonged to another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characteri/ed
by intent to gain. The act of ;1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong
5
to him and which he only held to be delivered to its owner' is furtive
misa..ro.riation with intent to gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid .ro.erty entrusts it to another for delivery to the
owner' the .erson to whom such .ro.erty is entrusted and who acce.ts the same'
assumes the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finderF if he
would misa..ro.riate it' he is guilty of theft (People vs. !vila, 44 Phil.1*)).
Theft; Auali@e" Theft (%&&%)
4 fire bro#e out in a de.artment store' 4' ta#ing 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:
4 committed the crime of "ualified theft because he too# the goods on the occasion
of and ta#ing advantage of the fire which bro#e out in the de.artment store. The
occasion of a calamity such as fire' when the theft was committed' "ualifies the
crime under 4rticle 216 of the Revised enal Code' as amended.
Theft; Auali@e" Theft (%&&%)
4 vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in >ulacan. 4mong the first to
arrive at the scene of the accident was 4' who found one of the victims already dead
and the others unconscious. >efore rescuers could come' 4' ta#ing advantage of the
hel.less condition of the victims' too# their wallets and $ewelry. However' the
.olice' who res.onded to the re.ort of the accident' caught 4. What crime or crimes
did 4 commit! Why! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 committed the crime of "ualified theft because he too# the wallets and $ewelry of
the victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident
wherein he too# advantage of the hel.less condition of the victims. >ut only one
crime of "ualified theft was committed although there were more than one victim
divested of their valuables' because all the ta#ing of the valuables were made on
one and the same occasion' thus constituting a continued crime.
Theft; Auali@e" Theft (%&&6)
0orest Ranger &ay Kelasco was .atrolling the >alara Watershed and Reservoir when
he noticed a big .ile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious' he
scouted around and after a few minutes' he saw Rene and =ante coming out of the
gate with some more newlyEcut logs. He a..rehended and charged them with the
.ro.er offense. What is that offense! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The offense is -ualified Theft under Aec. 57 of .=. O6)' amending .=. 9o. 226'
which .enali/es any .erson who directly or indirectly cuts' gathers' removes' or
smuggles timber' or other forest .roducts from any of the .ublic forest. The >alara
Watershed is .rotected by the cited laws.
2. =uring the .reliminary investigation and u. to the trial .ro.er' Rene and =ante
contended that if they were to be held liable' their liability should be limited only to
the newlyEcut logs found in their .ossession but not to those found outside the gate.
%f you were the $udge' what will be your ruling! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
The contention is untenable' the .resence of the newly cut logs outside the gate is
circumstantial evidence' which' if unrebutted' establishes that they are the
offenders who gathered the same.
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (199-)
%n the $ewelry section of a big de.artment store' &ulia snatched a cou.le of
bracelets and .ut these in her .urse. 4t the store@s e?it' however' she was arrested
by the guard after being radioed by the store .ersonnel who caught the act in the
store@s moving camera. %s the crime consummated' frustrated' or attem.ted! C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the ta#ing of the bracelets was com.lete
after &ulia succeeded in .utting them in her .urse. &ulia ac"uired com.lete control
of the bracelets after .utting them in her .urseB hence' the ta#ing with intent to
gain is com.lete and thus the crime is consummated.
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (%&&&)
Aunshine' a beauteous GcolegialaG but a sho.lifter' went to the <ver =e.artment
Atore and .roceeded to the women@s wear section. The saleslady was of the
im.ression that she brought to the fitting room three (2) .ieces of swimsuits of
different colors. When she came out of the fitting room' she returned only two (2D
.ieces to the clothes rac#. The saleslady became sus.icious and alerted the store
detective. Aunshine was sto..ed 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 .ants.
Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated' frustrated or attem.ted! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the ta#ing or as.ortation was com.lete. The
as.ortation is com.lete when the offender ac"uired e?clusive control of the
.ersonal .ro.erty being ta#enF in this case' when Aunshine wore the swimsuit under
her blouse and .ants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to
gain' the ta#ing constitutes theft and being com.lete' it is consummated. %t is not
necessary that the offender is in a .osition to dis.ose of the .ro.erty'
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER9
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Aunshine has not yet left the store
when the offense was o..ortunely discovered and the article sei/ed from her. Ahe
does not have yet the freedom to dis.ose of the swimsuit she was ta#ing (People vs.
9i&o, C! 4' 4.(. 3446). ,oreover' in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated
or frustrated' the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal
res.onsibility.
'surpation of 0eal 0ights (1996)
Teresita is the owner of a twoEhectare land in >ulacan which she .lanted to rice and
corn. 3.on her arrival from a threeEmonth vacation in the 3nited Atates' she was
sur.rised to discover that her land had been ta#en over by ,anuel and Teofilo who
forcibly evicted her tenantEcareta#er &uliana' after threatening to #ill the latter if
she would resist their ta#ing of the land. Thereafter' ,anuel and Teofilo .lowed'
cultivated and a..ro.riated the harvest for themselves to the e?clusion of Teresita.
1) What crime or crimes did ,anuel and Teofilo commit! <?.lain. 2) Au..ose ,anuel
5
and Teofilo #illed &uliana when the latter refused to surrender .ossession of the
land' what crime or crimes did the two commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) ,anuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usur.ation of real rights under 4rt.
212 of the Revised enal Code for em.loying violence against or intimidation of
.ersons. The threats to #ill em.loyed 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 usur.ation of real rights under 4rt. 212' RC' even if the
said offenders #illed the careta#er because the #illing is the Kiolence against
.ersonsG which is the means for committing the crime and as such' determinative
only. However' this gives way to the .roviso that the .enalty .rovided for therein is
Gin addition to the .enalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicideD
e?ecuted by them. The crime is similar to a robbery where a #illing is committed by
reason thereof' giving rise only to one indivisible offense (People vs. +#%2e !l.e5he,
pl#s the .i&e me&tio&e% therei&.
C()*!" A0+)n" C4+")-
(cts of Lasci#iousness #s: 'n;ust $e/ation (199)
When is embracing' #issing and touching a girl@s breast considered only un$ust
ve?ation instead of acts of lasciviousness!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing' #issing of a woman arising either out of .assion or other
motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without
lewd design constitutes merely un$ust ve?ation (People #s, -2&a5io. C! (No. '119<
, Septem7er 3), 19')). However' where the #issing' embracing and the touching of
the breast of a woman are done with lewd design' the same constitute acts of
lasciviousness (People vs. Per5ival (ilo, 1) SC! 1'3).
("ultery (%&&%)
4' a married woman' had se?ual intercourse with a man who was not her husband.
The man did not #now she was married. What crime' if any' did each of them
commit! Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4' the married woman' committed the crime of adultery under 4rticle 222 of the
Revised enal Code' as amended' for having se?ual intercourse with a man not her
husband while her marriage is still subsisting. >ut the man who had carnal
#nowledge of her' not #nowing her to be married' shall not be liable for adultery.
Concu4inage (199)
4be' married to Li/a' contracted another marriage with Connie in Ainga.ore.
Thereafter' 4be and Connie returned to the hili..ines and lived as husband and
wife in the hometown of 4be in Calamba' Laguna.
1) Can 4be be .rosecuted for bigamy!
2) %f not' can he be .rosecuted for any other crime!
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) 9o' 4be may not be .rosecuted for bigamy ...
2) +es' 4be' together with Connie' may be .rosecuted for concubinage under 4rt.
22: of the Revised enal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. >ut
concubinage being a .rivate crime re"uires the sworn com.laint of Li/a' the
offended s.ouse in accordance with Rule 116 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
rocedure.
Concu4inage (%&&%)
4 is married. He has a .aramour with whom he has se?ual relations on a more or less
regular basis. They meet at least once a wee# in hotels' motels and other .laces
where they can be alone. %s 4 guilty of any crime! Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4 is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having se?ual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances' with a woman who is not his wife. Having se?ual relations on a more
or less regular basis in hotels' motels and other .laces may be considered a
scandalous circumstance that offends .ublic conscience' giving rise to criticism and
general .rotest such acts being im.rudent and wanton and setting a bad e?am.le
(People vs. Sa&tos, 86 SC! 1)' ?1918=).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
4 is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur the crime of
concubinage by merely having a .aramour' unless under scandalous circumstances'
or he #ee.s her in the con$ugal dwelling as a mistress' or cohabits with her in any
other .lace. His wee#ly meetings with his .aramour does not .er se constitute
scandalous circumstance.
'n;ust $e/ation #s: (ct of Lasci#iousness (%&&6)
<duardo -uintos' a widower for the .ast 16 years' felt that his retirement at the age
of O6 gave him the o..ortunity to engage in his favorite .astime X voyeurism. %f not
using his highE.owered binoculars to .ee. at his neighbor@s homes and domestic
activities' his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. ;ne day' he trailed a
teenage girl u. to the LRT station at <=A4E>uendia. While ascending the stairs' he
stayed one ste. behind her and in a moment of bravado' .laced his hand on her left
hi. and gently massaged it. Ahe screamed and shouted for hel.. <duardo was
arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. %s the designation of the crime
correct! ()*)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The designation of the crime as acts of lasciviousness is not correct. There is no lewd
design e?hibited by <duardo when he .laced his hand on the left hi. of the victim
and gently massaging it. The act does not clearly show an e?clusively se?ual
motivation. The crime he committed is only un$ust ve?ation for causing annoyance'
irritation or disturbance to the victim (4rt. 27O' Revised enal Code)' not acts of
lasciviousness (4rt. 225' Revised enal Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be ;ther 4cts of Child 4buse under Aection 16 of R4. O516' .ar. b
of Aection 2 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. %n relation thereto' Aection 16 .rovides criminal liability for other acts of
5
child abuse' cruelty or e?.loitation' or for other conditions .re$udicial to the child@s
develo.ment. The reaction of the victim' screaming for hel. u.on the occurrence of
the touching indicates that she .erceived her dignity was being debased or violated.
C()*!" A0+)n" 4! C)8), S+2" o/ P!("on"
Cigamy (199)
%ssa and >obby' who were first cousins' were married in 18O). %n 1882' >obby was
told that his marriage to %ssa was incestous under the law then in force and
therefore void ab initio. He married Caring. Charged with bigamy' >obby raised the
defense that his first marriage is void ab initio and therefore' there is no .revious
marriage to s.ea# of. Will you sustain >obby@s defense!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. % will not sustain >obby@s defense' >obby remarried in 1882' or after the 0amily
Code too# effect on 4ugust 2' 1877' and therefore his ca.acity to marry in 1882 shall
be governed by said Code. %n 4rt. :6 of the 0amily Code' it is mandated that the
absolute nullity of a .revious marriage maybe invo#ed for .ur.oses of remarriage on
the basis solely of a final $udgment declaring such .revious marriage void. In shot.
thee is a nee) o% a 1$)icial )eclaation o% s$ch n$llit! "e%oe 8o""! ma! vali)l!
ema! (9oroth3 Terre vs. +or%a& Terre, *11 SC! 6).
Cigamy (1996)
&oselito married Ramona in &uly' 188)' only to learn later on that Ramona was
.reviously married to =avid' from whom Ramona had been se.arated for more than
ten years. >elieving that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity' &oselito
contracted a subse"uent marriage with 4nabelle. Can &oselito be .rosecuted for
bigamy! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' &oselito can be .rosecuted for bigamy for his subse"uent marriage with 4nabelle
even though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity. =es.ite the nullity of
the first marriage' &oselito should have filed a case of dissolution of such marriage
under 4rt. :6' 0amily Code' before contracting a second marriage with 4nabelle.
Cigamy (%&&)
C> is legally married to ;<,. Without obtaining a marriage license' C> contracted
a second marriage to RAT. %s C> liable for bigamy! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Whether C> could be held liable for bigamy or not' de.ends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. 4lthough as a general
rule' marriages solemni/ed without license are null and void ob initio' there are
marriages e?em.ted from license re"uirement under Cha.ter 2' Title 1 of the 0amily
Code' such as in 4rticle 2O which is a marriage in articulo mortis. %f the second
marriage was valid even without a marriage license' then C> would be liable for
bigamy. ;therwise' C> is not liable for bigamy but for %llegal ,arriage in 4rt. 2)6
for the Revised enal Code'
s.ecifically designated as G,arriage contracted against .rovisions of laws.G
5
Cigamy; Prescripti#e Perio" (1997)
&oe and ,arcy were married in >atanes in 18)). 4fter two years' &oe left ,arcy and
settled in ,indanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 &une 1856. The
second marriage was registered in the civil registry of =avao City three days after its
celebration. ;n 16 ;ctober 18O) ,arcy who remained in >atanes discovered the
marriage of &oe to Linda. ;n 1 ,arch 18O5 ,arcy filed a com.laint for bigamy
against &oe.
The crime of bigamy .rescribed in fifteen years com.uted from the day the crime is
discovered by the offended .arty' the authorities or their agents. &oe raised the
defense of .rescri.tion of the crime' more than fifteen years having ela.sed from
the celebration of the bigamous marriage u. to the filing of ,arcy@s com.laint. He
contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of =avao
City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus
binding u.on ,arcy. Has the crime of bigamy charged against &oe already .rescribed!
=iscuss fully'
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. The .rescri.tive .eriod for the crime of bigamy is com.uted from the time the
crime was discovered by the offended .arty' the authorities or their agents. The
.rinci.le of constructive notice which ordinarily a..lies to land or .ro.erty dis.utes
should not be a..lied to the crime of bigamy' as marriage is not .ro.erty. Thus when
,arcy filed a com.laint for bigamy on O ,arch 18O5' it was well within the
reglamentary .eriod as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 16
;ctober 18O). (Sermo&ia vs. C!, *33 SC! 1'')
Simulation of Cirth B Chil" TraIcJing (%&&%)
4 childless cou.le' 4 and >' wanted to have a child they could call their own. C' an
unwed mother' sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter' 4 and > caused their
names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his .arents. This was done
in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the
criminal liabilities' if any' of the cou.le 4 and >' C and the doctor!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The cou.le 4 and >' and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of
birth' .enali/ed under 4rticle 2:O of the Revised enal Code' as amended. The act of
ma#ing it a..ear in the birth certificate of a child that the .ersons named therein
are the .arents of the child when they are not really the biological .arents of said
child constitutes the crime of simulation of birth. C' the unwed mother is criminally
liable for Gchild traffic#ingG' a violation of 4rticle %K' Aec. O of Re.. 4ct 9o. O516. The
law .unishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a child.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The cou.le 4 and >' the unwed mother C' and the doctor being all involved in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child' violate Re.. 4ct 9o. O516. Their acts
constitute child traffic#ing which are .enali/ed under 4rticle %K of said law.
C()*!" A0+)n" 9ono(
Li4el (%&&%)
5
4 was nominated Aecretary of a =e.artment in the <?ecutive >ranch of the
government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on
4..ointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the
nomination' a grou. of concerned citi/ens caused to be .ublished in the news.a.ers
a full.age statement ob$ecting to 4@s a..ointment They alleged that 4 was a drug
de.endent' that he had several mistresses' and that he was corru.t' having
acce.ted bribes or favors from .arties transacting business in his .revious office'
and therefore he was unfit for the .osition to which he had been nominated. 4s a
result of the .ublication' the nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on
4..ointments. The official sued the concerned citi/ens and the news.a.ers for libel
and damages on account of his nonEconfirmation. How will you decide the case! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
% will ac"uit the concerned citi/ens and the news.a.ers involved' from the crime of
libel' because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty
and thus there is absence of malice. Aince 4 was a candidate for a very im.ortant
.ublic .osition of a =e.artment Aecretary' his moral' mental and .hysical fitness for
the .ublic trust in such .osition becomes a .ublic concern as the interest of the
.ublic is at sta#e. %t is .ursuant to such concern that the denunciation was madeB
hence' bereft of malice. >. %f defamatory im.utations are made not by .ublication in
the news.a.ers but by broadcast over the radio' do they constitute libel! Why! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' because libel may be committed by radio broadcast 4rticle 2)) of the Revised
enal Code .unishes libel committed by means' among others' of radio broadcast'
inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is .ublic and may be defamatory.
Li4el (%&&1)
=uring a seminar wor#sho. attended by government em.loyees from the >ureau of
Customs and the >ureau of %nternal Revenue' 4' the s.ea#er' in the course of his
lecture' lamented the fact that a great ma$ority of those serving in said agencies
were utterly dishonest and corru.t. The following morning' the whole grou. of
em.loyees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar' as com.lainants' filed a
criminal com.laint against 4 for uttering what the grou. claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer. %n court' 4 filed a motion to "uash the information'
reciting fully the above facts' on the ground that no crime were committed. %f you
were the $udge' how would you resolve the motion! 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
% would grant the motion to "uash on the ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense' since there is no definite .erson or .ersons dishonored. The
crime of libel or slander' is a crime against honor such that the .erson or .ersons
dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoesF otherwise the crime against
honor is not committed. ,oreover' 4 was not ma#ing a malicious im.utation' but
merely stating an o.inionB he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a
seminar wor#sho.. ,alice being inherently absent in the utterance' the statement is
not actionable as defamatory.
Li4el (%&&7)
%n an interview aired on television' Cindee uttered defamatory statements against
<ri#a' a successful and re.utable businesswoman. What crime or crimes did Cindee
commit! <?.lain. (2*)
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cindee committed libel for uttering defamatory remar#s tending to cause dishonor
or discredit to <ri#a. Libel can be committed in television .rograms or broadcasts'
though it was not s.ecifically mentioned in the article since it was not yet in
e?istence then' but is included as Gany similar means.G =efamatory statements aired
on television is similar to radio' theatrical e?hibition or cinematogra.hic e?hibition'
which are among the modes for the commission of libel. (4rts. 2)2 and 2))' RC)
Slan"er (19--)
0or some time' bad blood had e?isted between the two families of ,aria Ra/on and
&udge 1adioma who were neighbors. 0irst' there was a boundary dis.ute between
them which was still .ending in court. ,aria@s mother also filed an administrative
com.laint against the $udge which was however dismissed. The Ra/ons also felt
intimidated by the .osition and alleged influence of their neighbor. 0anning fire to
the situation was the .ractice of the 1adiomas of throwing garbage and animal
e?crement into the Ra/on@s .remises. %n an e?.losion of anger' ,aria called &udge
1adioma Gland grabberG' GshamelessG' and Ghy.ocrite.G What crime was committed by
,aria' if any! <?.lain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
,aria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was
under the influence of anger. When ,aria called &udge 1adioma a hy.ocrite and land
grabber she im.uted to him the commission of crimes.
Slan"er (1996)
ia' a bold actress living on to. floor of a .lush condominium in ,a#ati City
sunbathed na#ed at its .enthouse every Aunday morning. Ahe was unaware that the
business e?ecutives holding office at the ad$oining tall buildings re.orted to office
every Aunday morning and' with the use of .owerful binoculars' #e.t on ga/ing at
her while she sunbathed. <ventually' her sunbathing became the tal# of the town. 1)
What crime' if any' did ia commit! <?.lain' 2) What crime' if any' did the business
e?ecutives commit! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) ia did not commit a crime' The felony closest to ma#ing ia criminally liable is
1rave Acandal' but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
offensive against decency and good customs. %n the first .lace' it was not done in a
.ublic .lace and within .ublic #nowledge or view. 4s a matter of fact it was
discovered by the e?ecutives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have
.ublic and full view of ia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business e?ecutives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness Cas there was no overt lustful act)' or slander' as the eventual tal# of
the town' resulting from her sunbathing' is not directly im.uted to the business
e?ecutives' and besides such to.ic is not intended to defame or .ut ia to ridicule.
Slan"er 4y 6ee" #s: 9altreatment (199 )
=istinguish slander by deed from maltreatment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AL49=<R >+ =<<= is a crime committed when a .erson .ublicly sub$ects another to
an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor' discredit or contem.t u.on the latter.
5
4bsent the intent to cast dishonor' discredit' contem.t' or insult to the offended
.arty' the crime is only ,4LTR<4T,<9T under 4rt' 255. .ar. 2' where' by deed' an
offender illEtreats another without causing in$ury.
Slan"er #s: Criminal Con#ersation (%&&)
=istinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and criminal conversation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
;ral defamation' #nown as AL49=<R' is a malicious im.utation of any act' omission'
condition or circumstance against a .erson' done orally in .ublic' tending to cause
dishonor' discredit' contem.t' embarassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime
against honor .enali/ed in 4rt. 2)7 of the Revised enal Code.
CR%,%94L C;9K<RA4T%;9. The term is used in ma#ing a .olite reference to se?ual
intercourse as in certain crimes' li#e ra.e' seduction and adultery. %t has no definite
conce.t as a crime.
M)"1!,,+n!o2"
Corpus 6elicti (%&&1)
4t a birthday .arty in >ogo' Cebu' 4 got into?icated and started "uarrelling with >
and C. 4t the height of their arguments' 4 left and too# a bolo from his house' after
which he returned to the .arty and threatened to stab everybody. > got scared and
ran towards the seashore' with 4 chasing him' > ran u. a stee. incline along the
shore and was cornered on to. of a cliff. ;ut of fear' > $um.ed from the cliff into
the sea' 4 returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was
there' went home to slee.. The ne?t day' >@s wife re.orted to the .olice station that
her husband had not yet come home. 4 search was conducted by the residents of the
barangay but after almost two days' > or his body could not be located and his
disa..earance continued for the ne?t few days. >ased on the testimony of C and
other guests' who had seen 4 and > on to. of the cliff' 4 was arrested and charged
with ,urder. %n his defense' he claimed that since >@s body has not been found' there
was no evidence of Gcor.us delicti@ and therefore' he should be ac"uitted. %s the
defense of 4 tenable or not! Atate the reason(s) for your answer. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense of 4 is not tenable. GCor.us delictiG does not refer to the body of the
.ur.orted victim which had not been found. <ven without the body of the .ur.orted
victim being found' the offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances
of a crime' the body of the crime or Gcor.us delictiG is established.
%n other words' the nonErecovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the
.rosecution of 4 for ,urder' but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Corpus 6elicti; 6e@nition B +lements (%&&&)
=efine Gcor.us delictiG. (2*) b) What are the elements of Gcor.us delictiG! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
&op$s Delicti literally means Gthe body or substance of the crimeG or the fact that a
crime has been committed' but does not include the identity of the .erson who
committed it. (People vs. Pas5#al 44 4( *189).
5
Elements o% cop$s )elicti:
The actual commission by someone of the .articular crime charged. %t is a com.ound
fact made u. of two thingsF
The e?istence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal chargeB and
The e?istence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result
The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of cor.us delicti
+ntrapment #s: 2nstigation (1997)
=istinguished entra.ment from %nstigation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n %9AT%14T%;9' the instigator .ractically induces the .ros.ective accused into
commission of the offense and himself becomes coE.rinci.al. %n <9TR4,<9T' ways
and means are resorted to for the .ur.ose of tra..ing and ca.turing the lawbrea#er
while e?ecuting his criminal .lan. %nstigation (188)) Aus.ecting that &uan was a drug
.usher' A;2 ,ercado' leader of the 9arcom team' gave &uan a l66Ebill and as#ed
him to buy some mari$uana cigarettes. =esirous of .leasing A;2 ,ercado' &uan
went inside the sho..ing mall while the officer waited at the corner of the mall.
4fter fifteen minutes' &uan returned with ten stic#s of mari$uana cigarettes which
he gave to A;2 ,ercado who thereu.on .laced &uan under arrest and charged him
with violation of The =angerous =rugs Law by selling mari$uana cigarettes. %s &uan
guilty of any offense .unishable under The =angerous =rugs 4ct! =iscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
&uan cannot be charged of any offense .unishable under The =angerous =rugs 4ct.
4lthough &uan is a sus.ected drug .usher' he cannot be charged on the basis of a
mere sus.icion. >y .roviding the money with which to buy mari$uana cigarettes'
A;2 ,ercado .ractically induced and .rodded &uan to commit the offense of illegal
.ossession of mari$uana. Aet against the facts instigation is a valid defense available
to &uan.
+ntrapment #s: 2nstigation (%&&1)
=istinguish fully between entra.ment and instigation in Criminal Law' <?em.lify
each. :*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
%n <9TR4,<9T E
the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbrea#er
even before entra.mentB the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the
.ur.ose of ca.turing the lawbrea#er in flagrante delictoand this circumstance is no
bar to .rosecution and conviction of the lawbrea#er.
%n %9AT%14T%;9
The idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and
develo.ed in the mind of the law enforcersB
the law enforcers induce' lure' or incite a .erson who is not minded to commit a
crime and would not otherwise commit it' into committing the crimeB and this
circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. 9a&te $ar5os,
18' SC!1'4. ?199)=).
E'ample o% Entapment:
5
4' an antiEnarcotic agent of the 1overnment acted as a .oseur buyer of shabu and
negotiated with >' a sus.ected drug .usher who is unaware that 4 is a .olice officer.
4 then issued mar#ed money to > who handed a sachet of shabu to >. Thereu.on' 4
signaled his antiEnarcotic team to closeEin and arrest >. This is a case of entra.ment
because the criminal mind is in > already when 4 transacted with him.
E'ample o% Instigation:
>ecause the members of an antiEnarcotic team are already #nown to drug .ushers.
4' the team leader' a..roached and .ersuaded > to act as a buyer of shabu and
transact with C' the sus.ected drug .usher. 0or the .ur.ose' 4 gave > mar#ed money
to be used in buying shabu from C. 4fter C handed the sachet of shabu to > and the
latter handed the mar#ed money to C' the team closedEin and .laced > and C under
arrest. 3nder the facts' > is not criminally liable for his .artici.ation in the
transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.
S7!1)+, P!n+, L+5"
(nti,Carnapping (ct; Carnapping wF ?omici"e
(199-)
Aamuel' a tricycle driver' .lied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a
sidecar. ;ne evening' Raul rode on the sidecar' .o#ed a #nife at Aamuel and
instructed him to go near the bridge. 3.on reaching the bridge' Raul alighted from
the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Aamuel several times until he was dead. Raul
fled from the scene ta#ing the motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul
commit! Y)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the com.osite crime of Carna..ing with homicide under Aec. 1: of
Re.. 4ct 9o. 5)28' as amended' considering that the #illing Gin the course or Gon the
occasion of a carna..ing (People vs. 9e la Cr#0, et al. 183 SC! 163). 4 motorcycle
is included in the definition of a Gmotor vehicleG in said Re.. 4ct' also #nown as the
@4ntiECarna..ing 4ct of 18O2@. There is no a..arent motive for the #illing of the
tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to ta#e the motorcycle. The fact that the
tricycle driver was #illed brings about the .enalty of reclusion .er.etua to death.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carna..ing' .unished by Aection 1: of Re.. 4ct 9o.
5)28. The #illing of Aamuel is not a se.arate crime but only an aggravating
circumstance.
(nti,Graft B Corrupt Practices , 0( 1&19 (199*)
4 is charged with the crime defined in Aection 2(e) of the 4ntiE1raft and Corru.t
ractices 4ct in an %nformation that readsF
That from 61 to 26 &anuary 188)' in the City of asig and within the $urisdiction of
this Honorable Court' the accused' being then em.loyed in the ;ffice of the =istrict
<ngineer' =e.artment of ublic Wor#s and Highways and in the discharge of his
official administrative functions' did then and there willfully and unlawfully wor# for
and facilitate the a..roval of >@s claim for the .ayment of the .rice of his land
which the government had e?.ro.riated' and after the claim was a..roved' the
accused gave > only 1'666.66 of the a..roved claim of )'666 and willfully and
5
unlawfully a..ro.riated for himself the balance of :'666' thus causing undue in$ury
to > and the 1overnment.G 4 has filed a motion to "uash the information' contending
that it does not charge an offense. %s he correct!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the contention of 4 is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue
in$ury to > and the government was caused by the accused@s manifest .artiality'
evident bad faith' or gross %ne?cusable negligence' which are necessary elements of
the offense charged' ie.' violation of Aection 2(e) of the 4ntiE 1raft and Corru.t
ractices 4ct. The accused is em.loyed in the ;ffice of the =istrict <ngineer of the
=WH which has nothing to do with the determination and fi?ing of the .rice of the
land e?.ro.riated' and for which e?.ro.riated land the 1overnment is legally
obligated to .ay. There is no allegation in the information that the land was
over.riced or that the .ayment of the amount was disadvantageous to the
1overnment. %t a..ears that the charge was solely based on the accused having
followed u. the .ayment for >@s land which the 1overnment has already
a..ro.riated' and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the .rice of
the said land' the amount of :'666 for his services. 9o violation of Aection 2(e) of
the 4ntiE1raft and Corru.t 4ct a..ears. 4t most' the accused should be merely
charged administratively
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. +es' 4 is correct in filing a motion to "uash the information because Aection 2(e)
of Re.ublic 4ct 2618 a..lies only to officers and em.loyees of government
cor.orations charged with the grant of licenses or .ermits or other concessions' and
not to =WH' which is not a government cor.oration.
2. 4 is not correct. %n the case of ,eforda vs. Aandiganbayan. 1)1 ACR4 288' which
involves a substantially identical information as the %nformation "uoted in the
"uestion' the Au.reme Court held that the %nformation was valid. While it is true
that the information "uoted %n the "uestion' failed to allege evident bad faith' gross
ine?cusable negligence or manifest .artiality' said %nformation %s nevertheless
ade"uate because it averred the three (2) elements for the violation of Aection 2(c)
of R4. 2612 when it stated
(1) that the accused is a .ublic officer at the time of the commission of the crime'
being em.loyed in the ;ffice of the =istrict <ngineer' =WHB
(2) that the accused caused undue %n$ury to > and the 1overnment' with the
statement that >T the owner of the land' received only 1'666.66 instead of the full
value of )'666.66B and
(2) that in the discharge of 4@s official administrative functions' he Gdid then and
there willfully and unlawfully wor# for and facilitate the a..roval of his claim ???
and Gwillfully and unlawfully a..ro.riate for himself the balance of :'666.66 ? ? ?G.
4n information need not em.loy or use the very words or language of the statute. %t
may also use words or language of similar im.ort.
(nti,?aKing law L 0( -&9 (%&&%)
What is haDing as )e%ine) "! law/ 564)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ha/ing' as defined by law' is an initiation rite or .ractice as a .rere"uisite for
admission into membershi. in a fraternity' sorority or organi/ation by .lacing the
recruit' neo.hyte or a..licant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial' silly' foolish and similar tas#s or activities or otherwise
sub$ecting him to .hysical or .sychological suffering or in$ury.
5
What )oes the law e*$ie "e%oe initiation ites ma! "e pe%ome)/ 5;4)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aection 2 of Re.. 4ct 9o. 76:8 (4ntiEHa/ing Law) re"uires that before ha/ing or
initiation rites may be .erformed' notice to the school authorities or head of
organi/ations shall be given seven (O) days before the conduct of such rites. The
written notice shall indicate (a) the .eriod of the initiation activities' not e?ceeding
three (2) daysB (b) the names of those to be sub$ected to such activities' and (c) an
underta#ing that no .hysical violence shall be em.loyed by anybody during such
initiation rites.
C?2L6 (C'S+; 0( *61& (%&&)
,rs. ,94 was charged of child abuse. %t a..ears from the evidence that she failed to
give immediately the re"uired medical attention to her ado.ted child' >;' when he
was accidentally bum.ed by her car' resulting in his head in$uries and im.aired
vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused' according to the social wor#er
on the case' used to whi. him when he failed to come home on time from school.
4lso' to .unish him for carelessness in washing dishes' she sometimes sent him to
bed without su..er.
Ahe moved to "uash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she
maltreated her ado.ted child habitually. Ahe added that the accident was caused by
her driver@s negligence. Ahe did .unish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness' but
only mildly. %s her motion meritorious! Reason briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the motion to "uash is not meritorious. %t is not necessary that movant@s
maltreatment of a child be GhabitualG to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts
.enali/ed as GChild 4buseG under Re.. 4ct 9o. O516 refers to the maltreatment of the
child' Gwhether habitual or notGF this is e?.ressly stated in Aec. 2(b) of the said Law.
,rs. ,94 should be liable for child abuse.
Chil" (4use; 0( *61& (%&&6)
<duardo -uintos' a widower for the .ast 16 years' felt that his retirement at the age
of O6 gave him the o..ortunity to engage in his favorite .astime X voyeurism. %f not
using his highE.owered binoculars to .ee. at his neighbor@s homes and domestic
activities' his second choice was to follow sweet young girls.
;ne day' he trailed a teenage girl u. to the LRT station at <=A4E>uendia. While
ascending the stairs' he stayed one ste. behind her and in a moment of bravado'
.laced his hand on her left hi. and gently massaged it. Ahe screamed and shouted
for hel.. <duardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. %s the
designation of the crime correct! ()*)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be ;ther 4cts of Child 4buse under Aection 16 of R4. O516' .ar. b
of Aection 2 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. %n relation thereto' Aection 16 .rovides criminal liability for other acts of
child abuse' cruelty or e?.loitation' or for other conditions .re$udicial to the child@s
develo.ment. The reaction of the victim' screaming for hel. u.on the occurrence of
the touching indicates that she .erceived her dignity was being debased or violated.
5
6angerous 6rug (ct5 Plea,Cargaining (%&&7)
;bie &uan is sus.ected to have in his .ossession an uns.ecified amount of
metham.hetamine hydrochloride or TshabuU. 4n entra.ment o.eration was
conducted by .olice officers' resulting in his arrest following the discovery of 166
grams of the said dangerous drug in his .ossession. He was sub$ected to a drug test
and was found .ositive for the use of mari$uana' another dangerous drug. He was
subse"uently charged with two crimesF Kiolation of Aection 11' 4rticle %% of R4 815)
for the .ossession of TshabuU and violation of Aection 1)' 4rticle %% of R4 815) for the
use of mari$uana. ()*)
a) Ae the chages pope/ E'plain0
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. The use of dangerous drugs is not committed when ;bie &uan was also found to
have in his .ossession such "uantity of any dangerous drug. (See s. 11 a&% 16, !.
No. 916')
b) So as not to "e sentence) to )eath. ,"ie #$an o%%es to plea) g$ilt! to a lesse
o%%ense0 &an he )o so/ Wh!/
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o. ;bie &uan cannot .lead guilty to a lower offense as it is .rohibited under the
law. (Aection 22' R4. 9o. 815)) 4ny .erson charged under any .rovision of this 4ct
regardless of the im.osable .enalty shall not be allowed to avail of the .rovision on
.leaEbargaining.
Dangeo$s D$gs Act 5=>>?)
Au.erintendent 4l Aantiago' Chief of the 9arcotics =ivision' Western olice =istrict'
received information that a certain Lee Lay ofE9o. 7 Tindalo Atreet' Tondo' ,anila is
a member of the 1:M 1ang selling shabu and mari$uana. A;l Loren/o and A;2
eralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and buyEbust o.erations against Lay.
Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T. in.in Restaurant at
2F66 in the afternoon on 0ebruary 1:' 1882. A;1 Loren/o and A;2 eralta' acting
as .oseurEbuyers' .urchased from Lay 16 stic#s of mari$uana and .aid )66. Later'
Lay agreed to sell to them one #ilo of dried mari$uana fruiting to.s which he gave
them at his residence.
The .olicemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. 0ound were 2)5 grams of
mari$uana seeds' 822 grams of mari$uana fruiting to.s and )6 stic#s of mari$uana
cigarettes. What offense or offenses did Lay commit! C)*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal
.ossession of dangerous drugs which should be made sub$ect of se.arate
informations. The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as regards
the 16 stic#s of mari$uana and as regards the one (1) #ilo of dried mari$uana fruiting
to.s' which should be sub$ect of two (2) se.arate informations because the acts
were committed at different times and in different .laces. The crime of %llegal
.ossession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the mari$uana seeds'
mari$uana fruiting to.s and mari$uana cigarettes which are not the sub$ect of the
sale. 4nother information shall be filed for this.
6angerous 6rugs (ct (%&&6)
5
4fter receiving reliable information that =ante ;ng' a notorious drug smuggler' was
arriving on 4L 0light 9;. R 171' 9 Chief %ns.ector Aamuel 1amboa formed a
grou. of antiEdrug agents. When ;ng arrived at the air.ort' the grou. arrested him
and sei/ed his attache case. 3.on ins.ection inside the %mmigration holding area'
the attache case yielded ) .lastic bags of heroin weighing )66 grams. Chief %ns.ector
1amboa too# the attache case and boarded him in an unmar#ed car driven by ;2
e.ito Lorbes. ;n the way to Cam. Crame and u.on nearing White lains corner
<=A4' Chief %ns.ector 1amboa ordered ;2 Lorbes to sto. the car. They brought out
the drugs from the case in the trun# and got 2 .lastic sac#s of heroin. They then told
;ng to alight from the car. ;ng left with the 2 remaining .lastic sac#s of heroin.
Chief %ns.ector 1amboa advised him to #ee. silent and go home which the latter
did. 3n#nown to them' an 9>% team of agents had been following them and
witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief %ns.ector 1amboa and ;2 Lorbes.
,eanwhile' another 9>% team followed ;ng and li#ewise arrested him. 4ll of them
were later charged. What are their res.ective criminal liabilities! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief %ns.ector 1amboa and ;2 e.ito Lorbes who cons.ired in ta#ing the attache
case are liable for the following crimes defined under R4. 815)F a) Aec. 2O for
misa..ro.riation or failure to account for the confiscated or sei/ed dangerous drugs.
b) Aec. : in relation to Aec. 2(ee) for their acts as .rotectorNcoddler of =ante ;ng
who im.orted drugs %n addition' by allowing ;ng to esca.e .rosecution for illegal
im.ortation or illegal trans.ortation of dangerous drugs' where the .enalty is life
im.risonment to death' they are also liable for "ualified bribery under 4rt. 211E4 of
the Revised enal Code.
With res.ect to =ante ;ng' he is guilty of illegal im.ortation of dangerous drugs
under Aec. :' R.4. 815)' if R 171 is an international flight. %f R 171 is a domestic
flight' he is liable for violation of Aec. )' R4. 815) for illegal trans.ortation of
dangerous drugs.
6angerous 6rugs (ct (6%7); 9arJe" 9oney
(%&&&)
4t about 8 o@cloc# in the morning' a 9arcom 1rou. laid a .lan to entra. and
a..rehend 4' a long sus.ected drug dealer' through a GbuyEbustG o.eration. 4t the
a..ointed time' the .oseurEbuyer a..roached 4 who was then with >. 4 mar#ed 166
bill was handed over to 4 who in turn' gave the .oseurEbuyer one (1) tea bag of
mari$uana leaves. The members of the team' who were then .ositioned behind thic#
leaves' closed in but evidently were not swift enough since 4 and > were able to run
away. Two days later' 4 was arrested in connection with another incident. %t a..ears
that during the o.erations' the .olice officers were not able to sei/e the mar#ed
money but were able to get .ossession of the mari$uana tea bag. 4 was subse"uently
.rosecuted for violation of Aection :' 4rticle %% of Re.ublic 4ct 9o. 5:2)' otherwise
#nown as the =angerous =rugs 4ct' =uring the trial' the mar#ed money was not
.resented. Can 4 be held liable! <?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. 4 can be held liable. The absence of the mar#ed money will not create a hiatus
in the .rosecution@s evidence as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is ade"uately
.roven and the drug sub$ect of the transaction is .resented before the court. There
was a .erfected contract of sale of the drug (People vs. 4&2 Co, *4' SC! 133"
People vs. Gervo#laCos, *41 SC! 6*').
5
6angerous 6rugs (ct (6%7); Plea Cargaining
(199-)
<dgardo was charged with im.ortation of .rohibited drugs in an information filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Maloo#an City on &une :' 188:. The offense is
.unishable by reclusion .er.etua to death. Can <dgardo avail of .leaEbargaining!
C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' <dgardo cannot avail of .leaEbargaining because the im.osable .enalty for his
violation of the =angerous =rugs 4ct (R.4. 9o. 5:2). as amended) is reclusion
.er.etua to death. Aection 26E4 e?.ressly .rovides that .leaEbargaining shall not be
allowed where the im.osable .enalty for the violation of said law is reclusion
.er.etua to death. (Aec. 26E4' R.4. 9o. 5:2)' as amended).
6angerous 6rugs (ct; Consummation of Sale
(1996)
at. >uensuceso' .osing as a buyer' a..roached Ronnie' a sus.ected drug .usher' and
offered to buy 266 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left' came bac# five minutes later
and handed at' >uensuceso an aluminum foil containing the shabu. However' before
at' >uensuceso was able to deliver the mar#ed money to Ronnie' the latter s.otted
a .oliceman at a distance' whom Ronnie #new to be connected with the 9arcotics
Command of the olice. 3.on seeing the latter' Ronnie ran away but was arrested
thirty minutes later by other .olicemen who .ursued him. 3nder the circumstances'
would you consider the crime of sale of a .rohibited drug already consummated!
<?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' the sale of .rohibited drug is already consummated although the mar#ed money
was not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu
to at. >uensuceso .ursuant to their agreed sale' the crime was consummated.
ayment of the consideration is not an element of re"uisite of the crime. %f ever' the
mar#ed money is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the .rosecution.
6angerous 6rugs (ct; Criminal 2ntent to Posses
(%&&%)
4 and his fiancee > were wal#ing in the .la/a when they met a grou. of .olicemen
who had earlier been ti..ed off that 4 was in .ossession of .rohibited drugs. 3.on
seeing the .olicemen and sensing that they were after him' 4 handed a sachet
containing shabu to his fiancee >' telling her to hide it in her handbag. The
.olicemen saw > .lacing the sachet inside her handbag. %f > was unaware that 4 was
a drug user or .usher or that what was inside the sachet given to her was shabu' is
she nonetheless liable under the =angerous =rugs 4ct! ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' > will not be criminally liable because she is unaware that 4 was a drug user or
.usher or of the content of the sachet handed to her by 4' and therefore the
criminal intent to .ossess the drug in violation of the =angerous =rugs 4ct is absent.
There would be no basis to im.ute criminal liability to her in the absence of animus
.ossidendi.
6angerous 6rugs (ct; Plea,Cargaining (%&&)
5
,9;' who is 26 years old' was charged as a drug .usher under the Com.rehensive
=angerous =rugs 4ct of 2662. =uring .reEtrial' he offered to .lead guilty to the
lesser offense concerning use of dangerous drugs. Ahould the &udge allow ,9;@s .lea
to the lesser offense! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the &udge should not allow ,9;@s .lea to a lesser offense' because .leaE
bargaining in .rosecutions of drugErelated cases is no longer allowed by Re.. 4ct 9o.
815)' the Com.rehensive =angerous =rugs 4ct of 2662' regardless of the im.osable
.enalty.
?ighway 0o44ery (%&&1)
olice Agt. =iego Chan' being a member of the Theft and Robbery =ivision of the
Western olice =istrict and assigned to the Aouth Harbor' ,anila' was .rivy to and
more or less familiar with the schedules' routes and hours of the movements of
container vans' as well as the mobile .olice .atrols' from the .ier area to the
different e?.ort .rocessing /ones outside ,etro ,anila. 0rom time to time' he gave
valuable and detailed information on these matters to a grou. interested in those
shi.ments in said container vans. ;n several instances' using the said information as
their basis' the gang hi$ac#ed and .ilfered the contents of the vans. rior to their
sale to GfencesG in >anawe' -ue/on City and >ang#al' ,a#ati City' the gang %nforms
Agt' Chan who then ins.ects the .ilfered goods' ma#es his choice of the valuable
items and dis.oses of them through his own sources or GfencesG. When the
high$ac#ers were traced on one occasion and arrested' u.on custodial investigation'
they im.licated Agt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all' including Agt. Chan as coE
.rinci.als. Agt. Chan' in his defense' claimed that he should not be charged as a
.rinci.al but only as an accessory after the fact under .=. )22' otherwise #nown as
the 4ntiEiracy and 4ntiEHighway Robbery 4ct of 18O2. %s the contention of Agt. Chan
valid and tenable! <?.lain' ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' the contention of Agt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by e?.ress .rovision
of .=. )22' Aection :' a .erson who #nowingly and in any manner' aids or .rotects
highway robbersNbrigands' such as giving them information about the movement of
.olice officers or ac"uires or receives .ro.erty ta#en by brigands' or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway robberyNbrigandage' shall be considered
as accom.lice of the .rinci.al offenders and .unished in accordance with the rules
in the Revised enal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9o' the contention of Agt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after
the fact is not tenable because he was a .rinci.al .artici.ant in the commission of
the crime and in .ursuing the criminal design. 4n accessory after the fact involves
himself in the commission of a crime only after the crime had already been
consummated' not before' 0or his criminal .artici.ation in the e?ecution of the
high$ac#ing of the container vans' Agt. Chan is a coE.rinci.al by indis.ensable
coo.eration.
2llegal .ishing , P6 *& (1996)
3.on a laboratory e?amination of the fish sei/ed by the .olice and agents of the
0isheries Commission' it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling
were caught with the use of e?.losives. 4ccordingly' the three vendors were
criminally charged with the violation of Aection 22 of .=. O6: which ma#es it
5
unlawful for any .erson to #nowingly .ossess' deal in' or sell for .rofit any fish
which have been illegally caught. =uring the trial' the three vendors claimed that
they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The .rosecution
however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the
offense as they were the ones caught in .ossession of the fish illegally caught. ;n
the basis of the above facts' if you were the $udge' would you convict the three fish
vendors! <?.lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' % would not convict the three fish vendors if % were the $udge. ,ere .ossession of
such fish without #nowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of
e?.losives does not by itself render the sellerE.ossessor criminally liable under .=.
O6:. 4lthough the act .enali/ed in said =ecree may be a malum .rohibitum' the law
.unishes the .ossession' dealing in or selling of such fish only when G#nowinglyG done
that the fish were caught with the use of e?.losivesB hence criminal intent is
essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing
boats which they Gduly
identifiedG' renders their .ossession of such fish innocent unless the .rosecution
could .rove that they have #nowledge that e?.losives were used in catching such
fish' and the accused had #nowledge thereof.
2llegal Possession of .irearms L 0( -%9 (199-)
Au..osing a .ublic school teacher .artici.ated in a cou. d@etat using an unlicensed
firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit! C2*D
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The .ublic school teacher committed only cou. d@etat for his .artici.ation therein.
His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the cou. d@etat under the new
firearms law (Re.. 4ct 9o. 728:). 4 .rosecution for illegal .ossession of firearm
under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the
commission of another crime.
2llegal Possession of .irearms B (mmunitions
(%&&&)
4 has long been wanted by the .olice authorities for various crimes committed by
him. 4cting on an information by a ti.ster' the .olice .roceeded to an a.artment
where 4 was often seen. The ti.ster also warned the .olicemen that 4 was always
armed. 4t the given address' a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of 4'
o.ened the door and let the .olicemen in inside' the team found 4 slee.ing on the
floor. %mmediately beside him was a clutch bag which' when o.ened' contained a .27
caliber .alti# revolver and a hand grenade. 4fter verification' the authorities
discovered that 4 was not a licensed holder of the .27 caliber .alti# revolver. 4s for
the hand grenade' it was established that only military .ersonnel are authori/ed to
carry hand grenades. Aubse"uently' 4 was charged with the crime of %llegal
ossession of 0irearms and 4mmunition. =uring trial' 4 maintained that the bag
containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to 4' his friend' and
that he was not in actual .ossession thereof at the time he was arrested. 4re the
allegations meritorious!
<?.lain. (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
5
4@s allegations are not meritorious. ;wnershi. is not an essential element of the
crime of illegal .ossession of firearms and ammunition. What the law re"uires is
merely .ossession' which includes not only actual .hysical .ossession but also
constructive .ossession where the firearm and e?.losive are sub$ect to one@s control
and management. (People #s. 9e (re5ia, *33 SC! 116" U.S. vs. +#a&, *3 Phil. 1)'B
People vs.So3a2, 11) Phil. '6').
P6 6 B 0( 6*11 B 2n"irect Cri4ery (%&&6)
Commissioner ,arian Torres of the >ureau of internal Revenue (>%R) wrote
solicitation letters addressed to the 0ili.inoEChinese Chamber of Commerce and
%ndustry and to certain C<;s of various multinational cor.orations re"uesting
donations of gifts for her office Christmas .arty. Ahe used the >ureau@s official
stationery. The res.onse was .rom.t and overwhelming so much so that
Commissioner Torres@ office was overcrowded with rice coo#ers' radio sets' free/ers'
electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelo.es containing
cash money for the em.loyees@ Christmas luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres
committed any im.ro.riety or irregularity! What laws or decrees did she violate!
()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es' Commissioner Torres violated the followingF
1. R4. 5O12 X Code of Conduct and <thical Atandards for ublic ;fficials and
<m.loyees when he solicited and acce.t gifts (Aec. OCdD).
2. .=. :5 X ,a#ing it .unishable for .ublic officials and em.loyees to receive' and
for .rivate .ersons to give' gifts on any occasion' including Christmas.
2. %ndirect >ribery (4rt. 211' Revised enal Code) for receiving gifts offered by
reason of office.
P6 6 (199)
1ino was a..ointed Collector of Customs and was assigned at the 9inoy 4"uino
%nternational 4ir.ort' 1erry' an im.orter' hosted a dinner for 166 .ersons at the
Westin hili..ine la/a in honor of 1ino. What are the offense or offenses
committed by 1ino and 1erry!
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
>oth 1ino and 1erry are liable for violation of residential =ecree 9o. :5' which
.unishes any .ublic official or em.loyee who receives' directly or indirectly' and for
.rivate .ersons who give' offer any gift' .resent or valuable thing on any occasion'
including Christmas' when such gift or valuable thing is given by reason of his official
.osition' regardless of whether or not the same is for .ast favor or favors' or the
giver ho.es or e?.ects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future. >eing an
im.orter' 1erry reasonably e?.ects future favor from 1ino. %ncluded within the
.rohibition is the throwing of .arties or entertainment in honor of the official or
em.loyee or of his immediate relatives.
P6 6 (199*)
4' who is the .rivate com.lainant in a murder case .ending before a Regional Trial
Court &udge' gave a $udge a Christmas gift' consisting of big bas#et of assorted
canned goods and bottles of e?.ensive wines' easily worth 16.666.66. The $udge
acce.ted the gift #nowing it came from 4. What crime or crimes' if any' were
committed!
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The &udge committed the crime of %ndirect bribery under 4rt. 211 of the Revised
enal Code. The gift was offered to the &udge by reason of his office. %n addition'
the &udge will be liable for the violation of .=. :5 which .unishes the receiving of
gifts by .ubic officials and em.loyees on occasions li#e Christmas.
Plun"er un"er 0( *&-&; Prescripti#e Perio" (1991)
Through #ic#bac#s' .ercentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes
Nconveyances and ta#ing advantage of his .osition' 4ndy' a former mayor of a
suburban town' ac"uired assets amounting to 16 billion which is grossly
dis.ro.ortionate to his lawful income. =ue to his influence and connections and
des.ite #nowledge by the authorities of his %llEgotten wealth' he was charged with
the crime of .lunder only after twenty (26) years from his defeat in the last
elections he .artici.ated in.
1) ,ay 4ndy still be held criminallyliable! Why!
2) Can the Atate still recover the .ro.erties and assets that he illegally ac"uired' the
bul# of which is in the name of his wife and children! Reason out.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) 4ndy will not be criminally liable because Aection 5 of R4 O676 .rovides that the
crime .unishable under this 4ct shall .rescribe in twenty years and the .roblem
as#ed whether 4ndy can still be charged with the crime of .lunder after 26 years.
2) +es' because Aection 5 .rovides that recovery of .ro.erties unlawfully ac"uired by
.ublic officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
.rescri.tion' laches or esto..el.
0:(: =o: 916& (nti,9oney Laun"ering (ct (%&&7)
=on 1abito' a .hilanthro.ist' offered to fund several .ro$ects of the ,ayor. He
o.ened an account in the ,ayorQs name and regularly de.osited various amounts
ranging from )66'666.66 to 1 ,illion. 0rom this account' the ,ayor withdrew and
used the money for constructing feeder roads' barangay clinics' re.airing schools
and for all other munici.al .ro$ects. %t was subse"uently discovered that =on 1abito
was actually a $ueteng o.erator and the amounts he de.osited were .roceeds from
his $ueteng o.erations. What crimeNs were committed! Who are criminally liable!
<?.lain. (5*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
=on 1abito violated the 4ntiE,oney Laundering 4ct (Aec. :' R.4. 9o. 8156) for
#nowingly transacting money as .ro.erty which involves or relates to the .roceeds
of an unlawful activity such as $ueteng. %n addition' he may be .rosecuted for
liability as a$ueteng o.erator. (R.4. 9o. 827O) The mayor who allowed the o.ening of
an account in his name is li#ewise guilty for violation of the 4,L4. He' #nowing that
the money instrument or .ro.erty involves the .roceeds of an unlawful activity'
.erforms or fails to .erform any act which results in the facilitation of money
laundering.
0a 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (1999)
4 .ublic officer was accused before the Aandiganbayan of a violation of Aection 2 (e)
of R4 9o. 2618' the 4ntiE1raft and Corru.t ractices 4ct. &ust after arraignment and
even before evidence was .resented' the Aandiganbayan issued an order for his
sus.ension .endente lite. The accused "uestioned the said ;rder contending that it
is violative of the constitutional .rovision against an e? .ost facto law. Will you
sustain the ob$ection of the accused! Why! C2*D
5
(c) What .reEconditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before .reventive
sus.ension may be ordered! (2*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) 9o' % will not sustain the ob$ection of the accused. Aus.ension of the accused
.endente lite is not violative of the constitutional .rovision against e?E.ost facto
law. <?E.ost facto law means ma#ing an innocent act a crime before it is made
.unishable.
(c) The .reEconditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a sus.ension may be
ordered areF (1) there must be .ro.er notice re"uiring the accused to show cause at
a s.ecific date of hearing why he should not be ordered sus.ended from office
.ursuant to R4 2618' as amendedB and (2) there must be a determination of a valid
information against the accused that warrants his sus.ension.
0( 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (%&&&)
4 month after the arraignment of >rad Mit Commissioner of the Housing and Land 3se
Regulatory >oard' who was charged with violation of Aection 2 (h) of Re.ublic 4ct
2618 C4ntiE1raft and Corru.t ractices 4ct) before the Aandiganbayan' the ;ffice of
the A.ecial rosecutor filed a ,otion to Aus.end 4ccused endente Lite .ursuant to
Aection 12 of the 4ntiE1raft Law. The Court granted the motion and sus.ended
accused >rad Mit for a .eriod of 86 days. 4ccused assailed the constitutional validity
of the sus.ension order on the ground that it .arta#es of a .enalty before &udgment
of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be
.resumed innocent. He also claimed that this .rovision of the law on sus.ension
.endente lite a..lies only to elective officials and not to a..ointed ones li#e him.
Rule with reasons. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sus.ension order does not .arta#e of a .enalty and is thus not violative of >rad
Mit@s constitutional right to be .resumed innocent. 3nder the law' the accused .ublic
officers shall be sus.ended from office while the criminal .rosecution is .ending in
court (Aec. 12' R4. 2618). Auch .reventive sus.ension is mandatory to .revent the
accused from ham.ering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs.
Aandiganbayan'2O8 ACR4 )71 (188O)B >unye vs. <scareal 225 ACR4 222 (1882)).
9either is there merit in >rad Mit@s claim that the .rovision on sus.ension .endente
lite a..lies only to elective officials and not to a..ointed ones li#e him. %t a..lies to
all .ublic officials %ndicted u.on a valid information under R4. 9o. 2618' whether
they be a..ointive or elective officialsB or .ermanent or tem.orary em.loyees' or
.ertaining to the career or noncareer service (Aegovia vs. Aandiganbayan' 277 ACR4
227 C1887D).
0( 1&19; Pu4lic >Icer (%&&1)
The Central >an# (>ang#o Aentral ng ili.inas}' by a resolution of the monetary
board' hires Theof Ato Tomas' a retired manager of a leading ban# as a consultant.
Theof later receives a valuable gift from a ban# under investigation by the Central
>an#. ,ay Theof be .rosecuted under Re.ublic 4ct 9o. 2618 (4ntiE 1raft and Corru.t
ractices 4ct) for acce.ting such a gift! <?.lain. 7*
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
9o' Theof may not be .rosecuted under Re.. 4ct 2618' but may be .rosecuted for
violation of res' =ecree 9o. :5' under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is
.unished. 4lthough Theof is a G.ublic officerG within the a..lication of the 4ntiE1raft
5
and Corru.t ractices 4ct (R4 2618)' yet his act of receiving such gift does not
a..ear to be included among the .unishable acts under Re.. 4ct 2618 since he is not
to intervene in his official ca.acity in the investigation of the ban# which gave the
gift. enal laws must be strictly construed against the Atate. %n any case' Theof is
administratively liable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
+es' Theof may be .rosecuted under Re.. 4ct 2618 because he is a G.ublic officerG
within the .urview of said law' and Theof received the valuable gift from a ban#
which is under investigation by the Central >an# where he is em.loyed as a G.ublic
officerG. Receiving gift' directly or indirectly by a .ublic officer from a .arty who has
a transaction with the 1overnment is wrong' more so when the giftEgiver is under
investigation by the government office to which the .ublic officer is connected.
0a 6*11; Co#erage (%&&1)
Robert Ay' a well #nown businessman and a founding member of the ,a#ati >usiness
Club' aside from being a classmate of the newlyEelected resident of the hili..ines'
had %nvestments consisting of shares of stoc#s in the 3rban >an#' the 9>' the Rural
>an# of Caloocan City and his .rivatelyEowned cor.oration' the RA >uilders
Cor.oration and TransEacific 4ir. 4fter the resident had ta#en his oath and assumed
his office' he a..ointed Robert as Honorary Consul to the Re.ublic of Kietnam.
Robert too# his oath before the resident and after furnishing the =e.artment of
0oreign 4ffairs with his a..ointment .a.ers' flew to Aaigon' now Ho Chi ,in City'
where he organi/ed his staff' .ut u. an office and stayed there for three months
attending to trade o..ortunities and relations with local businessman. ;n the fourth
month' he returned to the hili..ines to ma#e his re.ort to the resident. However'
the 4ntiE1raft League of the hili..ines filed a com.laint against Robert for
(1) falling to file his Atatement of 4ssets and Liabilities within thirty (26) days from
assum.tion of officeB
(2) failing to resign from his businesses' and
(2) falling to divest his shares and investments in the ban#s and cor.orations owned
by him' as re"uired by the Code of Conduct and <thical Atandards for ublic ;fficials
and <m.loyees. Will the com.laint .ros.er! <?.lain. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The com.laint will not .ros.er because the Code of Conduct and <thical Atandards
for ublic ;fficials and <m.loyees (Re.. 4ct. 9o. 5O12)' e?.ressly e?em.ts those
who serve the 1overnment in an honorary ca.acity from filing Atatements of 4ssets
and Liabilities' and from resigning and divesting themselves of interest from any
.rivate enter.rise (Aecs. 74 and 8).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
+es' the com.laint will .ros.er under Aec. O of the 4ntiE1raft and Corru.t ractices
4ct (Re.. 4ct 9o. 2618' as amendedD' which re"uires all .ublic officers within 26
days from assuming .ublic office to file a true' detailed sworn statement of assets
and liabilities. Kiolations of this law are mala .rohibita which admits of no e?cuses.
0( *1-,+conomic Sa4otage; 2llegal 0ecruitment
(%&&)
RR re.resented to 44' >>' CC and == that she could send them to London to wor#
there as sales ladies and waitresses. Ahe collected and received from them various
amounts of money for recruitment and .lacement fees totalling :66'666. 4fter
5
their dates of de.arture were .ost.oned several times' the four .ros.ects got
sus.icious and went to ;<4 (hil. ;verseas <m.loyment 4uthority). There they
found out that RR was not authori/ed nor licensed to recruit wor#ers for
em.loyment abroad. They sought refund to no avail. %s RR guilty of any grave
offense! <?.lain briefly. ()*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. RR is guilty of a grave offense' having engaged in illegal recruitment
constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is .unishable with life
im.risonment and a fine of 166.666.66. <C;9;,%C A4>;T41< is an offense defined
in 27(b) of the Labor Code' as amended by res. =ecree 9o. 2617' which is incurred
when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. %t is in a
large scale when there are three or more aggrieved .arties' individually or as a
grou.. 4nd it is committed by a syndicate when three or more .ersons cons.ire or
coo.erate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction' scheme or
activity.
0( *61& L Chil" +/ploitation (%&&6)
4ling ,aria received an urgent tele.hone call from &unior' her eldest son' as#ing for
2'666.66 to com.lete his semestral tuition fees .re.aratory to his final e?ams in
Commerce. =istressed and disturbed' she borrowed money from her com.adre ,ang
&uan with the assurance to .ay him within 2 months. Two months la.sed but 4ling
,aria failed to settle her obligation. ,ang &uan told 4ling ,aria that she does not
have to .ay the loan if she will allow her youngest 16Eyear old daughter 4nnie to
wor# as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at l'666.66 a month. =es.ite 4ling
,aria@s ob$ection' ,ang &uan insisted and brought 4nnie to his house to wor# as a
maid.
1. Was a crime committed by ,ang &uan when he brought 4nnie to his house as maid
for the .ur.ose of re.aying her mother@s loan! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. ,ang &uan committed the crime of e?.loitation of child labor which is
committed by any .ersons who under the .rete?t of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant' guardian or .erson entrusted with the custody of a minor'
shall' against the latter@s will' retainh im in his service (4rt. 2O2' Revised enal
Code). He can also be liable as an em.loyer for the em.loyment of a minor below 1)
yrs. old' under Aec. 12' 4rt. 7 of R4. O516.
3. %f 4ling ,aria herself was made to wor# as a housemaid in ,ang &uan@s
household to .ay her loan' did he commit a crime! (2.)*)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
+es. ,ang &uan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services
under com.ulsion and .ayment of debts. This is committed by any .erson who' in
order to re"uire or enforce the .ayment of a debt' shall com.el the debtor to wor#
for him' against his will' as household servant or farm laborer (4rt. 2O:' Revised
enal Code)
5