Note: This is an illustration on how to answer bar questions using the TRAC Method and the

Deductive Method.

Illustration No. 1

Bar Question: On March 12, 2012, Mr. Martinez paid his taxes. Ten months later, he
realized that he had overpaid and immediately filed a claim for refund with the CIR. On
February 27, 2014, he received the decision of the CIR denying his claim for refund. On
March 24, 2014, Mr. Martinez filed an appeal with the CTA. Was his appeal filed on
time?

TRAC Answer:

No the appeal of Mr. Martinez was not filed on time.

The Tax Code provides that claim for refund, administrative and judicial,
for income taxes erroneously paid should be made within two years from the
time of actual payment, regardless of any supervening event.

In the instant case, the two-year prescriptive period expired on March 13,
2014. Hence, the appeal filed on March 24, 2014 was filed out of time.

Deductive Answer:

No, the appeal of Mr. Martinez was not filed on time because it was
made beyond the two-year prescriptive period counted from the time of
payment, regardless any supervening event as required by law.
Illustration No. 2

Bar Question: On January 1, 2015, Omi, a wealthy programmer, donated a piece of land
to Iskat, his long-time girlfriend, which the latter gladly accepted. Both the donation
and acceptance of the immovable property were in a written instrument. However,
before the said written instruments could have been notarized, Omi died of heart
attack. Is the donation valid?

TRAC Answer:

No, the donation is not valid because Omi died before the notarization of
the Deed of Donation and acceptance involving a piece of land.

Under the law, donation and acceptance involving immovable property

to be valid must be made in a public instrument, which should be made during
the lifetime of the donor.

In the instant case, the donation is void not having complied with the
requirements of the law.

Deductive Answer:

No, the donation involving an immovable property is not valid because

the donation and acceptance were not in a public instrument which must be
executed during the lifetime of the donor as required by law.
Illustration No. 3

Bar Question: What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?

a. Perpetual absolute disqualification;

b. Perpetual special disqualification;
c. Temporary absolute disqualification;
d. Temporary special disqualification;
e. Suspension;
f. Public censure;
g. Destierro;
h. Fine and bond to keep peace;
i. Civil Interdiction;
j. Confiscation and payment of cost.

TRAC Answer:

The above penalties, except destierro, may be served simultaneously.

Under the law, penalties may be served simultaneously when the culprit
has to serve two or more penalties of the same nature. Provided that the
maximum duration of the sentence shall not be more than three-fold the length
of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed upon him,
which in no case shall exceed forty years.

Deductive Answer:
Illustration No. 4

Bar Question: Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a “session”. Thinking that
it was for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio’s house,
Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At the precise time, the place
was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime can
Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer.

TRAC Answer:

Anastacio cannot be charged with any crime when he entered a room

where a shabu session was held without his knowledge.

Under the law, only persons who visit a den, dive or resort, knowing that
any dangerous drugs and essential chemicals are administered, delivered,
stored, sold or used in any form are punished.

In the instant case, Anastacio had no knowledge of the shabu session

held in the house of Tiburcio. Hence, he has no criminal liability.

Deductive Answer:

Anastacio has no criminal liability when he entered the house of Tiburcio

where a shabu session was held without his knowledge because the law
punishes only those who visit a den, dive or resort having knowledge that any
dangerous drugs and essential chemicals are administered, delivered, stored,
sold or used in any form.

Deductive Answer recommended by Atty. Fortun:

Anastacio did not commit a crime because he had no criminal intent to

enter a place where a shabu session was ongoing.
Illustration No. 5

Bar Question: Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank.
Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the
vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented
themselves with the customer’s cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they
dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb,
hitting a pedestrian, which resulted in the latter’s death. What crime or crimes did
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your answer.

TRAC Answer:

The following are the liabilities of Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan:

1. Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan may be held liable for the special complex
crime of attempted robbery with homicide.

Under the law, whenever a homicide is committed as a consequence of

or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the
commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime of
homicide unless it appears that they endeavored to the prevent the
homicide. Further, any person who agrees and decides to commit a
felony and actually committed the same, shall be liable for the acts of his
co-conspirators.

In the instant case, Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan agreed, decided and
actually robbed a bank on the occasion of which, Jonathan killed a
pedestrian. Neither Jervis nor Marlon prevented the killing of the
pedestrian.

Hence, all shall be liable for attempted robbery with homicide.

2. Jervis and Marlon may separately be charged with Robbery.

Under the law, any person who takes the personal property belonging to
another using violence or intimidation with intent to gain is liable for
robbery. Further, the law provides that a conspirator shall be liable only
for the acts which could be foreseen and which are the natural and
logical consequences of the conspiracy.
 In the instant case, the taking of the cellphones and P5,000 in cash from
the customer was a separate act of Jervis and Marlon as such was not
part of the trio’s original agreement.

Hence, only Jervis and Marlon are liable for Robbery.

Deductive Answer:

The following are the criminal liabilities of Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan:

1. Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan may be held liable for the special complex
crime of attempted robbery with homicide because (1) the homicide was
committed on the occasion of the robbery; (2) all who took part in the
commission of the robbery are guilty of the crime of homicide; and (3)
neither Jervis nor Marlon endeavored to prevent the commission of
homicide.

2. Only Jervis and Marlon may separately be charged with Robbery because
the forcible taking of the customer’s cellphone and P5,000 in cash was
not a foreseeable nor a logical consequence of the original agreement
with Jonathan.

Illustration No. 6

Bar Question: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of
having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken.

The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky
of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in
the amount of P50,000.

a) Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was
exonerated of murder? Explain your answer.
b) While serving his sentence, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot
session with Ivy (Joy’s sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in
case he is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer.

TRAC Answer:

a) Yes, the court correctly ordered Macky to pay indemnity even though
he was exonerated of murder.

Under the law, death under exceptional circumstances is an

exempting circumstance. In exempting circumstances, although there
is no offender, a crime is committed. Hence, indemnity may be
awarded to the victim or his heir(s).

b) Yes, Macky is entitled to an indeterminate sentence.

Under the law, the conviction on the use of prohibited drugs is not of
the exceptions to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

But in case, he is found to have evaded the service of his sentence by

entering the prohibited area, he will not be entitled to an
indeterminate sentence as provided for by law.

Deductive Answer:

The following are the criminal liabilities of Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan:

a) The court correctly ordered Macky to pay indemnity because while it

is true that death under exceptional circumstance exempts the
offender from criminal liability, it does not relieve him from civil
liability.

b) Macky is entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he is found

guilty of the use of prohibited substances because this is not one of
the exceptions to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
 But in case he is found to have entered the prohibited area, he is not
entitled thereto because said law does not apply when one evades
sentence.

Illustration No. 7

Bar Question:

a) Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator.

b) What are the three classes of offenders in the crime of Qualified Seduction. Give
an example of each.

TRAC Answer:

a) Under the law, the distinctions between an accomplice and a

conspirator are as follows:

i. As to the criminal intent, a conspirator possesses knowledge

of the criminal intention as he participated in, agreed to and
decided the criminal design. On the other hand, an
accomplice knows of the felony only after the principals have
reached a criminal design, where he agrees to cooperate in its
execution;

ii. As to the decision to commit the crime, a conspirator has

decided to commit the crime while an accomplice does not
decide whether the crime should be committed as he merely
assents to the plan and cooperate for its accomplishment; and

iii. As to their participation, a conspirator is an author of the

crime, while an accomplice is merely an instrument who
performs acts not indispensable to the perpetration thereof.

b) Under the law, the classes of offenders in the crime of Qualified

Seduction are as follows:
 i. Those who abuse their authority such as guardians, teachers
and persons in authority;

ii. Those who abuse the confidence reposed in them such as

priest, house servant or a domestic; and

iii. Those who abuse their relationship such as brother or

ascendant, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

Deductive Answer:

a) An accomplice is distinguished from a conspirator as follows:

i. As to intention, an accomplice knows of the criminal design

only after the principals have agreed and decided to commit it
while a conspirator has knowledge of the criminal intention as
he participates in the completion of the criminal design;

ii. As to decision to commit a crime, an accomplice merely

assents and cooperates to accomplish the crime while a
conspirator decides to commit the same.

iii. As to their participation, an accomplice is merely an

instrument who performs acts not indispensable to the
perpetration of a crime while a conspirator is the author
thereof.

b) The classes of offenders in the crime of Qualified Seduction are as

follows:

i. Those who abuse their authority such as guardians, teachers

and persons in authority;

ii. Those who abuse the confidence reposed in them such as

priest, house servant or a domestic; and

iii. Those who abuse their relationship such as brother or

ascendant, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Illustration No. 8

Bar Question: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition?

TRAC Answer:

Under the law, the different acts of inciting to sedition are as follows:

1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which

constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, etc.;

2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the

public peace;

3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the

Government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof,
which tend to disturb public peace or who knowingly concealing
such evil practices.

Deductive Answer: (same)

Illustration No. 9

Bar Question: Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as “Mother
Himala”. He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit.
Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a “treatment” calculated to drive the spirit
from the boy’s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy’s
death.

The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with
murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are an appellate court Justice, would
you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.
 TRAC Answer:

No, the conviction of murder will not be sustained. To the

contrary, the faithhealer and the three others must be convicted of
homicide through reckless imprudence.

Under the law, any person who kills another without intent to kill
shall be liable for homicide. Further, any person who does an act
knowing that he does not possess the required knowledge and skill to do
so, thereby failing to exercise the necessary precaution shall be liable for
reckless imprudence.

In the instant case, the faithhealer and the three others intended
not to kill the victim but to only treat him, albeit done without the
necessary knowledge and skill.

Deductive Answer:

No, the conviction of murder will not be sustained because (1) no

circumstance that qualifies homicide to murder was attendant; (2) the
accused had no intention to kill the victim; and (3) the death resulted
from the lack of the requisite medical knowledge and skill. The proper
criminal liability is homicide through reckless imprudence.

Illustration No. 10

Bar Question: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling
debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing
in a “talaan” or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their
customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any?
Explain your answer.

TRAC Answer:

Fe is liable for the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence.

 Under the law, any person who misappropriates or converts the
money, goods or any other personal properties received in trust or for
administration, to the prejudice of another shall be liable for estafa by
abuse of confidence.

In the instant case, as general manager, Fe performs acts of

administration which includes the receipt and custody of money paid by
customers. The falsification of the ledger to a figure lower than what
was paid by their customers was merely intended to conceal the
misappropriation of the money derived from the rice mill operation, and
does not constitute a separate crime of falsification.

Deductive Answer:

Fe is liable for estafa because she misappropriated and converted

the funds she held in trust as general manager of the rice mill. The
falsification of the ledger is not a separate criminal offense as such was
merely intended to conceal the misappropriation.

Illustration No. 11

Bar Question: During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from
rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of
people. When the crown still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into air to scare them
off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit on
of the stage crewmembers, causing injuries which resulted in the latter’s confinement in
a hospital for twelve days. What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer.

TRAC Answer:

Rafael Padilla committed the complex crime of Illegal Discharge of

Firearm with Less Serious Physical Injuries.

Under the law, any person who discharges a firearm without

intent to kill notwithstanding that at the time a gun was shot, it was not
pointed at the offended party, as long as it was initially aimed at or
 against the offended party, shall be liable for Illegal Dischage of Firearm.
The law further provides that any person committing a felony shall be
liable for all the natural and logical consequence of his felonious act.

In the instant case, Rafael initially pointed his gun at the

onrushing people and then fired his gun to scare them off. Further, since
the firing of the gun, a felonious act, resulted to the less serious physical
injuries of a crew member, Rafael is liable for the complex crime of Illegal
Discharge of Firearm with Less Serious Physical Injuries.

Deductive Answer:

.
(10%)

Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky refused to pay her
rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the sides of the market stall and
posted this warning: "We have closed this portion of the door. Do not open it or else
something may happen to you." What crime/s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your
answer.

Giovanni committed the crime of Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation includes any human conduct
which, although not productive of physical or material harm would, however, unjustly annoy or
vex an innocent person. The act of the accused in nailing the barricades with a warning not to
open the door “or else something will happen to you” does not constitute such a serious threat
or intimidation amounting to grave coercion but merely the crime of unjust vexation penalized
under paragraph 2, Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Banzon, et.al., G.R. No.
05388, October 21, 1969, cited in Reyes Book II, 2006 Ed., p. 605).