2014 BAR QUESTIONS AND THEIR SUGGESTED ANSWERS

1. Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was a transgender. On
their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a
transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the heated
argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the
stabbing thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from
continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with
guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the latter’s death. What was the
crime committed? (4%)

SUGGETED ANSWERS:

A. Macho had committed the crime of Homicide, mitigated by no intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Homicide is committed when, without the qualifying circumstances
for Murder, a person inflicts a mortal wound upon another and the latter dies, the intent to kill being
presumed. This is because under the RPC, he is liable for the resulting felony although it be different from
that which he intended. However, the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intent to
commit so grave a wrong.
Here, Macho caused the death of Ganda although he did not intend to kill the latter. Hence, Macho is
criminally liable for Homicide mitigated by no intent to commit so grave a wrong.

I. B. Reckless imprudence resulting to Homicide.

Macho committed the crime of homicide.

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is incurred by a person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from which he intended.

Here, Macho committed a felony. The fact that he had no intention of killing Ganda when he accidentally
pulled the trigger of the gun is of no moment. Hence, he is liable for the death of Ganda.

2. City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the City
of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for
the construction of a road leading to the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the
road leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the amount of P10
million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million could not be accounted for
although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized drivers but the same were
never returned. Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s custody amounting to P10 million which
were found to be missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental in
awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million to a close relative,
although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has a net worth of
more than P50 million, which was way beyond his legitimate income. (8%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City Engr. A?

I will charge City Engr. A with Plunder.

 Under the Anti-Plunder Law, any person who acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series
of overt acts of receiving directly or indirectly kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the position of the
public officer, in the aggregate amount of P50 million pesos shall be guilty of the crime of Plunder.
Here, City Engr. A is a public officer who has acquired an aggregate amount of P50 million pesos which is
deemed to be ill-gotten wealth. Hence, City Engr. A should be charged with the crime of Plunder before
the Office of the Ombudsman.

(B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50 million, will your answer still be
the same?

No, the answer will not be the same. City Engr. A will be charged with Malversation and violation of RA
3019 (Graft and Corruption).
Under the Revised Penal Code, Malversation is committed when a public officer, by reason of the duties of
his office, appropriates, misappropriates, or takes public funds of not more than P12,000. In addition to
such crime, the public officer shall be criminally liable under RA 3019 for unexplained wealth manifestly
out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Here, City Engr. A is a public officer who appropriated or took public funds of more than P12,000, as well
as acquired unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Hence, City Engr. A should be charged with malversation and violation of RA 3019.

A. B. I will charge him with plunder.

Under the provisions of Plunder Law, as amended, plunder is a crime wherein:

1. the offender is a public officer who by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as
described in the same special law; and
3. the aggregate amount or total value of the amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth is at least fifty (50)
million pesos.

Here, all the elements of the crime plunder are present. City Engr. A accumulated more than fifty (50) million
pesos, which was way beyond his legitimate income, through a combination or series of overt criminal acts such as
malversation and direct bribery. Hence, the charge of plunder.

B. No, my answer will not be the same.

Here, the requisite for plunder that “the aggregate amount or total value of the amassed, accumulated or
acquired ill-gotten wealth is at least fifty (50) million pesos” is absent. Hence, a different answer (from sub-question A).

3. Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check payable to cash in the amount of P1
million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam
X credited the amount to the account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip.
Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1
million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of
P1 million from her account and to turn over the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily
acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the amount.
What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Madam X did commit the crime of Estafa, while Madam W did not commit any crime.
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who defrauds another by misappropriating or converting
money received in trust is guilty of the crime of Estafa. On the other hand, Fencing is committed by any
person who, with intent to gain, buys, sells, receives of possesses any item which he knows or should
have known to have been derived from robbery or theft.
Here, Madam X defrauded Madam Y when Madam X misappropriated or converted the money she
received in trust from Madam Y. Hence, Madam X did commit the crime of Estafa. On the other hand,
Madam W did not commit the crime of Fencing since neither did she have the intent to gain nor was the
bag derived from robbery or theft.

II. Qualified theft.

Madam X and Madam Y committed the crime of qualified theft.

Under the Revised Penal Code, to fall under the crime of qualified theft, the following elements must concur:

1. there is a taking of personal property;

(that the/it be)
2. said property belongs to another;
3. said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. done without the owner’s consent;
5. accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. done with grave abuse of confidence.

It is a settled jurisprudence that bank teller occupies a position of confidence.

Here, all the elements for the crime of qualified theft was committed by Madam X as principal by direct
participation and Madam W as principal by indispensable cooperation.

4. A was caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door while a young 16-year-old lady was
taking a bath. A is liable for: (1%)
(A) Violation of R.A. 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Children
(B) Violation of R.A. 7610 – Child Abuse Law
(C) Light coercion
(D) Acts of lasciviousness

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A

5. Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release
for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the
signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center. At the
jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out.
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Filthy, Loko, and the guard did commit the crimes of Corruption of Public Official, Direct Bribery and
Falsification, and Delivering Prisoner from Jail, respectively.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212) is committed by any person who
offers or gives gift to a public officer in consideration of the performance by the latter of an act
constituting the crime of Direct or Indirect Bribery. Direct Bribery (Art. 210) is committed by a public
officer by agreeing to perform an act constituting a crime in consideration of an offer, promise, or gift. On
the other hand, Falsification (Art. 171) is committed by a public officer who, taking advantage of his
position, falsifies a document by imitating a signature of another. Finally, Delivering Prisoners from Jail
(Art. 156) is committed by any person who shall facilitate or help the escape of a prisoner from jail by
means of bribery.
Here, Filthy gave money to Loko, a public officer, who in return agreed to perform an act constituting a
crime. Loko did perform the agreed act, and as means thereto falsified a document by imitating a
signature. The guard took a bribery in exchange of helping or facilitating the escape of a prisoner from
jail.
Hence, Filthy committed the crime of Corruption of Public Official; Loko committed Direct Bribery and
Falsification, while the guard committed the crime of Delivering a Prisoner from Jail.

Filthy.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Filthy committed the crime of delivering prisoners from jail (Art. 156) and
corruption of public officials (Art. 212).

Delivery of prisoners from jail is committed by a person rescuing prisoner from jail who is not the custodian.
He can be a civilian or a public officer is not the prisoner’s custodian.

Corruption of public officials is the crime of the giver in bribery and it is committed when any person offers or
promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer by reason or in connection with the performance of his official
duties. Bribery requires concurrence of the will of the corruptor and the public officer.

The elements of corruption of public officials are the following:

1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that
will make the public officer liable for (direct or indirect) bribery.

6. Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms, attracted many suitors.
Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most
persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home.
Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse
where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her. After
satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?

Guapo and Pogi committed Forcible Abduction with Rape, and Unjust Vexation.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape is committed when a
man, with lewd design, deprives a woman of her liberty and eventually has carnal knowledge with her
through force or intimidation. On the other hand, Unjust Vexation is any act committed without violence
but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes another person.
Here, Guapo and Pogi, with lewd designs, deprived Pretty of her liberty, forced her to dance, and
eventually had carnal knowledge with her without her consent. Hence, Guapo and Pogi committed the
complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, as well as Unjust Vexation.

(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one hour after the rape.
Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death? Explain.

Yes, Guapo and Pogi would be liable for Pretty’s death.

Settled is the doctrine in Criminal Law that he whose felonious act is the proximate cause of the death of
another person is criminally liable, such as when a man who causes upon another’s mind a great anguish
and embarrassment is responsible for the direct, natural and logical consequence of such anguish and
embarrassment. El que es causa dela causa es causa del mal causado.
Here, the suicide committed by Pretty would be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the
anguish and embarrassment proximately caused by the felonious acts of Guapo and Pogi. Hence, Guapo
and Pogi would be liable for Pretty’s death.

III. Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape plus multiple rapes.

A. Guapo and Pogi committed forcible abduction with rape for the first rape committed and as many separate counts
of rape as are charged, alleged and proved.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of forcible abduction (Art. 342) are that the:

1. (person abducted) victim is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation;
2. abduction is against her will; and
3. abduction is with lewd designs.

On the other hand, under the provisions of criminal law, the elements of rape pertinent to this case are that:

1. the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and

2. such as is accomplished by using using force, threat or intimidation.

It is a settled jurisprudence that the rapes committed after the forcible abduction with rape should be
considered separate crimes and should be punished separately from the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

B. No, Guapo and Pogi are not liable for Pretty’s death.

The act of Pretty in taking her own life by hanging is an act foreign from the felony committed by Guapo and
Pogi.

The law requires that to make anyone liable for felony committed their act must be the proximate case of the
same felony.

Proximate cause means all the direct, natural and logical consequences that will result from the commission of
the felony. Here, suicide is not a direct, natural and logical consequences of either forcible abduction or rape.

7. Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a TV
advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Loko offered her a contract,
which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out to be a high-end
brothel. Ganda became one of its most featured attraction. What is Loko’s liability, if any? What effect
would Ganda’s minority have on Loko’s liability? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Loko is liable for Qualified Trafficking of Person.

Under RA 9208, Trafficking of Persons is committed by recruitment of persons through fraud or
deception for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation. The crime is qualified when the person
recruited for sexual exploitation is a child.
Here, Loko recruited Ganda, a child, through deception for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Hence,
Loko is criminally liable for Qualified Trafficking of Persons.

IV. Anti-trafficking in persons.

Loko is liable for violation of Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208) in relation to Special Protection
of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended).

Under ATi PA of 2003 (RA 9208), it shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to recruit, transport,
harbor, provide or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.

Also, the minority of Ganda qualifies the crime of trafficking.

Under SPo. CA CaEDA (RA 7610, as amended), any who shall engage in trading and dealing with children
including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration, or
barter is punishable. The mere act of selling or bartering is punishable. The child is not taken against his will.

8. Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court,
that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and
delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court.
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (4%)
(A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a
public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or
benefit wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later
charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be
charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Malo is not correct.

Settled is the doctrine in Criminal Law that when a single act produces two or more offenses, one under
the Revised Penal Code and the other under a special law, the offender shall be criminally liable for two
separate crimes, unless one absorbs the other.

Here, Malo committed an act under RA 3019 by receiving gift or benefit from another person in
consideration of the performance of an act constituting a crime, the same felonious act being punished
under the Revised Penal Code as Direct Bribery (Art. 210). Hence, notwithstanding the charge under RA
3019, Malo can still be charged under the Revised Penal Code for Direct Bribery.
(B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence,
when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?
Yes, the charge of Estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is correct.
 Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC is committed by any person who defrauds another by falsely pretending
that he possesses power or influence.
Hence, the charge of Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC is correct since Malo defrauded the accused by
falsely pretending that he possessed the power to influence the decision of the judge.

V. RA 3019 v. indirect bribery; estafa.

A. No, Malo is not correct. There is variance of the elements in the offenses charged.

Under the provision of corrupt practices of public officers in the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019,
as amended), in addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall
constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(b) directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit,
for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene
under the law.

One may therefore be charged with violation of Aga CoPrA (RA 3019, as amended) in addition to a
felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequently to
being charged with the felony under the Revised Penal Code.

Here, although the two charges against Malo stemmed from the same transaction, the same act gave rise to
two separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy attached since there was a variance between the offenses
charged. The Constitutional protection against double jeopardy proceeds from a second prosecution for the same
offense, not for a different one.

B. No, the charge of estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code against Malo is not correct.

Under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the fraud be committed

Here, there was no misrepresentation made by Malo of having any power or influence. Malo merely promised
that he will convince the judge to render a decision of acquittal.

9. Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing materials. On February
1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased
several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr.
Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the
assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a
consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed.
The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated checks in the
amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be
honored upon presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received
by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks.
Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no
demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Ed as partial
payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite the
partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that
the obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the
partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Mr. Ed is criminally liable for Estafa under BP No. 22.

Well-settled is the rule that Estafa under BP No. 22 is committed when the accused issues a check
without sufficient funds and he fails to deposit the amount in the check within five days after receipt of
the notice of dishonor of the check by the bank. Moreover, novation is not among the modes of
extinguishing criminal liability for violation of BP No. 22.
Hence, the mere issuance by Mr. Ed of checks without sufficient funds his failure to deposit with the bank
the amount in the checks within five days after receipt of the notice of dishonor makes him criminally
liable for Estafa under BP 22. Neither is novation nor absence of demand letter a defense against criminal
liability under BP 22 insofar as the notice of dishonor serves as demand for payment.

10. Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There, Manolo noticed a nice painting that
exactly looked like the painting which he reported was stolen from him some years
back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he
bought the painting legitimately from a friend. Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed
the stolen painting. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?

Tonio may be charged with Fencing.
Under RA 8049, Fencing is committed by any person who buys or acquires any article or anything of
value which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft. The
mere possession of anything of value stolen is a prima facie evidence of fencing.
Here, Tonio bought a painting which he should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of
theft. Hence, Tonio may be charged with Fencing since his mere possession of the painting is a prima facie
evidence of the crime.
(B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke into Tonio’s house by
destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any, would be the liability of Manolo?
Manolo would be liable for Robbery.
Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 293), Robbery is committed when a person, with intent to gain, takes
any personal property belonging to another by means of force upon things.
Here, Tonio already owned the painting through sale, and Manolo with intent to gain would take the
painting through force upon the wall. Hence, Manolo would be liable for Robbery.

11. Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the smaller purses without
paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave her own purse in place of the one she took.
Her act was discovered and Clepto was charged with theft. She claimed that there was
no theft, as the store suffered no injury or prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one she
took. Comment on her defense. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Clepto’s defense has no merit.

Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 308), Theft is committed when a person with intent to gain takes a
personal property belonging to another without violence or intimidation and without the consent of the
owner. Jurisprudence holds that mere taking of the personal property consummates the crime of Theft,
so that when taking is complete the defense of desistance does not set in anymore.
Hence, regardless of the fact that Clepto replaced the purse she took with her own, Theft was already
consummated, and desistance no longer sets in as a defense.
VI. Theft.

Clepto’s defense is not tenable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of theft are the following:

1. there is a taking of personal property;

(that the/it be)
2. said property belongs to another;
3. said taking be done with intent to gain;
4. done without the owner’s consent; and
5. accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things.

It is a settled jurisprudence that unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the
offender gains possession of the thing even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage.

Here, there can be no question that as of the time that Clepto took possession of the purse, she had performed
all the acts to consummate the crime of theft even if she left her own purse in place of the one she took.

12. Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his
former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not
have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to
take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said,
“You already know what I want,” and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and
hurt Ms. Yellow. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr.
Green?
Mr. White and Mr. Blueare criminally liable for Murder for killing Mr. Green.
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who kills another shall be criminally liable for Murder.
Jurisprudence holds that for an accused to be liable as principal by inducement, the inducement must be
expressed in clear unequivocal language, strong enough as an irresistible force.
Hence, only Mr. White and Mr. Blue can be held criminally liable for Murder for killing Mr. Green, while
Mr. Red cannot be held liable even as a principal by inducement since his statement cannot be considered
as inducement insofar as it is not strong enough as an irresistible force.

(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. Whit and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms.
Yellow?
Similarly, Mr. White and Mr. Blue are criminally liable for Serious, Less Serious, or Slight Physical Injuries
for the injuries they inflicted upon Ms. Yellow. On the other hand, Mr. Red has no criminal liability.
Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another that requires
medical attention, or becomes ill or incapacitated is liable for Serious Physical Injuries if the medication,
illness or incapacity is for more than 30 days, Less Serious Physical Injuries if the medication, illness or
incapacity is for ten days or more, or for Slight Physical Injuries if the medication, illness or incapacity
lasts for one to nine days. On the other hand, a person who has no participation in the planning of or in
the actual beating or assault shall not have any criminal liability.
Hence, only Mr. White and Mr. Blue shall be criminally liable for Serious, Less Serious, or slight Physical
Injuries, depending on the gravity or duration of illness, incapacity or medication caused upon Ms.
Yellow, while Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable.

13. Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later,
he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr.
Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the
amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature
thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. White for
P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by
agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial
documents. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence
showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second
check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.
The defense is without merit.
Settled is the rule in Estafa cases that the disturbance of property right is equivalent to damage and is in
itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Here, Mr. White suffered injury when his signature was forged and his money parted from him on
account of the forgery that is attributable to the bearer of the check, Mr. Gray. Hence, Mr. Gray’s defense
must fail.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check
was a forgery