Criminal Law Answers 1994 2006

ANSWERS TO BAR
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) 1 of 86

EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
CRIMINAL LAW
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
(1994 2006)
Version 1973 2003
Edited and Arranged
by:
J!"##" L$$%&'I() !*
A+", A!*-". P/ I()
(Silliman University College of Law)
U0*#"* 123
Dondee
ReTake BarOps 2007
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN
CRIMINAL LAW ! the U" LAW COM"LEX a#$ "%ILI""INE
ASSOCIATION OF LAW SC%OOLS
&'(! )* 2007
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
2
of
86
F O R W A R +
This work is not intended for sale or commerce. This work is freeware. It may
be freely copied and distributed. It is primarily intended for all those who
desire to have a deeper understanding of the issues touched by the Philippine
Bar Examinations and its trend. It is specially intended for law students from
the provinces who, very often, are recipients of deliberately distorted notes
from other unscrupulous law schools and students. hare to others this work
and you will be richly rewarded by !od in heaven. It is also very good karma.
"e would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar #uestions
which are improperly classified under a topic and for some topics which are
improperly or ignorantly phrased, for the authors are $ust Bar %eviewees who
have prepared this work while reviewing for the Bar Exams under time
constraints and within their limited knowledge of the law. "e would like to
seek the reader&s indulgence for a lot of typographical errors in this work.
The 'uthors
(uly )*, )++,
-pdated by.
(uly /, )++0
3
of
86
Table of Contents
GENERAL PRINCIPLES...............................................................................................................10
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law (1996) ............................................................................................10
General Principles; Territoriality (199) .............................................................................................................................10
General Principles; Territoriality; !uris"iction o#er $essel (%&&&) .........................................................................................10
'se of (liases; )hen (llowe" (%&&6) ...............................................................................................................................10
4ELONIES........................................................................................................................................10
Conspiracy (199*) ..........................................................................................................................................................10
Conspiracy; (#oi"ance of Greater +#il (%&&)....................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Co,Conspirator (199-) ..................................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Common .elonious Purpose (199) ...............................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; Comple/ Crime with 0ape (1996)...................................................................................................................11
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)..............................................................................................................12
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)..............................................................................................................12
Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy (199-).............................................................................................................................13
Conspiracy; 2mplie" Conspiracy; +ffects (%&&1) .................................................................................................................13
Criminal Lia3ility4 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&) .......................................................................................................................13
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct of Scaring (1996)..............................................................................................................13
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1996)...................................................................................................13
Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (%&&&) ......................................................................................................................14
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1)..............................................................................................................14
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&6)..............................................................................................................14
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; 2mme"iate Cause (%&&1) ..................................................................................................14
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199)...................................................................................................15
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199*)...................................................................................................15
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1999)...................................................................................................15
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&1)...................................................................................................15
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&)...................................................................................................16
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crime (%&&) ........................................................................................................................16
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes (199) ......................................................................................................................16
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes; 7i"napping (%&&&) ....................................................................................................17
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (199*) ................................................................................................................................17
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (1999) ................................................................................................................................17
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) ................................................................................................................................17
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1) ................................................................................................................................17
8ala Prohi3ita; (ctual 2n:ury 0e;uire" (%&&&) ....................................................................................................................18
8alum in Se #s9 8alum Prohi3itum (%&&6) ........................................................................................................................18
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1996) ...................................................................................................................................................18
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1999) ...................................................................................................................................................18
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (%&&) ...................................................................................................................................................19
8oti#e; Proof thereof; <ot +ssential; Con#iction (%&&6) ......................................................................................................19
JUSTI4YING 5 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ...................................................................19
+/empting Circumstances; Co#erage (%&&&).....................................................................................................................19
+/empting Circumstances; 8inority (199-)........................................................................................................................19
+/empting; 8inority; 11 yrs =l"; (3sence of 5iscernment (%&&&) ........................................................................................19
!ustifying #s9 +/empting Circumstances (%&&) .................................................................................................................20
!ustifying; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (%&&%).................................................................................................................20
!ustifying; 5efense of Stranger (%&&%) ..............................................................................................................................20
!ustifying; .ulfillment of 5uty; 0e;uisites (%&&&) ................................................................................................................20
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (199-) ..........................................................................................................21
!ustifying; 5efense of >onor; +lements (%&&&) ..................................................................................................................21
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (1996) .......................................................................................................21
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (%&&1) .......................................................................................................21
4
of
86
?ualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1).............................................................................................................................22
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES................................................................................................22
8itigating; <on,2nto/ication (%&&&) ...................................................................................................................................22
8itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)........................................................................................................................................22
8itigating; Plea of Guilty; 0e;uisites (1999).......................................................................................................................22
8itigating; Plea of Guilty; $oluntary Surren"er (199*).........................................................................................................22
8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er (1996)..............................................................................................................................23
8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er; +lements (1999) ..............................................................................................................23
AGGRA6ATING CIRCUMSTANCES .........................................................................................23
(ggra#ating Circumstances (1996)...................................................................................................................................23
(ggra#ating Circumstances; Generis #s9 ?ualifying (1999) .................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating Circumstances; 7in"s @ Penalties (1999)........................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating; Cruelty; 0elationship (199) .........................................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating; 8ust 3e allege" in the information (%&&&).......................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating; <ighttime; Aan" (199) ................................................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)........................................................................................................................................24
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism #s9 ?uasi,0eci"i#ism (199-) ........................................................................................................25
(ggra#ating; Treachery @ 'nlawful +ntry (199*)................................................................................................................25
ALTERNATI6E CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................................................. ..........25
(lternati#e Circumstances; 2nto/ication (%&&%)...................................................................................................................25
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE 4OR 4ELONIES................................................................25
(nti,.encing Law; .encing (1996) ....................................................................................................................................25
(nti,.encing Law; .encing #s9 Theft or 0o33ery (1996)......................................................................................................26
(nti,.encing Law; .encing; +lements (1996).....................................................................................................................26
Criminal Lia3ility; (ccessories @ .ence (199-)...................................................................................................................26
Criminal Lia3ility; <on,+/emption as (ccessory (%&&) ......................................................................................................26
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 5irect Participation; Co,Principal 3y 2n"ispensa3le Cooperation (%&&&).....................................27
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 2n"ucement (%&&%) ..............................................................................................................27
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal; 2n"ucement @ Participation (199)
............................................................................................27 5estructi#e (rson (199)
.................................................................................................................................................27
PENALTIES .....................................................................................................................................27
Comple/ Crime #s9 Compoun" Crime (%&&).....................................................................................................................27
Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime #s9 5elito Continua"o (%&&6) ............................................................................28
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio ictus #s9 error in personae (199)...............................................................................................28
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctusB +rror 2n Personae @ Praeter 2ntentionem (1999) .................................................................28
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctus; (ttempte" 8ur"er with >omici"e (%&&&) ............................................................................28
Comple/ Crime; 5octrine of (3erratio 2ctus; <ot (pplica3le (1996) ......................................................................................29
Comple/ Crimes; Coup "Cetat @ re3ellion @ se"ition (%&&1).................................................................................................29
Comple/ Crimes; 5etermination of the Crime (1999)..........................................................................................................29
Comple/ Crimes; <ature @ Penalty 2n#ol#e" (1999) ...........................................................................................................30
Comple/ Crimes; =r"inary Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime (%&&1)
.....................................................................30 Continuing =ffense #s9 5elito Continua"o (199)
...............................................................................................................30 5eath Penalty (%&&)
......................................................................................................................................................30 5eath Penalty;
?ualifie" 0ape; 0e;uisites (%&&)..............................................................................................................31 >a3itual
5elin;uency @ 0eci"i#ism (%&&1) ........................................................................................................................31
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (199) .................................................................................................................................31
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&%) .................................................................................................................................32
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&6) .................................................................................................................................32
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (1999) ...............................................................................................................32
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (%&&1) ...............................................................................................................33
5
of
86
Penalties4 .ine or 2mprisonment #s9 Su3si"iary 2mprisonment (%&&6)...................................................................................33
Penalties4 Pecuniary Penalties #s9 Pecuniary Lia3ilities (%&&6)
............................................................................................33 Penalties; Comple/ Crime of +stafa (199*)
.......................................................................................................................33 Penalties; .actors to Consi"er (1991)
...............................................................................................................................33 Penalties; >omici"e wD 8o"ifying
Circumstance (1996) ......................................................................................................34 Penalties; 8itigating
Circumstances wDout (ggra#ating Circumstance (199*) .......................................................................34 Penalties; Parrici"e
wD 8itigating Circumstance (199*).......................................................................................................34 Penalties;
Pre#enti#e 2mprisonment (199) .......................................................................................................................34 Penalties;
0eclusion Perpetua (0() <o9 *969 (%&&6) .........................................................................................................35 Penalties;
0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (199) ...............................................................................................35 Penalties;
0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment (%&&1) ...............................................................................................35 Pro3ation
Law4 Proper Perio" (%&&6) ................................................................................................................................35 Pro3ation
Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (199)...........................................................................................................................35 Pro3ation
Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1)...........................................................................................................................36 Pro3ation
Law; 8a/imum Term #s9 Total Term (199*)........................................................................................................36 Pro3ation
Law; =r"er 5enying Pro3ation; <ot (ppeala3le (%&&%) ........................................................................................36 Pro3ation
Law; Perio" Co#ere" (%&&) .............................................................................................................................36 Pro3ation
Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (1996) .................................................................................................................36 Pro3ation
Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1) .................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; ("ultsD8inors (%&&6)..................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; 8inors (%&&1)............................................................................................................................37
Suspension of Sentence; Eouthful =ffen"er (1996) ............................................................................................................38
EXTINCTION O4 CRIMINAL LIABILITY....................................................................................38
(mnesty #s9 P5 116& (%&&6) ...........................................................................................................................................38
(mnesty; Crimes Co#ere" (%&&6).....................................................................................................................................38
+/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of accuse" pen"ing appeal (%&&) ........................................................38
+/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of =ffen"e" Party (%&&&)......................................................................38
Par"on #s9 (mnesty (%&&6)..............................................................................................................................................39
Par"on; +ffect; Ci#il 2nter"iction (%&&) .............................................................................................................................39
Par"on; +ffect; 0einstatement (199) ...............................................................................................................................39
Prescription of Crimes; Aigamy (1996) ..............................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&&) .................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&) .................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; Concu3inage (%&&1)......................................................................................................................40
Prescription of Crimes; .alse Testimony (199) .................................................................................................................41
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan"er (199*)...................................................................................................................41
CI6IL LIABILITY .............................................................................................................................41
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&)...............................................................................................................................41
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&)...............................................................................................................................41
Ci#il Lia3ility; Su3si"iary; +mployers (199-).......................................................................................................................42
Ci#il Lia3ility; )hen 8an"atory; Criminal Lia3ility (%&&6).....................................................................................................42
5amages; >omici"e; Temperate 5amages (%&&6) .............................................................................................................42
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND T7E LAW O4 NATIONS.......................42
Piracy in the >igh Seas @ ?ualifie" Piracy (%&&6) .............................................................................................................42
CRIMES AGAINST T7E 4UNDAMENTAL LAW O4 T7E STATE........................................43
$iolation of 5omicile #s9 Trespass to 5welling (%&&%) .........................................................................................................43
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER .........................................................................................43
(rt 11; 0e3ellion; Politically 8oti#ate"; Committe" 3y <P( 8em3ers (199-) ......................................................................43
(rt 11,(4 Coup "C etat @ 0ape; .rustrate" (%&&6) .............................................................................................................44
(rt 11,(; Coup "Cetat (%&&%) ..........................................................................................................................................44
(rt 11,(; Coup "Cetat; <ew .irearms Law (199-)..............................................................................................................44
(rt 116; Conspiracy to Commit 0e3ellion (199)................................................................................................................44
6
of
86
(rt 1-; 5irect (ssault #s9 0esistance @ 5iso3e"ience (%&&1) ............................................................................................44
(rt 1-; 5irect (ssault; Teachers @ Professors (%&&%) .......................................................................................................45
(rt 1-; Persons in (uthorityD(gents of Persons in (uthority (%&&&).....................................................................................45
(rt 166; 5eli#ery of Prisoners from !ail (%&&%) ...................................................................................................................45
(rt 16*; +#asion of Ser#ice of Sentence (199-) .................................................................................................................46
(rt9 11; 0e3ellion #s9 Coup "Fetat (%&&) ........................................................................................................................46
Comple/ Crime; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (%&&&) ............................................................................................................46
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST....................................................................................47
.alse <otes; 2llegal Possession (1999) .............................................................................................................................47
.alse Testimony (199)...................................................................................................................................................47
.alsification; Presumption of .alsification (1999)................................................................................................................47
.orgery @ .alsification (1999) ..........................................................................................................................................47
Gra#e Scan"al (1996) .....................................................................................................................................................48
Per:ury (1996) ................................................................................................................................................................48
Per:ury (199*) ................................................................................................................................................................48
Per:ury (%&&6) ................................................................................................................................................................49
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC O44ICERS.......................................................................49
Ari3ery @ Corruption of Pu3lic =fficial (%&&1) .....................................................................................................................49
5irect Ari3ery4 2nfi"elity in the Custo"y of 5ocuments (%&&6) ..............................................................................................49
!uris"iction; 2mpeacha3le Pu3lic =fficers (%&&6) ................................................................................................................50
8al#ersation (199) ........................................................................................................................................................50
8al#ersation (1999) ........................................................................................................................................................50
8al#ersation (1999) ........................................................................................................................................................50
8al#ersation (%&&1) ........................................................................................................................................................50
8al#ersation (%&&6) ........................................................................................................................................................51
8al#ersation #s9 +stafa (1999) .........................................................................................................................................51
8al#ersation; Properties; Custo"ia Legis (%&&1) ................................................................................................................52
8al#ersation; Technical 8al#ersation (1996) .....................................................................................................................52
Pu3lic =fficers; "efinition (1999).......................................................................................................................................52
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (1996) .....................................................................................................52
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (199*) .....................................................................................................53
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ....................................................................................................53
Comple/ Crime; >omici"e wD (ssault,(uthority (1996) .......................................................................................................53
Comple/ Crime; Parrici"e wD unintentional a3ortion (199) .................................................................................................53
Criminal Lia3ilities; 0ape; >omici"e @ Theft (199- <o) .......................................................................................................53
Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultous (ffray (199*).........................................................................................................................54
Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultuous (ffray (%&&1).......................................................................................................................54
5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&1).................................................................................................................54
5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&6).................................................................................................................54
>omici"e; .raustrate"; Physical 2n:uries (199) .................................................................................................................55
2nfantici"e (%&&6)............................................................................................................................................................55
8ur"er @ Sec9 %6B 09(9 <o9 9166 (%&&6) ...........................................................................................................................55
8ur"er (1999) ................................................................................................................................................................55
8ur"er; 5efinition @ +lements (1999) ...............................................................................................................................56
8ur"er; +#i"ent Preme"itation (1996)...............................................................................................................................56
8ur"er; >omici"e; 2nfantici"e; Parrici"e (1999)..................................................................................................................56
8ur"er; 0ecGles 2mpru"ence (%&&1).................................................................................................................................56
8ur"er; Treachery (1996)................................................................................................................................................57
8ur"er; 'se of 2llegal .irearms (%&&) ..............................................................................................................................57
Parrici"e (1999)..............................................................................................................................................................57
Parrici"e (1999)..............................................................................................................................................................57
Parrici"e; 8ultiple Parrici"e; >omici"e (199*)....................................................................................................................57
0ape (1996)...................................................................................................................................................................58
0ape; (3sence of .orce @ 2ntimi"ation (1996)...................................................................................................................58
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) ................................................................................................................................58
7
o
f
86
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%) ................................................................................................................................58
0ape; Consente" (3"uction (%&&%) ..................................................................................................................................59
0ape; +ffect; (ffi"a#it of 5esistance (1991).......................................................................................................................59
0ape; 8ale $ictim (%&&%) ................................................................................................................................................59
0ape; 8ultiple 0apes; .orci3le (3"uction (%&&&)...............................................................................................................59
0ape; Proper Party (1991)...............................................................................................................................................59
0ape; Statutory 0ape; 8ental 0etar"ate $ictim (1996).......................................................................................................60
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY ................................................60
(r3itrary 5etention; +lements; Groun"s (%&&6)..................................................................................................................60
Gra#e Coercion (199-)....................................................................................................................................................60
Gra#e Coercion #s9 8altreatment of Prisoner (1999) ..........................................................................................................61
2llegal 5etention #s9 Gra#e Coercion (1999).......................................................................................................................61
7i"napping (%&&%) ..........................................................................................................................................................61
7i"napping (%&&6) ..........................................................................................................................................................61
7i"napping wD >omici"e (%&&6)........................................................................................................................................62
7i"napping; +ffects; $oluntary 0elease (%&&) ..................................................................................................................62
7i"napping; 2llegal 5etention; 8inority (%&&6) ....................................................................................................................62
7i"napping; Proposal to 7i"nap (1996) .............................................................................................................................63
7i"napping; Serious 2llegal 5etention (199*) .....................................................................................................................63
Trespass to 5welling; Pri#ate Persons (%&&6)....................................................................................................................63
Tresspass to 5welling; 0ule of (3sorption (199) ..............................................................................................................64
'n:ust $e/ation #s (cts of Lasci#iousness (199)..............................................................................................................64
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY..................................................................................................64
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (199).......................................................................................................................................64
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&).......................................................................................................................................64
(rson; <ew (rson Law (%&&)..........................................................................................................................................64
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (199)..................................................................................................................................65
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (1996)..................................................................................................................................65
AP %%; Presumption of 7nowle"ge (%&&%) .........................................................................................................................65
+stafa @ Trust 0eceipt Law (1996) ...................................................................................................................................65
+stafa (1999) .................................................................................................................................................................66
+stafa #s9 AP %% (1996)...................................................................................................................................................66
+stafa #s9 AP %% (%&&1)...................................................................................................................................................66
+stafa #s9 8oney 8arGet Placement (1996).......................................................................................................................67
+stafa #s9 Theft (%&&6) ....................................................................................................................................................67
+stafa; +lements (%&&6) ..................................................................................................................................................67
+stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocument (%&&&).........................................................................................................67
+stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocuments (199*) .......................................................................................................68
+stafa; Swin"ling (199-)..................................................................................................................................................68
0o33ery (1996) ..............................................................................................................................................................68
0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&&) .............................................................................................................................................68
0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&1) .............................................................................................................................................68
0o33ery #s9 >ighway 0o33ery (%&&&)...............................................................................................................................69
0o33ery wD force upon things (%&&&) ................................................................................................................................69
0o33ery wD >omici"e , 09(9 <o9 *669 (%&&6) ....................................................................................................................69
0o33ery wD >omici"e (1996)............................................................................................................................................70
0o33ery wD >omici"e (199-)............................................................................................................................................70
0o33ery wD >omici"e (%&&1)............................................................................................................................................71
0o33ery wD >omici"e; Special Comple/ Crime (1996) ........................................................................................................71
0o33ery wD 2ntimi"ation #s9 Theft (%&&%) ...........................................................................................................................71
0o33ery wD 0ape (1999) .................................................................................................................................................71
0o33ery wD 0ape; Conspiracy (%&&) ...............................................................................................................................71
0o33ery; >omici"e; (rson (1996).....................................................................................................................................72
0o33ery; 0ape (199*).....................................................................................................................................................72
Theft (199-) ...................................................................................................................................................................72
Theft (%&&1) ...................................................................................................................................................................73
8
of
86
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%) ............................................................................................................................................73
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%) ............................................................................................................................................73
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&6) ............................................................................................................................................73
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (199-) ....................................................................................................................................73
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (%&&&) ....................................................................................................................................74
'surpation of 0eal 0ights (1996)......................................................................................................................................74
CRIMES AGAINST C7ASTITY....................................................................................................74
(cts of Lasci#iousness #s9 'n:ust $e/ation (199) .............................................................................................................74
("ultery (%&&%)...............................................................................................................................................................74
Concu3inage (199) .......................................................................................................................................................74
Concu3inage (%&&%) .......................................................................................................................................................75
'n:ust $e/ation #s9 (ct of Lasci#iousness (%&&6)...............................................................................................................75
CRIMES AGAINST T7E CI6IL STATUS O4 PERSONS........................................................75
Aigamy (199)................................................................................................................................................................75
Aigamy (1996)................................................................................................................................................................75
Aigamy (%&&)................................................................................................................................................................75
Aigamy; Prescripti#e Perio" (1996)...................................................................................................................................76
Simulation of Airth @ Chil" TrafficGing (%&&%) .....................................................................................................................76
CRIMES AGAINST 7ONOR.........................................................................................................76
Li3el (%&&%)....................................................................................................................................................................76
Li3el (%&&1)....................................................................................................................................................................76
Li3el (%&&6)....................................................................................................................................................................77
Slan"er (19--) ...............................................................................................................................................................77
Slan"er (1996) ...............................................................................................................................................................77
Slan"er 3y 5ee" #s9 8altreatment (199 ).........................................................................................................................77
Slan"er #s9 Criminal Con#ersation (%&&) .........................................................................................................................77
MISCELLANEOUS.........................................................................................................................78
Corpus 5elicti (%&&1) ......................................................................................................................................................78
Corpus 5elicti; 5efinition @ +lements (%&&&) .....................................................................................................................78
+ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (1996) .....................................................................................................................................78
+ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (%&&1) .....................................................................................................................................78
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS...............................................................................................................79
(nti,Carnapping (ct; Carnapping wD >omici"e (199-) ........................................................................................................79
(nti,Graft @ Corrupt Practices , 0( 1&19 (199*) ................................................................................................................79
(nti,>aHing law I 0( -&9 (%&&%)....................................................................................................................................80
C>2L5 (A'S+; 0( *61& (%&&) ......................................................................................................................................80
Chil" (3use; 0( *61& (%&&6)...........................................................................................................................................80
5angerous 5rug (ct4 Plea,Aargaining (%&&6) ....................................................................................................................80
5angerous 5rugs (ct (199-)............................................................................................................................................80
5angerous 5rugs (ct (%&&6)............................................................................................................................................81
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6%6); 8arGe" 8oney (%&&&)..........................................................................................................81
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6%6); Plea Aargaining (199-) ........................................................................................................81
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Consummation of Sale (1996).........................................................................................................82
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Criminal 2ntent to Posses (%&&%)......................................................................................................82
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Plea,Aargaining (%&&)...................................................................................................................82
>ighway 0o33ery (%&&1) .................................................................................................................................................82
2llegal .ishing , P5 *& (1996) .........................................................................................................................................82
2llegal Possession of .irearms I 0( -%9 (199-) ...............................................................................................................83
2llegal Possession of .irearms @ (mmunitions (%&&&) ........................................................................................................83
P5 6 @ 0( 6*11 @ 2n"irect Ari3ery (%&&6) .......................................................................................................................83
P5 6 (199)..................................................................................................................................................................83
P5 6 (199*)..................................................................................................................................................................84
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A
(1994-2006)
9
of
86
Plun"er un"er 0( *&-&; Prescripti#e Perio" (1991)............................................................................................................84
09(9 <o9 916& (nti,8oney Laun"ering (ct (%&&6) ..............................................................................................................84
0a 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (1999) ...........................................................................................................................84
0( 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (%&&&)...........................................................................................................................84
0( 1&19; Pu3lic =fficer (%&&1).........................................................................................................................................85
0a 6*11; Co#erage (%&&1) ..............................................................................................................................................85
0( *1-,+conomic Sa3otage; 2llegal 0ecruitment (%&&) ...................................................................................................85
0( *61& I Chil" +/ploitation (%&&6) .................................................................................................................................86
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
General Principles; Schools of thought in Criminal Law
(1996)
1} What are the diferent schools of thought
or theories in Criminal Law and describe
each briefy. 2) To what theory does our
e!ised "enal Code belong#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 There are two schools of thought in
Criminal Law$ and these are %a) the
CL&''(C&L T)*+,$ which sim-ly means
that the basis of criminal liabilities is
human free will$ and the -ur-ose of the
-enalty is retribution which must be
-ro-ortional to the gra!ity of the ofense.
and %b) the "+'(T(/('T T)*+,$ which
considers man as a social being and his
acts are attributable not 0ust to his will but
to other forces of society. &s such$
-unishment is not the solution$ as he is not
entirely to be blamed. law and
0uris-rudence should not be the yardstic1
in the im-osition of sanction$ instead the
underlying reasons would be in2uired into.
2 We follow the classical school of thought
although some -ro!isions of eminently
-ositi!ist in tendencies$ li1e -unishment of
im-ossible crime$ 3u!enile circumstances$
are incor-orated in our Code.
General Principles; Territoriality (199)
&be$ married to Li4a$ contracted another
marriage with Connie in 'inga-ore.
Thereafter$ &be and Connie returned to the
"hili--ines and li!ed as husband and wife in
the hometown of &be in Calamba$ Laguna. 1)
Can &be be -rosecuted for bigamy#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) 5o$ &be may not be -rosecuted for bigamy
since the bigamous marriage was contracted
or solemni4ed in 'inga-ore$ hence such
!iolation is not one of those where the
e!ised "enal Code$ under &rt. 2 thereof$
may be a--lied e6traterritorially. The general
rule on territoriality of criminal law go!erns
the situation.
General Principles; Territoriality; !uris"iction o#er
$essel (%&&&)
&fter drin1ing one %1) case of 'an 7iguel
beer and ta1ing two -lates of 8-ulutan8$
9inoy$ a :ili-ino seaman$ stabbed to death
'io 7y$ a 'inga-orean seaman$ aboard 7;/
8"rincess of the "aci<c8$ an o!erseas !essel
which was sailing in the 'outh China 'ea.
The !essel$ although "anamanian registered$
is owned by Lucio 'y$ a rich :ili-ino
businessman. When 7;/ 8"rincess of the
"aci<c8 reached a "hili--ine "ort at Cebu
City$ the Ca-tain of the !essel turned o!er
the assailant 9inoy to the "hili--ine
authorities. &n information for homicide was
<led against 9inoy in the egional Trial
Court of Cebu City. )e mo!ed to 2uash the
information for lac1 of 0urisdiction. (f you
were the 3udge$ will you grant the motion#
Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
10
of 86
,es$ the 7otion to ?uash the (nformation
should be granted. The "hili--ine court has
no 0urisdiction o!er the crime committed
since it was committed on the high seas or
outside of "hili--ine territory and on board
a !essel not registered or licensed in the
"hili--ines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614)
(t is the registration of the !essel in
accordance with the laws of the "hili--ines$
not the citi4enshi- of her owner$ which
ma1es it a "hili--ine shi-. The !essel being
registered in "anama$ the laws of "anama
go!ern while it is in the high seas.
'se of (liases; )hen (llowe" (%&&6)
When can a :ili-ino citi4en residing in this
country use an alias legally# @i!e A
instances. %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 "seudonym for literary -ur-oses.
2 Bse of aliases in cinema and tele!ision
entertainment.
3 (n athletics and s-orts acti!ities %&.
CDE=).
4 Bnder the witness -rotection -rogram
a -erson may ado-t a diferent identity
%&. CFE1).
5 When he has been ba-ti4ed or
customarily 1nown by such alias.
6 When authori4ed by a com-etent court
%C&. 5o. 1G2$ as amended by &.
CDE=).
7 When -ro-erly indicated in a
Certi<cate of Candidacy %+mnibus
*lection Code).
4ELONIES
Conspiracy (199*)
& had a grudge against :. Heciding to 1ill :$
& and his friends$ 9$ C$ and H$ armed
themsel!es with 1ni!es and -roceeded to the
house of :$ ta1ing a ta6icab for the -ur-ose.
&bout 2D meters from their destination$ the
grou- alighted and after instructing *$ the
dri!er$ to wait$ tra!eled on foot to the house
of :. 9 -ositioned himself at a distance as
the grou-Is loo1out. C and H stood guard
outside the house. 9efore & could enter the
house$ H left the scene without the
1nowledge of the others. & stealthily entered
the house and stabbed :. : ran to the street
but was bloc1ed by C$ forcing him to fee
towards another direction. (mmediately after
& had stabbed :$ & also stabbed @ who was
!isiting :. Thereafter$ & e6iled from the
house and$ together with 9 and C$ returned
to the waiting ta6icab and motored away. @
died. : sur!i!ed. Who are liable for the
death of @ and the -hysical in0uries of :#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& alone should be held liable for the death
of @. The ob0ect of the cons-iracy of &. 9$ C$
and H was to 1ill : only. 'ince 9$ C$ and H
did not 1now of the stabbing of @ by &$ they
cannot be held criminally therefor. *$ the
dri!er$ cannot be also held liable for the
death of @ since the former was com-letely
unaware of said 1illing.
:or the -hysical in0uries of :$ &$ 9 and C.
should be held liable therefore. *!en if it was
only & who actually stabbed and caused
-hysical in0uries to @$ 9 and C are
nonetheless liable for cons-iring with & and
for contributing -ositi!e acts which led to
the reali4ation of a common criminal intent.
9 -ositioned himself as a loo1out$ while C
bloc1ed :Is esca-e. H$ howe!er$ although
-art of the cons-iracy$ cannot be held liable
because he left the scene before & could
enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. &lthough he was earlier -art of the
cons-iracy$ he did not -ersonally -artici-ate
in the e6ecution 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 dri!er$ cannot be
also held liable for the infiction of -hysical
in0uries u-on : because there is no showing
that he had 1nowledge of the -lan to 1ill :.
Conspiracy; (#oi"ance of Greater +#il (%&&)
99 and CC$ both armed with 1ni!es$
attac1ed :T. The !ictimIs son$ 'T$ u-on
seeing the attac1$ drew his gun but was
-re!ented from shooting the attac1ers by
&&$ who gra--led with him for -ossession of
the gun. :T died from 1nife wounds. &&$ 99
and CC were charged with murder.
(n his defense$ && in!o1ed the 0ustifying
circumstance of a!oidance of greater e!il or
in0ury$ contending that by -re!enting 'T
from shooting 99 and CC$ he merely a!oided
a greater e!il. Will &&Is defense -ros-er#
eason briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ &&Is defense will not -ros-er because
ob!iously there was a cons-iracy among 99$
CC and &&$ such that the -rinci-le that
when there is a cons-iracy$ the act of one is
the act of all$ shall go!ern. The act of 'T$ the
!ictimIs son$ a--ears to be a legitimate
defense of relati!es. hence$ 0usti<ed as a
defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by 99 and CC. 'TIs act to defend
his fatherIs life$ cannot be regarded as an
e!il inasmuch as it is$ in the eyes of the law$
a lawful act.
What && did was to sto- a lawful defense$
not greater e!il$ to allow 99 and CC achie!e
their criminal ob0ecti!e of stabbing :T.
Conspiracy; Co,Conspirator (199-)
3uan and &rturo de!ised a -lan to murder
3oel. (n a narrow alley near 3oelIs house$
3uan will hide behind the big lam--ost and
shoot 3oel when the latter -asses through on
his way to wor1. &rturo will come from the
other end of the alley and simultaneously
shoot 3oel from behind. +n the a--ointed
day$ &rturo was a--rehended by the
authorities before reaching the alley. When
3uan shot 3oel as -lanned$ he was unaware
that &rturo was arrested earlier. Hiscuss the
criminal liability of &rturo$ if any. J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
11 of 86
&rturo$ being one of the two who de!ised the
-lan to murder 3oel$ thereby becomes a coL
-rinci-al by direct cons-iracy. What is
needed only is an o!ert act and both will
incur criminal liability. &rturoIs liability as a
cons-irator arose from his -artici-ation in
0ointly de!ising the criminal -lan with 3uan$
to 1ill 3ose. &nd it was -ursuant to that
cons-iracy that 3uan 1illed 3oel. The
cons-iracy here is actual$ not by inference
only. The o!ert act was done -ursuant to that
cons-iracy whereof &rturo is coLcons-irator.
There being a cons-iracy$ the act of one is
the act of all. &rturo$ therefore$ should be
liable as a coLcons-irator but the -enalty on
him may be that of an accom-lice only
(People vs. Nierra, 96 SC! 1" People #s.
$e%ra&o, 114 SC! 33') because he was
not able to actually -artici-ate in the
shooting of 3oel$ ha!ing been a--rehended
before reaching the -lace where the crime
was committed.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
&rturo is not liable because he was not able
to -artici-ate in the 1illing of 3oel.
Cons-iracy itself is not -unishable unless
e6-ressly -ro!ided by law and this is not
true in the case of 7urder. & coLcons-irator
must -erform an o!ert act -ursuant to the
cons-iracy.
Conspiracy; Common .elonious Purpose (199)
&t about FMAD in the e!ening$ while Hino and
afy were wal1ing along "adre :aura
'treet$ 7anila. 3ohnny hit them with a roc1
in0uring Hino at the bac1. afy a--roached
Hino$ but suddenly$ 9obby$ 'te!e$ Hanny and
5onoy surrounded the duo. Then 9obby
stabbed Hino. 'te!e$ Hanny$ 5onoy and
3ohnny 1e-t on hitting Hino and afy with
roc1s. &s a result. Hino died$ 9obby$ 'te!e$
Hanny$ 5onoy and 3ohnny were charged with
homicide. (s there cons-iracy in this case#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ there is cons-iracy among the ofenders$
as manifested by their concerted actions
against the !ictims$ demonstrating a
common felonious -ur-ose of assaulting the
!ictims. The e6istence of the cons-iracy can
be inferred or deduced from the manner the
ofenders acted in commonly attac1ing Hino
and afy with roc1s$ thereby demonstrating
a unity of criminal design to infict harm on
their !ictims.
Conspiracy; Comple/ Crime with 0ape (1996)
3ose$ Homingo$ 7anolo$ and :ernando$
armed with bolos$ at about one oIcloc1 in the
morning$ robbed a house at a desolate -lace
where Hanilo$ his wife$ and three daughters
were li!ing. While the four were in the
-rocess of ransac1ing HaniloIs house$
:ernando$ noticing that one of HaniloIs
daughters was trying to get away$ ran after
her and <nally caught u- with her in a
thic1et somewhat distant from the house.
:ernando$ before bringing bac1 the daughter
to the house$ ra-ed her <rst. Thereafter$ the
four carted away the belongings of Hanilo
and his family. a) What crime did 3ose$
Homingo$ 7anolo and
:ernando commit# *6-lain.
b) 'u--ose$ after the robbery$ the four
too1 turns in ra-ing the three daughters of
Hanilo inside the latterIs house$ but before
they left$ they 1illed the whole family to
-re!ent identi<cation$ what crime did the
four commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%a) 3ose$ Homingo$ and 7anolo committed
obbery$ while :ernando committed
com-le6 crime of obbery with a-e$
Cons-iracy can be inferred from the manner
the ofenders committed the robbery but the
ra-e was committed by :ernando at a -lace
8distant from the house8 where the robbery
was committed$ not in the -resence of the
other cons-irators. )ence$ :ernando alone
should answer for the ra-e$ rendering him
liable for the s-ecial com-le6 crime. (People
vs. Ca&t#ria et. al, (.. 1)849), ** +#&e
199',
b) The crime would be obbery with
)omicide ... %im-liedM there is still
cons-iracy)
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)
& and 9$ both store 0anitors$ -lanned to 1ill
their em-loyer C at midnight and ta1e the
money 1e-t in the cash register. & and 9
together drew the s1etch of the store$ where
they 1new C would be slee-ing$ and -lanned
the se2uence of their attac1. 'hortly before
midnight$ & and 9 were ready to carry out
the -lan. When & was about to lift CIs
mos2uito net to thrust his dagger$ a -olice
car with sirens blaring -assed by. 'cared$ 9
ran out of the store and fed$ while & went
on to stab C to death$ -ut the money in the
bag$ and ran outside to loo1 for 9. The latter
was nowhere in sight. Bn1nown to him$ 9
had already left the -lace. What was the
-artici-ation and corres-onding criminal
liability of each$ if any# easons. E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There was an e6-ressed cons-iracy between
& and 9 to 1ill C and ta1e the latterIs money.
The -lanned 1illing and ta1ing of the money
a--ears to be intimately related as
com-onent crimes$ hence a s-ecial com-le6
crime of robbery with homicide. The
cons-iracy being e6-ressed$ not 0ust im-lied$
& and 9 are bound as coLcons-irators after
they ha!e -lanned and agreed on the
se2uence of their attac1 e!en 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 go!erns them. (n fact$ & and 9 were
already in the store to carry out their
criminal -lan.
That 9 ran out of the store and fed u-on
hearing the sirens of the -olice car$ is not
s-ontaneous desistance but fight to e!ade
a--rehension. (t would be diferent if 9 then
tried to sto- & from continuing with the
commission of the crime. he did not. 'o the
act of & in -ursuing the commission of the
crime which both he and 9 designed$
-lanned$ and commenced to commit$ would
also be the act of 9 because of their
e6-ressed cons-iracy. 9oth are liable for the
com-osite crime of robbery with homicide.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
12 of 86
& shall incur full criminal liability for the
crime of robbery with homicide$ but 9 shall
not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. 9Is s-ontaneous desistance$ made
before all acts of e6ecution are -erformed$ is
e6cul-atory. Cons-iracy to rob and 1ill is not
-er se -unishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by
remorse or good moti!e. (t is enough that
the discontinuance comes from the -erson
who has begun the commission of the crime
but before all acts of e6ecution are
-erformed. & -erson who has began the
commission of a crime but desisted$ is
absol!ed from criminal liability as a reward
to one$ who ha!ing set foot on the !erge of
crime$ heeds the call of his conscience and
returns to the -ath of righteousness.
Conspiracy; .light to +#a"e (pprehension (%&&1)
& and 9$ both store 0anitors$ -lanned to 1ill
their em-loyer C at midnight and ta1e the
money 1e-t in the cash register. & and 9
together drew the s1etch of the store$ where
they 1new C would be slee-ing$ and -lanned
the se2uence of their attac1. 'hortly before
midnight$ & and 9 were ready to carry out
the -lan. When & was about to lift CIs
mos2uito net to thrust his dagger$ a -olice
car with sirens blaring -assed by. 'cared$ 9
ran out of the store and fed$ while & went
on to stab C to death$ -ut the money in the
bag$ and ran outside to loo1 for 9. The latter
was nowhere in sight. Bn1nown to him$ 9
had already left the -lace. What was the
-artici-ation and corres-onding criminal
liability of each$ if any# easons. E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There was an e6-ressed cons-iracy between
& and 9 to 1ill C and ta1e the latterIs money.
The -lanned 1illing and ta1ing of the money
a--ears to be intimately related as
com-onent crimes$ hence a s-ecial com-le6
crime of robbery with homicide. The
cons-iracy being e6-ressed$ not 0ust im-lied$
& and 9 are bound as coLcons-irators after
they ha!e -lanned and agreed on the
se2uence of their attac1 e!en 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 go!erns them. (n fact$ & and 9 were
already in the store to carry out their
criminal -lan.
That 9 ran out of the store and fed u-on
hearing the sirens of the -olice car$ is not
s-ontaneous desistance but fight to e!ade
a--rehension. (t would be diferent if 9 then
tried to sto- & from continuing with the
commission of the crime. he did not. 'o the
act of & in -ursuing the commission of the
crime which both he and 9 designed$
-lanned$ and commenced to commit$ would
also be the act of 9 because of their
e6-ressed cons-iracy. 9oth are liable for the
com-osite crime of robbery with homicide.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
& shall incur full criminal liability for the
crime of robbery with homicide$ but 9 shall
not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. 9Is s-ontaneous desistance$ made
before all acts of e6ecution are -erformed$ is
e6cul-atory. Cons-iracy to rob and 1ill is not
-er se -unishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by
remorse or good moti!e. (t is enough that
the discontinuance comes from the -erson
who has begun the commission of the crime
but before all acts of e6ecution are
-erformed. & -erson who has began the
commission of a crime but desisted$ is
absol!ed from criminal liability as a reward
to one$ who ha!ing set foot on the !erge 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#
JA>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The doctrine of im-lied cons-iracy holds two
or more -ersons -artici-ating in the
commission of a crime collecti!ely
res-onsible and liable as coLcons-irators
although absent any agreement to that
efect$ when they act in concert$
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a
common -ur-ose or ob0ecti!e. The e6istence
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; +ffects (%&&1)
'tate the conce-t of 8im-lied cons-iracy8
and gi!e its legal efects. G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&n 8(7"L(*H C+5'"(&C,8 is one which is
only inferred or deduced from the manner
the -artici-ants in the commission of crime
carried out its e6ecution. Where the
ofenders acted in concert in the commission
of the crime$ meaning that their acts are
coordinated or synchroni4ed in a way
indicati!e that they are -ursuing a common
criminal ob0ecti!e$ they shall be deemed to
be acting in cons-iracy and their criminal
liability shall be collecti!e$ not indi!idual.
The legal efects of an 8im-lied cons-iracy8
areM a) 5ot all those who are -resent at the
scene of the crime will be considered cons-irators. b)
+nly those who -artici-ated by criminal
acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as
co cons-irators. and c) 7ere ac2uiescence to
or a--ro!al of the commission
of the crime$ without any act of criminal
-artici-ation$ shall not render one criminally
liable as coLcons-irator.
Criminal Lia3ility4 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&)
&$ 9$ C and H$ all armed with armalites$
-roceeded to the house of N. ,$ a neighbor of
N$ who ha--ened to be -assing by$ -ointed
to the four cul-rits the room that N
occu-ied. The four cul-rits -e--ered the
room with bullets. Bnsatis<ed$ & e!en threw
a hand grenade that totally destroyed NIs
room. )owe!er$ un1nown to the four
cul-rits$ N was not inside the room and
nobody was hit or in0ured during the
(ncident. &re &$ 9$ C and H liable for any
crime# *6-lain. %A>)
13 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. &$ 9. C and H are liable for destructi!e
arson because of the destruction of the room
of N with the use of an e6-losi!e$ the hand
grenade. Liability for an im-ossible crime is
to be im-osed only if the act committed
would not constitute any other crime under
the e!ised "enal Code. &lthough the facts
in!ol!ed are -arallel to the case of -&to% vs.
Co#rt o. !ppeals (*1' SC! '*)$ where it
was ruled that the liability of the ofender
was for an im-ossible crime$ no hand
grenade was used in said case$ which
constitutes a more serious crime though
diferent from what was intended$
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct of Scaring (1996)
&le6ander$ an esca-ed con!ict$ ran amuc1 on
board a 'u-erlines 9us bound for 7anila
from 9icol and 1illed ten %1D) -ersons.
Terri<ed by the incident$ Carol and
9en0amin who are -assengers of the bus$
0um-ed out of the window and while lying
unconscious after hitting the -a!ement of
the road$ were ran o!er and crushed to
death by a fast mo!ing Hesert :o6 bus
tailing the 'u-erlines 9us.
Can &le6ander be held liable for the death
of Carol and 9en0amin although he was
com-letely unaware that the two 0um-ed
out of the bus# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ &le6ander can be held liable for the
death of Carol and 9en0amin because of
felonious act of running was the -ro6imate
cause of the !ictimIs 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 a!oid such danger and in the -rocess$
sustains in0uries or dies$ the -erson
committing the felonious act is res-onsible
for such in0uries or death.
(US vs. /al%e0, 41 Phil, 1491" People vs. !pra, *1
SC! 1)31.)
Criminal Lia3ility4 .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1996)
/icente hac1ed &nacleto with a bolo but the
latter was able to -arry it with his hand$
causing u-on him a twoLinch wound on his
right -alm. /icente was not able to hac1
&nacleto further because three -olicemen
arri!ed and threatened to shoot /icente if
he did not dro- his bolo. /icente was
accordingly charged by the -olice at the
-rosecutorIs ofice for attem-ted homicide.
TwentyL<!e days later$ while the -reliminary
in!estigation was in -rogress$ &nacleto was
rushed to the hos-ital because of sym-toms
of tetanus infection on the twoLinch wound
inficted by /icente. &nacleto died the
following day. Can /icente be e!entually
charged with homicide for the death of
&nacleto# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ /icente may be charged of homicide for
the death of &nacleto$ unless the tetanus
infection which de!elo-ed twenty <!e days
later$ was brought about by an eficient
su-er!ening cause. /icenteIs felonious act of
causing a twoLinch wound on &nacletoIs right
-alm may still be regarded as the -ro6imate
cause of the latterIs death because without
such wound$ no tetanus infection could
de!elo- from the !ictimIs right -alm$ and
without
such tetanus infection the !ictim would not
ha!e died with it.
Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (%&&&)
1 What is an im-ossible crime#
%2>)
2 (s an im-ossible crime really a
crime# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 &n im-ossible crime is an act which would
be an ofense against -erson or -ro-erty$
were if not for the inherent im-ossibility
of its accom-lishment or on account of the
em-loyment of inade2uate or inefectual
means %&rt. G$ -ar. 2$ "C)
2 5o$ an im-ossible crime is not really a
crime. (t is only soLcalled because the act
gi!es rise to criminal liability. 9ut actually$
no felony is committed. The accused is to
be -unished for his criminal tendency or
-ro-ensity although no crime was
committed.
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&1)
7ary0ane had two suitors L :eli-e and Cesar.
'he did not o-enly show her -reference but
on two occasions$ acce-ted CesarIs
in!itation to concerts by egine and "o-s.
:eli-e was a wor1ing student and could only
as1 7ary to see a mo!ie which was declined.
:eli-e felt insulted and made -lans to get
e!en with Cesar by scaring him of somehow.
+ne day$ he entered CesarIs room in their
boarding house and -laced a rubber sna1e
which a--eared to be real in CesarIs
bac1-ac1. 9ecause Cesar had a wea1 heart$
he sufered a heart attac1 u-on o-ening his
bac1-ac1 and seeing the sna1e. Cesar died
without regaining consciousness. The -olice
in!estigation resulted in -in-ointing :eli-e
as the cul-rit and he was charged with
)omicide for CesarIs death. (n his defense$
:eli-e claimed that he did not 1now about
CesarIs wea1 heart and that he only
intended to -lay a -ractical 0o1e on Cesar. (s
:eli-e liable for the death of Cesar or will
his defense -ros-er# Why# %=>}
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ :eli-e is liable for the death of Cesar
but he shall be gi!en the bene<t of the
mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so gra!e a wrong as that
which was committed %&rt. 1A$ -ar. A$ "C).
When :eli-e intruded into CesarIs room
without the latterIs consent and too1 liberty
with the letterIs bac1-ac1 where he -laced
the rubber sna1e. :eli-e was already
committing a felony. &nd any act done by
him while committing a felony is no less
wrongful$ considering that they were -art of
8-lans to get e!en with Cesar8.
:eli-eIs claim that he intended only 8to -lay
a -ractical 0o1e on Cesar8 does not
-ersuade$ considering that they are not
friends but in fact ri!als in courting
7ary0ane. This case is -arallel to the case of
People vs. P#2a3$ et al.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5o$ :eli-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. 9ecause the act which
14 of 86
caused the death of Cesar is not a crime$ no
criminal liability may arise therefrom.
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct of Scaring (%&&6)
9elle saw @aston stealing the -ri4ed coc1 of
a neighbor and re-orted him to the -olice.
Thereafter$ @aston$ while dri!ing a car saw
9elle crossing the street. (ncensed that
9elle had re-orted him$ @aston decided to
scare her by trying to ma1e it a--ear that
he was about to run her o!er. )e re!!ed the
engine of his car and dro!e towards her but
he a--lied the bra1es. 'ince the road was
sli--ery at that time$ the !ehicle s1idded
and hit 9elle causing her death. Was gaston
criminally liable# What is the liability of
@aston# Why# %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ @aston is liable for 9elleIs death
because e!en though @aston has no intent to
1ill 9elle rather 0ust to scare 9elle. 8To
scare8 does not indicate intent to 1ill.
)owe!er$ under &rt. G of the e!ised "enal
Code$ -ro!ides in -art that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any -erson committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be
diferent from that which he intended. (n
other words$ 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 a!oid
such danger and in the -rocess$ sustains
in0uries or dies$ the -erson committing the
felonious act is res-onsible for such in0uries
or death. (US vs. /al%e0, 41 Phil, 1491"
People vs. !pra, *1 SC! 1)31.)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
,es$ @aston is liable for 9elleIs death
because by his acts of re!!ing the engine of
his car and dri!ing towards 9elle is
felonious$ and such felonious act was the
-ro6imate cause of the !ehicle to s1id and
hit 9elle$ resulting in the latterIs death.
'tated otherwise$ the death of 9elle was the
direct$ natural and logical conse2uence of
@astonIs felonious act. (People v. !rpa, *1
SC! 1)31).
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; 2mme"iate Cause
(%&&1)
The conduct of wife & aroused the ire of her
husband 9. (ncensed with anger almost
beyond his control$ 9 could not hel- but
infict -hysical in0uries on &. 7oments after
9 started hitting & with his <sts$ & suddenly
com-lained of se!ere chest -ains. 9$
reali4ing that & was indeed in serious
trouble$ immediately brought her to the
hos-ital. Hes-ite eforts to alle!iate &Is
-ains$ she died of heart attac1. (t turned out
that she had been sufering from a lingering
heart ailment. What crime$ if any$ could 9 be
held guilty of# E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9 could be held liable for -arricide because
his act of hitting his wife with <st blows and
therewith inficting -hysical in0uries on her$
is felonious. & -erson committing a felonious
act incurs criminal liability although the
wrongful conse2uence is diferent from what
he intended %&rt. G$ -ar. 1$ e!ised "enal
Code).
&lthough & died of heart attac1$ the said
attac1 was generated by 9Is felonious act of
hitting her with his <sts. 'uch felonious act
was the immediate cause of the heart attac1$
ha!ing materially contributed to and
hastened &Is death. *!en though 9 may ha!e
acted without intent to 1ill his wife$ lac1 of
such intent is of no moment when the !ictim
dies. )owe!er$ 9 may be gi!en the mitigating
circumstance of ha!ing acted without
intention to commit so gra!e a wrong as that
committed %&rt. 1A$ -ar. A$ e!ised "enal
Code).
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199)
9hey elo-ed with 'cott. Whereu-on$ 9heyIs
father$ obin$ and brother$ ustom$ went to
'cottIs house. B-on reaching the house$
ustom in2uired from 'cott about his
sisterIs whereabouts$ while obin shouted
and threatened to 1ill 'cott. The latter then
went downstairs but ustom held his
%'cottIs) waist. 7eanwhile +li!e$ the elder
sister of 'cott$ carrying her twoLmonth old
child$ a--roached ustom and 'cott to
-acify them. +li!e attem-ted to remo!e
ustomIs hand from 'cottIs waist. 9ut
ustom -ulled +li!eIs hand causing her to
fall o!er her baby. The baby then died
moments later. (s ustom criminally liable
for the death of the child#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ ustom is criminally liable for the death
of the child because his felonious act was the
-ro6imate cause of such death. (t was
ustomIs act of -ulling +li!eIs hand which
caused the latter to fall on her baby. )ad (t
not been for said act of ustom$ which is
undoubtedly felonious %at least slight
coercion) there was no cause for +li!e to fall
o!er her baby. (n short$ ustomIs felonious
act is the cause of the e!il caused. &ny
-erson -erforming a felonious act is
criminally liable for the direct$ natural and
logical conse2uence thereof although
diferent from what he intended (!rt. 4, par.
1, FC" People vs, P#2a3, et al, ( No.
143*4, Nov. 18, 1988).
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (199*)
While the crew of a steamer -re-ared to
raise anchor at the "asig i!er$ &$ e!idently
im-atient with the -rogress of wor1$ began
to use abusi!e language against the men. 9$
one of the members of the crew$
remonstrated saying that they could wor1
best if they were not insulted. & too1 9Is
attitude as a dis-lay of insubordination and$
rising in a rage$ mo!ed towards 9 wielding a
big 1nife and threatening to stab 9. &t the
instant when & was only a few feet from 9$
the latter$ a--arently belie!ing himself to be
in great and immediate -eril$ threw himself
into the water$ disa--eared beneath the
surface$ and drowned. 7ay & be held
criminally liable for the death of 9#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. & can be held criminally liable for the
death of 9$ &rticle G of the e!ised "enal
Code -ro!ides in -art that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any -erson committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be
diferent from that which he intended. (n
U.S. vs. /al%e0 41 Phil. 491. where the !ictim
who was threatened by the accused with a
1nife$ 0um-ed into the ri!er but because
15 of 86
of the strong current or because he did not
1now how to swim$ he drowned$ the
'u-reme Court afirmed the con!iction for
homicide of the accused because$ if a -erson
against whom a criminal assault is directed
belie!es himself to be in danger of death or
great bodily harm and in order to esca-e
0um-s into the water$ im-elled by the
instinct of selfL-reser!ation$ the assailant is
res-onsible for the homicide in case death
results by drowning.
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (1999)
Huring the robbery in a dwelling house$ one
of the cul-rits ha--ened to <re his gun
u-ward in the ceiling without meaning to
1ill anyone. The owner of the house who was
hiding thereat was hit and 1illed as a result.
The defense theori4ed that the 1illing 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#
%G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ ( will not sustain the defense. The act
being felonious and the -ro6imate cause of
the !ictimIs death$ the ofender is liable
therefore although it may not be intended or
diferent from what he intended. The
ofender shall be -rosecuted for the
com-osite crime of robbery with homicide$
whether the 1illing was intentional or
accidental$ as long as the 1illing was on
occasion of the robbery.
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&1)
Luis Cru4 was dee-ly hurt when his ofer of
lo!e was re0ected by his girlfriend 7ari!ella
one afternoon when he !isited her. When he
left her house$ he wal1ed as if he was
slee-wal1ing so much so that a teenage
snatcher was able to grab his cell -hone and
fee without being chased by Luis. &t the
ne6t LT station$ he boarded one of the
coaches bound for 9aclaran. While seated$
he ha--ened to read a news-a-er left on the
seat and noticed that the headlines were
about the sin1ing of the 'u-er :erry while
on its way to Cebu. )e went o!er 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. )e was
shoc1ed and his mind went blan1 for a few
minutes$ after which he ran amuc1 and$
using his balisong$ started stabbing at the
-assengers who then scam-ered away$ with
three of them 3um-ing out of the train and
landing on the road below. &ll the three
-assengers died later of their in0uries at the
hos-ital. (s Luis liable for the death of the
three -assengers who 0um-ed out of the
mo!ing train# 'tate your reasons. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,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 -ro6imate cause of
said -assengersI 0um-ing out of the train.
hence their deaths.
Bnder &rticle G$ e!ised "enal Code$ any
-erson committing a felony shall incur
criminal liability although the wrongful act
done be diferent from that which he
intended. (n this case$ the death of the three
-assengers was the direct$ natural and
logical conse2uence of LuisI felonious act
which created an immediate sense of danger
in the minds of said -assengers who tried to
a!oid or esca-e from it by 0um-ing out of the
train. (People vs. !rpa, *1 SC! 1431" U.S. vs.
/al%e0, 41 Phil. 491,
Criminal Lia3ility; .elonious (ct; Pro/imate Cause (%&&)
+n his way home from ofice$ OO rode in a
0ee-ney. 'ubse2uently$ NN boarded the same
0ee-ney. B-on reaching a secluded s-ot in
?C$ NN -ulled out a grenade from his bag
and announced a holdLu-. )e told OO to
surrender his watch$ wallet and cell-hone.
:earing for his life$ OO 0um-ed out of the
!ehicle. 9ut as he fell$ his head hit the
-a!ement$ causing his instant death . (s NN
liable for OOIs death# *6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ NN is liable for OOIs death because his
acts of -ulling out a grenade and
announcing a holdLu-$ cou-led with a
demand for the watch$ wallet and cell-hone
of OO is felonious$ and such felonious act
was the -ro6imate cause of OOIs 0um-ing out
of the 0ee-ney$ resulting in the latterIs
death. 'tated otherwise$ the death of OO
was the direct$ natural and logical
conse2uence of NNIs felonious act which
created an immediate sense of danger in the
mind of OO who tried to a!oid such danger
by 0um-ing out of the 0ee-ney (People v. !rpa,
*1 SC! 1)31).
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crime (%&&)
+O and ,+ were both courting their coL
em-loyee$ 'B*. 9ecause of their bitter
ri!alry$ +O decided to get rid of ,+ by
-oisoning him. +O -oured a substance into
,+Is cofee thin1ing it was arsenic. (t turned
out that the substance was white sugar
substitute 1nown as *2ual. 5othing
ha--ened to ,+ after he dran1 the cofee.
What criminal liability did +O incur$ if any#
*6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+O 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 ofense
against -ersons or -ro-erty$ were it not for
the inherent im-ossibility of its
accom-lishment or on account of the
em-loyment of inade2uate or inefectual
means %&rt. G$ -ar. 2$ :C).
(n the -roblem gi!en$ the im-ossibility of
accom-lishing the crime of murder$ a crime
against -ersons$ was due to the em-loyment
of inefectual means which +O thought was
-oison. The law im-utes criminal liability to
the ofender although no crime resulted$
only to su--ress his criminal -ro-ensity
because sub0ecti!ely$ he is a criminal though
ob0ecti!ely$ no crime was committed.
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes (199)
16 of 86
3"$ &ries and andal -lanned to 1ill *lsa$ a
resident of 9arangay "ula$ Laurel$
9atangas. They as1ed the assistance of *lla$
who is familiar with the -lace.
+n &-ril A$ 1FF2$ at about 1DMDD in the
e!ening$ 3"$ &ries and andal$ all armed with
automatic wea-ons$ went to 9arangay "ula.
*lla$ being the guide$ directed her
com-anions to the room in the house of *lsa.
Whereu-on$ 3"$ &ries and andal <red their
guns at her room. :ortunately$ *lsa was not
around as she attended a -rayer meeting
that e!ening in another barangay in Laurel.
3"$ et al$ were charged and con!icted of
attem-ted murder by the egional Trial
Court at Tanauan$ 9atangas.
+n a--eal to the Court of &--eals$ all the
accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
error of <nding them guilty of attem-ted
murder. (f you were the -onente$ how will
you decide the a--eal#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(f ( were the -onente$ ( will set aside the
0udgment con!icting the accused of
attem-ted murder and instead <nd them
guilty of im-ossible crime under &rt. G$ -ar.
2$ "C$ in relation to &rt. =F$ "C. Liability
for im-ossible crime arises not only when
the im-ossibility is legal$ but li1ewise when
it is factual or -hysical im-ossibility$ as in
the case at bar. *lsaIs absence from the
house is a -hysical im-ossibility which
renders the crime intended (nherently
inca-able of accom-lishment. To con!ict the
accused of attem-ted murder would ma1e
&rt. G$ -ar. 2 -ractically useless as all
circumstances which -re!ented the
consummation of the ofense will be treated
as an incident inde-endent of the actorIs will
which is an element of attem-ted or
frustrated felony (-&to% vs. C!, *1' SC!
'*).
Criminal Lia3ility4 2mpossi3le Crimes (199-)
9uddy always resented his classmate$ 3un.
+ne day. 9uddy -lanned to 1ill 3un by mi6ing
-oison in his lunch. 5ot 1nowing where he
can get -oison$ he a--roached another
classmate$ 3erry to whom he disclosed his
e!il -lan. 9ecause he himself harbored
resentment towards 3un$ 3erry ga!e 9uddy a
-oison$ which 9uddy -laced on 3unIs food.
)owe!er$ 3un did not die because$ un1nown
to both 9uddy and 3erry$ the -oison was
actually -owdered mil1. 1$ What crime or
crimes$ if any$ did 3erry and 9uddy commit#
JA>K
2. 'u--ose that$ because of his se!ere
allergy to -owdered mil1$ 3un had to be
hos-itali4ed for 1D days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the <rst 2uestion be
the same# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 3erry and 9uddy are liable for the soL
called 8im-ossible crime8 because$ with
intent to 1ill$ they tried to -oison 3un and
thus -er-etrate 7urder$ a crime against
-ersons. 3un was not -oisoned only because
the wouldLbe 1illers were unaware that
what they mi6ed with the food of 3un
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q &
A (1994-2006)
was -owdered mil1$ not -oison. (n short$ the
act done with criminal intent by 3erry and
9uddy$ would ha!e constituted a crime
against -ersons were it not for the inherent
ineficacy of the means em-loyed. Criminal
liability is incurred by them although no
crime resulted$ because their act of trying to
-oison 3un is criminal.
2. 5o$ the answer would not be the same as
abo!e. 3erry and 9uddy would be liable
instead for less serious -hysical in0uries for
causing the hos-itali4ation and medical
attendance for 1D days to 3un. Their act of
mi6ing with the food eaten by 3un the matter
which re2uired such medical attendance$
committed with criminal intent$ renders
them liable for the resulting in0ury.
Criminal Lia3ility; 2mpossi3le Crimes; 7i"napping (%&&&)
Carla$ G years old$ was 1idna--ed by
*nri2ue$ the tricycle dri!er -aid by her
-arents to bring and fetch her to and from
school. *nri2ue wrote a ransom note
demanding "=DD$DDD.DD from CarlaIs
-arents in e6change for CarlaIs freedom.
*nri2ue sent the ransom note by mail.
)owe!er$ before the ransom note was
recei!ed by CarlaIs -arents$ *nri2ueIs
hideout was disco!ered by the -olice. Carla
was rescued while *nri2ue was arrested and
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom
note was not recei!ed by CarlaIs -arents$ the
in!estigating -rosecutor merely <led a case
of 8(m-ossible Crime to Commit Pidna--ing8
against *nri2ue. (s the -rosecutor correct#
Why# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the -rosecutor is not correct in <ling a
case for 8im-ossible crime to commit
1idna--ing8 against *nri2ue. (m-ossible
crimes are limited only to acts which when
-erformed would be a crime against -ersons
or -ro-erty. &s 1idna--ing is a crime against
-ersonal security and not against -ersons or
-ro-erty$ *nri2ue could not ha!e incurred an
8im-ossible crime8 to commit 1idna--ing.
There is thus no im-ossible crime of
1idna--ing.
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (199*)
1 Histinguish between crimes mala in se
and crimes mala -rohibita.
2 7ay an act be malum in se and be$ at the
same time$ malum -rohibitum#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts
committed by dolo or cul-a as de<ned in the
e!ised "enal Code. Lac1 of criminal intent
is a !alid defense$ e6ce-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
!iolations of mere rules of con!enience
designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the afairs of society.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,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 cler1s to include a
!oterIs name in the
17 of 86
registry list of !oters is wrong -er se
because it disenfranchises a !oter of his
right to !ote. (n this regard it is considered
as malum in se. 'ince it is -unished under a
s-ecial law %'ec. 1D1 and 1DA$ e!ised
*lection Code)$ it is considered malum
-rohibitum.
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (1999)
Histinguish 8 mala in se8 from 8 mala
-rohibita8%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n 8mala in se8$ the acts constituting the
crimes are inherently e!il$ bad or wrong$ and
hence in!ol!es the moral traits of the
ofender. while in 8mala -rohibita8$ the acts
constituting the crimes are not inherently
bad$ e!il or wrong but -rohibited and made
-unishable only for -ublic good. &nd because
the moral trait of the ofender is (n!ol!ed in
8mala in se8. 7odifying circumstances$ the
ofenderIs e6tent of -artici-ation in the
crime$ and the degree of accom-lishment of
the crime are ta1en into account in im-osing
the -enaltyM these are not so in 8mala
-rohibita8 where criminal liability arises only
when the acts are consummated.
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1)
9riefy state what essentially distinguishes a
crime mala -rohibita from a crime mala in
se. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n crimes mala -rohibita$ the acts are not by
nature wrong$ e!il or bad. They are
-unished only because there is a law
-rohibiting them for -ublic good$ and thus
good faith or lac1 of criminal intent in doing
the -rohibited act is not a defense.
(n crimes mala in se$ the acts are by nature
wrong$ e!il or bad$ and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the ofender is
in!ol!ed. thus$ good faith or lac1 of criminal
(ntent on the -art of the ofender is a defense$
unless the crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Corres-ondingly$ modifying
circumstances are considered in -unishing the
ofender.
8ala in Se #s9 8ala Prohi3ita (%&&1)
Histinguish$ in their res-ecti!e conce-ts and
legal im-lications$ between crimes mala in
se and crimes mala -rohibits. G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those
where the acts or omissions -enali4ed are
inherently bad$ e!il$ or wrong that they are
almost uni!ersally condemned.
Crimes mala -rohibita are those where the
acts -enali4ed are not inherently bad$ e!il$
or wrong but -rohibited by law for -ublic
good$ -ublic welfare or interest and whoe!er
!iolates the -rohibition are -enali4ed.
In legal implications: (n crimes mala in
se$ good faith or lac1 of criminal intent;
negligence is a defense$ while in crimes
mala -rohibita$ good faith or lac1 of criminal
intent or malice is not a defense. it is
enough that the -rohibition was !oluntarily
!iolated.
&lso$ criminal liability is generally incurred
in crimes mala in se e!en 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.
&lso in crimes mala in se$ mitigating and
aggra!ating 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 e!ised "enal Code.
8ala Prohi3ita; (ctual 2n:ury 0e;uire" (%&&&)
7r. Carlos @abisi$ a customs guard$ and 7r.
ico ,to$ a -ri!ate (ndi!idual$ went to the
ofice of 7r. Hiether +cuarto$ a customs
bro1er$ and re-resented themsel!es as
agents of 7oonglow Commercial Trading$ an
(m-orter of childrenIs clothes and toys. 7r.
@abisi and 7r. ,to engaged 7r. +cuarto to
-re-are and <le with the 9ureau of Customs
the necessary (m-ort *ntry and (nternal
e!enue Heclaration co!ering 7oonglowIs
shi-ment. 7r. @abisi and 7r. ,to submitted
to 7r. +cuarto a -ac1ing list$ a commercial
in!oice$ a bill of lading and a 'worn (m-ort
Huty Heclaration which declared the
shi-ment as childrenIs toys$ the ta6es and
duties of which were com-uted at
"CD$DDD.DD. 7r. +cuarto <led the
aforementioned documents with the 7anila
(nternational Container "ort. )owe!er$
before the shi-ment was released$ a s-ot
chec1 was conducted by Customs 'enior
&gent 3ames 9andido$ who disco!ered that
the contents of the !an %shi-ment) were not
childrenIs toys as declared in the shi--ing
documents but 1$DDD units of !ideo cassette
recorders with ta6es and duties com-uted at
"CDD$DDD.DD. & hold order and warrant of
sei4ure and detention were then issued by
the Histrict Collector of Customs. :urther
in!estigation showed that 7oonglow is nonL
e6istent. Conse2uently$ 7r. @abisi and 7r.
,to were charged with and con!icted for
!iolation of 'ection A%e) of .&. AD1F which
ma1es it unlawful among others$ for -ublic
oficers to cause any undue (n0ury to any
-arty$ including the @o!ernment. (n the
discharge of oficial functions through
manifest -artiality$ e!ident bad faith or gross
ine6cusable 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
@o!ernment did not sufer any undue in0ury.
a) (s the contention of both accused correct#
*6-lain. %A>) b) &ssuming that the
attem-ted or frustrated stage of the !iolation
charged is not -unishable$ may the accused
be ne!ertheless con!icted for an ofense
-unished by the e!ised "enal Code under
the facts of the case# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the contention of the accused that the
crime was not consummated is correct$ &.
AD1F is a s-ecial law -unishing acts mala
-rohibita. &s a rule$ attem-ted
18 of 86
!iolation of a s-ecial law is not -unished.
&ctual in0ury is re2uired. ,es$ both are
liable for attem-ted estafa thru falsi<cation
of commercial documents$ a com-le6
crime. ...
8alum in Se #s9 8alum Prohi3itum (%&&6)
Histinguish malum in se from malum -rohibitum.
%2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n crimes malum in se$ an act is by nature
wrong$ e!il or bad$ and so generally
condemned. The moral trait of the ofender is
in!ol!ed. thus$ good faith or lac1 of criminal
(ntent on the -art of the ofender is a defense$
unless the crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Corres-ondingly$ modifying
circumstances are considered in -unishing the
ofender.
(n crimes mala -rohibitum$ an act is not by
nature wrong$ e!il or bad. ,et$ it is -unished
because there is a law -rohibiting them for
-ublic good$ and thus good faith or lac1 of
criminal intent in doing the -rohibited act is
not a defense.
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1996)
1 Histinguish intent from moti!e in
Criminal Law.
2 7ay crime be committed without
criminal intent#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 7oti!e is the mo!ing -ower which
im-els one to action for a de<nite
result. whereas intent is the -ur-ose
to use a -articular means to efect
such results. 7oti!e is not an
essential element of a felony and
need not be -ro!ed for -ur-ose of
con!iction$ while intent is an
essential element of felonies by dolo.
2 ,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.
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (1999)
1 Histinguish 8moti!e8 from 8intent8.
2 When is moti!e rele!ant to -ro!e a
case# When is it not necessary to be
established# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 87oti!e 8 is the mo!ing -ower which
im-els a -erson to do an act for a
de<nite result. while 8intent8 is the
-ur-ose for using a -articular means
to bring about a desired result.
7oti!e is not an element of a crime
but intent is an element of intentional
crimes. 7oti!e$ if attending a crime$
always -recede the intent.
2 7oti!e is rele!ant to -ro!e a case
when there is doubt as to the identity
of the ofender or when the act
committed gi!es rise to !ariant
crimes and there is the need to
determine the -ro-er crime to be
im-uted to the ofender.
(t is not necessary to -ro!e moti!e when
the ofender is -ositi!ely identi<ed or the
criminal act did not gi!e rise to !ariant
crimes.
8oti#e #s9 2ntent (%&&)
Histinguish clearly but briefy between
intent and moti!e in the commission of an
ofense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(ntent is the -ur-ose for using a -articular
means to achie!e the desired result. while
moti!e is the mo!ing -ower which im-els a
-erson to act for a de<nite result. (ntent is
an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an
element of deliberate felonies. while moti!e
is not an element of a crime but only
considered when the identity of the ofender
is in doubt.
8oti#e; Proof thereof; <ot +ssential; Con#iction (%&&6)
7oti!e 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 moti!e is not essential or
re2uired to 0ustify con!iction of an accused#
@i!e at least A instances. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 When there is an eyewitness or -ositi!e
identi<cation of the accused.
2 When the accused admitted or confessed to
the commission of the crime.
3 (n crimes mala prohi7ita.
4 (n direct assault$ when the !ictim$ who is a
-erson in authority or agent of a -erson in
authority was attac1ed in the actual
-erformance of his duty %&rt. 1GE$ e!ised
"enal Code).
5 (n crimes committed through rec1less
im-rudence. JUSTI4YING 5 EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES
+/empting Circumstances; Co#erage (%&&&)
&$ brother of 9$ with the intention of ha!ing
a night out with his friends$ too1 the
coconut shell which is being used by 9 as a
ban1 for coins from inside their loc1ed
cabinet using their common 1ey. :orthwith$
& bro1e the coconut shell outside of their
home in the -resence of his friends. 1 What is the criminal liability of &$ if any#
*6-lain. %A>)
2 (s & e6em-ted from criminal liability
under &rticle AA2 of the e!ised "enal
Code for being a brother of 9# *6-lain.
%2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) & is criminally liable for obbery with
force u-on things.....
b) 5o$ & is not e6em-t from criminal liability
under &rt. AA2 because said &rticle a--lies
only to theft$ swindling or malicious
mischief. )ere$ the crime committed is
robbery.
19
of 86
+/empting Circumstances; 8inority (199-)
3ohn$ an eightLyear old boy$ is fond of
watching the tele!ision -rogram 8Oeo
angers.8 +ne e!ening while he was
engrossed watching his fa!orite tele!ision
show$ "etra$ a maid changed the channel to
enable her to watch 8)ome &long the iles.8
This enraged 3ohn who got his fatherIs
re!ol!er$ and without warning$ shot "etra at
the bac1 of her head causing her
instantaneous death. (s 3ohn criminally
liable# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ 3ohn is not criminally liable for 1illing
"etra because he is only E years old when
he committed the 1illing. & minor below
nine %F) years old is absolutely e6em-t from
criminal liability although not from ci!il
liability. %&rt. 12$ -ar. 2$ "C).
+/empting; 8inority; 11 yrs =l"; (3sence of
5iscernment (%&&&)
While they were standing in line awaiting
their !accination at the school clinic$
"om-ing re-eatedly -ulled the -onytail of
Patreena$ his 11 years$ 2 months and 1A days
old classmate in @rade = at the 'am-aloc
*lementary 'chool. (rritated$ Patreena
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.
eali4ing what she had caused. Patreena
immediately hel-ed "om-ing. When
in!estigated$ she freely admitted to the
school -rinci-al that she was res-onsible for
the in0ury to "om-ingIs eye. &fter the
incident$ she e6ecuted a statement admitting
her cul-ability. Hue to the in0ury. "om-ing
lost his right eye. a) (s Patreena criminally
liable# Why# %A>) b) Hiscuss the attendant
circumstances and efects thereof. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) 5o$ Patreena is not criminally liable
although she is ci!illy liable. 9eing a minor
less than <fteen %1=) years old although o!er
nine %F) years of age$ she is generally
e6em-t from criminal liability. The e6ce-tion
is where the -rosecution -ro!ed that the act
was committed with discernment. The
burden is u-on the -rosecution to -ro!e that
the accused acted with discernment.
The -resum-tion is that such minor acted
without discernment$ and this is
strengthened by the fact that Patreena only
reacted with a ball-en which she must be
using in class at the time$ and only to sto-
"om-ingIs !e6atious act of re-eatedly
-ulling her -onytail. (n other words$ the
in0ury was accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may
be considered areM
1 7inority of the accused as an
e6em-ting circumstance under
&rticle 12. -aragra-h A$ e!. "enal
Code$ where she shall be e6em-t from
criminal liability$ unless it was -ro!ed
that she acted with discernment. She
is however civilly liable.
2 (f found criminally liable$ the minority
of the accused as a -ri!ileged
mitigating circumstance. &
discretionary -enalty lower by at least
two %2)
degrees than that -rescribed for the
crime committed shall be im-osed in
accordance with &rticle CE. -aragra-h 1$
e!. "enal Code. The sentence$
howe!er$ should automatically be
sus-ended in accordance with 'ection
=%a) of e-. &ct 5o. EACF otherwise
1nown as the 8:amily Courts &ct of
1FFQ8.
1 &lso if found criminally liable$ the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of not (ntending
to commit so gra!e a wrong as that
committed$ under &rticle 1A$ -aragra-h A$
e!. "enal Code. and
2 The ordinary mitigating circumstance of
suficient -ro!ocation on the -art of the
ofended -arty immediately -receded the
act.
!ustifying #s9 +/empting Circumstances (%&&)
Histinguish clearly but briefyM 9etween
0ustifying and e6em-ting circumstances in
criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
3ustifying circumstance afects the act$ not
the actor. while e6em-ting circumstance
afects the actor$ not the act. (n 0ustifying
circumstance$ no criminal and$ generally$ no
ci!il liability is incurred. while in e6em-ting
circumstance$ ci!il liability is generally
incurred although there is no criminal
liability.
3ustifying !s. *6em-ting Circumstances
%1FFE) Histinguish between 0ustifying and
e6em-ting circumstances. JA>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. (n Justifying
CircumstancesM
1 The circumstance afects the act$ not
the actor.
2 The act is done within legal bounds$
hence considered as not a crime.
3 'ince the act is not a crime$ there is no
criminal.
4 There being no crime nor criminal$
there is no
criminal nor ci!il liability.
Whereas$ in an Exempting
CircumstancesM 1 The circumstance afects the actor$ not
the act.
2 The act is felonious and hence a crime
but the actor acted without
!oluntariness.
3 &lthough there is a crime$ there is no
criminal because the actor is regarded
only as an instrument of the crime.
4 There being a wrong done but no
criminal.
!ustifying; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (%&&%)
When & arri!ed home$ he found 9 ra-ing his
daughter. B-on seeing &$ 9 ran away. & too1
his gun and shot 9$ 1illing him. Charged
with homicide$ & claimed he acted in
defense of his daughterIs honor. (s &
correct# (f not$ can & claim the bene<t of
any mitigating circumstance or
circumstances# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ & cannot !alidly in!o1e defense of his
daughterIs honor in ha!ing 1illed 9 since the
ra-e was already consummated. moreo!er$ 9
already ran away$ hence$ there was no
aggression to defend against and no defense
to s-ea1 of.
20 of 86
& may$ howe!er$ in!o1e the bene<t of the
mitigating circumstance of ha!ing acted in
immediate !indication of a gra!e ofense to
a descendant$ his daughter$ under -ar. =$
&rticle 1A of the e!ised "enal Code$ as
amended.
!ustifying; 5efense of Stranger (%&&%)
& chanced u-on three men who were
attac1ing 9 with <st blows. C$ one of the
men$ was about to stab 9 with a 1nife. 5ot
1nowing that 9 was actually the aggressor
because he had earlier challenged the three
men to a <ght$ & shot C as the latter was
about to stab 9. 7ay & in!o1e the defense of
a stranger as a 0ustifying circumstance in his
fa!or# Why# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. & may in!o1e the 0ustifying
circumstance of defense of stranger since
he was not in!ol!ed in the <ght and he shot
C when the latter was about to stab 9.
There being no indication that & was
induced by re!enge$ resentment or any
other e!il moti!e in shooting C$ his act is
0usti<ed under -ar A$ &rticle 11 of the
e!ised "enal Code$ as amended.
!ustifying; .ulfillment of 5uty; 0e;uisites (%&&&)
Lucresia$ a store owner$ was robbed of her
bracelet in her home. The following day$ at
about = oIcloc1 in the afternoon$ a neighbor$
22Lyear old 3unL3un$ who had an unsa!ory
re-utation$ came to her store to buy bottles
of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound
around the right arm of 3unL3un. &s soon as
the latter left$ Lucresia went to a nearby
-olice station and sought the hel- of a
-oliceman on duty$ "at. Willie eyes. )e
went with Lucresia to the house of 3unL3un to
confront the latter. "at. eyes introduced
himself as a -oliceman and tried to get hold
of 3unL3un who resisted and ran away. "at.
eyes chased him and <red two warning
shots in the air. 3unL3un continued to run and
when he was about Q meters away$ "at$
eyes shot him in the right leg. 3unL3un was
hit and he fell down but he crawled towards
a fence$ intending to -ass through an
o-ening underneath. When "at. eyes was
about = meters away$ he <red another shot
at 3unL3un hitting him at the right lower hi-.
"at. eyes brought 3unL3un to the hos-ital$
but because of -rofuse bleeding$ he
e!entually died. "at eyes was subse2uently
charged with homicide. Huring the trial$ "at
eyes raised the defense$ by way of
e6oneration$ that he acted in the ful<llment
of a duty. (s the defense tenable# *6-lain.
%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the defense of "at. eyes is not tenable.
The defense of ha!ing acted in the
ful<llment of a duty re2uires as a condition$
inter alia$ that the in0ury or ofense
committed be the una!oidable or necessary
conse2uence 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
ful<llment of a duty.
&fter 3unL3un was shot in the right leg and
was already crawling$ there was no need for
"at$ eyes to shoot him further. Clearly$ "at.
eyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the
!ictim.
21
of
86
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of >onor; 0e;uisites (199-)
+ne night$ Bna$ a young married woman$
was sound aslee- in her bedroom when she
felt a man on to- of her. Thin1ing it was her
husband Tito$ who came home a day early
from his business tri-$ Bna let him ha!e se6
with her. &fter the act$ the man said$ 8( ho-e
you en0oyed it as much as ( did.8 5ot
recogni4ing the !oice$ it dawned u-on Lina
that the man was not Tito$ her husband.
:urious$ Bna too1 out TitoIs gun and shot
the man. Charged with homicide Bna denies
cul-ability on the ground of defense of
honor. (s her claim tenable# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ BnaIs claim that she acted in defense of
honor$ is not tenable because the unlawful
aggression on her honor had already
ceased. Hefense of honor as included in selfL
defense$ must ha!e been done to -re!ent or
re-el an unlawful aggression. There is no
defense to s-ea1 of where the unlawful
aggression no longer e6ists.
!ustifying; 5efense of >onor; +lements (%&&&)
+sang$ a married woman in her early
twenties$ was slee-ing on a banig on the
foor of their ni-a hut beside the seashore
when she was awa1ened by the act of a man
mounting her. Thin1ing that it was her
husband$ @ardo$who had returned from
<shing in the sea$ +sang continued her slee-
but allowed the man$ who was actually their
neighbor$ 3ulio$ to ha!e se6ual intercourse
with her. &fter 3ulio satis<ed himself$ he said
8'alamat +sang8 as he turned to lea!e. +nly
then did +sang reali4e that the man was not
her husband. *nraged$ +sang grabbed a
balisong from the wall and stabbed 3ulio to
death. When tried for homicide$ +sang
claimed defense of honor. 'hould the claim
be sustained# Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ +sang8s 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$ &rt. 11 of the
"C$ (t is re2uired inter alia that there be
%1) unlawful aggression$ and %2) reasonable
necessity of the means em-loyed to -re!ent
or re-el it. The unlawful aggression must be
continuing when the aggressor was in0ured
or disabled by the -erson ma1ing a defense.
9ut if the aggression that was begun by the
in0ured or disabled -arty already ceased to
e6ist when the accused attac1ed him$ as in
the case at bar$ the attac1 made is a
retaliation$ and not a defense. "aragra-h 1$
&rticle 11 of the Code does not go!ern.
)ence$ +sangIs act of stabbing 3ulio to death
after the se6ual intercourse was <nished$ is
not defense of honor but an immediate
!indication of a gra!e ofense committed
against her$ which is only mitigating.
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (1996)
A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory
compound which he was guarding, shot and
killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter
arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the
victim was unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the
security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of
property and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide
!"plain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. ( would con!ict the security guard for
)omicide if ( were the 3udge$ because his
claim of ha!ing acted in defense of -ro-erty
and in -erformance of a duty cannot fully be
0usti<ed. *!en assuming that the !ictim was
scaling the wall of the factory com-ound to
commit a crime inside the same$ shooting
him is ne!er 0usti<able$ e!en admitting that
such act is considered unlawful aggression
on -ro-erty rights. (n People vs. Narvaes, 1*1
SC! 3*9$ a -erson is 0usti<ed to defend his
-ro-erty rights$ but all the elements of selfL
defense under &rt. 11$ must be -resent. (n
the instant case$ 0ust li1e in 5ar!aes$ the
second element %reasonable necessity of the
means em-loyed) is absent. )ence$ he
should be con!icted of homicide but entitled
to incom-lete selfLdefense.
!ustifying; S5; 5efense of Property; 0e;uisites (%&&1)
The accused li!ed with his family in a
neighborhood that often was the scene of
fre2uent robberies. &t one time$ -ast
midnight$ the accused went downstairs with
a loaded gun to in!estigate what he thought
were footste-s of an unin!ited guest. &fter
seeing what a--eared to him an armed
stranger loo1ing around and out to rob the
house$ he <red his gun seriously in0uring the
man. When the lights were turned on$ the
unfortunate !ictim turned out to be a
brotherLinLlaw on his way to the 1itchen to
get some light snac1s. The accused was
indicted for serious -hysical in0uries. 'hould
the accused$ gi!en the circumstances$ be
con!icted or ac2uitted# Why# G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The accused should be con!icted because$
e!en 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 0usti<ed. Hefense of -ro-erty
or -ro-erty right does not 0ustify the act of
<ring a gun at a burglar unless the life and
limb of the accused is already in imminent
and immediate danger. &lthough the
accused acted out of a misa--rehension of
the facts$ he is not absol!ed from criminal
liability.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
Considering the gi!en circumstances$
namely. the fre2uent robberies in the
neighborhood$ the time was -ast midnight$
and the !ictim a--eared to be an armed
burglar in the dar1 and inside his house$ the
accused could ha!e entertained an honest
belief that his life and limb or those of his
family are already in immediate and
imminent danger. )ence$ it may be
reasonable to acce-t that he acted out of an
honest mista1e of fact and therefore without
criminal intent. &n honest mista1e of fact
negati!es criminal intent and thus absol!es
the accused from criminal liability.
?ualifying; +lements of a Crime (%&&1)
When would 2ualifying circumstances be
deemed$ if at all$ elements of a crime# G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& 2ualifying circumstance would be deemed
an element of a crime when L
1 it changes the nature of the crime$
bringing about a more serious crime and a
hea!ier -enalty.
2 it is essential to the crime in!ol!ed$
otherwise some other crime is committed.
and
3 it is s-eci<cally alleged in the (nformation
and -ro!en during the trial.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
& 2ualifying circumstance is deemed an
element of a crime when it is s-eci<cally
stated by law as included in the de<nition of
a crime$ li1e treachery in the crime of
murder.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
8itigating; <on,2nto/ication (%&&&)
Hes-ite the massi!e ad!ertising cam-aign in
media against <recrac1ers and gunL<ring
during the 5ew ,earIs celebrations$ 3onas
and 3a0a bought ten bo6es of su-er lolo and
-laL-la in 9ocaue$ 9ulacan. 9efore midnight
of Hecember A1$ 1FFF$ 3onas and 3a0a started
their celebration by ha!ing a drin1ing s-ree
at 3onaIs -lace by e6-loding their highL
-owered <recrac1ers in their neighborhood.
(n the course of their con!ersation$ 3onas
con<ded to 3a0a that he has been 1ee-ing a
longLtime grudge against his neighbor 3e-oy
in !iew of the latterIs refusal to lend him
some money. While under the infuence of
li2uor$ 3onas started throwing lighted su-er
lolos inside 3e-oyIs fence to irritate him and
the same e6-loded inside the latterIs yard.
B-on 1nowing that the throwing of the su-er
lolo was deliberate$ 3e-oy became furious
and sternly warned 3onas to sto- his
malicious act or he would get what he
wanted. & heated argument between 3onas
and 3e-oy ensued but 3a0a tried to calm down
his friend. &t midnight$ 3onas con!inced 3a0a
to lend him his .G= caliber -istol so that he
could use it to 1noc1 down 3e-oy and to end
his arrogance. 3onas thought that after all$
e6-losions were e!erywhere and nobody
would 1now who shot 3e-oy. &fter 3a0a lent
his <rearm to 3onas$ the latter again started
started throwing lighted su-er lolos and -laL
-las at 3e-oyIs yard in order to -ro!o1e him
so that he would come out of his house.
When 3e-oy came out$ 3onas immediately
shot him with 3a0aIs .G= caliber gun but
missed his target. (nstead$ the bullet hit
3e-oyIs <!e year old son who was following
behind him$ 1illing the boy instantaneously$
a) What crime or crimes can 3onas and 3a0a
be charged with# *6-lain. %2>) b) (f you
were 3onasI and 3a0aIs lawyer$ what -ossible
defenses would you set u- in fa!or of your
clients# *6-lain. %2>) c) (f you were the
3udge$ how would you decide the case#
*6-lain. %1>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
22 of 86
a) 3onas and 3a0a$ can be charged with the
com-le6 crime of attem-ted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less
gra!e and a gra!e felony %&rt. GE. "C)....
b) (f ( were 3onasI and 3a0aIs lawyer$ ( will
use the following defensesM
1 That the accused had no intention
to commit so gra!e a wrong as
that committed as they merely
intended to frighten 3e-oy.
2 That 3onas committed the crime
in a state of into6ication thereby
im-airing his will -ower or
ca-acity to understand the
wrongfulness of his act. 5onL
intentional into6ication is a
mitigating circumstance (People
#s. Forti5h, *81 SC! 6)) (1991)"
!rt. 1', PC.).
8itigating; Plea of Guilty (1999)
&n accused charged with the crime of
homicide -leaded 8not guilty8 during the
-reliminary in!estigation before the
7unici-al Court. B-on the ele!ation of the
case to the egional Trial Court the Court of
com-etent 0urisdiction$ he -leaded guilty
freely and !oluntarily u-on arraignment.
Can his -lea of guilty before the TC be
considered s-ontaneous and thus entitle
him to the mitigating circumstance of
s-ontaneous -lea of guilty under &rt. 1A%Q)$
"C# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ his -lea of guilty before the egional
Trial Court can be considered s-ontaneous$
for which he is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of -lea of guilty. )is -lea of
not guilty before the 7unici-al Court is
immaterial as it was made during
-reliminary in!estigation only and before a
court not com-etent to render 0udgment.
8itigating; Plea of Guilty; 0e;uisites (1999)
(n order that the -lea of guilty may be
mitigating$ what re2uisites must be
com-lied with# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
:or -lea of guilty to be mitigating$ the
re2uisites areM
1 That the accused s-ontaneously
-leaded guilty to the crime charged.
2 That such -lea was made before the
court com-etent to try the case and
render 0udgment. and
3 That such -lea was made -rior to the
-resentation of e!idence for the
-rosecution.
8itigating; Plea of Guilty; $oluntary Surren"er (199*)
&fter 1illing the !ictim$ the accused
absconded. )e 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. 'hould the
mitigating circumstances of !oluntary
surrender and -lea of guilty be considered in
fa!or of the accused#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
/oluntary surrender should be considered as
a mitigating circumstance. &fter two years$
the -olice were still unaware of the
whereabouts of the accused and the latter
could ha!e continued to elude arrest.
&ccordingly$ the surrender of the accused
should be considered mitigating because it
was done s-ontaneously$ indicati!e of the
remorse or re-entance on the -art of said
accused and therefore$ by his surrender$ the
accused sa!ed the @o!ernment e6-enses$
eforts$ and time.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
/oluntary surrender may not be a--reciated
in fa!or of the accused. Two years is too long
a time to consider the surrender as
s-ontaneous (People #s. !7lao, 183 SC! 6'8).
:or sure the go!ernment had already
incurred considerable eforts and e6-enses in
loo1ing 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 e!idence %&rt. 1A$ -ar. Q.
e!ised "enal Code).
8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er (1996)
)ilario$ u-on seeing his son engaged in a
scuRe with ene$ stabbed and 1illed the
latter. &fter the stabbing$ he brought his son
home. The Chief of "olice of the town$
accom-anied by se!eral -olicemen$ went to
)ilarioIs house$ )ilario$ u-on seeing the
a--roaching -olicemen$ came down from his
house to meet them and !oluntarily went
with them to the "olice 'tation to be
in!estigated in connection with the 1illing.
When e!entually charged with and con!icted
of homicide$ )ilario$ on a--eal$ faulted the
trial court for not a--reciating in his fa!or
the mitigating circumstance of !oluntary
surrender. (s he entitled to such a mitigating
circumstance# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ )ilario is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of !oluntary surrender. The
cru6 of the issue is whether the fact that
)ilario went home after the incident$ but
came down and met the -olice oficers and
went with them is considered 8/oluntary
surrender$8 The !oluntariness of surrender is
tested if the same is s-ontaneous showing
the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities. This must
be either %a) because he ac1nowledges his
guilt$ or %b) because he wishes to sa!e them
the trouble and e6-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 !oluntarily went with the
-olicemen who had gone to his hiding -lace
to in!estigate$ was held to be mitigating
circumstance.%People vs. 9a3rit, 5ite% i& e3es8
Comme&taries, p. *99)
8itigating; $oluntary Surren"er; +lements (1999)
When is surrender by an accused considered
!oluntary$ and constituti!e of the mitigating
circumstance of !oluntary surrender# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& surrender by an ofender is considered
!oluntary when it is s-ontaneous$ indicati!e
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the
authorities.
To be mitigating$ the surrender must
beM
23 of 86
1 s-ontaneous$ i.e.$ indicati!e of
ac1nowledgment of guilt and not for
con!enience nor conditional.
2 made before the go!ernment incurs
e6-enses$ time and efort in trac1ing
down the ofenderIs whereabouts. and
3 made to a -erson in authority or the
latterIs agents.
AGGRA6ATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
(ggra#ating Circumstances (1996)
:ernando$ before bringing bac1 the
daughter to the house$ ra-ed her <rst.
Thereafter$ the four carted away the
belongings of Hanilo and his family.
1 What crime did 3ose$ Homingo$
7anolo and :ernando commit#
*6-lain.
2 'u--ose$ after the robbery$ the four
too1 turns in ra-ing the three
daughters of Hanilo inside the latterIs
house$ but before they left$ they 1illed
the whole family to -re!ent
identi<cation$ what crime did the four
commit# *6-lain.
3 Bnder the facts of the case$ what
aggra!ating circumstances may be
a--reciated against the four# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) 3ose$ Homingo$ and 7anolo committed
com-le6 crime of obbery with a-e...
)omicide because the 1illings were by reason
%to -re!ent identi<cation) and on the
occasion of the robbery. The multi-le ra-es
committed and the fact that se!eral -ersons
were 1illed Jhomicide)$ would be considered
as aggra!ating circumstances. The ra-es are
synonymous with (gnominy and the
additional 1illing synonymous with cruelty$
(People vs. Solis, 18* SC!" People vs. Pla2a, *)*
SC! '31)
c) The aggra!ating circumstances which may
be considered in the -remises areM
1 9and because all the four
ofenders are armed.
2 5octumity because e!idently the
ofenders too1 ad!antage of
nighttime.
3 dwelling. and
4 Bninhabited -lace because the
house where the crimes were
committed was 8at a desolate
-lace8 and ob!iously the ofenders
too1 ad!antage of this
circumstance in committing the
crime.
(ggra#ating Circumstances; Generis #s9 ?ualifying
(1999)
Histinguish generic aggra!ating
circumstance from 2ualifying aggra!ating
circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Generic Aggravating
CircumstancesM
1 afects only the im-osition of the -enalty
-rescribed$ but not the nature of the
crime committed.
2 can be ofset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
3 need not be alleged in the (nformation as
long as -ro!en during the trial$ the same
shall be considered in im-osing the
sentence.
Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances: 1 must be alleged in the (nformation and
-ro!en during trial.
2 cannot be ofset by mitigating
circumstances.
3 afects the nature of the crime or brings
about a -enalty higher in degree than that
ordinarily -rescribed.
(ggra#ating Circumstances; 7in"s @ Penalties (1999)
5ame the four %G) 1inds of aggra!ating
circumstances and state their efect on the
-enalty of crimes and nature thereof. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The four %G) 1inds of aggra!ating circumstances
areM 1) @*5*(C &@@&/&T(5@ or those
that can generally a--ly to all crimes$ and
can be ofset by mitigating circumstances$
but if not ofset$ would afect only the
ma6imum of the -enalty -rescribed by law.
2) '"*C(:(C &@@&/&T(5@ or those
that a--ly only to -articular crimes and
cannot be ofset by mitigating
circumstancesM
A) ?B&L(:,(5@ C(CB7'T&5C*' or
those that change the nature of the crime to
a gra!er one$ or brings about a -enalty ne6t
higher in degree$ and cannot be ofset by
mitigating circumstances.
G) (5)**5T &@@&/&T(5@ or those
that essentially accom-any the commission
of the crime and does not afect the -enalty
whatsoe!er.
(ggra#ating; Cruelty; 0elationship (199)
9en$ a widower$ dri!en by bestial desire$
-o1ed a gun on his daughter Oeny$ forcibly
undressed her and tied her legs to the bed.
)e also burned her face with a lighted
cigarrete. Li1e a madman$ he laughed while
ra-ing her. What aggra!ating circumstances
are -resent in this case#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) Cruelty$ for burning the !ictimIs face with
a lighted cigarrete$ thereby deliberately
augmenting the !ictimIs sufering by acts
clearly unnecessary to the ra-e$ while the
ofender delighted and en0oyed seeing the
!ictim sufer in -ain (People vs. 6#5as, 181
SC! 316).
b) elationshi-$ because the ofended -arty
is a descendant %daughter) of the ofender
and considering that the crime is one against
chastity.
24 of 86
(ggra#ating; 8ust 3e allege" in the information (%&&&)
ico$ a member of the &l-ha ho fraternity$
was 1illed by "ocholo$ a member of the ri!al
grou-$ 'igma "hi +mega. "ocholo was
-rosecuted for homicide before the egional
Trial Court in 9inan$ Laguna. Huring the
trial$ the -rosecution was able to -ro!e that
the 1illing was committed by means of
-oison in consideration of a -romise or
reward and with cruelty. (f you were the
3udge$ with what crime will you con!ict
"ocholo# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"ocholo should be con!icted of the crime of
homicide only because the aggra!ating
circumstances which should 2ualify 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 1illing of ico
could only be a--reciated as generic
aggra!ating circumstances since none of
them ha!e been alleged in the information to
2ualify the 1illing to murder. & 2ualifying
circumstance must be alleged in the
(nformation and -ro!en beyond reasonable
doubt during the trial to be a--reciated as
such.
(ggra#ating; <ighttime; Aan" (199)
&t about FMAD in the e!ening$ while Hino and
afy were wal1ing along "adre :aura
'treet$ 7anila. 3ohnny hit them with a roc1
in0uring Hino at the bac1. afy a--roached
Hino$ but suddenly$ 9obby$ 'te!e$ Hanny and
5onoy surrounded the duo. Then 9obby
stabbed Hino. 'te!e$ Hanny$ 5onoy and
3ohnny 1e-t on hitting Hino and afy with
roc1s. &s a result. Hino died$ 9obby$ 'te!e$
Hanny$ 5onoy and 3ohnny were charged with
homicide. Can the court a--reciate the
aggra!ating circumstances of nighttime and
band#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ nighttime cannot be a--reciated as an
aggra!ating circumstance because there is
no indication that the ofenders deliberately
sought the co!er of dar1ness to facilitate the
commission of the crime or that they too1
ad!antage of nighttime (People vs. 9e los
e3es, *)3 SC! 1)1). 9esides$ 0udicial notice
can be ta1en of the fact that "adre :aura
'treet is wellLlighted.
)owe!er$ band should be considered as the
crime was committed by more than three
armed malefactors. in a recent 'u-reme
Court decision$ stones or roc1s are
considered deadly wea-ons.
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)
3uan de Castro already had three %A) -re!ious
con!ictions by <nal 0udgment for theft when
he was found guilty of obbery with
)omicide. (n the last case$ the trial 3udge
considered against the accused both
recidi!ism and habitual delin2uency. The
accused a--ealed and contended that in his
last con!iction$ the trial court cannot
consider against him a <nding of recidi!ism
and$
again$ of habitual delin2uency. (s the a--eal
meritorious# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the a--eal is not meritorious. ecidi!ism
and habitual delin2uency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of
recidi!ism is diferent from that of habitual
delin2uency.
3uan is a recidi!ist because he had been
-re!iously con!icted by <nal 0udgment for
theft and again found guilty for obbery with
)omicide$ which are both crimes against
-ro-erty$ embraced under the same Title
%Title Ten$ 9oo1 TwoK of the e!ised "enal
Code. The im-lication is that he is
s-eciali4ing in the commission of crimes
against -ro-erty$ hence aggra!ating in the
con!iction for obbery with )omicide.
)abitual delin2uency$ which brings about an
additional -enalty when an ofender is
con!icted a third time or more for s-eci<ed
crimes$ is correctly considered ...
(ggra#ating; 0eci"i#ism #s9 ?uasi,0eci"i#ism (199-)
Histinguish between recidi!ism and 2uasiL
recidi!ism. J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n reciivism L
1 The con!ictions of the ofender are for
crimes embraced in the same Title of the
e!ised "enal Code. and
2 This circumstance is generic aggra!ating
and therefore can be efect by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in !uasi"reciivlsm
L
1 The con!ictions are not for crimes
embraced in the same Title of the e!ised
"enal Code$ -ro!ided that it is a felony that
was committed by the ofender before
ser!ing sentence by <nal 0udgment for
another crime or while ser!ing sentence for
another crime. and
2 This circumstance is a s-ecial aggra!ating
circumstance which cannot be ofset by any
mitigating circumstance.
(ggra#ating; Treachery @ 'nlawful +ntry (199*)
The accused and the !ictim occu-ied
ad0acent a-artments$ each being a se-arate
dwelling unit of one big house. The accused
sus-ected his wife of ha!ing an illicit relation
with the !ictim. +ne afternoon$ he saw the
!ictim and his wife together on board a
!ehicle. (n the e!ening of that day$ the
accused went to bed early and tried to slee-$
but being so annoyed o!er the sus-ected
relation between his wife and the !ictim$ he
could not slee-. Later in the night$ he
resol!ed to 1ill !ictim. )e rose from bed and
too1 hold of a 1nife. )e entered the
a-artment of the !ictim through an unloc1ed
window. (nside$ he saw the !ictim soundly
aslee-. )e thereu-on stabbed the !ictim$
inficting se!eral wounds$ which caused his
death within a few hours.
25 of 86
Would you say that the 1illing was attended
by the 2ualifying or aggra!ating
circumstances of e!ident -remeditation$
treachery$ nighttime and unlawful entry#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. *!ident -remeditation cannot be
considered against the accused because he
resol!ed to 1ill the !ictim 8later in the night8
and there was no suficient la-se of time
between the determination and e6ecution$ to
allow his conscience to o!ercome the
resolution of his will.
2. T*&C)*, may be -resent because the
accused stabbed the !ictim while the latter
was sound aslee-. &ccordingly$ he em-loyed
means and methods which directly and
s-ecially insured the e6ecution of the act
without ris1 himself arising from the
defense which the !ictim might ha!e made
(People vs. 9e:#i&a. 6) Phil. *19 People vs.
$ira&%a, et at. 9) Phil. 91).
A. 5ighttime cannot be a--reciated because
there is no showing that the accused
deliberately sought or a!ailed of nighttime
to insure the success of his act. The
(ntention to commit the crime was
concei!ed shortly before its commission
(People vs Par%o. 19 Phil, '68). 7oreo!er$
nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
G. B5L&W:BL *5T, may be a--reciated
as an aggra!ating circumstance$ inasmuch
as the accused entered the room of the
!ictim 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).
ALTERNATI6E
CIRCUMSTANCES
(lternati#e Circumstances; 2nto/ication (%&&%)
& was in!ited to a drin1ing s-ree by friends.
&fter ha!ing had a drin1 too many$ & and 9
had a heated argument$ during which &
stabbed 9. &s a result$ 9 sufered serious
-hysical in0uries. 7ay the into6ication of &
be considered aggra!ating or mitigating#
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The into6ication of & may be -rima facie
considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. (t
may not be considered aggra!ating as there
is no clear indication from the facts of the
case that it was habitual or intentional on the
-art of &. &ggra!ating circumstances are not
to be -resumed. they should be -ro!ed
beyond reasonable doubt PERSONS C-&8&!++2 L&1+" 9)-
4ELONIES
(nti,.encing Law; .encing (1996)
:lora$ who was engaged in the -urchase and
sale of 0ewelry$ was -rosecuted for the
!iolation of ".H. 1C12$ otherwise 1nown as
the &ntiL:encing Law$ for ha!ing been found
to be in -ossession of recently stolen
3ewelry !alued at "1DD$DDD.DD at her
0ewelry sho- at Oa-ote
Criminal Law Bar Examinat
ion Q & A (1994-2006)
oad$ Las "inas$ 7etro 7anila. 'he testi<ed
during the trial that she merely bought the
same from one named Cecilino and e!en
-roduced a recei-t co!ering the sale.
Cecilino$ in the -ast$ used to deli!er to her
0ewelries for sale but is -resently nowhere
to be found. Con!icted by the trial court for
!iolation of the &ntiL:encing Law$ she
argued %or her ac2uittal on a--eal$
contending that the -rosecution failed to
-ro!e that she 1new or should ha!e 1nown
that the 3ewelries reco!ered from her were
the -roceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ :loraIs defense is not wellLta1en because
mere -ossession of any article of !alue which
has been the sub0ect of theft or robbery shall
be -rima facie e!idence of fencing %".H.5o.
1C12). The burden is u-on the accused to
-ro!e that she ac2uired the 0ewelry
legitimately. )er defense of ha!ing bought
the 3ewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is un1nown$ does not o!ercome
the -resum-tion of fencing against her
(Pami&t#a& vs People, (. 1114*6, 11 +#l3
1994). 9uying -ersonal -ro-erty -uts the
buyer on ca!eat because of the -hrases that
he should ha!e 1nown or ought to 1now that
it is the -roceed from robbery or theft.
9esides$ she should ha!e followed the
administrati!e -rocedure under the decree
that of getting a clearance from the
authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in
order to esca-e liability.
(nti,.encing Law; .encing #s9 Theft or 0o33ery (1996)
What is the diference between a fence and
an accessory to theft or robbery# *6-lain.
(s there any similarity between them#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+ne diference between a fence and an
accessory to theft or robbery is the -enalty
in!ol!ed. a fence is -unished as a -rinci-al
under ".H. 5o. 1C12 and the -enalty is
higher$ whereas an accessory to robbery or
theft under the e!ised "enal Code is
-unished two degrees lower than the
-rinci-al$ unless he bought or -ro<ted from
the -roceeds of theft or robbery arising from
robbery in "hili--ine highways under ".H.
5o. =A2 where he is -unished as an
accom-lice$ hence the -enalty is one degree
lower.
&lso$ fencing is a malum -rohibitum and
therefore there is no need to -ro!e criminal
intent of the accused. this is not so in
!iolations of e!ised "enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,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 de<ned as fencing. (n fact$ the
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft
could be -rosecuted as such under the
e!ised "enal Code or as a fence under ".H.
5o. 1C12. (9i0o&<Pami&t#a& vs. People, *34
SC! 63=
(nti,.encing Law; .encing; +lements (1996)
What are the elements of
fencing#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The elements of fencing areM
a. a crime of robbery or theft has been
committed.
26 of 86
1 accused$ who is not a -rinci-al or
accom-lice in the crime$ buys$
recei!es$ -ossesses$ 1ee-s$ ac2uires$
conceals$ or dis-oses$ or buys and
sells$ or in any manner deals in any
article$ item $ ob0ect or anything of
!alue$ which has been deri!ed from
the -roceeds of said crime.
2 the accused 1nows or should ha!e
1nown that said article$ item$ ob0ect
or anything of !alue has been deri!ed
from the from the -roceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft. and
3 there is on the -art of the accused$
intent to gain for himself or for
another.
Criminal Lia3ility; (ccessories @ .ence (199-)
Ping went to the house of Laura who was
alone. Laura ofered him a drin1 and after
consuming three bottles of beer. Ping made
ad!ances to her and with force and !iolence$
ra!ished her. Then Ping 1illed Laura and
too1 her 0ewelry.
Homing$ PingIs ado-ted brother$ learned
about the incident. )e went to LauraIs
house$ hid her body$ cleaned e!erything and
washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later$ Ping ga!e 3ose$ his legitimate brother$
one -iece of 0ewelry belonging to Laura.
3ose 1new that the 0ewelry was ta1en from
Laura but nonetheless he sold it for "2$DDD.
What crime or crimes did Ping$ Homing and
3ose commit# Hiscuss their criminal
liabilities. J1D>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Ping committed the com-osite crime of
a-e with homicide as a single indi!isible
ofense$ not a com-le6 crime$ and Theft. ...
HomingIs acts$ ha!ing been done with
1nowledge of the commission of the crime
and ob!iously to conceal the body of the
crime to -re!ent its disco!ery$ ma1es him an
accessory to the crime of ra-e with
homicide under &rt. 1F$ -ar. 2 of the e!.
"enal Code$ but he is e6em-t from criminal
liability therefor under &rticle 2D of the
Code$ being an ado-ted brother of the
-rinci-al.
3ose incurs criminal liability either as an
accessory to the crime of theft committed by
Ping$ or as fence. &lthough he is a
legitimate brother of Ping$ the e6em-tion
under &rticle 2D does not include the
-artici-ation he did$ because he -ro<ted
from the efects of such theft by selling the
0ewelry 1nowing that the same was ta1en
from Laura. +r 3ose may be -rosecuted for
fencing under the &ntiL:encing Law of 1FQF
%"H 5o. 1C12) since the 0ewelry was the
-roceeds of theft and with intent to gain$ he
recei!ed it from Ping and sold it.
Criminal Lia3ility; <on,+/emption as (ccessory (%&&)
HC9$ the daughter of 7C9$ stole the
earrings of N,O$ a stranger. 7C9 -awned
the earrings with T9( "awnsho- as a -ledge
for "=DD loan. Huring the trial$ 7C9 raised
the defense that being the mother of HC9$
she cannot be
held liable as an accessory. Will 7C9Is
defense -ros-er# eason briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ 7C9Is defense will not -ros-er because
the e6em-tion from criminal liability of an
accessory by !irtue of relationshi- with the
-rinci-al does not co!er accessories who
themsel!es -ro<ted from or assisted the
ofender to -ro<t by the efects or -roceeds
of the crime. This nonLe6em-tion of an
accessory$ though related to the -rinci-al of
the crime$ is e6-ressly -ro!ided in &rt. 2D of
the e!ised "enal Code.
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 5irect Participation; Co,
Principal 3y 2n"ispensa3le Cooperation (%&&&)
their celebration by ha!ing a drin1ing s-ree
at 3onaIs -lace by e6-loding their highL
-owered <recrac1ers in their neighborhood.
(n the course of their con!ersation$ 3onas
con<ded to 3a0a that he has been 1ee-ing a
longLtime grudge against his neighbor 3e-oy
in !iew of the latterIs refusal to lend him
some money. While under the infuence of
li2uor$ 3onas started throwing lighted su-er
lolos inside 3e-oyIs fence to irritate him and
the same e6-loded inside the latterIs yard.
B-on 1nowing that the throwing of the su-er
lolo was deliberate$ 3e-oy became furious
and sternly warned 3onas to sto- his
malicious act or he would get what he
wanted. & heated argument between 3onas
and 3e-oy ensued but 3a0a tried to calm down
his friend. &t midnight$ 3onas con!inced 3a0a
to lend him his .G= caliber -istol so that he
could use it to 1noc1 down 3e-oy and to end
his arrogance. 3onas thought that after all$
e6-losions were e!erywhere and nobody
would 1now who shot 3e-oy. &fter 3a0a lent
his <rearm to 3onas$ the latter again started
started throwing lighted su-er lolos and -laL
-las at 3e-oyIs yard in order to -ro!o1e him
so that he would come out of his house.
When 3e-oy came out$ 3onas immediately
shot him with 3a0aIs .G= caliber gun but
missed his target. (nstead$ the bullet hit
3e-oyIs <!e year old son who was following
behind him$ 1illing the boy instantaneously$ (f
you were the 3udge$ how would you decide
the case# *6-lain. %1>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
( would con!ict 3onas as -rinci-al by direct
-artici-ation and 3a0a as coL-rinci-al by
(ndis-ensable coo-eration for the com-le6
crime of murder with homicide. 3a0a should
be held liable as coL-rinci-al and not only as
an accom-lice because he 1new of 3onasI
criminal design e!en before he lent his
<rearm to 3onas and still he concurred in
that criminal design by -ro!iding the
<rearm.
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal 3y 2n"ucement (%&&%)
& as1ed 9 to 1ill C because of a gra!e
in0ustice done to & by C. & -romised 9 a
reward. 9 was willing to 1ill C$ not so much
because of the reward -romised to him but
27 of 86
because he also had his own longLstanding
grudge against C$ who had wronged him in
the -ast. (f C is 1illed by 9$ would & be
liable as a -rinci-al by inducement# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. & would not be liable as a -rinci-al by
inducement because the reward he -romised
9 is not the sole im-elling reason which
made 9 to 1ill C. To bring about criminal
liability of a coL-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 ha!e been
committed. The facts of the case indicate
that 9$ the 1iller su--osedly induced by &$
had his own reason to 1ill C out of a long
standing grudge.
Criminal Lia3ility; Principal; 2n"ucement @ Participation
(199)
Tata owns a threeLstorey building located at
5o. A )erran 'treet. "aco$ 7anila. 'he
wanted to construct a new building but had
no money to <nance the construction. 'o$ she
insured the building for "A$DDD$DDD.DD. 'he
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-ecti!e
criminal liability#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
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 ha!e
committed were it not for such reason.
,oboy and ,ongsi are -rinci-als by direct
-artici-ation (!rt. 11, pars. *1 a&% 3, PC).
5estructi#e (rson (199)
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 ANSWER3
Tata$ ,oboy and ,ongsi committed the crime
of destructi!e arson because they
collecti!ely caused the destruction of
-ro-erty by means of <re under the
circumstances which e6-osed to danger the
life or -ro-erty of others (!rt, 3*), par. ', PC.
as ame&%e% 73 ! No. 16'9).
PENALTIES
Comple/ Crime #s9 Compoun" Crime (%&&)
com-ound and com-le6 crimes as conce-ts
in the "enal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
C+7"+B5H C(7*' result when the
ofender committed only a single felonious
act from which two or
more crimes resulted. This is -ro!ided for in
modi<ed form in the <rst -art of &rticle GE$
e!ised "enal Code$ limiting the resulting
crimes to only gra!e and;or less gra!e
felonies. )ence$ light felonies are e6cluded
e!en though resulting from the same single
act.
C+7"L*N C(7*' result when the
ofender has to commit an ofense as a
necessary means for committing another
ofense. +nly one information shall be <led
and if -ro!en$ the -enalty for the more
serious crime shall be im-osed.
Comple/ Crime #s9 Special Comple/ Crime #s9 5elito
Continua"o (%&&6)
Histinguish the following from each
otherM
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&n +H(5&, C+7"L*N C(7* is made
u- of two or more crimes being -unished in
distinct -ro!isions of the e!ised "enal Code
but alleged in one information either
because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one ofense is a
necessary means for committing the other
ofense or ofenses. They are alleged in one
information so that only one -enalty shall be
im-osed. &s to -enalties$ ordinary com-le6
crime$ the -enalty for the most serious
crime shall be im-osed and in its ma6imum
-eriod
& '"*C(&L C+7"L*N C(7*$ on the other
hand$ is made u- of two or more crimes
which are considered only as com-onents of
a single indi!isible ofense being -unished in
one -ro!ision of the e!ised "enal Code. &s
to -enalties$ s-ecial com-le6 crime$ only one
-enalty is s-eci<cally -rescribed for all the
com-onent crimes which are regarded as
one indi!isible ofense. 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 ma6imum -eriod. (t is the -enalty
s-eci<cally -ro!ided for the s-ecial com-le6
crime that shall be a--lied according to the
rules on im-osition of the -enalty.
H*L(T+ C+5T(5B&H+$ or C+5T(5B+B'
C(7*$ 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
di!ision$ which are carried out in the same
-lace and at about the same time$ and
!iolating one and the same -enal -ro!ision.
The acts done must be im-elled by one
criminal intent or -ur-ose$ such that each act
merely constitutes a -artial e6ecution of a
-articular crime$ !iolating one and the same
-enal -ro!ision. (t in!ol!es a concurrence of
felonious acts !iolating a common right$ a
common -enal -ro!ision$ and (m-elled by a
single criminal im-ulse (People vs. 6e%esma, 13
SC! 11).
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio ictus #s9 error in personae
(199)
Histinguish aberratio ictus from error in
-ersonae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
28 of 86
&berratio ictus or mista1e 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
!ictim. *rror in -ersonae$ or mista1e in
identity occurs when the felonious act was
directed at the -erson intended$ but who
turned out to be somebody else. &berratio
ictus brings about at least two %2) felonious
conse2uence$ ie. the attem-ted felony on the
intended !ictim who was not hit and the
felony on the unintended !ictim who was hit.
& com-le6 crime of the <rst form under &rt.
GE$ "C generally result. (n error in
-ersonae only one crime is committed
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctusB +rror 2n Personae @
Praeter 2ntentionem (1999)
What do you understand by aberratio ictusM
error in -ersonae. and -raeter intentionem#
Ho they alter the criminal liability of an
accused# *6-lain. %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&9*&T(+ (CTB' or mista1e in the blow
occurs when the ofender deli!ered the blow
at his intended !ictim but missed$ and
instead such blow landed on an unintended
!ictim. The situation generally brings about
com-le6 crimes where from a single act$ two
or more gra!e or less gra!e felonies
resulted$ namely the attem-t against the
intended !ictim and the conse2uence on the
unintended !ictim. &s com-le6 crimes$ the
-enalty for the more serious crime shall be
the one im-osed and in the ma6imum
-eriod. (t is only when the resulting felonies
are only light that com-le6 crimes do not
result and the -enalties are to be im-osed
distinctly for each resulting crime.
*+ (5 "*'+5&* or mista1e in
identity occurs when the ofender actually
hit the -erson to whom the blow was
directed but turned out to be diferent from
and not the !ictim intended. The criminal
liability of the ofender is not afected$
unless the mista1e in identity resulted to a
crime diferent from what the ofender
intended to commit$ in which case the lesser
-enalty between the crime intended and the
crime committed shall be im-osed but in the
ma6imum -eriod (!rt. 49, FC).
"&*T* (5T*5T(+5*7 or where the
conse2uence went beyond that intended or
e6-ected. This is a mitigating circumstance
%&rt. 1A. -ar. A$ "C) when there is a
notorious dis-arity between the act or
means em-loyed by the ofender and the
resulting felony$ i$e.$ the resulting felony
could not be reasonably antici-ated or
foreseen by the of fender from the act or
means em-loyed by him.
Comple/ Crime; (3erratio 2ctus; (ttempte" 8ur"er with
>omici"e (%&&&)
their
celebration by ha!ing a drin1ing s-ree at
3onaIs -lace by e6-loding their highL-owered
<recrac1ers in their neighborhood. (n the
course of their con!ersation$ 3onas con<ded
to 3a0a that he has been 1ee-ing a longLtime
grudge against his neighbor 3e-oy in !iew of
the latterIs refusal to lend him some money.
While under the infuence of li2uor$ 3onas
started throwing lighted su-er lolos inside
3e-oyIs fence to irritate him and the same
e6-loded inside the latterIs yard. B-on
1nowing that the throwing of the su-er lolo
was deliberate$ 3e-oy became furious and
sternly warned 3onas to sto- his malicious
act or he would get what he wanted. &
heated argument between 3onas and 3e-oy
ensued but 3a0a tried to calm down his friend.
&t midnight$ 3onas con!inced 3a0a to lend him
his .G= caliber -istol so that he could use it to
1noc1 down 3e-oy and to end his arrogance.
3onas thought that after all$ e6-losions were
e!erywhere and nobody would 1now who
shot 3e-oy. &fter 3a0a lent his <rearm to
3onas$ the latter again started throwing
lighted su-er lolos and -laL-las at 3e-oyIs
yard in order to -ro!o1e him so that he
would come out of his house. When 3e-oy
came out$ 3onas immediately shot him with
3a0aIs .G= caliber gun but missed his target.
(nstead$ the bullet hit 3e-oyIs <!e year old
son who was following behind him$ 1illing
the boy instantaneously$ a) What crime or
crimes can 3onas and 3a0a be charged with#
*6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
3onas and 3a0a$ can be charged with the
com-le6 crime of attem-ted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less
gra!e and a gra!e felony %&rt. GE. "C).
&ttem-ted murder is a less gra!e felony$
while consummated homicide is a gra!e
felonyM both are -unishable by aRicti!e
-enalties.
Comple/ Crime; 5octrine of (3erratio 2ctus; <ot
(pplica3le (1996)
&t the height of an altercation$ "edrito shot
"aulo but missed$ hitting Tiburcio instead$
resulting in the death of the latter. "edrito$
in!o1ing the doctrine of aberratio ictus$
claims e6em-tion from criminal liability. (f
you were the 0udge$ how would you decide
the case#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(f ( were the 3udge$ ( will con!ict "edrito and
<nd him guilty of the com-le6 crime of
)omicide with &ttem-ted )omicide. The
single act of <ring at "aulo resulted in the
commission of two felonies$ one gra!e
%homicide) and the other less gra!e
%attem-ted homicide) thus falling s2uarely
under &rt. GE$ "C. hence$ the -enalty
would be for the more serious crime
%homicide} in its ma6imum -eriod %1Q years
G months and 1 day to 2D years).
&berratio ictus %mista1e in the blow) could
not be used as a defense as it is not an
e6em-ting circumstance. "edrito is liable
under the -rinci-le of &rt. G$ "C$ which
ma1es a -erson criminally liable for all the
natural and logical conse2uences of his
felonious act
29 of 86
Comple/ Crimes; Coup "Cetat @ re3ellion @ se"ition
(%&&1)
1) Can there be a com-le6 crime of cou-
dIetat with rebellion# 2> 2) Can there be a
com-le6 crime of cou- dIetat with sedition#
2>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) ,es$ if there was cons-iracy between
the ofender; ofenders committing the cou-
dIetat and the ofenders committing the
rebellion. 9y cons-iracy$ the crime of one
would be the crime of the other and !ice
!ersa. This is -ossible because the ofender
in cou- dIetat may be any -erson or -ersons
belonging to the military or the national
-olice or a -ublic oficer$ whereas rebellion
does not so re2uire. 7oreo!er$ the crime of
cou- dIetat may be committed singly$
whereas rebellion re2uires a -ublic u-rising
and ta1ing u- arms to o!erthrow the duly
constituted go!ernment. 'ince the two
crimes are essentially diferent and -unished
with distinct -enalties$ there is no legal
im-ediment to the a--lication of &rt. GE of
the e!ised "enal Code.
2) ,es$ cou- dIetat can be com-le6ed
with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially diferent and distinctly -unished
under the e!ised "enal Code. 'edition may
not be directed against the @o!ernment or
nonL-olitical in ob0ecti!e$ whereas cou- dIetat
is always -olitical in ob0ecti!e as it is directed
against the @o!ernment and led by -ersons
or -ublic oficer holding -ublic ofice
belonging to the military or national -olice.
&rt. GE of the Code may a--ly under the
conditions therein -ro!ided.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The crime of cou- dIetat cannot be
com-le6ed with the crime of rebellion
because both crimes are directed against the
@o!ernment or for -olitical -ur-oses$
although the -rinci-al ofenders are
diferent. 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 &rticle
GE of the Code.
Comple/ Crimes; 5etermination of the Crime (1999)
&$ actuated by malice and with the use of a
fully automatic 7L1G subLmachine gun$ shot a
grou- of -ersons who were seated in a
coc1-it with one burst of successi!e$
continuous$ automatic <re. :our %G) -ersons
were 1illed thereby$ each ha!ing hit by
diferent bullets coming from the subL
machine gun of &. :our %G) cases of murder
were <led against &. The trial court ruled
that there was only one crime committed by
& for the reason that$ since & -erformed only
one act$ he ha!ing -ressed the trigger of his
gun only once$ the crime committed was
murder. Conse2uently$ the trial 0udge
sentenced & to 0ust one -enalty of reclusion
-er-etua. Was the decision of the trial 0udge
correct# *6-lain. %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The decision of the trial 0udge is not correct.
When the ofender made use of an automatic
<rearm$ the acts committed are determined
by the number of bullets discharged
inasmuch as the <rearm being automatic$
the ofender need only -ress the trigger
once and it would <re continually. :or each
death caused by a distinct and se-arate
bullet$ the accused incurs distinct criminal
liability. )ence$ it is not the act of -ressing
the trigger which should be considered as
-roducing the se!eral felonies$ but the
number of bullets which actually -roduced
them.
Comple/ Crimes; <ature @ Penalty 2n#ol#e" (1999)
What constitutes a com-le6 crime# )ow
many crimes maybe in!ol!ed in a com-le6
crime# What is the -enalty therefor# %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& com-le6 crime is constituted when a
single act caused two or more gra!e or less
gra!e felonies or when an ofense is
committed as a necessary means to commit
another ofense %&rt. GE$ "C). &t least two
%2) crimes are in!ol!ed in a com-le6 crime.
either two or more gra!e or less gra!e
felonies resulted from a single act$ or an
ofense is committed as a necessary means
for committing another. The -enalty for the
more serious crime shall be im-osed and in
its ma6imum -eriod. %&rt. GE$ "C)
Comple/ Crimes; =r"inary Comple/ Crime #s9 Special
Comple/ Crime (%&&1)
Histinguish between an ordinary com-le6
crime and a s-ecial com-le6 crime as to
their conce-ts and as to the im-osition of
-enalties. 2>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
I# C$#CE%& "
&n +H(5&, C+7"L*N C(7* is made
u- of two or more crimes being -unished in
distinct -ro!isions of the e!ised "enal Code
but alleged in one (nformation either
because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one ofense is a
necessary means for committing the other
ofense or ofenses. They are alleged in one
(nformation so that only one -enalty shall be
im-osed.
& '"*C(&L C+7"L*N C(7*$ on the other
hand$ is made u- of two or more crimes
which are considered only as com-onents of
a single indi!isible ofense being -unished
in one -ro!ision of the e!ised "enal Code.
AS &$ %E#A'&IES L(n +H(5&,
C+7"L*N C(7*$ the -enalty for the most
serious crime shall be im-osed and in its
ma6imum -eriod.
(n '"*C(&L C+7"L*N C(7*$ only one
-enalty is s-eci<cally -rescribed for all the
com-onent crimes which are regarded as
one indi!isible ofense. 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 ma6imum -eriod. (t is
30 of 86
the -enalty s-eci<cally -ro!ided for the
s-ecial com-le6 crime that shall be a--lied
according to the rules on im-osition of the
-enalty.
Continuing =ffense #s9 5elito Continua"o (199)
Hiferentiate delito continuado from a
continuing ofense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
H*L(T+ C+5T(5B&H+$ or C+5T(5B+B'
C(7*$ 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
di!ision$ which are carried out in the same
-lace and at about the same time$ and
!iolating one and the same -enal -ro!ision.
The acts done must be im-elled by one
criminal intent or -ur-ose$ such that each act
merely constitutes a -artial e6ecution of a
-articular crime$ !iolating one and the same
-enal -ro!ision. (t in!ol!es a concurrence of
felonious acts !iolating a common right$ a
common -enal -ro!ision$ and im-elled by a
single criminal im-ulse (People vs. 6e%esma, 13
SC! 11).
+n the other hand$ a C+5T(5B(5@
+::*5'* is one whose essential ingredients
too1 -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 8C+5T(5B*H C(7*8 or delito
continuado mandates that only one
information should be <led against the
ofender although a series of felonious acts
were -erformed. the term 8continuing
crime8 is more -ertinently used with
reference to the !enue where the criminal
action may be instituted.
5eath Penalty (%&&)
&. The death -enalty cannot be inficted
under which of the following circumstancesM
1) When the guilty -erson is at least 1E
years of age at
the time of the commission of the crime. 2)
When the guilty -erson is more than QD
years of age. A) When$ u-on a--eal to or
automatic re!iew by the
'u-reme Court$ the re2uired ma0ority for the
im-osition of the death -enalty is not
obtained. G) When the -erson is con!icted of
a ca-ital crime but before e6ecution
becomes insane. =) When the accused is a
woman while she is -regnant or within one
year after deli!ery. *6-lain your answer or
choice briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&. Bnderstanding the word 8inficted8 to
mean the im-osition of the death -enalty$
not its e6ecution$ the circumstance in which
the death -enalty cannot be inficted is no.
2M 8when the guilty -erson is more than QD
years of age8 %&rt. GQ$ e!ised "enal Code).
(nstead$ the -enalty shall be commuted to
reclusion -er-etua$ with the accessory
-enalties -ro!ided in &rticle GD$ :C.
(n circumstance no. 1 when the guilty
-erson is at least 1E years of age at the time
of the commission of the

crime$ the death -enalty can be im-osed
since the ofender is already of legal age
when he committed the crime.
Circumstance no. A no longer o-erates$
considering the decision of the S#preme
Co#rt i& People vs. >.re& $ateo ((..
141618<81, +#l3 1, *))4) -ro!iding an
intermediate re!iew for such cases where
the -enalty im-osed is death$ reclusion
-er-etua or life im-risonment before they
are ele!ated to the 'u-reme Court.
(n circumtances nos. G S =$ the death
-enalty can be im-osed if -rescribed by the
law !iolated although its e6ecution shall be
sus-ended when the con!ict becomes
insane before it could be e6ecuted and while
he is insane.
Li1ewise$ the death -enalty can be im-osed
u-on a woman but its e6ecution shall be
sus-ended during her -regnancy and for
one year after her deli!ery.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The word 8(5:L(CT*H8 is found only in &rt.
EA to the efect that the death -enalty may
not be 8(5:L(CT*H8 u-on a -regnant
woman$ such -enalty is to be sus-ended. (f
8(5:L(CT*H8 is to be construed as
8*N*CBT(+58$ then 5o. = is the choice.
5eath Penalty; ?ualifie" 0ape; 0e;uisites (%&&)
@/ was con!icted of ra-ing TC$ his niece$
and he was sentenced to death. (t was
alleged in the information that the !ictim
was a minor below se!en years old$ and her
mother testi<ed that she was only si6 years
and ten months old$ which her aunt
corroborated on the witness stand. The
information also alleged that the accused
was the !ictimIs uncle$ a fact -ro!ed by the
-rosecution.
+n automatic re!iew before the 'u-reme
Court$ accusedLa--ellant contends that
ca-ital -unishment could not be im-osed on
him because of the inade2uacy of the
charges and the insuficiency of the e!idence
to -ro!e all the elements of the heinous
crime of ra-e beyond reasonable doubt. (s
a--ellantIs contention correct# eason
briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ a--ellantIs contention is correct insofar
as the age of the !ictim is concerned. The
age of the !ictim ra-ed has not been -ro!ed
beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the
crime as 2uali<ed ra-e and deser!ing of the
death -enalty. The guidelines in
a--reciating age as a 2ualifying
circumstance in ra-e cases ha!e not been
met$ to witM 1) The -rimary e!idence of the
age of the !ictim is her
birth certi<cate. 2) (n the absence of the
birth certi<cate$ age of the
!ictim maybe -ro!en by authentic document$
such as ba-tismal certi<cate and school records.
A) (f the aforesaid documents are shown to
ha!e been lost or destroyed or otherwise una!ailable$ the
testimony$ if clear and credible of the !ictimIs
mother or any member of the family$ by
consanguinity or afinity$ who is 2uali<ed to
testify on matters res-ecting -edigree such as the
e6act age
31 of 86
or date of birth of the ofended -arty
-ursuant to 'ection GD$ ule 1AD of the
ules on *!idence shall be suficient but
only under the following circumstancesM
%a) (f the !ictim is alleged to be below A
years of age and what is sought to be
-ro!ed is that she is less than Q years old.
%b) (f the !ictim is alleged to be below Q
years of age and what is sought to be
-ro!ed is that she is less than 12 years
old. %c) (f the !ictim is alleged to be below
12 years of age and what is sought to be
-ro!ed is that she is less than 1E years
old.
4) (n the absence of a certi<cate of li!e
birth$ authentic document$ or the testimony
of the !ictimIs mother or relati!es concerning
the !ictimIs age under the circumstances
abo!eLstated$ com-lainantIs sole testimony
can sufice$ -ro!ided that it is e6-ressly and
clearly admitted by the accused (People #s.
Pr#&a, 39) SC! '11 ?*))*=).
>a3itual 5elin;uency @ 0eci"i#ism (%&&1)
3uan de Castro already had three %A) -re!ious
con!ictions by <nal 0udgment for theft when
he was found guilty of obbery with
)omicide. (n the last case$ the trial 3udge
considered against the accused both
recidi!ism and habitual delin2uency. The
accused a--ealed and contended that in his
last con!iction$ the trial court cannot
consider against him a <nding of recidi!ism
and$ again$ of habitual delin2uency. (s the
a--eal meritorious# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the a--eal is not meritorious. ecidi!ism
and habitual delin2uency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of
recidi!ism is diferent from that of habitual
delin2uency. 3uan is a recidi!ist ... )abitual
delin2uency$ which brings about an
additional -enalty when an ofender is
con!icted a third time or more for s-eci<ed
crimes$ is correctly considered because 3uan
had already three %A) -re!ious con!ictions by
<nal 0udgment for theft and again con!icted
for obbery With )omicide. &nd the crimes
s-eci<ed as basis for habitual delin2uency
includes$ inter alia$ theft and robbery.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (199)
(tos was con!icted of an ofense -enali4ed
by a s-ecial law. The -enalty -rescribed is
not less than si6 years but not more than
twel!e years. 5o modifying circumstance
attended the commission of the crime. (f
you were the 0udge$ will you a--ly the
(ndeterminate 'entence Law# (f so$ how will
you a--ly it#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(f ( were the 0udge$ ( will a--ly the
-ro!isions of the (ndeterminate 'entence
Law$ as the last sentence of 'ection 1 &ct
G1DA$ s-eci<cally -ro!ides the a--lication
thereof for !iolations of s-ecial laws.
Bnder the same -ro!ision$ the minimum
must not be less than the minimum -ro!ided
therein %si6 years and one day) and the
ma6imum shall not be more than the
ma6imum -ro!ided therein$ i.e. twel!e
years. (People vs. osali&a e3es, 186 SC!
184)
&ndres is charged with an ofense de<ned by
a s-ecial law. The -enalty -rescribed for the
ofense is im-risonment of not less than <!e
%=) years but not more than ten J1D) years.
B-on arraignment$ he entered a -lea of
guilty. (n the im-osition of the -ro-er -enalty$
should the (ndeterminate 'entence Law be
a--lied# (f you were the 3udge trying the
case$ what -enalty would you im-ose on
&ndres# %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the (ndeterminate 'entence Law should
be a--lied because the minimum
im-risonment is more than one %1) year.
(f ( were the 3udge$ ( will im-ose an
indeterminate sentence$ the ma6imum of
which shall not e6ceed the ma6imum <6ed
by law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum -enalty -rescribed by the
same. ( ha!e the discretion to im-ose the
-enalty within the said minimum and
ma6imum.
& was con!icted of illegal -ossession of
grease guns and two Thom-son subLmachine
guns -unishable under the old law J& 5o$GK
with im-risonment of from <!e %=) to ten
%1D) years. The trial court sentenced the
accused to sufer im-risonment of <!e %=)
years and one %1) day. (s the -enalty thus
im-osed correct# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(ndeterminate 'entence Law does not a--ly
toM The -enalty im-osed$ being only a straight
-enalty$ is not correct because it does not
com-ly with the (ndeterminate 'entence Law
which a--lies to this case. 'aid law re2uires
that if the ofense is -unished by any law
other than the e!ised "enal Code$ the court
shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence$ the ma6imum term
of which shall not e6ceed the ma6imum
-enalty <6ed by the law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum -enalty
-rescribed by the same.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&%)
)ow are the ma6imum and the minimum
terms of the indeterminate sentence for
ofenses -unishable under the e!ised "enal
Code determined# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
:or crimes -unished under the e!ised "enal
Code$ the ma6imum term of the
(ndeterminate sentence shall be the -enalty
-ro-erly im-osable under the same Code
after considering the attending mitigating
and;or aggra!ating circumstances according
to &rt$ CG of said Code. The minimum term of
the same sentence shall be <6ed within the
range of the -enalty ne6t lower in degree to
that -rescribed for the crime under the said
Code.
(ner the law) what is the purpose for
*xing the maximum an the minimum
terms of the ineterminate sentence+
%2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
32 of 86
The -ur-ose of the law in <6ing the
minimum term of the sentence is to set the
grace -eriod at which the con!ict may be
released on -arole from im-risonment$
unless by his conduct he is not deser!ing of
-arole and thus he shall continue ser!ing his
-rison term in 3ail but in no case to go
beyond the ma6imum term <6ed in the
sentence.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law (%&&6)
)arold was con!icted of a crime de<ned and
-enali4ed by a s-ecial -enal law where the
im-osable -enalty is from C months$ as
minimum$ to A years$ as ma6imum.
'tate with reasons whether the court may
correctly im-ose the following -enaltiesM
a, a straight penalty of -.
months/
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,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)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
Bnder the (ndeterminate 'entence Law$ the
minimum im-osable -enalty shall be
im-osed but the ma6imum shall not e6ceed
the ma6imum im-osable by law.
b, 0 months) as minimum) to -- months)
as maximum/
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ because (ndeterminate 'entence Law
does not a--ly when the -enalty im-osed is
less than one year %'ec. 2$ &rt. G1DA$ as
amended).
c, a straight penalty of 1 years2
345,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ because the (ndeterminate 'entence
Law will a--ly when the minimum of the
-enalty e6ceeds one year.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER/
(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 fa!ors the accused.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (1999)
Bnder what circumstances is the
(ndeterminate 'entence Law not
a--licable# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) "ersons con!icted of ofenses -unished
with death -enalty or life im-risonment. 2)
Those con!icted of treason$ cons-iracy or
-ro-osal to commit treason. A) Those
con!icted of mis-rision of treason$ rebellion$
sedition or es-ionage. G) Those con!icted of
-iracy. =) Those who are habitual
delin2uents. C) Those who shall ha!e
esca-ed from con<nement or
e!aded sentence. Q) Those who !iolated the
terms of conditional -ardon granted to
them by the Chief *6ecuti!e. E) Those
whose ma6imum term of im-risonment does
not e6ceed one year.
F) Those who$ u-on the a--ro!al of the
law %Hecember =$ 1FAA). had been sentenced
by <nal 3udgment.
1D) Those sentenced to the -enalty of
destierro or sus-ension.
2n"eterminate Sentence Law; +/ceptions (%&&1)
When would the (ndeterminate 'entence
Law be ina--licable# G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The (ndeterminate 'entence Law is not
a--licable toM 1) those -ersons con!icted of ofenses
-unished with death -enalty or lifeL
im-risonment or reclusion -er-etua.
2) those con!icted of treason$ cons-iracy or
-ro-osal to commit treason. A) those
con!icted of mis-rision of treason$ rebellion$
sedition or es-ionage. G) those con!icted of
-iracy. =) those who are habitual
delin2uents. C) those who shall ha!e
esca-ed from con<nement or
e!aded sentence.
Q) those who ha!ing been granted
conditional -ardon by the Chief *6ecuti!e
shall ha!e !iolated the terms thereof.
E) those whose ma6imum term of
im-risonment does not e6ceed one year. F)
those already sentenced by <nal 0udgment
at the time of a--ro!al of this &ct. and 1D)
those whose sentence im-oses -enalties
which do not in!ol!e im-risonment$ li1e
destierro.
Penalties4 .ine or 2mprisonment #s9 Su3si"iary
2mprisonment (%&&6)
* and 7 are con!icted of a -enal law that
im-oses a -enalty of <ne or im-risonment or
both <ne and im-risonment. The 0udge
sentenced them to -ay the <ne$ 0ointly and
se!erally$ with subsidiary im-risonment in
case of insol!ency. (s the -enalty -ro-er#
*6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -enalty is not -ro-er. The two accused
must se-arately -ay the <ne$ which is their
-enalty. 'olidary liability a--lies only to ci!il
liabilities.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5+$ because in -enal law when there are
se!eral ofenders$ the court in the e6ercise of
its discretion shall determine what shall be
the share of each ofender de-ending u-on
the degree of -artici-ation T as -rinci-al$
accom-lice or accessory. (f within each class
of ofender$ 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 ofender shall be subsidiary. &nyone
of the may be re2uired to -ay the ci!il
liability -ertaining to such ofender without
-re0udice to reco!ery from those whose
share ha!e been -aid by another.
6ay the 7uge impose an alternative
penalty of *ne or imprisonment+
Explain2 385,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
33 of 86
5o. & <ne$ whether im-osed as a single or
as an alternati!e -enalty$ should not and
cannot be reduced or con!erted into a
-rison term. There is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a <ne into a
term of im-risonment. (People v. 9a5#35#3,
(.. No. 6<4'1*1 $a3 ', 1989)
Penalties4 Pecuniary Penalties #s9 Pecuniary Lia3ilities
(%&&6)
Histinguish -ecuniary -enalties from
-ecuniary liabilities. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"ecuniary liabilities do not include
restitution$ but include re-aration of
damages caused$ the indemni<cation for
conse2uential damages$ as well as <nes and
cost of the -roceedings.
"ecuniary -enalties include <nes and cost of
the -roceedings.
Penalties; Comple/ Crime of +stafa (199*)
& was con!icted of the com-le6 crime of
estafa through falsi<cation of -ublic
document. 'ince the amount (n!ol!ed did
not e6ceed "2DD.DD$ the -enalty -rescribed
by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its
medium and ma6imum -eriods. The -enalty
-rescribed by law for falsi<cation of -ublic
document is -rision mayor -lus <ne not to
e6ceed "=$DDD.DD. (m-ose the -ro-er -rison
-enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -ro-er -enalty is &5, &5@* W(T)(5
-rision correccional %si6 %C) months and one
%1) day to si6 %C) years) as 7(5(7B7$ to
&5, &5@* within -rision mayor ma6imum
%ten %1D) years and one %1) day to twel!e %12)
years) as 7&N(7B7. This is in accordance
with "eo-le us$ @on4ales$ QA "hil$ =GF$
where (t was ruled that for the -ur-ose of
determining the -enalty ne6t 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 ma6imum -eriod$ which is only the
-enalty actually a--lied because of &rticle
GE of the e!ised "enal Code. The -enalty
ne6t lower in degree therefor is -rision
correccional and it is within the range of this
-enalty that the minimum should be ta1en.
Penalties; .actors to Consi"er (1991)
(magine that you are a 3udge trying a case$
and based on the e!idence -resented and
the a--licable law$ you ha!e decided on the
guilt of two %2) accused. (ndicate the <!e
%=) ste-s you would follow to determine the
e6act -enalty to be im-osed. 'tated
diferently$ what are the factors you must
consider to arri!e at the correct -enalty#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 the crime committed.
2 'tage of e6ecution and degree of
-artici-ation.
3 Hetermine the -enalty.
4 Consider the modifying
circumstances.
5 Hetermine whether (ndeterminate
'entence Law is a--licable or not.
Criminal Law Bar Exa
mination Q & A (1994-2006)
34
of
86
Penalties; >omici"e wD 8o"ifying Circumstance (1996)
)omer was con!icted of homicide. The trial
court a--reciated the following modifying
circumstancesM the aggra!ating circumstance
of nocturnity$ and the mitigating
circumstances of -assion and obfuscation$ no
intent to commit so gra!e a wrong$ illiteracy
and !oluntary surrender. The im-osable
-enalty for homicide is reclusion tem-oral
the range of which is twel!e %12) years and
one %1) day to twenty %2D) years. Ta1ing into
account the attendant aggra!ating and
mitigating circumstances$ and a--lying the
(ndeterminate 'entence Law$ determine the
-ro-er -enalty to be im-osed on the accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(t a--ears that there is one aggra!ating
circumstance %nocturnity)$ and four
mitigating circumstances %-assion and
obfuscation$ no intent to commit so gra!e a
wrong as that committed and !oluntary
surrender). "ar. G$ &rt. CG should be a--lied.
)ence there will be ofLsetting of modifying
circumstances$ which will now result in the
e6cess of three mitigating circumstances.
This will therefore 0ustify in reducing the
-enalty to the minimum -eriod.
The e6istence of an aggra!ating
circumstance$ albeit there are four
aggra!ating$ will not 0ustify the lowering of
the -enalty to the ne6t lower degree under
-aragra-h = of said &rticle$ as this is
a--licable only if T)** (' 5+
&@@&/&T(5@ C(CB7'T&5C* -resent.
'ince the crime committed is )omicide and
the -enalty therefor is reclusion tem-oral$
the 7&N(7B7 sentence under the
(ndeterminate 'entence Law should be the
minimum of the -enalty$ which is 12 years
and 1 day to 1G years and E months. The
7(5(7B7 -enalty will thus be the -enalty
ne6t lower in degree$ which is -rision mayor
in its full e6tent %C years and 1 day to 12
years). *rgo$ the -ro-er -enalty would be C
years and 1 day$ as minimum$ to 12 years
and 1 day$ as ma6imum. ( belie!e that
because of the remaining mitigating
circumstances after the ofLsetting it would
be !ery logical to im-ose the minimum of
the 7(5(7B7 sentence under the ('L and
the minimum of the 7&N(7B7 sentence.
Penalties; 8itigating Circumstances wDout (ggra#ating
Circumstance (199*)
&ssume in the -receding -roblem that there
were two mitigating circumstances and no
aggra!ating circumstance. (m-ose the -ro-er
-rison -enalty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
There being two %2) mitigating
circumstances without any aggra!ating
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 si6 %C) months)
as 7(5(7B7 to -rision correccional in its
ma6imum -eriod four %G) years$ two %2)
months$ and one %1) day to si6 %C) years as
7&N(7B7. Bnder &rt. CG$ -ar. = of the
e!ised "enal Code$ when a -enalty contains
three -eriods$ each one of which forms a
-eriod in accordance with &rticle QC and QQ
of the same Code$ and there are
two or more mitigating circumstances and no
aggra!ating circumstances$ the -enalty ne6t
lower in degree should be im-osed. :or
-ur-oses of the (ndeterminate 'entence Law$
the -enalty ne6t lower in degree should be
determined without regard as to whether the
basic -enalty -ro!ided by the e!ised "enal
Code should be a--lied in its ma6imum or
minimum -eriod as circumstances modifying
liability may re2uire. The -enalty ne6t lower
in degree to -rision correccional. Therefore$
as -re!iously stated$ the minimum should be
within the range of arresto mayor and the
ma6imum is within the range of -rision
correctional in its ma6imum -eriod.
Penalties; Parrici"e wD 8itigating Circumstance (199*)
& and 9 -leaded guilty to the crime of
-arricide. The court found three mitigating
circumstances$ namely$ -lea of guilty$ lac1 of
(nstruction and lac1 of intent to commit so
gra!e 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 ANSWER3
The -ro-er -enalty is reclusion -er-etua.
*!en if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances$ a court cannot lower the
-enalty by one degree %&rt. CA. -ar. A$
e!ised "enal Code. "eo-le !s. :ormigones$
EQ "hil. CE=). (n B.'. !s. elador CD "hil.
=FA$ where the crime committed was
-arricide with the two %2) mitigating
circumstances of illiteracy and lac1 of
intention to commit so gra!e a wrong$ and
with no aggra!ating circumstance$ the
'u-reme Court held that the -ro-er$ -enalty
to be im-osed is reclusion -er-etua.
Penalties; Pre#enti#e 2mprisonment (199)
1) When is there -re!enti!e im-risonment#
2) When is the accused credited with the
full time of his -re!enti!e im-risonment$
and when is he credited with G;= thereof#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) There is -re!enti!e im-risonment when
Ja) an ofender is detained while the
criminal case against him is being heard$
either because the crime committed is a
ca-ital ofense and not bailable$ or e!en if
the crime committed was bailable$ the
ofender could not -ost the re2uired bail for
his -ro!isional liberty.
2) &n accused is credited with the full time
of his -re!enti!e im-risonment if he
!oluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the
rules of the institution im-osed u-on its
-risoners$ -ro!ided thatM
a) the -enalty im-osed on him for the crime
committed consists of a de-ri!ation of
liberty. b) he is not dis2uali<ed from such credit for
being a recidi!ist$ or for ha!ing been -re!iously
con!icted for two or more times of any
crime$ or for ha!ing failed to surrender !oluntarily
for the e6ecution of the sentence u-on being so
summoned %&rt. 2F$ "C).
Where the accused howe!er did not agree
he would only be credited with G;= of the
time he had undergone -re!enti!e
im-risonment.
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua (0() <o9 *969 (%&&6)
Bnder &rticle 2Q of the e!ised "enal Code$
as amended by e-ublic &ct %&) 5o. QF=F$
reclusion -er-etua shall be from 2D years
and 1 day to GD years. Hoes this mean that
reclusion -er-etua is now a di!isible
-enalty# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ because the 'u-reme Court has
re-eatedly called the attention of the 9ench
and the 9ar 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-eci<ed by the
a--licable law. eclusion -er-etua has a
s-eci<c duration of 2D years and 1 day to GD
years %&rt. 2Q) and accessory -enalties %&rt.
G1)$ while life im-risonment has no de<nite
term or accessory -enalties. &lso$ 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 #s9 Life 2mprisonment
(199)
Hiferentiate reclusion -er-etua from life
im-risonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*CLB'(+5 "*"*TB& is that -enalty
-ro!ided for in the e!ised "enal Code for
crimes de<ned in and -enali4ed therein
e6ce-t for some crimes de<ned by s-ecial
laws which im-ose reclusion -er-etua$ such
as !iolations of e-ublic &ct CG2=$ as
amended by e-ublic &ct QC=F or of "H
1ECD. while L(:* (7"('+57*5T is a
-enalty usually -ro!ided for in s-ecial laws.
eclusion -er-etua has a duration of twenty
%2D) years and one %1) day to forty JGDK years
under e-ublic &ct QC=F$ while life
im-risonment has no duration. reclusion
-er-etua may be reduced by one or two
degrees. reclusion -er-etuates accessory
-enalties while life im-risonment does not
ha!e any accessory -enalties (People vs.
;a2#io, 196 SC! 4'9, People vs. Pa&ellos, *)'
SC! '46).
Penalties; 0eclusion Perpetua #s9 Life 2mprisonment
(%&&1)
&fter trial$ 3udge 3uan Laya of the 7anila
TC found 9en0amin @arcia guilty of
7urder$ the !ictim ha!ing sustained se!eral
bullet wounds in his body so that he died
des-ite medical assistance gi!en in the
+s-ital ng 7anila. 9ecause the wea-on used
by 9en0amin was unlicensed and the
2ualifying circumstance of treachery was
found to be -resent. 3udge Laya rendered
his decision con!icting 9en0amin and
sentencing him to 8reclusion -er-etua or life
im-risonment8.
&re 8reclusion -er-etua8 and life
im-risonment the same and can be im-osed
interchangeably as in the foregoing
sentence# +r are they totally diferent# 'tate
your reasons. %A>)
35 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -enalty of reclusion -er-etua and the
-enalty of life (m-risonment are totally
diferent from each other and therefore$
should not be used interchangeably.
eclusion -er-etua is a -enalty -rescribed
by the e!ised "enal Code$ with a <6ed
duration of im-risonment from 2D years and
1 day to GD years$ and carries it with
accessory -enalties.
Life im-risonment$ on the other hand$ is a
-enalty -rescribed by s-ecial laws$ with no
<6ed duration of im-risonment and without
any accessory -enalty.
Pro3ation Law4 Proper Perio" (%&&6)
7aganda was charged with !iolation of the
9ouncing Chec1s Law %9" 22) -unishable by
im-risonment of not less than AD days but
not more than 1 year or a <ne of not less
than but not more than double the amount of
the chec1$ which <ne shall not e6ceed
"2DD$DDD.DD$ or both. The court con!icted
her of the crime and sentenced her to -ay a
<ne of "=D$DDD.DD with subsidiary
im-risonment in case of insol!ency$ and to
-ay the -ri!ate com-lainant the amount of
the chec1. 7aganda was unable to -ay the
<ne but <led a -etition for -robation. The
court granted the -etition sub0ect to the
condition$ among others$ that she should not
change her residence without the courtUs
-rior a--ro!al.
a) What is the -ro-er -eriod of -robation#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -eriod shall not be less than twice the
total number of days of subsidiary
im-risonment. Bnder &ct 5o. 1QA2$
subsidiary im-risonment for !iolations of
s-ecial laws shall not e6ceed C months at
the rate of one day of im-risonment for
e!ery :2.=D. )ence$ the -ro-er -eriod of
-robation should not be less than %C months
nor more than 12 months. 'ince "=D$DDD.DD
<ne is more than the ma6imum subsidiary
im-risonment of C months at "2.=D a day.
b) 'u--osing before the +rder of Hischarge
was issued by the court but after the la-se of
the -eriod of -robation$ 7aganda
transferred residence without -rior a--ro!al
of the court. 7ay the court re!o1e the +rder
of "robation and order her to ser!e the
subsidiary im-risonment# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. The Court may re!o1e her -robation.
"robation is not coterminous with its -eriod.
There must <rst be issued by the court an
order of <nal discharge based on the re-ort
and recommendation of the -robation
oficer. +nly then can the case of the
-robationer be terminated.
(;ala v. $arti&e0, (.. No. 613)1, +a&#ar3 *9,
199), 5iti&2 Se5. 16 o. P.9. No. 968)
Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (199)
+n :ebruary A$ 1FEC$ oberto was con!icted
of arson through rec1less im-rudence and
sentenced to -ay a <ne of "1=$DDD.DD$ with
subsidiary im-risonment in case of
insol!ency by the egional Trial Court of
?ue4on City.
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (
1994-2006)
+n :ebruary 1D$ 1FEC$ he a--ealed to the
Court of &--eals. 'e!eral months later$ he
<led a motion to withdraw the a--eal on the
ground that he is a--lying for -robation. +n
7ay Q$ 1FEQ$ the Court of &--eals granted
the motion and considered the a--eal
withdrawn.
+n 3une 1D$ 1FEQ$ the records of the case
were remanded to the trial court. oberto
<led a 87otion for "robation8 -raying that
e6ecution of his sentence be sus-ended$ and
that a -robation oficer be ordered to
conduct an (n!estigation and to submit a
re-ort on his -robation.
The 0udge denied the motion on the ground
that -ursuant to "residential Hecree 5o.
1FFD$ which too1 efect on 3uly 1C$1FEC$ no
a--lication for -robation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has
-erfected an a--eal from the 0udgment of
con!iction. (s the denial of obertoIs motion
correct#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. *!en if at the time of his con!iction
oberto was 2uali<ed for -robation but that
at the time of his a--lication for -robation$
he is no longer 2uali<ed$ he is not entitled to
-robation. The 2uali<cation for -robation
must be determined as of the time the
a--lication is <led 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&2 6lama%o vs. C!, et al, ( No.
848'9, +#&e *8, 1989" ;er&ar%o #s. +#%2e
;ala2ot, etal, ( 86'61, Nov. 1), 199*).
Pro3ation Law; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1)
&$ a subdi!ision de!elo-er$ was con!icted by
the TC of 7a1ati for failure to issue the
subdi!ision title to a lot buyer des-ite full
-ayment of the lot$ and sentenced to sufer
one year (m-risonment. & a--ealed the
decision of the TC to the Court of &--eals
but his a--eal was dismissed. 7ay & still
a--ly for -robation# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ & is no longer 2uali<ed to a--ly for
-robation after he a--ealed from the
0udgment of con!iction by the TC. The
-robation law %"H FCE$ as amended by
"H1FFD) now -ro!ides that no a--lication
for -robation shall be entertained or granted
if the accused has -erfected an a--eal from
the 0udgment of con!iction %'ec. G$ "H FCE).
Pro3ation Law; 8a/imum Term #s9 Total Term (199*)
The accused was found guilty of gra!e oral
defamation in si6teen %1C) informations
which were tried 0ointly and was sentenced
in one decision to sufer in each case a
-rison term of one %1) year and one %1) day
to one %1) year and eight %E) months of
-rision correccional. Within the -eriod to
a--eal$ he <led an a--lication for -robation
under the "robation Law of 1FQC$ as
amended. Could he -ossibly 2ualify for
-robation#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. (n Fra&5is5o vs. Co#rt o. !ppeals, *43
SC! 384$ the 'u-reme Court held that in
case of one decision im-osing multi-le
-rison terms$ the totality of the -rison terms
should not be ta1en into account for the
-ur-oses of determining the eligibility of the
accused for the
36 of 86
-robation. The law uses the word 8ma6imum
term8$ and not total term. (t is enough that
each of the -rison terms does not e6ceed si6
years. The number of ofenses is immaterial
for as long as the -enalties im-osed$ when
ta1en indi!idually and se-arately$ are within
the -robationable -eriod.
Pro3ation Law; =r"er 5enying Pro3ation; <ot
(ppeala3le (%&&%)
& was charged with homicide. &fter trial$ he
was found guilty and sentenced to si6 %C)
years and one %1) day in -rision mayor$ as
minimum$ to twel!e %12) years and one
%1) day of reclusion tem-oral$ as ma6imum.
"rior to his con!iction$ he had been found
guilty of !agrancy and im-risoned for ten
%1D) days of arresto manor and <ned <fty
-esos %"=D.DD). (s he eligible for -robation#
Why# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ he is not entitled to the bene<ts of the
"robation Law %"H FCE$ as amended) does
not e6tend to those sentenced to ser!e a
ma6imum term of im-risonment of more
than si6 years %'ec. Fa).
(t is of no moment that in his -re!ious
con!iction & was gi!en a -enalty of only ten
%1D) days of arresto mayor and a <ne of
"=D.DD.
9. 7ay a -robationer a--eal from the
decision re!o1ing the grant of -robation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof#
%2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. Bnder 'ection G of the "robation Law$
as amended$ an order granting or denying
-robation is not a--ealable.
Pro3ation Law; Perio" Co#ere" (%&&)
"N was con!icted and sentenced to
im-risonment of thirty days and a <ne of
one hundred -esos. "re!iously$ "N was
con!icted of another crime for which the
-enalty im-osed on him was thirty days only.
(s "N entitled to -robation# *6-lain briefy.
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ "N may a--ly for -robation. )is
-re!ious con!iction for another crime with a
-enalty of thirty days im-risonment or not
e6ceeding one %1) month does not dis2ualify
him from a--lying for -robation. the -enalty
for his -resent con!iction does not dis2ualify
him either from a--lying for -robation$ since
the im-risonment does not e6ceed si6 %C)
years (Se5. 9, Pres. 9e5ree No. 968).
Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (1996)
(n a case for !iolation of 'ec. E$ & CG2=$
otherwise 1nown as the Hangerous Hrugs
&ct$ accused /incent was gi!en the bene<t of
the mitigating circumstances of !oluntary
-lea of guilt and drun1enness not otherwise
habitual. )e was sentenced to sufer a
-enalty of si6 %C) years and one %1) day and to
-ay a <ne of "C$DDD.DD with the accessory
-enalties -ro!ided by law$ -lus costs. /incent
a--lied for -robation. The -robation oficer
fa!orably recommended his a--lication.
1 (f you were the 3udge$ what action will you
ta1e on the a--lication# Hiscuss fully.
2 'u--ose that /incent was con!icted of a
crime for which he was sentenced to a
ma6imum -enalty of ten %1D) years. Bnder
the law$ he is not eligible for -robation. )e
seasonably a--ealed his con!iction. While
afirming the 0udgment of con!iction$ the
a--ellate court reduced the -enalty to a
ma6imum of four %G) years and four %G)
months ta1ing into consideration certain
modifying circumstances. /incent now
a--lies for -robation. )ow will you rule on
his a--lication# Hiscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. (f ( were the 0udge$ ( will deny the
a--lication for -robation. The accused is not
entitled to -robation as 'ec. F of the
"robation Law$ "H 5+. FCE$ as amended$
s-eci<cally mentions that those who 8are
sentenced to ser!e a ma6imum term of
im-risonment of more than si6 years8 are
not entitled to the bene<ts of the law.
2. The law and 0uris-rudence are to the
efect that a--eal by the accused from a
sentence of con!iction 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!A
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 asBe%. -t is the
si&5ere 7elie. o. the Committee that
there is a &ee% to re<eCami&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
maCim#m pe&alt3 is N4T
P4;!T-4N!;6>. Se5o&%l3, whe&
the maCim#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#Der. +#%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% taBe
a%va&ta2e o. the law whe& the
%e5isio& is rema&%e% to the trial
5o#rt .or eCe5#tio& (Please see
9isse&ti&2 opi&io& i& Fra&5is5o vs.
C!). -t is s#22este%, there.ore, that
a& eCami&ee a&sweri&2 i& this te&or
sho#l% 7e 5re%ite% with some poi&ts.
Pro3ation Law; 0ight; Aarre" 3y (ppeal (%&&1)
3uan was con!icted of the egional Trial
Court of a crime and sentenced to sufer the
-enalty of im-risonment for a minimum of
eight years. )e a--ealed both his con!iction
and the -enalty im-osed u-on him to the
Court of &--eals. The a--ellate court
ultimately sustained 3uanIs con!iction but
reduced his sentence to a ma6imum of four
years and eight months im-risonment. Could
3uan forthwith <le an a--lication for
-robation# *6-lain. E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ 3uan can no longer a!ail of the -robation
because he a--ealed from the 0udgment of
con!iction of the trial court$ and therefore$
cannot a--ly for -robation anymore. 'ection
G of the "robation Law$ as amended$
37
of 86
mandates that no a--lication for -robation
shall be entertained or granted if the
accused has -erfected an a--eal from the
0udgment of con!iction.
Suspension of Sentence; ("ultsD8inors (%&&6)
There are at least Q instances or situations
in criminal cases wherein the accused$
either as an adult or as a minor$ can a--ly
for and;or be granted a sus-ended sentence.
*numerate at least = of them. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. 'us-ension of sentence of minor
under ".H. CDA as amended by .&. FAGG.
2. 'us-ension of sentence of minor
abo!e 1= but below 1E years of age at the
time of trial under .&. FAGG.
A. 'us-ension of sentence of minor
abo!e 1= but below 1E years of age at the
commission of the ofense$ while acting with
discernment.
G. 'us-ension of sentence by reason of
insanity %&rt. QF$ e!ised "enal Code).
=. 'us-ension of sentence for <rst
ofense of a minor !iolating 3/. F1C=. %'ec.
A2) C. 'us-ension of sentence under the
-robation law. %".H.
FCE) Q. 'us-ension of death sentence of a
-regnant woman. %&rt. EA$ e!ised "enal
Code)
(N4T! ;>N>A .!. 9344 is o#tsi%e the
5overa2e o. the eCami&atio&)
Suspension of Sentence; 8inors (%&&1)
& was 2 months below 1E years of age when
he committed the crime. )e was charged
with the crime A months later. )e was 2A
when he was <nally con!icted and
sentenced. (nstead of -re-aring to ser!e a
0ail term$ he sought a sus-ension of the
sentence on the ground that he was a
0u!enile ofender 'hould he be entitled to a
sus-ension of sentence# easons. G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ & 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.
:or -ur-oses of sus-ension of sentence$ the
ofenderIs age at the time of -romulgation of
the sentence is the one considered$ not his
age when he committed the crime. 'o
although & was below 1E years old when he
committed the crime$ but he was already 2A
years old when sentenced$ he is no longer
eligible for sus-ension of the sentence.
Can 7uvenile o9eners) who are
reciivists) valily as: for suspension of
sentence+ Explain2 85
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ so long as the ofender is still a minor at
the time of the -romulgation of the sentence.
The law establishing :amily Courts$ e-. &ct
EACF$ -ro!ides to this efectM that if the
minor is found guilty$ the court should
-romulgate the sentence and ascertain any
ci!il liability which the accused may ha!e
incurred. )owe!er$ the sentence shall be
sus-ended without the need of a--lication
-ursuant to "H CDA$ otherwise 1nown as the
8Child and ,outh Welfare Code8 %& EACF$
'ec. =a)$ (t is under "H CDA that an
a--lication for sus-ension of the
sentence is re2uired and thereunder it is
one of the conditions for sus-ension of
sentence that the ofender be a <rst time
con!ictM this has been dis-laced by & EACF.
Suspension of Sentence; Eouthful =ffen"er (1996)
/ictor$ ic1y$ od and onnie went to the
store of 7ang "andoy. /ictor and ic1y
entered the store while od and onnie
-osted themsel!es at the door. &fter ordering
beer ic1y com-lained that he was
shortchanged although 7ang "andoy
!ehemently denied it. 'uddenly ic1y
whi--ed out a 1nife as he announced 8)oldL
u- itoV8 and stabbed 7ang "andoy to death.
od bo6ed the storeIs salesgirl Lucy to
-re!ent her from hel-ing 7ang "andoy. When
Lucy ran out of the store to see1 hel- from
-eo-le ne6t door she was chased by onnie.
&s soon as ic1y had stabbed 7ang "andoy$
/ictor scoo-ed u- the money from the cash
bo6. Then /ictor and ic1y dashed to the
street and shouted$ 8Tuma1bo na 1ayoV8 od
was 1G and onnie was 1Q. The money and
other articles looted from the store of 7ang
"andoy were later found in the houses of
/ictor and ic1y.
1 Hiscuss fully the criminal liability of /ictor$
ic1y$ od and onnie.
2 &re the minors od and onnie entitled to
sus-ended sentence under The Child and
,outh Welfare Code# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 . &ll are liable for the s-ecial com-le6
crime of robbery with homicide....
2. 5o$ because the bene<ts of sus-ension of
sentence is not a!ailable where the youthful
ofender has been con!icted of an ofense
-unishable by life im-risonment or death$
-ursuant to ".H. 5o. CDA$ &rt. 1F2$ The
com-le6 crime of robbery with homicide is
-unishable by reclusion -er-etua to death
under &rt. 2FG %1)$ :C JPeople vs. (alit. *3)
SC! 486).
EXTINCTION O4 CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
(mnesty #s9 P5 116& (%&&6)
Can former H'WH 'ecretary Hin1y 'oliman
a--ly for amnesty# )ow about columnist
andy Ha!id# %,ou are su--osed to 1now
the crimes or ofenses ascribed to them as
-ublished in almost all news-a-ers for the
-ast se!eral months.) %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"roclamation 11CD$ which amended
"roclamation Q2G$ a--lies only to ofenses
committed -rior to 1FFF. Thus$ their
a--lications shall be inefectual and useless.
@eneral Lim and @eneral ?uerubin of the
'cout angers and "hili--ine 7arines$
res-ecti!ely$ were changed with conduct
unbecoming an oficer and a gentleman
under the &rticles of War. Can they a--ly for
amnesty# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
38 of 86
"roclamation 11CD$ which amended
"roclamation Q2G$ a--lies only to ofenses
committed -rior to 1FFF. Thus$ their
a--lications shall be inefectual and useless.
(mnesty; Crimes Co#ere" (%&&6)
Bnder "residential "roclamation 5o. Q2G$
amending "residential "roclamation 5o.
AGQ$ certain crimes are co!ered by the grant
of amnesty. 5ame at least = of these crimes.
%2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Crimes co!ered under "residential "roclamation
5o. Q2GM
1. Cou-
dIetat$ 2. ebellion or
insurrection. A. Hisloyalty of -ublic oficers
or em-loyees. G. (nciting to rebellion or
insurrection. =. Cons-iracy to commit rebellion
or insurrection. C. "ro-osal to commit rebellion
or insurrection. Q.
'edition. E. Cons-iracy to
commit sedition. F. (nciting to
sedition. 1D. (llegal
&ssembly. 11. (llegal
&ssociation. 12. Hirect
&ssault. 1A. (ndirect
&ssault. 1G. esistance and disobedience to a
-erson in authority. 1=. Tumults and other
disturbances. 1C. Bnlawful use of means of -ublications
and unlawful utterrances.
1Q. &larm and
scandal. 1E. (llegal "ossession of
<rearms.
+/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of
accuse" pen"ing appeal (%&&)
&N was con!icted of rec1less im-rudence
resulting in homicide. The trial court
sentenced him to a -rison term as well as to
-ay "1=D$DDD as ci!il indemnity and
damages. While his a--eal was -ending$ &N
met a fatal accident. )e left a young widow$
2 children$ and a millionL-eso estate. What is
the efect$ if any$ of his death on his criminal
as well as ci!il liability# *6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The death of &N while his a--eal from the
0udgment of the trial court is -ending$
e6tinguishes his criminal liability. The ci!il
liability insofar as it arises from the crime
and reco!erable under the e!ised "enal
Code is also e6tinguished. but indemnity and
damages may be reco!ered in a ci!il action if
-redicated on a source of obligation under
&rt. 11=Q$ Ci!il Code$ such as law$ contracts$
2uasiLcontracts and 2uasiLdelicts$ but not on
the basis of delicts. (People v. ;a3otas, *36
SC! *39 ).
Ci!il indemnity and damages under the
e!ised "enal Code are reco!erable only if
the accused had been con!icted with <nality
before he died.
+/tinction; Criminal @ Ci#il Lia3ilities; +ffects; 5eath of
=ffen"e" Party (%&&&)

:or defrauding Lorna$ &lma was charged
before the 7unici-al Trial Court of 7alolos$
9ulacan. &fter a -rotracted trial$ &lma was
con!icted. While the case was -ending
a--eal in the egional Trial Court of the
same -ro!ince$ Lorna who was then
sufering from breast cancer$ died. &lma
manifested to the court that with LornaIs
death$ her %&lmaIs) criminal and ci!il
liabilities are now e6tinguished. (s &lmaIs
contention correct# What if it were &lma
who died$ would it afect her criminal and
ci!il liabilities# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. &lmaIs contention is not correct. The
death of the ofended -arty does not
e6tinguish the criminal liability of the
ofender$ because the ofense is committed
against the 'tate ?People vs. $isola, 81 Phil.
83), 833). )ence$ it follows that the ci!il
liability of &lma based on the ofense
committed by her is not e6tinguished. The
estate of Lorna can continue the case.
+n the other hand$ if it were &lma who died
-ending a--eal of her con!iction$ her
criminal liability shall be e6tinguished and
therewith the ci!il liability under the
e!ised "enal Code %&rt. EF$ -ar. 1$ "C).
)owe!er$ the claim for ci!il indemnity may
be instituted under the Ci!il Code %&rt.
11=Q) if -redicated on a source of obligation
other than delict$ such as law$ contracts$
2uasiLcontracts and 2uasiLdelicts (People vs.
;a3otas *36 SC! *39, (.. 1'*))1, Septem7er
*. 1994)
Par"on #s9 (mnesty (%&&6)
*numerate the diferences between -ardon
and amnesty. %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) "&H+5 includes any crime and is
e6ercised indi!idually by the "resident$
while &75*'T, a--lies to classes of
-ersons or communities who may be guilty
of -olitical ofenses.
b) "&H+5 is e6ercised when the
-erson is already con!icted$ while
&75*'T, may be e6ercised e!en before
trial or in!estigation.
c) "&H+5 loo1s forward and relie!es
the ofender of the -enalty of the ofense for
which he has been con!icted. it does not
wor1 for the restoration of the rights to hold
-ublic ofice$ or the right of sufrage$ unless
such rights are e6-ressly restored by means
of -ardon$ while &75*'T, loo1s bac1ward
and abolishes the ofense and its efects$ as if
the -erson had committed no ofense.
d) "&H+5 does not alter the fact that
the accused is criminally liable as it
-roduces only the e6tinction of the -enalty$
while &75*'T, remo!es the criminal
liability of the ofender because it obliterates
e!ery !estige of the crime.
e) "&H+5 being a -ri!ate act by the
"resident$ must be -leaded and -ro!ed by the
-erson -ardoned$ while &75*'T, which is a
"roclamation of the Chief *6ecuti!e with the
concurrence of Congress is a -ublic act of
which the courts should ta1e 0udicial notice.
39 of 86
Par"on; +ffect; Ci#il 2nter"iction (%&&)
T, was sentenced to death by <nal
0udgment. 9ut subse2uently he was granted
-ardon by the "resident. The -ardon was
silent on the -er-etual dis2uali<cation of
T, to hold any -ublic ofice. &fter his
-ardon$ T, ran for ofice as 7ayor of &""$
his hometown. )is o--onent sought to
dis2ualify him. T, contended he is not
dis2uali<ed because he was already
-ardoned by the "resident unconditionally.
(s T,I' contention correct# eason briefy.
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ T,Is contention is not correct. &rticle
GD of the e!ised "enal Code e6-ressly
-ro!ides that when the death -enalty is not
e6ecuted by reason of commutation or
-ardon$ the accessory -enalties of -er-etual
absolute dis2uali<cation and ci!il
interdiction during thirty %AD) years from the
date of the sentence shall remain as efects
thereof$ unless such accessory -enalties
ha!e been e6-ressly remitted in the -ardon.
This is because -ardon only e6cuses the
con!ict from ser!ing the sentence but does
not relie!e him of the efects of the
con!iction unless e6-ressly remitted in the
-ardon.
Par"on; +ffect; 0einstatement (199)
Linda was con!icted by the 'andiganbayan
of estafa$ through falsi<cation of -ublic
document. 'he was sentenced accordingly
and ordered to -ay$ among others$ "=$DDD.DD
re-resenting the balance of the amount
defrauded.
The case reached the 'u-reme Court which
afirmed the 0udgment of con!iction. Huring
the -endency of LindaIs motion for
reconsideration in the said Court$ the
"resident e6tended to her an absolute
-ardon which she acce-ted.
9y reason of such -ardon$ she wrote the
He-artment of :inance re2uesting that she
be restored to her former -ost as assistant
treasurer$ which is still !acant. The
He-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
"=$DDD.DD be satis<ed. Claiming that she
should not be made to -ay "=$DDD.DD$ Linda
a--ealed to the +fice of the "resident.
The +fice of the "resident dismissed the
a--eal and held that ac2uittal$ not absolute
-ardon. (s the only ground for reinstatement
to oneIs former -osition and that the
absolute -ardon does not e6em-t the cul-rit
from -ayment of ci!il liability. (s Linda
entitled to reinstatement#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to
her former -osition inasmuch as her right
thereto had been relin2uished or forfeited by
reason of her con!iction. The absolute
-ardon merely e6tinguished her criminal
liability$ remo!ed her dis2uali<cation$ and
restored her eligibility for a--ointment to
that ofice. 'he has to reLa--ly for
such -osition and under the usual -rocedure
re2uired for a new a--ointment. 7oreo!er$
the -ardon does not e6tinguish the ci!il
liability arising from the crime.
($o&sa&to vs.Fa5tora&, +r., 11) SC! 191)" see !rt.
36, PC)
Prescription of Crimes; Aigamy (1996)
3oe and 7arcy were married in 9atanes in
1F==. &fter two years$ 3oe left 7arcy and
settled in 7indanao where he later met and
married Linda on 12 3une 1FCD. The second
marriage was registered in the ci!il registry
of Ha!ao City three days after its celebration.
+n 1D +ctober 1FQ= 7arcy who remained in
9atanes disco!ered the marriage of 3oe to
Linda. +n 1 7arch 1FQC 7arcy <led a
com-laint for bigamy against 3oe.
The crime of bigamy -rescribed in <fteen
years com-uted from the day the crime is
disco!ered by the ofended -arty$ the
authorities or their agents. 3oe raised the
defense of -rescri-tion of the crime$ more
than <fteen years ha!ing ela-sed from the
celebration of the bigamous marriage u- to
the <ling of 7arcyIs com-laint. )e
contended that the registration of his second
marriage in the ci!il registry of Ha!ao City
was constructi!e notice to the whole world of
the celebration thereof thus binding u-on
7arcy.
)as the crime of bigamy charged against
3oe already -rescribed# Hiscuss fully$
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. The -rescri-ti!e -eriod for the crime of
bigamy is com-uted from the time the crime
was disco!ered by the ofended -arty$ the
authorities or their agents. The -rinci-le of
constructi!e 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 7arcy <led a
com-laint for bigamy on Q 7arch 1FQC$ it
was well within the reglamentary -eriod as
it was barely a few months from the time of
disco!ery on 1D +ctober 1FQ=. (Sermo&ia vs.
C!, *33 SC! 1'')
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&&)
+ne fateful night in 3anuary 1FFD$ while =L
year old &lbert was urinating at the bac1 of
their house$ he heard a strange noise coming
from the 1itchen of their neighbor and
-laymate$ &ra. When he -ee-ed inside$ he
saw 7ina$ &raIs ste-mother$ !ery angry and
strangling the =Lyear old &ra to death. &lbert
saw 7ina carry the dead body of &ra$ -lace it
inside the trun1 of her car and dri!e away.
The dead body of &ra was ne!er found. 7ina
s-read the news in the neighborhood that
&ra went to li!e with her grand-arents in
+rmoc City. :or fear of his life$ &lbert did not
tell anyone$ e!en his -arents and relati!es$
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half
%2D S 1;2) years after the incident$ and right
after his graduation in Criminology$ &lbert
re-orted the crime to 59( authorities. The
crime of homicide -rescribes in 2D years.
Can the state still -rosecute 7ina for the
death of &ra des-ite the la-se of 2D S 1;2
years# *6-lain$ %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
40 of 86
,es$ the 'tate can still -rosecute 7ina for
the death of &ra des-ite the la-se of 2D S
1;2 years. Bnder &rticle F1$ "C$ the -eriod
of -rescri-tion commences to run from the
day on which the crime is disco!ered by the
ofended -arty$ the authorities or their
agents. (n the case at bar$ the commission of
the crime was 1nown only to &lbert$ who was
not the ofended -arty nor an authority or an
agent of an authority. (t was disco!ered by
the 59( authorities only when &lbert
re!ealed to them the commission of the
crime. )ence$ the -eriod of -rescri-tion of
2D years for homicide commenced to run
only from the time &lbert re!ealed the same
to the 59( authorities.
Prescription of Crimes; Commencement (%&&)
+W is a -ri!ate -erson engaged in cattle
ranching. +ne night$ he saw &7 stab C/
treacherously$ then throw the dead manIs
body into a ra!ine. :or 2= years$ C/s body
was ne!er seen nor found. 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
re!ealed that &7 had 1illed C/ 2= years
ago. Can &7 be -rosecuted for murder
des-ite the la-se of 2= years# eason briefy.
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ &7 can be -rosecuted for murder
des-ite the la-se of 2= years$ because the
crime has not yet -rescribed and legally$ its
-rescri-ti!e -eriod has not e!en
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 disco!ered by the
ofended -arty$ the authorities or their
agents %&rt. F1$ e!ised "enal Code). +W$ a
-ri!ate -erson who saw the 1illing but ne!er
disclosed it$ is not the ofended -arty nor
has the crime been disco!ered by the
authorities or their agents.
Prescription of Crimes; Concu3inage (%&&1)
+n 3une 1$ 1FEE$ a com-laint for
concubinage committed in :ebruary 1FEQ
was <led against oberto in the 7unici-al
Trial Court of Tan4a$ Ca!ite for -ur-oses of
-reliminary in!estigation. :or !arious
reasons$ it was only on 3uly A$ 1FFE when the
3udge of said court decided the case by
dismissing it for lac1 of 0urisdiction since the
crime was committed in 7anila. The case
was subse2uently <led with the City :iscal of
7anila but it was dismissed on the ground
that the crime had already -rescribed. The
law -ro!ides that the crime of concubinage
-rescribes in ten %1D) years. Was the
dismissal by the <scal correct# *6-lain$ %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the :iscalIs dismissal of the case on
alleged -rescri-tion is not correct. The <ling
of the com-laint with the 7unici-al Trial
Court$ although only for -reliminary
in!estigation$ interru-ted and sus-ended the
-eriod of -rescri-tion in as much as the
0urisdiction 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)
41
of
86
Prescription of Crimes; .alse Testimony (199)
"aolo was charged with homicide before the
egional Trial Court of 7anila. &ndrew$ a
-rosecution witness$ testi<ed that he saw
"aolo shoot &bby during their heated
argument. While the case is still -ending$ the
City )all of 7anila burned down and the
entire records of the case were destroyed.
Later$ the records were reconstituted.
&ndrew was again called to the witness
stand. This time he testi<ed that his <rst
testimony was false and the truth was he was
abroad when the crime too1 -lace. The 0udge
immediately ordered the -rosecution of
&ndrew for gi!ing a false testimony fa!orable
to the defendant in a criminal case.
1 Will the case against &ndrew -ros-er#
2 "aolo was ac2uitted. The decision became
<nal on 3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ. +n 3une 1E$
1FFG a case of gi!ing false testimony was
<led against &ndrew. &s his lawyer$ what
legal ste- will you ta1e#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) ,es. ...
2) &s lawyer of &ndrew$ ( will <le a motion to
2uash the (nformation on the ground of
-rescri-tion. The crime of false testimony
under &rt. 1ED has -rescribed because
"aolo$ the accused in the -rinci-al case$ was
ac2uitted on 3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ and therefore
the -enalty -rescribed for such crime is
arresto mayor under &rt. 1ED$ -ar. G$ "C.
Crimes -unishable by arresto mayor
-rescribes in <!e %=) years %&rt. FD$ -ar. A$
"C). 9ut the case against &ndrew was <led
only on 3une 1E$ 1FFG$ whereas the -rinci-al
criminal case was decided with <nality on
3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ and$ thence the
-rescri-ti!e -eriod of the crime commenced
to run. :rom 3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ to 3une 1E$
1FFG is more than <!e %=) years.
Prescription of Crimes; Simple Slan"er (199*)
& was charged in an information with the
crime of gra!e oral defamation but after
trial$ the court found him guilty only of the
ofense of sim-le slander. )e <led a motion
for reconsideration contending that$ under
the law$ the crime of sim-le slander would
ha!e -rescribed in two months from
commission$ and since the information
against him was <led more than four months
after the alleged commission of the crime$
the same had already -rescribed.
The 'olicitor @eneral o--osed the motion on
two groundsM <rst$ in determining the
-rescri-ti!e -eriod$ the nature of the ofense
charged in the (nformation should be
considered$ not the crime -ro!ed. second$
assuming that the ofense had already
-rescribed$ the defense was wai!ed by the
failure of & to raise it in a motion to 2uash.
esol!e the motion for reconsideration.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion for reconsideration should be
granted.L
a) The accused cannot be con!icted of the
ofense of sim-le slander although it is
necessarily included in the ofense of gra!e
slander charged in the information$ because$
the lesser ofense had already -rescribed at
the time the information was <led (People #s.
ara&2, (C!) 6*
4.(. 6468" Fra&5is5o vs. C!, 1** SC! '38"
$a2at vs. People. *)1 SC! *1) otherwise
-rosecutors can easily circum!ent the rule
of -rescri-tion in light ofenses by the
sim-le e6-ediment of <ling a gra!er ofense
which includes such light ofense.
b) While the general rule is the failure of an
accused to <le a motion to 2uash before he
-leads to the com-laint or information$ shall
be deemed a wai!er of the grounds of a
motion to 2uash$ the e6ce-tions to this areM
%1) no ofense was charged in the com-laint
or information. %2) lac1 of 3urisdiction. %A)
e6tinction of the ofense or -enalty. and %G)
double 0eo-ardy. 'ince the ground in!o1ed
by the accused in his motion for
reconsideration is e6tinction of the ofense$
then it can be raised e!en after -lea. (n fact$
it may e!en be in!o1ed on a--eal
(People vs. ;ala2tas)
CI6IL LIABILITY
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&)
5ame at least two e6ce-tions to the general
rule that in case of ac2uittal of the accused
in a criminal case$ his ci!il liability is
li1ewise e6tinguished. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*6ce-tions to the rule that ac2uittal from a
criminal case e6tinguishes ci!il liability$ areM
1) When the ci!il action is based on
obligations not
arising from the act com-lained of as a
felony. 2) When ac2uittal is based on
reasonable doubt or ac2uittal is on the
ground that guilt has not been -ro!en
beyond reasonable doubt %&rt. 2F$ 5ew Ci!il
Code).
A) &c2uittal due to an e6em-ting
circumstance$ li1e (nsanity. G) Where the
court states in its 3udgment that the case
merely in!ol!es a ci!il obligation. =) Where
there was a -ro-er reser!ation for the <ling
of a se-arate ci!il action. C) (n cases of
inde-endent ci!il actions -ro!ided for in
&rts. A1$ A2$ AA and AG of the 5ew Ci!il
Code.
1) When the 0udgment of ac2uittal
includes a declaration that the fact from
which the ci!il liability might arise did not
e6ist (Sapiera vs. C!, 314 SC! 31))"
E) Where the ci!il liability is not deri!ed
or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is ac2uitted
(Sapiera vs. C!. 314 SC! 31)).
Ci#il lia3ility; +ffect of (c;uittal (%&&&)
& was a 1QLyear old wor1ing student who
was earning his 1ee- as a cigarette !endor.
9 was dri!ing a car along busy *s-ana
'treet at about QMDD -.m. 9eside 9 was C.
The car sto--ed at an intersection because
of the red signal of the trafic light. While
waiting for the green signal$ C bec1oned &
to buy some cigarettes. & a--roached the
car and handed two stic1s of cigarettes to C.
While the transaction was ta1ing -lace$ the
trafic light changed to green and the car
immediately s-ed of. &s the car continued
to s-eed towards ?uia-o$ & clung to the
window of the car but lost his gri- and fell
down on the -a!ement. The car did not sto-.
& sufered serious in0uries which e!entually
caused his death. C was charged with
+99*, with )+7(C(H*. (n the end$ the
Court was not con!inced with moral
certainty that the guilt of C has been
established beyond reasonable doubt and$
thus$ ac2uitted him on the ground of
reasonable doubt. Can the family of the
!ictim still reco!er ci!il damages in !iew of
the ac2uittal of C# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ as against C$ &Is family can still reco!er
ci!il damages des-ite CIs ac2uittal. When
the accused in a criminal -rosecution is
ac2uitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been -ro!ed beyond reasonable doubt$ a
ci!il action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. 'uch action
re2uires only a -re-onderance of e!idence
W&rt. 2F$ CC).
(f &Is family can -ro!e the negligence of 9 by
-re-onderance of e!idence$ the ci!il action
for damages against 9 will -ros-er based on
2uasiLdelict. Whoe!er by act or omission
causes damage to another$ there being fault
or negligence$ is obliged to -ay for the
damage done. 'uch fault or negligence$
about -reLe6isting contractual relation
between the -arties$ is called a 2uasiLdelict
J&rt. 21QC$ CC). This is entirely se-arate and
distinct from ci!il liability arising from
negligence under the "enal Code J&rts$ A1$
21QC$ 21QQ$ CC}.
Ci#il Lia3ility; Su3si"iary; +mployers (199-)
@uy$ while dri!ing a -assenger 0ee-ney
owned and o-erated by 7a6$ bum-ed Hemy$
a -edestrian crossing the street. Hemy
sustained in0uries which re2uired medical
attendance for three months. @uy was
charged with rec1less im-rudence resulting
to -hysical in0uries. Con!icted by the
7etro-olitan Trial Court. @uy was sentenced
to sufer a straight -enalty of three months
of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify
Hemy in the sum of "=$DDD and to -ay
"1$DDD as attorneyIs fees.
B-on <nality of the decision$ a writ of
e6ecution was ser!ed u-on @uy$ but was
returned unsatis<ed due to his insol!ency.
Hemy mo!ed for a subsidiary writ of
e6ecution against 7a6. The latter o--osed
the motion onLthe ground that the decision
made no mention of his subsidiary liability
and that he was not im-leaded in the case.
)ow will you resol!e the motion# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion is to be granted. 7a6 as an
em-loyer of @uy and engaged in an industry
%trans-ortation business) where said
em-loyee is utili4ed$ is subsidiarily ci!illy
liable under &rticle 1DA of the e!ised "enal
Code. *!en though the decision made no
mention of his subsidiary liability$ the law
!iolated %e!ised "enal Code) itself
42 of 86
mandates for such liability and 7a6 is
deemed to 1now it because ignorance of the
law is ne!er e6cused. &nd since his liability
is not -rimary but only subsidiary in case
his em-loyee cannot -ay. he need not be
im-leaded in the in the criminal case. (t
sufices that he was duly noti<ed of the
motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of
e6ecution and thus gi!en the o--ortunity to
be heard.
Ci#il Lia3ility; )hen 8an"atory; Criminal Lia3ility (%&&6)
The accused was found guilty of 1D counts of
ra-e for ha!ing carnal 1nowledge with the
same woman. (n addition to the -enalty of
im-risonment$ he was ordered to -ay
indemnity in the amount of "=D$DDD.DD for
each count. +n a--eal$ the accused
2uestions the award of ci!il indemnity for
each count$ considering that the !ictim is
the same woman. )ow would you rule on the
contention of the accused# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The contention is unmeritorious. Bnder the
law$ e!ery -erson criminally liable is ci!illy
liable. %&rt. 1DD$ e!ised "enal Code) 'ince
each count charges diferent felonious acts
and ought to be -unished diferently$ the
concomitant ci!il indemnity e6 delicto for
e!ery criminal act should be ad0udged. 'aid
ci!il indemnity is mandatory u-on a <nding
of the fact of ra-e. it is distinct from and
should not be denominated as moral
damages which are based on diferent 0ural
foundations. (People v. +alos@os, (.. Nos.
13*81'<16, Novem7er 16, *))1)
5amages; >omici"e; Temperate 5amages (%&&6)
(n a crime of homicide$ the -rosecution
failed to -resent any recei-t to substantiate
the heirsI claim for an award of actual
damages$ such as e6-enses for the wa1e
and burial. What 1ind of damages may the
trial court award to them and how much#
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The court may award tem-erate damages in
the amount of twentyL<!e %"2=$DDD.DD)
thousand -esos. Bnder 0uris-rudence$
tem-erate damages is awarded in homicide
when no suficient -roof of actual damages is
ofered or if the actual damages -ro!en is
less than twentyL<!e thousand %"2=$DDD)
(People v. Salo&a, (.. No. 1'1*'1, $a3 19,
*))4). C-&8": A$&!:# N#&)!+ S"(%-&#2
!* #;" L. )9 N#&)!:
Piracy in the >igh Seas @ ?ualifie" Piracy (%&&6)
While the '.'. 5agoya 7aru was negotiating
the sea route from )ong1ong towards
7anila$ and while still ADD miles from
&-arri$ Cagayan$ its engines malfunctioned.
The Ca-tain ordered the shi- to sto- for
emergency re-airs lasting for almost 1=
hours. Hue to e6haustion$ the oficers and
crew fell aslee-. While the shi- was
anchored$ a motorboat manned by renegade
,banags from Cla!eria$ Cagayan$ -assed by
and too1 ad!antage of the situation. They cut
the shi-Is engines and too1 away se!eral
hea!y crates of electrical e2ui-ment and
loaded them in their motorboat. Then they
left hurriedly
towards &-arri. &t daybrea1$ the crew found
that a robbery too1 -lace. They radioed the
&-arri "ort &uthorities resulting in the
a--rehension of the cul-rits. ;hat crime was committe+ Explain2
31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"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-$ sei4ed -art of the
e2ui-ment of the !essel while it was three
hundred miles away from &-arri$ Cagayan
%&rt. 122$ e!ised "enal Code).
Supposing that while the robbery was
ta:ing place) the culprits stabbe a
member of the crew while sleeping2
;hat crime was committe+ Explain2
31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed is 2uali<ed -iracy$
because it was accom-anied by -hysical
in0uries;homicide. The cul-rits stabbed a
member of the crew while slee-ing %&rt.
12A$ e!ised "enal Code).
C-&8": A$&!:# #;" 4%!*8"!#+
L. )9 #;" S##"
$iolation of 5omicile #s9 Trespass to 5welling (%&&%)
What is the diference between !iolation of
domicile and tres-ass to dwelling# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The diferences between !iolation of
domicile and tres-ass to dwelling are. 1) The
ofender in !iolation of domicile is a -ublic
oficer acting under color of authority. in
tres-ass to dwelling$ the ofender is a
-ri!ate -erson or -ublic oficer acting in
a -ri!ate ca-acity.
2) /iolation of domicile is committed in
A diferent waysM %1) by entering the dwelling
of another against the will of the latter. %2)
searching -a-ers and other efects inside the
dwelling without the -re!ious consent of the
owner. or %A) refusing to lea!e the -remises
which he entered surre-titiously$ after being
re2uired to lea!e the -remises.
A) Tres-ass to dwelling is committed
only in one way. that is$ by entering the
dwelling of another against the e6-ress or
im-lied will of the latter.
C-&8": A$&!:# P%1+&( O-*"-
(rt 11; 0e3ellion; Politically 8oti#ate"; Committe" 3y
<P( 8em3ers (199-)
+n 7ay =$ 1FF2$ at about CMDD a.m.$ while
@o!ernor &legre of Laguna was on board his
car tra!eling along the 5ational )ighway of
Laguna$ 3oselito and /icente shot him on the
head resulting in his instant death. &t that
time$ 3oselito and /icente were members of
the li2uidation s2uad of the 5ew "eo-leIs
&rmy and they 1illed the go!ernor u-on
orders of their senior oficer. Commander
Tiago. &ccording to 3oselito and /icente$
43 of 86
they were ordered to 1ill @o!ernor &legre
because of his corru-t -ractices. (f you
were the -rosecutor$ what crime will you
charge 3oselito and /icente# J=>3
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(f ( were the -rosecutor$ ( would charge
3oselito and /icente with the crime of
rebellion$ considering that the 1illers were
members of the li2uidation s2uad of the
5ew "eo-leIs &rmy and the 1illing was u-on
orders of their commander. hence$
-oliticallyLmoti!ated. This was the ruling in
People vs. !vila, *)1 SC! 1'68 in!ol!ing
identical facts which is a mo!ement ta1en
0udicial notice of as engaged in rebellion
against the @o!ernment.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
(f ( were the -rosecutor$ ( would charge
3oselito and /icente for the crime of murder
as the -ur-ose of the 1illing was because of
his 8corru-t -ractices 8$ which does not
a--ear to be -olitically moti!ated. There is
no indication as to how the 1illing would
-romote or further the ob0ecti!e of the 5ew
"eo-les &rmy. The 1illing is murder because
it was committed with treachery.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The crime should be rebellion with murder
considering that &rt. 1A= of the e!ised
"enal Code has already been amended by
e-. &ct 5o. CFCE$ deleting from said
&rticle$ 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 -enali4ed in &rt. 1A= together
with the rebellion$ with one -enalty and &rt.
GE of the e!. "enal Code cannot be a--lied.
&rt. 1A= of said Code remained e6actly the
same when the case of *nrile !s$ 'ala4ar$
1EC 'C& 21Q %1FFD) was resol!ed.
"recisely for the reason that &rt. GE cannot
a--ly because the common crimes were
-unished as -art of rebellion in &rt. 1A=$ that
this &rticle was amended$ deleting the
common crimes therefrom. That the common
crimes were deleted from said &rticle$
demonstrates a clear legislati!e intention to
treat the common crimes as distinct from
rebellion and remo!e the legal im-ediment
to the a--lication of &rt.
GE. (t is noteworthy that in >&rile vs.
Sala0ar (s#pra) the 'u-reme Court said
theseM
8There is an a--arent need to
restructure the law on rebellion$ either to
raise the -enalty therefor or to clearly
de<ne and delimit the other ofenses to
be considered as absorbed thereby$ so
that if it cannot be con!eniently utili4ed
as the umbrella for e!ery sort of illegal
acti!ity underta1en in its name. The
Court has no -ower to efect such
change$ for it can only inter-ret the law
as it stands at any gi!en time$ and what
is needed lies beyond inter-retation.
)o-efully$ Congress will -ercei!e the
need for -rom-tly sei4ing the initiati!e in
this matter$ which is -urely with in its
-ro!ince$8
&nd signi<cantly the said amendment to
&rt. 1A= of the e!. "enal Code was
made at around the time the ruling in
'ala4ar was handled down$ ob!iously to
neutrali4e the )ernande4 and the
'ala4ar rulings. The amendment was
sort of a rider to the cou- dIetat law$
e-. &ct 5o CFCE.
(rt 11,(4 Coup "C etat @ 0ape; .rustrate" (%&&6)
Ta1ing into account the nature and elements
of the felonies of cou- dU etat and ra-e$ may
one be criminally liable for frustrated cou-
dU etat or frustrated ra-e# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ one cannot be criminally liable for
frustrated cou- dU etat or frustrated ra-e
because in cou- dU etat the mere attac1
directed against the duly constituted
authorities of the e-ublic of the "hili--ines$
or any military cam- or installation$
communication networ1s$ -ublic utilities or
other facilities needed for the e6ercise and
continued -ossession of -ower would
consummate the crime. The ob0ecti!e may
not be to o!erthrow the go!ernment but only
to destabili4e or -araly4e the go!ernment
through the sei4ure of facilities and utilities
essential to the continued -ossession and
e6ercise of go!ernmental -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 s1irt and unbuttoning his
-ants$ the endea!or to ha!e se6 with her
!ery a--arent$ is guilty of &ttem-ted ra-e.
+n the other hand$ entry on the labia or li-s
of the female organ by the -enis$ e!en
without ru-ture of the hymen or laceration
of the !agina$ consummates the crime of
ra-e. 7ore so$ it has long abandoned its
XstrayY decision in People vs. >ri&a ') Phil
998 where the accused was found guilty of
:rustrated ra-e.
(rt 11,(; Coup "Cetat (%&&%)
(f a grou- of -ersons belonging to the armed
forces ma1es a swift attac1$ accom-anied by
!iolence$ intimidation and threat against a
!ital military installation for the -ur-ose of
sei4ing -ower and ta1ing o!er such
installation$ what crime or crimes are they
guilty of# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -er-etrators$ being -ersons belonging
to the &rmed :orces$ would be guilty of the
crime of cou- dIetat$ under &rticle 1AGL& of
the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended$
because their attac1 was against !ital
military installations which are essential to
the continued -ossession and e6ercise of
go!ernmental -owers$ and their -ur-ose is
to sei4e -ower by ta1ing o!er such
installations.
<2 If the attac: is !uelle but the leaer
is un:nown) who shall be eeme the
leaer thereof+ 315,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The leader being un1nown$ any -erson who
in fact directed the others$ s-o1e 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- dIetat %&rt 1A=$ .".C.)
44 of 86
(rt 11,(; Coup "Cetat; <ew .irearms Law (199-)
1. )ow is the crime of cou- dIetat
committed# JA>K 2. 'u--osing a -ublic school teacher
-artici-ated in a cou- dIetat using an
unlicensed <rearm. What crime or crimes
did he commit# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. The crime of cou- dIetat is committed by
a swift attac1$ accom-anied by !iolence$
intimidation$ threat$ strategy or stealth
against the duly constituted authorities of
the e-ublic of the "hili--ines$ military
cam-s and installations$ communication
networ1s$ -ublic utilities and facilities
needed for the e6ercise 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 ofice$ with or
without ci!ilian su--ort or -artici-ation$ for
the -ur-ose of sei4ing or diminishing state
-ower. %&rt 1AGL&$ "C).
2. The -ublic school teacher committed only
cou- dIetat for his -artici-ation therein. )is
use of an unlicensed <rearm is absorbed in
the cou- dIetat under the new <rearms law
%e-. &ct 5o. E2FG).
(rt 116; Conspiracy to Commit 0e3ellion (199)
/C$ 3@. @@ and 3@ cons-ired to o!erthrow
the "hili--ine @o!ernment. /@ was
recogni4ed as the titular head of the
cons-iracy. 'e!eral meetings were held and
the -lan was <nali4ed. 33$ bothered by his
conscience$ confessed to :ather &braham
that he$ /@$ 3@ and @@ ha!e cons-ired to
o!erthrow the go!ernment. :ather &braham
did not re-ort this information to the -ro-er
authorities. Hid :ather &braham commit a
crime# (f so$ what crime was committed#
What is his criminal liability#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ :ather &braham did not commit a crime
because the cons-iracy in!ol!ed is one to
commit rebellion$ not a cons-iracy to
commit treason which ma1es a -erson
criminally liable under &rt 11C$ :C. &nd
e!en assuming that it will fall as mis-rision
of treason$ :ather &braham is e6em-ted
from criminal liability under &rt. 12$ -ar. Q$
as his failure to re-ort can be considered as
due to 8insu-erable cause8$ as this in!ol!es
the sanctity and in!iolability of a confession.
Cons-iracy to commit rebellion results in
criminal liability to the coLcons-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).
(rt 1-; 5irect (ssault #s9 0esistance @ 5iso3e"ience
(%&&1)
&$ a teacher at 7a-a )igh 'chool$ ha!ing
gotten mad at N$ one of his -u-ils$ because
of the latterIs throwing -a-er cli-s at his
classmates$ twisted his right ear. N went out
of the classroom crying and -roceeded
home located at the bac1 of the school. )e
re-orted to his -arents , and O what & had
done to him. , and O immediately -roceeded
to the school building and because they
were running and tal1ing in loud !oices$
they were seen by the
barangay chairman$ 9$ who followed them as
he sus-ected that an untoward incident
might ha--en. B-on seeing & inside the
classroom$ N -ointed him out to his father$ ,$
who administered a <st blow on &$ causing
him to fall down. When , was about to 1ic1 &$
9 rushed towards , and -inned both of the
latterIs arms. 'eeing his father being held by
9$ N went near and -unched 9 on the face$
which caused him to lose his gri- on ,.
Throughout this incident$ O shouted words of
encouragement at ,$ her husband$ and also
threatened to sla- &. 'ome security guards of
the school arri!ed$ inter!ened and
surrounded N$ , and O so that they could be
in!estigated in the -rinci-alIs ofice. 9efore
lea!ing$ O -assed near & and threw a small
fower -ot at him but it was defected by 9. a)
What$ if any$ are the res-ecti!e criminal
liability of N , and O# %C>) b) Would your
answer be the same if 9 were a barangay
tanod only# %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) N is liable for Hirect &ssault only$
assuming the -hysical in0uries inficted on 9$
the 9arangay Chairman$ to be only slight and
hence$ would be absorbed in the direct
assault. & 9arangay Chairman is a -erson
in authority %&rt. 1=2$ "C) and in this case$
was -erforming his duty of maintaining
-eace and order when attac1ed.
, is liable for the com-le6 crimes of Hirect
&ssault With Less 'erious "hysical (n0uries
for the <st blow on &$ the teacher$ which
caused the latter to fall down. :or -ur-oses
of the crimes in &rts. 1GE and 1=1 of the
e!ised "enal Code$ a teacher is considered
a -erson in authority$ and ha!ing been
attac1ed by , by reason of his -erformance
of oficial duty$ direct assault is committed
with the resulting less serious -hysical
in0uries com-leted. O$ the mother of N and
wife of , may only be liable as an accom-lice
to the com-le6 crimes of direct assault with
less serious -hysical in0uries committed by ,.
)er -artici-ation should not be considered
as that of a co-rinci-al$ since her reactions
were only incited by her relationshi- to N
and ,. as the mother of N and the wife of ,.
b) (f 9 were a 9arangay Tanod only$ the act
of N of laying hand on him$ being an agent of
a -erson in authority only$ would constitute
the crime of esistance and Hisobedience
under &rticle 1=1$ since N$ a high school
-u-il$ could not be considered as ha!ing
acted out of contem-t for authority but more
of hel-ing his father get free from the gri-
of 9. 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 de<ance to
the latter is e6ercise of authority.
(rt 1-; 5irect (ssault; Teachers @ Professors (%&&%)
&$ a lady -rofessor$ was gi!ing an
e6amination. 'he noticed 9$ one of the
students$ cheating. 'he called the studentIs
attention and con<scated his e6amination
boo1let$ causing embarrassment to him. The
following
45 of 86
day$ while the class was going on$ the
student$ 9$ a--roached & and$ without any
warning$ sla--ed her. 9 would ha!e inficted
further in0uries on & had not C$ another
student$ come to &Is rescue and -re!ented 9
from continuing his attac1. 9 turned his ire
on C and -unched the latter. What crime or
crimes$ if any$ did 9 commit# Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9 committed two %2) counts of direct
assaultM one for sla--ing the -rofessor$ &$
who was then conducting classes and thus
e6ercising authority. and another one for the
!iolence on the student C$ who came to the
aid of the said -rofessor.
9y e6-ress -ro!ision of &rticle 1=2$ in
relation to &rticle 1GE of the e!ised "enal
Code$ teachers and -rofessors of -ublic or
duly recogni4ed -ri!ate schools$ colleges and
uni!ersities 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
&rticles 1GE and 1=1 of said Code. &nd any
-erson who comes to the aid of -ersons in
authority shall be deemed an agent of a
-erson in authority. &ccordingly$ the attac1
on C is$ in the eyes of the law$ an attac1 on an
agent of a -erson in authority$ not 0ust an
attac1 on a student.
(rt 1-; Persons in (uthorityD(gents of Persons in
(uthority (%&&&)
Who are deemed to be -ersons in authority
and agents of -ersons in authority# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%ersons in authority are -ersons directly
!ested with 0urisdiction$ whether as an
indi!idual or as a member of some court or
go!ernment cor-oration$ board$ or
commission. 9arrio ca-tains and barangay
chairmen are also deemed -ersons in
authority. %&rticle 1=2$ "C)
Agents of persons in authority are
-ersons who by direct -ro!ision 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 %&rt. 1=2$ "C)$
(n a--lying the -ro!isions of &rticles 1GE
and 1=1 of the e!. "enal Code$ teachers$
-rofessors and -ersons charged with the
su-er!ision of -ublic or duly recogni4ed
-ri!ate schools$ colleges and uni!ersities$
and lawyers in the actual -erformance of
their -rofessional duties or on the occasion
of such -erformance$ shall be deemed
-ersons in authority. %".H. 5o. 2FF$ and 9atas
"ambansa 9lg. EQA).
(rt 166; 5eli#ery of Prisoners from !ail (%&&%)
&$ a detention -risoner$ was ta1en to a
hos-ital for emergency medical treatment.
)is followers$ all of whom were armed$ went
to the hos-ital to ta1e him away or
Criminal Law Bar E
xamination Q & A (1994-2006)
hel- him esca-e. The -rison guards$ seeing
that they were outnumbered and that
resistance would endanger the li!es of other
-atients$ dec1led to allow the -risoner to be
ta1en by his followers. What crime$ if any$
was committed by &Is followers# Why# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&Is followers shall be liable as -rinci-als in
the crime of deli!ery of -risoner from 3ail
%&rt. 1=C$ e!ised "enal Code).
The felony is committed not only by remo!ing
from any 0ail or -enal establishment any
-erson con<ned therein but also by hel-ing in
the esca-e of such -erson outside of said
establishments by means of !iolence$
intimidation$ bribery$ or any other means.
(rt 16*; +#asion of Ser#ice of Sentence (199-)
7anny 1illed his wife under e6ce-tional
circumstances and was sentenced by the
egional Trial Court of Hagu-an City to
sufer the -enalty of destierro during which
he was not to enter the city.
While ser!ing sentence$ 7anny went to
Hagu-an City to !isit his mother. Later$ he
was arrested in 7anila. 1. Hid 7anny commit any
crime# JA>K 2. (f so$ where should he be
-rosecuted# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. ,es. 7anny committed the crime of
e!asion of ser!ice of sentence when he went
to Hagu-an City$ which he was -rohibited
from entering under his sentence of
destierro.
& sentence im-osing the -enalty of destierro
is e!aded when the con!ict enters any of the
-lace;-laces he is -rohibited from entering
under the sentence or come within the
-rohibited radius. &lthough destierro does
not in!ol!e im-risonment$ it is nonetheless a
de-ri!ation of liberty. %"eo-le !s. &bilong. E2
"hil. 1Q2).
2. 7anny may be -rosecuted in Hagu-an
City or in 7anila where he was arrested.
This is so because e!asion of ser!ice of
sentence is a continuing ofense$ as the
con!ict is a fugiti!e from 0ustice in such
case. (Par#la& vs. 9ir. o. Priso&s, 6<
*8'19, 11 Fe7. 1968)
(rt9 11; 0e3ellion #s9 Coup "Fetat (%&&)
rebellion and cou- dIetat$ based on their
constituti!e elements as criminal ofenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*9*LL(+5 is committed when a multitude
of -ersons rise -ublicly in arms for the
-ur-ose of o!erthrowing the duly constituted
go!ernment$ to be re-laced by a go!ernment
of the rebels. (t is carried out by force and
!iolence$ but need not be -artici-ated in by
any member of the military$ national -olice
or any -ublic oficer.
C+B" HI*T&T is committed when members
of the military$ "hili--ine 5ational "olice$ or
-ublic oficer$
46 of 86
acting as -rinci-al ofenders$ launched a
swift attac1 thru strategy$ stealth$ threat$
!iolence or intimidation against duly
constituted authorities of the e-ublic of the
"hili--ines$ military cam- or installation$
communication networ1s$ -ublic facilities or
utilities needed for the e6ercise and
continued -ossession of go!ernmental
-owers$ for the -ur-ose of sei4ing or
diminishing state -owers.
Bnli1e rebellion which re2uires a -ublic
u-rising$ cou- dIetat may be carried out
singly or simultaneously and the -rinci-al
ofenders must be members of the military$
national -olice or -ublic oficer$ with or
without ci!ilian su--ort. The criminal
ob0ecti!e need not be to o!erthrow the
e6isting go!ernment but only to destabili4e
or -araly4e the e6isting go!ernment.
Comple/ Crime; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (%&&&)
9ecause of the a--roaching town <esta in
'an 7iguel$ 9ulacan$ a dance was held in
9arangay Camias. &$ the 9arangay Ca-tain$
was in!ited to deli!er a s-eech to start the
dance. While & was deli!ering his s-eech. 9$
one of the guests$ went to the middle of the
dance foor ma1ing obscene dance
mo!ements$ brandishing a 1nife and
challenging e!eryone -resent to a <ght. &
a--roached 9 and admonished him to 1ee-
2uiet and not to disturb the dance and -eace
of the occasion. 9$ instead of heeding the
ad!ice of &$ stabbed the latter at his bac1
twice when & turned his bac1 to -roceed to
the micro-hone to continue his s-eech. &
fell to the ground and died. &t the time of
the incident & was not armed. What crime
was committed# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The com-le6 crime of direct assault with
murder was committed. &$ as a 9arangay
Ca-tain$ is a -erson in authority and was
acting in an oficial ca-acity when he tried to
maintain -eace and order during the -ublic
dance in the 9arangay$ by admonishing 9 to
1ee- 2uiet and not to disturb the dance and
-eace of the occasion. When 9$ instead of
heeding &Is ad!ice$ attac1ed the latter$ 9
acted in contem-t and lawless de<ance of
authority constituting the crime of direct
assault$ which characteri4ed the stabbing of
&. &nd since & was stabbed at the bac1 when
he was not in a -osition to defend himself nor
retaliate$ there was treachery in the stabbing.
)ence$ the death caused by such stabbing
was murder and ha!ing been committed with
direct assault$ a com-le6 crime of direct
assault with murder was committed by 9.
(rt 1-; 5irect (ssault with mur"er (1996)
"ascual o-erated a rice thresher in
9arangay 5a-nud where he resided.
enato$ a resident of the neighboring
9arangay @uihaman$ also o-erated a mobile
rice thresher which he often brought to
9arangay 5a-nud to thresh the -alay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by
"ascual$ one afternoon "ascual$ and his two
sons confronted enato and his men who
were o-erating their mobile rice thresher
along a feeder road in 5a-nud. & heated
argument ensued. & barangay ca-tain who
was
Criminal Law Bar Examina
tion Q & A (1994-2006)
fetched by one of "ascualIs men tried to
a--ease "ascual and enato to -re!ent a
!iolent confrontation. )owe!er$ "ascual
resented the inter!ention of the barangay
ca-tain and hac1ed him to death. What
crime was committed by "ascual# Hiscuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"ascual committed the com-le6 crime of
homicide with assault u-on a -erson in
authority %&rts. 1GE and 2GF in relation to
&rt$ GE$ "C). & barangay chairman$ is in
law %&rt. 1=2)$ a -erson in authority and if he
is attac1ed while in the -erformance of his
oficial duties or on the occasion thereof the
felony of direct assault is committed.
&rt. GE$ "C$ on the other hand$ -ro!ides
that if a single act -roduces two or more
gra!e or less gra!e felonies$ a com-le6
crime is committed. )ere$ the single act of
the ofender in hac1ing the !ictim to death
resulted in two felonies$ homicide which is
gra!e and direct assault which is less gra!e.
C-&8": $&!:# P%1+&( I!#"-":#
.alse <otes; 2llegal Possession (1999)
1 (s mere -ossession of false money bills
-unishable under &rticle 1CE of the
e!ised "enal Code# *6-lain. %A>)
2 The accused was caught in -ossession of
1DD counterfeit "2D bills. )e could not
e6-lain how and why he -ossessed the
said bills. 5either could he e6-lain what
he intended to do with the fa1e bills. Can
he be held criminally liable for such
-ossession# Hecide. %A>}
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 5o. "ossession of false treasury or ban1
note alone without an intent to use it$ is
not -unishable. 9ut the circumstances of
such -ossession may indicate intent to
utter$ suficient to consummate the crime
of illegal -ossession of false notes.
2 ,es. Pnowledge that the note is counterfeit
and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. 'o$ -ossession of
1DD false bills re!ealM %a) 1nowledge that
the bills are fa1e. and %b) intent to utter
the same.
.alse Testimony (199)
"aolo was charged with homicide before the
egional Trial Court of 7anila. &ndrew$ a
-rosecution witness$ testi<ed that he saw
"aolo shoot &bby during their heated
argument. While the case is still -ending$ the
City )all of 7anila burned down and the
entire records of the case were destroyed.
Later$ the records were reconstituted.
&ndrew was again called to the witness
stand. This time he testi<ed that his <rst
testimony was false and the truth was he was
abroad when the crime too1 -lace.
47 of 86 The 0udge immediately ordered
the -rosecution of &ndrew for gi!ing a false
testimony fa!orable to the defendant in a
criminal case. 1.K Will the case against
&ndrew -ros-er# 2.K "aolo was ac2uitted.
The decision became <nal on
3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ. +n 3une 1E$ 1FFG a case of
gi!ing false testimony was <led against &ndrew. &s his
lawyer$ what legal ste- will you
ta1e#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) ,es. :or one to be criminally liable under
&rt. 1E1$ :C$ it is not necessary that the
criminal case where &ndrew testi<ed is
terminated <rst. (t is not e!en re2uired of
the -rosecution to -ro!e which of the two
statements of the witness is false and to
-ro!e the statement to be false by e!idence
other than the contradictory statements
(People vs. !ra0ola, 13 Co#rt o. !ppeals eport,
*&% series, p. 8)8).
2) &s lawyer of &ndrew$ ( will <le a motion to
2uash the (nformation on the ground of
-rescri-tion. The crime of false testimony
under &rt. 1ED has -rescribed because
"aolo$ the accused in the -rinci-al case$ was
ac2uitted on 3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ and therefore
the -enalty -rescribed for such crime is
arresto mayor under &rt. 1ED$ -ar. G$ "C.
Crimes -unishable by arresto mayor
-rescribes in <!e %=) years %&rt. FD$ -ar. A$
"C). 9ut the case against &ndrew was <led
only on 3une 1E$ 1FFG$ whereas the -rinci-al
criminal case was decided with <nality on
3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ and$ thence the
-rescri-ti!e -eriod of the crime commenced
to run. :rom 3anuary 1D$ 1FEQ to 3une 1E$
1FFG is more than <!e %=) years.
.alsification; Presumption of .alsification (1999)
& falsi<ed oficial or -ublic document was
found in the -ossession of the accused. 5o
e!idence was introduced to show that the
accused was the author of the falsi<cation.
&s a matter of fact$ the trial court con!icted
the accused of falsi<cation of oficial or
-ublic document mainly on the -ro-osition
that 8the only -erson who could ha!e made
the erasures and the su-erim-osition
mentioned is the one who will be bene<ted
by the alterations thus made8 and that 8he
alone could ha!e the moti!e for ma1ing such
alterations8.
Was the con!iction of the accused -ro-er
although the con!iction was -remised merely
on the aforesaid ratiocination# *6-lain your
answer. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the con!iction is -ro-er because there is
a -resum-tion in law that the -ossessor and
user of a falsi<ed document is the one who
falsi<ed the same.
.orgery @ .alsification (1999)
)ow are 8forging8 and 8falsi<cation8 committed#
%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
:+@(5@ or forgery is committed by gi!ing
to a treasury or ban1 note or any instrument
-ayable to bearer or to order the
a--earance of a true and genuine
Crimina
l Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
document. or by erasing$ substituting$
counterfeiting$ or altering by any means the
<gures$ letters$ words or signs contained
therein.
:&L'(:(C&T(+5$ on the other hand$ is committed
byM
1 Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting$ signature or rubric.
2 Causing it to a--ear that -ersons ha!e
-artici-ated in any act or -roceeding when
they did not in fact so -artici-ate.
3 &ttributing to -ersons who ha!e
-artici-ated in an act or -roceeding
statements other than those in fact made
by them.
4 7a1ing untruthful statements in a
narration of facts.
5 &ltering true dates.
6 7a1ing any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its
meaning.
7 (ssuing in an authenticated form a
document -ur-orting to be a co-y of an
original document when no such original
e6ists$ or including in such co-y a
statement contrary to$ or diferent from$
that of the genuine original. or
(ntercalating any instrument or note
relati!e to the issuance thereof in a
-rotocol$ registry$ or oficial boo1.
Gra#e Scan"al (1996)
"ia$ a bold actress li!ing on to- foor of a
-lush condominium in 7a1ati City
sunbathed na1ed at its -enthouse e!ery
'unday morning. 'he was unaware that the
business e6ecuti!es holding ofice at the
ad0oining tall buildings re-orted to ofice
e!ery 'unday morning and$ with the use of
-owerful binoculars$ 1e-t on ga4ing at her
while she sunbathed. *!entually$ her
sunbathing became the tal1 of the town. 1)
What crime$ if any$ did "ia commit# *6-lain$
2) What crime$ if any$ did the business
e6ecuti!es commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) "ia did not commit a crime$ the felony
closest to ma1ing "ia criminally liable is
@ra!e 'candal$ but then such act is not to be
considered as highly scandalous and
ofensi!e against decency and good customs.
(n the <rst -lace$ it was not done in a -ublic
-lace and within -ublic 1nowledge or !iew.
&s a matter of fact it was disco!ered by the
e6ecuti!es accidentally and they ha!e to use
binoculars to ha!e -ublic and full !iew of "ia
sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business e6ecuti!es did not commit
any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasci!iousness Jas there was no o!ert lustful
act)$ or slander$ as the e!entual tal1 of the
town$ resulting from her sunbathing$ is not
directly im-uted to the business e6ecuti!es$
and besides such to-ic is not intended to
defame or -ut "ia to ridicule.
Per:ury (1996)
48 of 86
'isenando -urchased the share of the
stoc1holders of *strella Cor-oration in two
installments$ ma1ing him the ma0ority
stoc1holder thereof and e!entually$ its
-resident. 9ecause the stoc1holders who sold
their stoc1s failed to com-ly with their
warranties attendant to the sale$ 'isenando
withheld -ayment of the second installment
due on the shares and de-osited the money in
escrow instead$ sub0ect to release once said
stoc1holders com-ly with their warranties.
The stoc1holders concerned$ in turn$
rescinded the sale in 2uestion and remo!ed
'isenando from the "residency of the *strella
Cor-oration$ 'isenando then <led a !eri<ed
com-laint for damages against said
stoc1holders in his ca-acity as -resident and
-rinci-al stoc1holder of *strella Cor-oration.
(n retaliation$ the stoc1holders concerned$
after -etitioning the 'ecurities and *6change
Commission to declare the rescission !alid$
further <led a criminal case for -er0ury
against 'isenando$ claiming that the latter
-er0ured himself when he stated under oath
in the !eri<cation of his com-laint for
damages that he is the "resident of the
*strella Cor-oration when in fact he had
already been remo!ed as such. Bnder the
facts of the case$ could 'isenando be held
liable for -er0ury# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ 'isenando may not be held liable for
-er0ury 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$ ob!iously$ he
made the allegation on the -remise that his
remo!al from the -residency is not !alid and
that is -recisely the issue brought about by
his com-laint to the '*C. (t is a fact that
'isenando has been the "resident of the
cor-oration and it is from that -osition that
the stoc1holders concerned -ur-ortedly
remo!ed him$ whereu-on he <led the
com-laint 2uestioning his remo!al. There is
no willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood which is a re2uisite of -er0ury.
Per:ury (199*)
&$ a go!ernment em-loyee$ was
administrati!ely charged with immorality for
ha!ing an afair with 9$ a coem-loyee in the
same ofice who belie!ed him to be single. To
e6cul-ate himself$ & testi<ed that he was
single and was willing to marry 9$ )e
induced C to testify and C did testify that 9
was single. The truth$ howe!er$ was that &
had earlier married H$ now a neighbor of C.
(s & guilty of -er0ury# &re & and C guilty of
subordination of -er0ury#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. & is not guilty of -er0ury because the
willful falsehood asserted by him is not
material to the charge of immorality.
Whether & is single or married$ the charge
of immorality against him as a go!ernment
em-loyee could -roceed or -ros-er. (n other
words$ &Is ci!il status is not a defense to the
charge of immorality$ hence$ not a material
matter that could infuence the charge.
There is no crime of subornation of -er0ury.
The crime is now treated as -lain -er0ury
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'). 'ince in this case & cannot
be held liable for -er0ury$ the matter that he
testi<ed 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. Conse2uently$ C is not liable as
-rinci-al by direct -artici-ation in -er0ury$
ha!ing testi<ed on matters not material to an
administrati!e case.
Per:ury (%&&6)
&l Chua$ a Chinese national$ <led a -etition
under oath for naturali4ation$ with the
egional Trial Court of 7anila. (n his
-etition$ he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua. that he is li!ing with her in 'am-aloc$
7anila. that he is of good moral character.
and that he has conducted himself in an
irre-roachable manner during his stay in the
"hili--ines. )owe!er$ at the time of the <ling
of the -etition$ Leni Chua was already li!ing
in Cebu$ while &l was li!ing with 9abes Toh
in 7anila$ with whom he has an amorous
relationshi-. &fter his direct testimony$ &l
Chua withdrew his -etition for naturali4ation.
What crime or crimes$ if any$ did &l Chua
commit# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&l Chua committed -er0ury. )is declaration
under oath for naturali4ation that he is of
good moral character and residing at
'am-aloc$ 7anila are false. This information
is material to his -etition for naturali4ation.
)e committed -er0ury for this willful and
deliberate assertion of falsehood which is
contained in a !eri<ed -etition made for a
legal -ur-ose. (Choa v. People, (.. No. 14*)11,
$ar5h 14, *))3) C-&8": C)88&##"* 12 P%1+&(
O99&("-:
Ari3ery @ Corruption of Pu3lic =fficial (%&&1)
He-uty 'herif 9en i!as recei!ed from the
TC Cler1 of Court a Writ of *6ecution in the
case of *0ectment <led by 7rs. 7aria
*strada !s. Luis &blan. The 0udgment being
in fa!or of *strada$ i!as went to her
lawyerIs ofice where he was gi!en the
necessary amounts constituting the sherifs
fees and e6-enses for e6ecution in the total
amount of "==D.DD$ aside from "2$DDD.DD in
consideration of -rom-t enforcement of the
writ from *strada and her lawyer. The writ
was successfully enforced. a) What crime$ if
any$ did the sherif commit# %A>) b) Was
there any crime committed by *strada and
her lawyer and if so$ what crime# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) The sherif committed the crime of Hirect
9ribery under the second -aragra-h of
&rticle 21D$ e!ised "enal Code$ since the
"2$DDD was recei!ed by him 8in
49 of 86
consideration8 of the -rom-t enforcement
of the writ of e6ecution which is an oficial
duty of the sherif to do.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER<
a) +n the -remise that e!en without the
"2$DDD$ 'herif 9en i!as had to carry out
the writ of e6ecution and not that he would
be im-lementing the writ only because of
the "2$DDD.DD$ the recei-t of the amount by
said sherif may be regarded as a gift
recei!ed by reason of his ofice and not as a
8consideration8 for the -erformance of an
oficial duty. hence$ only indirect 9ribery
would be committed by said sherif.
b) +n the -art of the -laintif and her
lawyer as gi!er of the bribeLmoney$ the
crime is Corru-tion of "ublic +ficials under
&rticle 212$ e!ised "enal Code.
5irect Ari3ery4 2nfi"elity in the Custo"y of 5ocuments
(%&&6)
Huring a "5" buyLbust o-eration$ Cao 'hih
was arrested for selling 2D grams of
metham-hetamine hydrochloride %shabu) to
a -oseurLbuyer. Cao 'hih$ through an
intermediary$ -aid "atric1$ the *!idence
Custodian of the "5" :orensic Chemistry
'ection$ the amount of "=DD$DDD.DD in
consideration for the destruction by "atric1
of the drug. "atric1 managed to destroy the
drug. 'tate with reasons whether "atric1
committed the following crimesM %Q>) 1.K
=irect <ribery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"atric1 committed the crimes of Hirect
9ribery and (n<delity in the Custody of
Hocuments. When a -ublic oficer is called
u-on to -erform or refrain from -erforming
an oficial act in e6change for a gift$ -resent
or consideration gi!en to him %&rt. 21D$
e!ised "enal Code)$ the crime committed is
direct bribery. 'econdly$ he destroyed the
shabu which is an e!idence in his oficial
custody$ thus$ constituting in<delity in the
custody of documents under &rt. 22C of the
e!ised "enal Code.
12> Inirect bribery/
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(ndirect bribery was not committed because
he did not recei!e the bribe because of his
ofice but in consideration of a crime in
connection with his oficial duty.
?2> Section ?3e, of @A ?.-A 3Anti"
Graft an Corrupt %ractices Act,/
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'ee. A%e)$ .&. 5o. ED1F was not committed
because there was no actual in0ury to the
go!ernment. When there is no s-eci<c
2uanti<ed in0ury$ !iolation is not committed.
((ar5ia<#e%a vs !mor, et al., (.. No. 116938,
Septem7er *), *))1)
82> $bstruction of Justice uner %=
-B1A/
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"atric1 committed the crime of obstruction
of 0ustice although the feigner -enalty
im-osable on direct bribery
or in<delity in the custody of documents
shall be im-osed. 'ec. 1 of ".H. 5o. 1E2F
refers merely to the im-osition of the higher
-enalty and does not -reclude -rosecution
for obstruction of 0ustice$ e!en if the same
not constitute another ofense.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
+bstruction of 3ustice is not committed in
this case$ because the act of destroying the
e!idence in his custody is already -enali4ed
by another law which im-oses a higher
-enalty. %'ec. 1$ ".(). 5o. 1E2F)
!uris"iction; 2mpeacha3le Pu3lic =fficers (%&&6)
3udge od eyes was a--ointed by former
"resident :idel amos as He-uty
+mbudsman for the /isayas for a term of Q
years commencing on 3uly =$1FF=. 'i6
months thereafter$ a lady stenogra-her <led
with the +fice of the +mbudsman a
com-laint for acts of lasci!iousness and with
the 'u-reme Court a -etition for disbarment
against him. :orthwith$ he <led se-arate
motions to dismiss the com-laint for acts of
lasci!iousness and -etition for disbarment$
claiming lac1 of 0urisdiction o!er his -erson
and ofice. &re both motions meritorious#
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion to dismiss the com-laint of the
He-uty +mbudsman for the acts of
lasci!iousness should be denied as only the
+mbudsman is included in the list of
im-eachable oficers found in &rticle N( of the
1FEQ Constitution. Therefore$ the
'andiganbayan has 0urisdiction o!er his
-rosecution (4Di5e o. the 4m7#%sma& vs.
C!, (.. 146486, $ar5h 4, *))'). Li1ewise$
the 'u-reme Court has 0urisdiction o!er the
-etition for disbarment$ as he is a member of
the bar. )is motion to dismiss should be
denied %'ee ule 1AF and 1AF of the ules of
Court).
8al#ersation (199)
andy$ an 59( agent$ was issued by the 59(
an armalite rife %7lC) and a 'mith and
Wesson e!ol!er. Cal. AE. &fter a year$ the
59( Hirector made an ins-ection of all the
<rearms issued. andy$ who re-orted for
wor1 that morning$ did not show u- during
the ins-ection. )e went on absence without
lea!e %&W+L). &fter two years$ he
surrendered to the 59( the two <rearms
issued to him. )e was charged with
mal!ersation of go!ernment -ro-erty before
the 'andiganbayan.
andy -ut u- the defense that he did not
a--ro-riate the armalite rife and the
re!ol!er for his own use$ that the delay in
accounting for them does not constitute
con!ersion and that actually the <rearms
were stolen by his friend$ Chiting. Hecide the
case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
andy is guilty as charged under &rt. 21Q$
"C. )e is accountable for the <rearms they
issued to him in his oficial ca-acity. The
failure of andy to submit the <rearms u-on
demand created the -resum-tion that he
con!erted them for his own use. *!en if
there is no direct e!idence of
misa--ro-riation$ his failure to
50 of 86
account for the go!ernment -ro-erty is
enough factual basis for a <nding of
mal!ersation. (ndeed$ e!en his e6-lanation
that the guns were stolen is incredible. :or if
the <rearms were actually stolen$ he should
ha!e 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*)
8al#ersation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of mal!ersation
of -ublic funds or -ro-erty# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7al!ersation of -ublic funds or -ro-erty is
committed by any -ublic oficer who$ by
reason of the duties of his ofice$ is
accountable for -ublic funds or -ro-erty$
shall ta1e or misa--ro-riate or shall consent$
or through abandonment or negligence$ shall
-ermit any other -erson to ta1e such -ublic
funds or -ro-erty$ wholly or -artially$ or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misa--ro-riation
or mal!ersation of such funds or -ro-erty$
%&rt$ 21Q$ "C)
8al#ersation (1999)
& 7unici-al Treasurer$ accountable for
-ublic funds or -ro-erty$ encashed with
-ublic funds -ri!ate chec1s drawn in fa!or
of his wife. The chec1s bounced$ the drawer
not ha!ing enough cash in the drawee ban1.
The 7unici-al Treasurer$ in encashing
-ri!ate chec1s from -ublic funds$ !iolated
regulations of his ofice. 5otwithstanding
restitution of the amount of the chec1s$ can
the 7unici-al Treasurer ne!ertheless be
criminally liable# What crime did he
commit# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ notwithstanding the restitution of the
amount of the chec1$ the 7unici-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 !oluntary surrender. (People
vs. /elas:#e0, 13 Phil 98)$ )e will be
criminally liable for mal!ersation. )owe!er$
if the restitution was made immediately$
under !ehement -rotest against an
im-utation of mal!ersation and without
lea!ing the ofice$ he may not be criminally
liable.
8al#ersation (%&&1)
&le6 eyes$ together with 3ose 'antos$ were
former warehousemen of the ustan
He-artment 'tore. (n 1FEC$ the "C@@
se2uestered the assets$ fund and -ro-erties
of the ownersLincor-orators of the store$
alleging that they constitute 8(llLgotten
wealth8 of the 7arcos family. B-on their
a--lication$ eyes and 'antos were
a--ointed as <scal agents of the se2uestered
<rm and they were gi!en custody and
-ossession of the se2uestered building and
its contents$ including !arious !ehicles used
in the <rmIs o-erations. &fter a few months$
an in!entory was conducted and it was
disco!ered that two %2) deli!ery !ans were
missing. &fter demand was made u-on them$
eyes and 'antos failed to gi!e any
satisfactory e6-lanation why the !ans were
missing or to turn them o!er to the "C@@.
hence$ they were charged with 7al!ersation
of "ublic "ro-erty. Huring the trial$ the two
accused claimed that they are not -ublic
accountable oficers and$ if any crime was
committed$ it should only be *stafa under
&rt. A1=$ -ar. l%b) of the e!ised "enal Code.
What is the -ro-er ofense committed# 'tate
the reason%s) for your answer. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -ro-er ofense committed was
7al!ersation of "ublic "ro-erty$ not estafa$
considering that eyes and 'antos$ u-on
their a--lication$ were constituted as 8<scal
agents8 of the se2uestered <rm and were
8gi!en custody and -ossession8 of the
se2uestered -ro-erties$ including the
deli!ery !ans 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 ofice;-osition$ they are
accountable for such -ro-erties. 'uch
-ro-erties$ ha!ing been se2uestered by the
@o!ernment through the "C@@$ are in
custodia legis and therefore im-ressed with
the character of -ublic -ro-erty$ e!en though
the -ro-erties belong to a -ri!ate indi!idual
%&rt. 222$ "C).
The failure of eyes and 'antos to gi!e any
satisfactory e6-lanation why the !ans were
missing$ is -rima facie e!idence that they
had -ut the same to their -ersonal use.
8al#ersation (%&&6)
1. (n 1FE2$ the "hili--ine 5ational 9an1
%"59)$ then a go!ernment ban1ing
institution$ hired )enry dela enta$ a C"&$ as
egional 9an1 &uditor. (n 1FF2$ he resigned
and was em-loyed by the "hili--ine He-osit
(nsurance Cor-oration %"H(C)$ another
go!ernmentLowned and controlled
cor-oration. (n 1FF=$ after the "59
management unearthed many irregularities
and !iolations of the ban1Is rules and
regulations$ dela enta was found to ha!e
mani-ulated certain accounts in!ol!ing trust
funds and time de-osits of de-ositors. &fter
in!estigation$ he was charged with
mal!ersation of -ublic funds before the
'andiganbayan. )e <led a motion to dismiss
contending he was no longer an em-loyee of
the "59 but of the "H(C. (s dela entaIs
contention tenable# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The contention of )enry dela enta is not
tenable. Hela enta may be -rosecuted for
mal!ersation e!en if he had ceased to be an
em-loyee of the "59. &t the time of the
commission of the ofense$ "59 was a
go!ernment owned and controlled
cor-oration and therefore$ any crime
committed by the egional 9an1 &uditor$
who is a -ublic oficer$ is sub0ect to the
0urisdiction of the 'andiganbayan %'ee .&.
QFQ= as amended by &. E2GF).
2. &fter his arraignment$ the -rosecution
<led a motion for his sus-ension -endente
lite$ to which he <led an o--osition claiming
that he can no longer be sus-ended as he is
no longer an em-loyee of the "59 but that
of the "H(C. *6-lain whether he may or may
not be sus-ended. %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
51 of 86
Hela enta may still be sus-ended -endente
lite des-ite holding a diferent -ublic ofice$
the "H(C$ when he was charged. The term
8ofice8 in 'ec. 1A of .&. AD1F a--lies to
any ofice which the oficer might currently
be holding and not necessarily the ofice or
-osition in relation to which he is charged
(Se2ovia v. Sa&%i2a&7a3a&, (.. No. 1**14),
$ar5h 3),1998).
8al#ersation #s9 +stafa (1999)
)ow is mal!ersation distinguished from
estafa#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7al!ersation difers from estafa in that
mal!ersation is committed by an accountable
-ublic oficer in!ol!ing -ublic funds or
-ro-erty under his custody and
accountability. while estafa is committed by
nonLaccountable -ublic oficer or -ri!ate
indi!idual in!ol!ing funds or -ro-erty for
which he is not accountable to the
go!ernment.
7al!ersationM &ntiL:encingM Carna--ing
%2DD=) &llan$ the 7unici-al Treasurer of the
7unici-ality of @erona$ was in a hurry to
return to his ofice after a dayLlong oficial
conference. )e alighted from the go!ernment
car which was oficially assigned to him$
lea!ing the ignition 1ey and the car unloc1ed$
and rushed to his ofice. 3ules$ a bystander$
dro!e of with the car and later sold the same
to his brother$ Hanny for "2D$DDD.DD$
although the car was worth "EDD$DDD.DD.
;hat are the respective crimes) if any)
committe by Allan) =anny an Jules+
Explain2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&llan$ the munici-al treasurer is liable for
mal!ersation committed through negligence
or cul-a. The go!ernment car which was
assigned to him is -ublic -ro-erty under his
accountability by reason of his duties. 9y his
act of negligence$ he -ermitted the ta1ing of
the car by another -erson$ resulting in
mal!ersation$ consistent with the language
of &rt. 21Q of the e!ised "enal Code.
Hanny !iolated the &ntiL:encing Law. )e is
in -ossession of an item which is the sub0ect
of thie!ery. ".H. 5o. 1C12 %&ntiL:encing Law) under
'ection = -ro!ides that mere -ossession of
any good$ article$ item$ ob0ect or any thing of
!alue which has been the sub0ect of robbery
or thie!ery shall be -rima facie$ e!idence of
fencing.
3ules is guilty of carna--ing. )e too1 the
motor !ehicle belonging to another without
the latterIs consent. %.&. 5o. C=AF)
;hat) if any) are their respective civil
liabilities+ Explain2 345,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&llan is under obligation to restitute the
!ehicle or ma1e re-aration if not -ossible.
3ules must -ay the amount he gained from
the sale of the car which is "2D$DDD.DD.
Hanny must ma1e re-aration corres-onding
to the !alue of the car which is
"EDD$DDD.DD.
8al#ersation; Properties; Custo"ia Legis (%&&1)
&ccused 3uan 'antos$ a de-uty sherif in a
egional Trial Court$ le!ied on the -ersonal
-ro-erties of a defendant in a ci!il case
before said court$ -ursuant to a writ of
e6ecution duly issued by the court. &mong
the -ro-erties le!ied u-on and de-osited
inside the 8e!idence room8 of the Cler1 of
Court for 7ulti-le TC 'alas were a
refrigerator$ a stoc1 of cassette ta-es$ a
dining table set of chairs and se!eral
lam-shades. B-on the defendantIs -aying of
the 0udgment creditor$ he tried to claim his
-ro-erties but found out that se!eral items
were missing$ such as the cassette ta-es$
chairs and lam-shades. &fter due and
diligent sleuthing by the -olice detecti!es
assigned to the case$ these missing items
were found in the house of accused 'antos$
who reasoned out that he only borrowed
them tem-orarily. (f you were the <scal
;-rosecutor$ what would be the nature of the
information to be <led against the accused#
Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(f ( were the <scal;-rosecutor$ ( would <le an
information for 7al!ersation against 3uan
'antos for the cassette ta-es$ chain and
lam-shades which he$ as de-uty sherif$
le!ied u-on and thus under his
accountability as a -ublic oficer. 'aid
-ro-erties being under le!y$ are in custodia
legis and thus im-ressed with the character
of -ublic -ro-erty$ misa--ro-riation of which
constitutes the crime of mal!ersation
although said -ro-erties belonged to a
-ri!ate indi!idual %&rt. 222$ "C).
3uan 'antos misa--ro-riated such -ro-erties
when$ in breach of trust$ he a--lied them to
his own -ri!ate use and bene<t. )is
allegation that he only borrowed such
-ro-erties is a lame e6cuse$ de!oid of merit
as there is no one from whom he borrowed
the same. The fact that it was only 8after due
and diligent sleuthing by the -olice
detecti!es assigned to the case8$ that the
missing items were found in the house of
'antos$ negates his -retension.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
&n information for Theft may be <led$
considering that the sherif had already
de-osited the -ro-erties le!ied u-on in the
8e!idence room8 of the Cler1 of Court and
may ha!e already been relie!ed of his
accountability therefor.
(f 3uan 'antos was no longer the -ublic
oficer who should be accountable for the
-ro-erties le!ied u-on and found in his
house$ his ta1ing of such -ro-erties would
no longer constitute 7al!ersation but Theft$
as there was ta1ing with intent to gain$ of
-ersonal -ro-erty of another without the
consent of the latter.
8al#ersation; Technical 8al#ersation (1996)
*li4abeth is the munici-al treasurer of
7asinloc$ Oambales. +n 3anuary 1D$ 1FFG$
she recei!ed$ as munici-al treasurer$ from
the He-artment of "ublic
52 of 86
Wor1s and )ighways$ the amount of
"1DD$DDD.DD 1nown as the fund for
construction$ rehabilitation$ betterment$ and
(m-ro!ement %C9() for the concreting of
9arangay "hani6 oad located in 7asinloc$
Oambales$ a -ro0ect underta1en on -ro-osal
of the 9arangay Ca-tain. (nformed that the
fund was already e6hausted while the
concreting of 9arangay "hani6 oad
remained un<nished$ a re-resentati!e of the
Commission on &udit conducted a s-ot audit
of *li4abeth who failed to account for the
"lDD$DDD C9( fund. *li4abeth$ who was
charged with mal!ersation of -ublic funds$
was ac2uitted by the 'andiganbayan of that
charge but was ne!ertheless con!icted$ in the
same criminal case$ for illegal use of -ublic
funds. +n a--eal$ *li4abeth argued that her
con!iction was erroneous as she a--lied the
amount of "=D$DDD.DD for a -ublic -ur-ose
without !iolating any law or ordinance
a--ro-riating the said amount for any
s-eci<c -ur-ose. The absence of such law or
ordinance was$ in fact$ established. (s the
contention of *li4abeth legally tenable#
*6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*li4abethIs contention that her con!iction
for illegal use of -ublic funds %technical
mal!ersation) was erroneous$ is legally
tenable because she was charged for
mal!ersation of -ublic funds under &rt. 21Q
of the e!ised "enal Code but was con!icted
for (llegal use of -ublic funds which is
de<ned and -unished under &rt. 22D of said
Code. & -ublic oficer charged with
mal!ersation may not be !alidly con!icted of
illegal use of -ublic funds %technical
mal!ersation) because the latter crime is not
necessarily included nor does it necessarily
include the crime of mal!ersation. The
'andiganbayan should ha!e followed the
-rocedure -ro!ided in 'ec. 11$ ule 11F of
the ules of Court and order the <ling of the
-ro-er (nformation. (Par#&2ao #s.
Sa&%i2a&7a3a&. 191 SC! 113.) :rom the
facts$ there is no showing that there is a law
or ordinance a--ro-riating the amount to a
s-eci<c -ublic -ur-ose. &s a matter of fact$
the -roblem categorically states that the
absence of such law or ordinance was$ in
fact$ established.8 'o$ -rocedurally and
substantially $ the 'andiganbayanIs decision
sufers from serious (n<rmity.
Pu3lic =fficers; "efinition (1999)
Who are -ublic oficers# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"ublic +ficers are -ersons who$ by direct
-ro!ision of the law$ -o-ular election or
a--ointment by com-etent authority$ ta1es
-art in the -erformance of -ublic functions
in the @o!ernment of the "hili--ines$ or
-erforms in said @o!ernment or in any of its
branches -ublic duties as an em-loyee$
agent or subordinate oficial$ of any ran1 or
class %&rt. 2DA$ "C)
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (1996)
& chief of -olice of a munici-ality$ belie!ing
in good faith that a -risoner ser!ing a tenL
day sentence in the munici-al 0ail$ would not
esca-e$ allowed said -risoner to slee- at the
latterIs house because the munici-al 3ail was
so congested and there was no bed s-ace
a!ailable. &ccordingly$ the -risoner went
home to slee- e!ery night
but returned to 0ail early each morning$
until the tenLday sentence had been fully
ser!ed. Hid the Chief of "olice commit any
crime# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The Chief of "olice is guilty of !iolation of
&rt. 22A$ "C$ consenting or conni!ing to
e!asion$ the elements of which are %a) he is
a -ublic oficer$ %b) he is in charge or
custody of a -risoner$ detention or -risoner
by <nal 0udgment$ %c) that the -risoner
esca-ed$ and %d) there must be conni!ance.
ela6ation of a -risoner is considered
in<delity$ thus ma1ing the -enalty
inefectual. although the con!ict may not
ha!e fed (US vs. ;a&%i&o, 9 Phil. 4'9) it is still
!iolati!e of the -ro!ision. (t also includes a
case when the guard allowed the -risoner$
who is ser!ing a si6Lday sentence in the
munici-al 3ail$ to slee- in his house and eat
there
(People vs. evilla).
Pu3lic =fficers; 2nfi"elity in Custo"y of Prisoners (199*)
Huring a town <esta. &$ the chief of -olice$
-ermitted 9$ a detention -risoner and his
com-adre$ to lea!e the munici-al 0ail and
entertain !isitors in his house from
1DMDD a.m. to EMDD -.m. 9 returned to the munici-al
0ail at EMAD -.m. Was there any crime committed by
&#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ & committed the crime of in<delity in
the custody of a -risoner. 'ince 9 is a
detention -risoner. &s Chief of "olice$ & has
custody o!er 9. *!en if 9 returned to the
munici-al 3ail at EMAD -.m. &$ as custodian of
the -risoner$ has maliciously failed to
-erform the duties of his ofice$ and when he
-ermits said -risoner to obtain a rela6ation
of his im-risonment$ he consents to the
-risoner esca-ing the -unishment of being
de-ri!ed of his liberty which can be
considered real and actual e!asion of ser!ice
under &rticle 22A of the e!ised "enal Code
(People vs. 6eo& ;a&%i&o *9 Phil. 4'9).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5o crime was committed by the Chief of
"olice. (t was only an act of leniency or
la6ity in the -erformance of his duty and not
in e6cess of his duty (People vs. >va&2elista
(C!) 38 4.(. 1'8).
C-&8": A$&!:# P"-:)!:
Comple/ Crime; >omici"e wD (ssault,(uthority (1996)
"ascual o-erated a rice thresher in
9arangay 5a-nud where he resided.
enato$ a resident of the neighboring
9arangay @uihaman$ also o-erated a mobile
rice thresher which he often brought to
9arangay 5a-nud to thresh the -alay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by
"ascual$ +ne afternoon "ascual$ and his two
sons confronted enato and his men who
were o-erating their mobile rice thresher
along a feeder road in 5a-nud. & heated
argument ensued. & barangay ca-tain who
was fetched by one of "ascualIs men tried to
a--ease "ascual and enato to -re!ent a
!iolent confrontation. )owe!er$ "ascual
resented the inter!ention of the barangay
ca-tain and hac1ed him to death. What
crime was committed by "ascual# Hiscuss
fully.
53 of 86
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"ascual committed the com-le6 crime of
homicide with assault u-on a -erson in
authority %&rts. 1GE and 2GF in relation to
&rt$ GE$ "C). & barangay chairman$ is in
law %&rt. 1=2)$ a -erson in authority and if he
is attac1ed while in the -erformance of his
oficial duties or on the occasion thereof the
felony of direct assault is committed.
&rt. GE$ "C$ on the other hand$ -ro!ides
that if a single act -roduces two or more
gra!e or less gra!e felonies$ a com-le6
crime is committed. )ere$ the single act of
the ofender in hac1ing the !ictim to death
resulted in two felonies$ homicide which is
gra!e and direct assault which is less gra!e.
Comple/ Crime; Parrici"e wD unintentional a3ortion
(199)
&ldrich was dismissed from his 3ob by his
em-loyer. B-on reaching home$ his
-regnant wife$ Carmi$ nagged him about
money for her medicines. He-ressed by his
dismissal and angered by the nagging of his
wife$ &ldrich struc1 Carmi with his <st. 'he
fell to the ground. &s a result$ she and her
unborn baby died. What crime was
committed by &ldrich#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&ldrich committed the crime of -arricide
with unintentional abortion. When &ldrich
struc1 his wife$ Carmi$ with his <st$ he
committed the crime of maltreatment under
&rt$ 2CC$ -ar. A of the e!ised "enal Code$
'ince Carmi died because of the felonious act
of &ldrich$ he is criminally liable of -arricide
under &rt. 2GC$ "C in relation to &rt. G$ -ar.
1 of the same Code. 'ince the unborn baby of
Carmi died in the -rocess$ but &ldrich had no
intention to cause the abortion of his wife$
&ldrich committed unintentional abortion as
de<ned in &rt. 2=Q$ "C. (nasmuch as the
single act of &ldrich -roduced two gra!e or
less gra!e felonies$ he falls under &rt$ GE$
"C$ ie. a com-le6 crime (People vs.
Sal#.ra&5ia, 1'9 SC! 4)1).
Criminal Lia3ilities; 0ape; >omici"e @ Theft (199- <o)
Ping went to the house of Laura who was
alone. Laura ofered him a drin1 and after
consuming three bottles of beer. Ping made
ad!ances to her and with force and !iolence$
ra!ished her. Then Ping 1illed Laura and
too1 her 0ewelry.
Homing$ PingIs ado-ted brother$ learned
about the incident. )e went to LauraIs
house$ hid her body$ cleaned e!erything and
washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later$ Ping ga!e 3ose$ his legitimate brother$
one -iece of 0ewelry belonging to Laura. 3ose
1new that the 0ewelry was ta1en from Laura
but nonetheless he sold it for "2$DDD. What
crime or crimes did Ping$ Homing and 3ose
commit# Hiscuss their criminal liabilities.
J1D>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Ping committed the com-osite crime of
a-e with homicide as a single indi!isible
ofense$ not a com-le6 crime$ and Theft. The
ta1ing of LauraIs 0ewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultous (ffray (199*)
Huring a town <esta$ a freeLforLall <ght
eru-ted in the -ublic -la4a. &s a result of the
tumultuous afray$ & sustained one fatal and
three su-er<cial stab wounds. )e died a day
after. 9$ C$ H and * were -ro!en to be
-artici-ants in the 8rumble8$ each using a
1nife against &$ but it could not be
ascertained who among them inficted the
mortal in0ury. Who shall be held criminally
liable for the death of & and for what#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9$ C$ H$ and * being -artici-ants in the
tumultuous afray and ha!ing been -ro!en to
ha!e inficted serious -hysical in0uries$ or at
least$ em-loyed !iolence u-on &$ are
criminally liable for the latterIs death. &nd
because it cannot be ascertained who
among them inficted the mortal in0ury on &$
there being a freeLforLall <ght or tumultuous
afray. 9$ C$ H$ and * are all liable for the
crime of death caused in a tumultuous afray
under &rticle 2=1 of the e!ised "enal Code.
Criminal Lia3ility; Tumultuous (ffray (%&&1)
(n a freeLforLall brawl that ensued after some
customers inside a night club became unruly$
guns were <red by a grou-$ among them &
and 9$ that <nally -ut the customers bac1 to
their senses. Bnfortunately$ one customer
died. 'ubse2uent in!estigation re!ealed that
&Is gunshot had inficted on the !ictim a
slight wound that did not cause the
deceasedIs death nor materially contribute
to it. (t was 9Is gunshot that inficted a fatal
wound on the deceased. & contended that
his liability should$ if at all$ be limited to
slight -hysical in0ury. Would you agree#
Why# C>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ ( beg to disagree with &Is contention
that his liability should be limited to slight
-hysical in0ury only. )e should be held liable
for attem-ted homicide because he inficted
said in0ury with the use of a <rearm which is
a lethal wea-on. (ntent to 1ill is inherent in
the use of a <rearm. (!ra&eta, +r. v. Co#rt o.
!ppeals, 181 SC! 1*3 ?199)=)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
,es$ ( would agree to &Is contention that his
criminal liability should be for slight
-hysical in0ury only$ because he <red his
gun only to -acify the unruly customers of
the night club and therefore$ without intent
to 1ill. 9Is gunshot that inficted a fatal
wound on the deceased may not be im-uted
to & because cons-iracy cannot e6ist when
there is a freeLforLall brawl or tumultuous
afray. & and 9 are liable only for their
res-ecti!e act
5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&1)
& and 9 are husband and wife. & is
em-loyed as a security guard at Landmar1$
his shift being from 11MDD -.m. to QMDD a.m. +ne night$ he felt sic1 and
cold$ hence$ he decided to go home around
midnight after getting
54 of 86
-ermission from his duty oficer. B-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. &--roaching the front door$ he was
sur-rised to hear sighs and giggles inside
the bedroom. )e o-ened the door !ery
carefully and -ee-ed inside where he saw
his wife 9 ha!ing se6ual intercourse with
their neighbor
C. & rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and
0um-ed out of the window$ & followed suit
and managed to catch C again and after a
furious struggle$ managed also to strangle
him to death. & then rushed bac1 to his
bedroom where his wife 9 was cowering
under the bed co!ers. 'till enraged$ & hit 9
with <st blows and rendered her
unconscious. The -olice arri!ed after being
summoned by their neighbors and arrested
& who was detained$ in2uested and charged
for the death of C and serious -hysical
(n0uries of 9. a) (s & liable for CIs death#
Why# %=>) b) (s & liable for 9Is in0uries#
Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) ,es$ & is liable for CIs death but under
the e6ce-tional circumstances in &rticle 2GQ
of the e!ised "enal Code$ where only
destierro is -rescribed. &rticle 2GQ go!erns
since & sur-rised his wife 9 in the act of
ha!ing se6ual intercourse with C$ and the
1illing of C was 8(mmediately thereafter8 as
the disco!ery$ esca-e$ -ursuit and 1illing of C
form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. /ar2as, *
Phil. 194)
b) Li1ewise$ & is liable for the serious
-hysical in0uries he inficted on his wife 9
but under the same e6ce-tional
circumstances in &rticle 2GQ of the e!ised
"enal Code$ for the same reasons.
5eath un"er +/ceptional Circumstances (%&&6)
"ete$ a security guard$ arri!ed home late
one night after rendering o!ertime. )e was
shoc1ed to see :lor$ his wife$ and 9en0ie$ his
best friend$ com-letely na1ed ha!ing se6ual
intercourse. "ete -ulled out his ser!ice gun
and shot and 1illed 9en0ie. "ete was charged
with murder for the death of 9en0ie. "ete
contended that he acted in defense of his
honor and that$ therefore$ he should be
ac2uitted of the crime.
The court found that 9en0ie died under
e6ce-tional circumstances and e6onerated
"ete of the crime$ but sentenced him to
destierro$ conformably with &rticle 2GQ of
the e!ised "enal Code. The court also
ordered "ete to -ay indemnity to the heirs of
the !ictim in the amount of "=D$DDD.DD. %=>) Is the efense of %ete meritorious+
Explain2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. & -erson who commits acts -enali4ed
under &rticle 2GQ of the e!ised "enal Code
for death or serious -hysical in0uries inficted
under e6ce-tional circumstances is still
criminally liable. )owe!er$ this is merely an
e6em-ting circumstance when the !ictim
sufers any other 1ind of -hysical in0ury. (n the
case at bar$ "ete will sufer the -enalty of
destierro for the death of 9en0ie.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5o. "ete did not act in defense of his honor.
:or this defense to a--ly under &rt. 11$
there must be an unlawful aggression which
is de<ned as an attac1 or material
aggression that -oses a danger to his life or
-ersonal safely. (t must be a real aggression
characteri4ed by a -hysical force or with a
wea-on to cause in0ury or damage to oneIs
life. (People v. Naha3ra, (.. Nos. 96368<69,
45to7er 11, 1991" People v. Eo#si&2, (.. No.
6496', +#l3 18, 1991)
(ner Article 18C of the @evise %enal
Coe) is estierro a penalty+ Explain2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n the case of People v. !7ar5a, (.. No.
14433, Septem7er 14, 1981$ the Court ruled
that &rticle 2GQ does not de<ne a felony.
)owe!er$ it went on to state that the -enalty
is merely banishment of the accused$
intended for his -rotection. "unishment$
therefore$ is not inficted on the accused.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
,es. &rticle 2GQ of the e!ised "enal Code
does not de<ne and -ro!ide for a s-eci<c
crime but grants a -ri!ilege or bene<t to the
accused for the 1illing of another or the
infiction of 'erious "hysical (n0uries.
Hestierro is a -unishment whereby a con!ict
is banished to a certain -lace and is
-rohibited from entering or coming near
that -lace designated in the sentence$ not
less than 2= 1ms. (People v. !ra:#el, (.. No.
6<1*6*9, 9e5em7er 9, 19'9)
=i the court correctly orer %ete to pay
inemnity espite his exoneration uner
Article 18C of the @evise %enal Coe+
Explain2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ because the -ri!ilege de<ned under this
&rticle e6em-ts the ofender from criminal
liability but not from ci!il liability. (People v.
!7ar5a, (., No. 6<14483, Septem7er 14, 1981"
!rt. 1*, evise% Pe&al Co%e)
>omici"e; .raustrate"; Physical 2n:uries (199)
&t about 11MDD in the e!ening$ Hante forced
his way inside the house of 7amerto. 3ay$
7amertoIs son$ saw Hante and accosted him$
Hante -ulled a 1nife and stabbed 3ay on his
abdomen. 7amerto heard the commotion
and went out of his room. Hante$ who was
about to esca-e$ assaulted 7amerto. 3ay
sufered in0uries which$ were it not for the
timely medical attendance$ would ha!e
caused his death. 7amerto sustained
(n0uries that inca-acitated him for 2= days.
What crime or crimes did Hante commit#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Hante committed 2uali<ed tres-ass to
dwelling$ frustrated homicide for the
stabbing of 3ay$ and less serious -hysical
in0uries for the assault on 7amerto.
The crime of 2uali<ed tres-ass to dwelling
should not be com-le6ed with frustrated
homicide ...
Hante committed frustrated homicide for
the stabbing of 3ay because he had already
-erformed all the acts of
55 of 86
e6ecution which would ha!e -roduced the
intended felony of homicide were it not for
causes inde-endent of the act of Hante.
Hante had the intent to 1ill 0udging from the
wea-on used$ the manner of committing the
crime and the -art of the body stabbed.
Hante is guilty of less serious -hysical
in0uries for the wounds sustained by
7amerto. There a--ears to be no intent to
1ill because Hante merely assaulted
7amerto without using the 1nife.
2nfantici"e (%&&6)
&na has been a bar girl;@+ at a beer house
for more than 2 years. 'he fell in lo!e with
+nio1$ the bartender$ who im-regnated her.
9ut &na did not inform him about her
condition and instead$ went home to Cebu to
conceal her shame. )owe!er$ her -arents
dro!e her away. 'o she returned to 7anila
and stayed with +nio1 in his boarding house.
B-on learning of her -regnancy$ already in
an ad!anced state$ +nio1 tried to -ersuade
her to undergo an abortion$ but she refused.
9ecause of their constant and bitter
2uarrels$ she sufered birth -angs and ga!e
birth -rematurely to a li!e baby girl while
+nio1 was at his -lace of wor1. B-on coming
home and learning what ha--ened$ he
-re!ailed u-on &na to conceal her dishonor.
)ence$ they -laced the infant in a shoe bo6
and threw it into a nearby cree1. )owe!er$
an in2uisiti!e neighbor saw them and with
the hel- of others$ retrie!ed the infant who
was already dead from drowning. The
incident was re-orted to the -olice who
arrested &na and +nio1. The 2 were charged
with -arricide under &rticle 2GC of the
e!ised "enal Code. &fter trial$ they were
con!icted of the crime charged. Was the
con!iction correct#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The con!iction of &na and +nio1 is not
correct. They are liable for infanticide
because they 1illed a child less than three
days of age %&rt. 2==$ e!ised "enal Code).
8ur"er @ Sec9 %6B 09(9 <o9 9166 (%&&6)
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
-ositi!e for the use of XshabuY at the time
he committed the stabbing. What should be
the -ro-er charge against Candido#
*6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The 1illing was not attended by any of the
2ualifying circumstances enumerated under
&rticle 2GE of the e!ised "enal Code. The
1illing$ howe!er$ constitutes murder because
the commission of a crime under the
infuence of -rohibited drugs is a 2ualifying$
aggra!ating circumstance. %'ec. 2=$ .&. 5o.
F1C=)
8ur"er (1999)
The accused$ not intending to 1ill the !ictim$
treacherously shot the !ictim while the !ictim
was turning his bac1 to him. )e aimed at and
hit the !ictim only on the leg. The !ictim$
howe!er$ died because of loss of blood. Can
the accused be liable for homicide or murder$
considering that treachery was clearly
in!ol!ed
but there was no attem-t to 1ill# *6-lain
your answer. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The accused is liable for the death of the
!ictim e!en though he merely aimed and
<red at the latterIs leg$ 8not intending to 1ill
the !ictim8$ considering that the gunshot
was felonious and was the -ro6imate cause
of death. &n ofender is liable for all the
direct$ natural$ and logical conse2uences of
his felonious act although diferent from
what he intended. )owe!er$ since s-eci<c
intent to 1ill is absent$ the crime for said
death is only homicide and not murder
(People vs. P#2a3 a&% Samso&, 161 SC!
439)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The accused is liable for the death of the
!ictim in as much as his act of shooting the
!ictim at the leg is felonious and is the
-ro6imate cause of death. & -erson
-erforming a felonious act is criminally
liable for all the direct$ natural$ and logical
conse2uences of such act although diferent
from what he intended. &nd since such
death was attended by treachery$ the same
will constitute murder but the accused
should be gi!en the bene<t of the mitigating
circumstance that he did not intend to
commit so gra!e a wrong as that which was
committed %&rt. 1A%A)$ "C)
8ur"er; 5efinition @ +lements (1999)
He<ne murder. What are the elements of the
crime# JA>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%a) 7urder is the unlawful 1illing of a -erson
which otherwise would constitute only
homicide$ had it not been attended by any of
the following circumstancesM
1. With treachery or ta1ing ad!antage of
su-erior strength$ or with the aid of armed
men$ or em-loying means to wea1en the
defense or of means or -ersons to insure or
aford im-unity.
2. (n consideration of a -rice$ reward
or -romise. A. 9y means or on the occasion of
inundation$ <re$ -oison$ e6-losion$
shi-wrec1$ stranding of a !essel$ derailment
or assault u-on a railroad$ fall of an airshi-$
or by means of motor !ehicles$ or with the
use of any other means in!ol!ing great
waste and ruin.
G. +n occasion of an earth2ua1e$ eru-tion
of a !olcano$ destructi!e cyclone$ e-idemic
or other -ublic calamity. =. With e!ident
-remeditation. C. With cruelty$ by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the sufering of the
!ictim$ or outraging or scofing at his -erson
or cor-se.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%b) The elements of murder areM %1) that a
-erson was unlawfully 1illed. %2) that such a
1illing was attended by any of the abo!eL
mentioned circumstances. %A) that the
1illing is not -arricide nor infanticide. and
%G) that the accused 1illed the !ictim.
8ur"er; +#i"ent Preme"itation (1996)
:idel and :red harbored a long standing
grudge against 3orge who refused to marry
their sister Lorna$ after the latter got
-regnant by 3orge. &fter wee1s of
sur!eillance$ they <nally cornered 3orge in
*rmita$ 7anila$ when the latter was wal1ing
home late at night. :idel and :red
56 of 86
forcibly brought 3orge to Oambales where
they 1e-t him hogLtied in a small ni-a house
located in the middle of a rice <eld. Two
days later$ they 1illed 3orge and dum-ed his
body into the ri!er. What crime or crimes
did :idel and :red commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
:idel and :red committed the crime of
7urder under &rt 2GE$ "C$ the 1illing being
2uali<ed by e!ident -remeditation. This is
due to the long standing grudge entertained
by the two accused occasioned by the
!ictimIs refusal to marry their sister after
im-regnating her.
(n People vs. !l.e5he. *19 SC! 8'$ the
intention of the accused is determinati!e of
the crime committed. Where the intention is
to 1ill the !ictim and the latter is forcibly
ta1en to another -lace and later 1illed$ it is
murder. There is no indication that the
ofenders intended to de-ri!e the !ictim of
his liberty. Whereas$ if the !ictim is
1idna--ed$ and ta1en to another situs and
1illed as an afterthought$ it is 1idna--ing
with homicide under &rt. 2CQ$ "C.
8ur"er; >omici"e; 2nfantici"e; Parrici"e (1999)
& 1illedM %1) a woman with whom he li!ed
without bene<t of clergy$ %2) their child who
was only two days old$ %A) their daughter$
and %G) their ado-ted son. What crime or
crimes did & commit# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& committed the following crimesM
1.K )+7(C(H* or murder as the case
may be$ for the 1illing of his commonLlaw
wife who is not legally considered a
8s-ouse8 2.K (5:&5T(C(H* for the 1illing of the
child as said child is less than three %A) days
old. %&rt. 2==$ "C) )owe!er$ the -enalty
corres-onding to -arricide shall be im-osed
since & is related to the child within the
degree de<ned in the crime of -arricide.
A.K "&(C(H* for the 1illing of their
daughter$ whether legitimate or illegitimate$
as long as she is not less than three %A) days
old at the time of the 1illing.
G.K 7BH* for the 1illing of their
ado-ted son as the relationshi- between &
and the said son must be by blood in order
for -arricide to arise.
8ur"er; 0ecGles 2mpru"ence (%&&1)
7ang 3ose$ a se-tuagenarian$ was wal1ing
with his tenLyear old grandson along "aseo
de o6as and decided to cross at the
intersection of 7a1ati &!enue but both were
hit by a s-eeding C/ )onda !an and were
sent s-rawling on the -a!ement a meter
a-art. The dri!er$ a Chinese mesti4o$
sto--ed his car after hitting the two !ictims
but then re!ersed his gears and ran o!er
7ang 3oseIs -rostrate body anew and third
time by ad!ancing his car forward. The
grandson sufered bro1en legs only and
sur!i!ed but 7ang 3ose sufered multi-le
fractures and bro1en ribs$ causing his
instant death. The dri!er was arrested and
charged with 7urder for the death of 7ang
Criminal Law Bar Exam
ination Q & A (1994-2006)
3ose and 'erious "hysical (n0uries through
ec1less (m-rudence with res-ect to the
grandson. &re the charges correct#
*6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the charges are correct. :or
deliberately running o!er 7ang 3oseIs
-rostrate body after ha!ing bum-ed him and
his grandson$ the dri!er indeed committed
7urder$ 2uali<ed by treachery. 'aid dri!erIs
deliberate intent to 1ill 7ang 3ose was
demonstrated by his running o!er the
latterIs body twice$ by bac1ing u- the !an
and dri!ing it forward$ whereas the !ictim
was hel-less and not in a -osition to defend
himself or to retaliate.
&s to the serious -hysical in0uries sustained
by 7ang 3oseIs 1DLyear old grandson$ as a
result of ha!ing been hit by the s-eeding
!ehicle of said dri!er$ the same were the
result of rec1less im-rudence which is
-unishable as a 2uasiLofense in &rticle AC=
of the e!ised "enal Code. The charge of
ec1less (m-rudence esulting to 'erious
"hysical (n0uries is correct. The -enalty ne6t
higher in degree to what ordinarily should
be im-osed is called for$ since the dri!er did
not lend hel- on the s-ot$ which hel- he
could ha!e gi!en to the !ictims.
8ur"er; Treachery (1996)
+n his way to buy a lotto tic1et$ a -oliceman
suddenly found himself surrounded by four
men. +ne of them wrestled the -olice oficer
to the ground and disarmed him while the
other three com-anions who were armed
with a hunting 1nife$ an ice -ic1$ and a
balisong$ re-eatedly stabbed him. The
-oliceman died as a result of the multi-le
stab wounds inficted by his assailants. What
crime or crimes were committed# Hiscuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&ll the assailants are liable for the crime of
murder$ 2uali<ed by treachery$ %which
absorbed abuse of su-erior strength) as the
attac1 was sudden and une6-ected and the
!ictim was totally defenseless. Cons-iracy
is ob!ious from the concerted acts of the
assailants. Hirect assault would not
com-le6 the crime$ as there is no showing
that the assailants 1new that the !ictim was
a -oliceman. e!en if there was 1nowledge$
the fact is that he was not in the
-erformance of his oficial duties$ and
therefore there is no direct assault.
8ur"er; 'se of 2llegal .irearms (%&&)
") 1illed +3$ his -olitical ri!al in the
election cam-aign for 7ayor of their town.
The (nformation against ") alleged that he
used an unlicensed <rearm in the 1illing of
the !ictim$ and this was -ro!ed beyond
reasonable doubt by the -rosecution. The
trial court con!icted ") of two crimesM
murder and illegal -ossession of <rearms. (s
the con!iction correct# eason briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the con!iction of ") for two crimes$
murder and illegal -ossession of <rearm is
not correct. Bnder the new law on illegal
-ossession of <rearms and e6-losi!es$ e-.
&ct 5o. E2FG$ a -erson may only be
criminally liable for illegal -ossession of
<rearm if no other crime is committed
therewith. if a homicide or murder is
57 of 86
committed with the use of an unlicensed
<rearm$ such use shall be considered as an
aggra!ating circumstance.
") therefore may only be con!icted of
murder and the use of an unlicensed <rearm
in its commission may only be a--reciated
as a s-ecial aggra!ating circumstance$
-ro!ided that such use is alleged s-eci<cally
in the information for 7urder.
Parrici"e (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of -arricide#
%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&ny -erson who 1ills his father$ mother$ or
child$ whether legitimate or illegitimate$ or
his ascendants or descendants$ or s-ouse$
shall be guilty of -arricide. %&rt. 2GC$ "C)
Parrici"e (1999)
(n 1FQ=$ "edro$ then a resident of 7anila$
abandoned his wife and their son$ ic1y$
who was then only three years old. Twenty
years later$ an afray too1 -lace in a bar in
+longa-o City between "edro and his
com-anions$ on one hand$ and ic1y and his
friends$ u-on the other$ without the father
and son 1nowing each other. ic1y stabbed
and 1illed "edro in the <ght$ only to <nd
out$ a wee1 later$ when his mother arri!ed
from 7anila to !isit him in 0ail$ that the man
whom he 1illed was his own father. 1) What
crime did ic1y commit# *6-lain. 2)
'u--ose ic1y 1new before the 1illing that
"edro is his father$ but he ne!ertheless
1illed him out of bitterness for ha!ing
abandoned him and his mother$ what crime
did ic1y commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) ic1y committed -arricide because the
-erson 1illed was his own father$ and the law
-unishing the crime %&rt. 2GC$ "C) does not
re2uire that the crime be 81nowingly8
committed. 'hould ic1y be -rosecuted and
found guilty of -arricide$ the -enalty to be
im-osed is &rt. GF of the e!ised "enal Code
for )omicide %the crime he intended to
commit) but in its ma6imum -eriod.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
ic1y should be held criminally liable only
for homicide not -arricide because the
relationshi- which 2uali<ed the 1illing to
-arricide is !irtually absent for a -eriod of
twenty years already$ such that ic1y could
not -ossibly be aware that his ad!ersary was
his father. (n other words$ the moral basis
for im-osing the higher -enalty for -arricide
is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
2) The crime committed should be -arricide
if ic1y 1new before the 1illing that "edro is
his father$ because the moral basis for
-unishing the crime already e6ists. )is
ha!ing acted out of bitterness for ha!ing
been abandoned by his father may be
considered mitigating.
Parrici"e; 8ultiple Parrici"e; >omici"e (199*)
&$ a young housewife$ and 9$ her -aramour$
cons-ired to 1ill C. her husband$ to whom
she was lawfully married$ &
and 9 bought -ancit and mi6ed it with
-oison. & ga!e the food with -oison to C$
but before C could eat it. H$ her illegitimate
father$ and *$ her legitimate son$ arri!ed.
C. H and * shared the food in the -resence
of & who merely watched them eating. C$ H
and * died because of ha!ing -arta1en of
the -oisoned food. What crime or crimes did
& and 9 commit#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& committed the crime of multi-le -arricide
for the 1illing of C$ her lawful husband$ H$
her illegitimate father$ and *$ her legitimate
son. &ll these 1illings constitute -arricide
under &rticle 2GC of the e!ised "enal Code
because of her relationshi- with the !ictims.
9 committed the crime of murder as a coL
cons-irator of & in the 1illing of C because
the 1illing was carried out by means of
-oison %&rt. 2GE. -ar. A$ e!ised "enal
Code). 9ut for feloniously causing the death
of H and *$ 9 committed two counts of
homicide. The -lan was only to 1ill C.
0ape (1996)
@a!ino bo6ed his wife &lma for refusing to
slee- with him. )e then !iolently threw her
on the foor and forced her to ha!e se6ual
intercourse with him. &s a result &lma
sufered serious -hysical in0uries.
%a) Can @a!ino be charged with
ra-e# *6-lain. %b) Can @a!ino be charged with serious
-hysical in0uries# *6-lain
%c) Will your answers to %a) and %b) be the
same if before the incident @a!ino and &lma
were legally se-arated# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%a) 5o. & husband cannot be charged with
the ra-e of his wife because of the
matrimonial consent which she ga!e when
she assumed the marriage relation$ and the
law will not -ermit her to retract in order to
charge her husband with the ofense (Sate
vs. Eai&es, 11 6a. !&&. 131 So. 31*" 441 !
831).
%b) ,es$ he may be guilty of serious -hysical
in0uries. This ofense is s-ecially mentioned
in &rt. 2CA JGK$ -aragra-h 2 which im-oses a
higher -enalty for the crime of -hysical
in0uries in cases where the ofense shall
ha!e been committed against any of the
-ersons enumerated in &rt 2GC %the crime of
-arricide).
%c) 5o$ my answer will not be the same. (f
@a!ino$ and &lma were legally se-arated at
the time of the incident$ then @a!ino could
be held liable for ra-e.
& 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&),
(n the crime of ra-e$ any crime resulting
from the infiction of -hysical in0uries
sufered by the !ictim on the occasion of the
ra-e$ is absorbed by the crime of ra-e. The
in0uries sufered by the !ictim may$ howe!er$
be considered in determining the -ro-er
-enalty which
58 of 86
shall be im-osed on the ofender. 'erious
-hysical in0uries cannot be absorbed in ra-e.
it can be so if the in0ury is slight.
0ape; (3sence of .orce @ 2ntimi"ation (1996)
Three -olicemen conducting routine
sur!eillance of a cogonal area in &nti-ole
chanced u-on uben$ a 1=Lyear old tricycle
dri!er$ on to- of owena who was 1nown to
be a child -rostitute. 9oth were na1ed from
the waist down and a--eared to be en0oying
the se6ual acti!ity. uben was arrested by
the -olicemen des-ite his -rotestations that
owena enticed him to ha!e se6 with her in
ad!ance celebration of her twelfth birthday.
The town -hysician found no semen nor any
bleeding on owenaIs hymen but for a
healed scar. )er hymenal o-ening easily
admitted two <ngers showing that no
e6ternal force had been em-loyed on her. (s
uben liable for any ofense# Hiscuss fully.
&nswer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
uben is liable for ra-e$ e!en if force or
intimidation is not -resent. The gra!amen of
the ofense is the carnal 1nowledge of a
woman below twel!e years of age (People vs.
9ela Cr#0, '6 SC! 84) since the law doesnIt
consider the consent !oluntary and
-resumes that a girl below twel!e years old
does not and cannot ha!e a will of her own.
(n People #s. Pere0, C! 31 4( 116*$ it was held
that se6ual intercourse with a -rostitute
below twel!e years old is ra-e.
'imilarly$ the absence of s-ermato4oa does
not dis-ro!e 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 &ntiLa-e Law of 1FFQ$ amending the
e!ised "enal Code# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The other acts considered ra-e under the
&ntiLa-e Law of 1FFQ areM 1.K ha!ing
carnal 1nowledge of a woman by a man by
means of fraudulent machination or gra!e
abuse of authority$ 2.K ha!ing carnal 1nowledge of a
demented woman by a
man e!en if none of the circumstances re2uired
in ra-e be -resent. and A.K committing an act
of se6ual assault by inserting a
-ersonIs -enis into the !ictimIs mouth or anal
ori<ce$ or by inserting any instrument or ob0ect$
into the genital or anal ori<ce of another
-erson.
0ape; (nti,0ape Law of 199* (%&&%)
The &ntiLa-e Law of 1FFQ reclassi<ed ra-e
from a crime against honor$ a -ri!ate
ofense$ to that of a crime against -ersons.
Will the subse2uent marriage of the ofender
and the ofended -arty e6tinguish the
criminal action or the -enalty im-osed#
*6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. 9y e6-ress -ro!ision of &rticle 2CCLC of
the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended$ the
subse2uent !alid marriage between the
ofender and ofended -arty shall e6tinguish
the criminal action or the -enalty im-osed$
although ra-e has been reclassi<ed from a
crime against chastity$ to that of a crime
against -ersons.
0ape; Consente" (3"uction (%&&%)
& with lewd designs$ too1 a 1ALyear old girl
to a ni-a hut in his farm and there had
se6ual intercourse with her. The girl did not
ofer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man$ who was goodL
loo1ing and belonged to a rich and
-rominent family in the town. What crime$ if
any$ was committed by &# Why# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& committed the crime of consented
abduction under &rticle AGA of the e!ised
"enal Code$ as amended. The said &rticle
-unishes the abduction of a !irgin o!er 12
and under 1E years of age$ carried out with
her consent and with lewd designs. &lthough
the -roblem did not indicate the !ictim to be
!irgin$ !irginity should not be understood in
its material sense$ as to e6clude a !irtuous
woman of good re-utation$ since the
essence of the crime is not the in0ury to the
woman but the outrage and alarm to her
family (/al%epe&as vs. People,16 SC! 811
?1966=).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
& committed 8Child &buse8 under e-. &ct
5o. QC1D. &s de<ned in said law$ 8child
abuse8 includes se6ual 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
%1E) years.
0ape; +ffect; (ffi"a#it of 5esistance (1991)
1 &riel intimidated achel$ a mental
retardate$ with a bolo into ha!ing se6ual
(ntercourse with him. achelIs mother
immediately <led a com-laint$ su--orted
by her sworn statement$ before the City
"rosecutorIs +fice. &fter the necessary
-reliminary in!estigation$ an information
was signed by the -rosecutor but did not
contain the signature of achel nor of her
mother. Citing &rt. AGG of the "C
%-rosecution of the crimes of ra-e$ etc.)$
&riel mo!es for the dismissal of the case.
esol!e with reasons.
2 &fter the -rosecution had rested its case$
&riel -resented a sworn afida!it of
desistance e6ecuted by achel and her
mother stating that they are no longer
interested in -rosecuting the case and that
they ha!e -ardoned &riel. What efect
would this afida!it of desistance ha!e on
the criminal and ci!il as-ects of the case#
*6-lain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2)
The afida!it of desistance will only amount
to the condonation of ci!il liability but not
criminal liability hence the case should still
-roceed.
59 of 86
0ape; 8ale $ictim (%&&%)
&$ a male$ ta1es 9$ another male$ to a motel
and there$ through threat and intimidation$
succeeds in inserting his -enis into the anus
of 9. What$ if any$ is &Us criminal liability#
Why#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& shall be criminally liable for ra-e by
committing an act of se6ual assault against
9$ by inserting his -enis into the anus of the
latter.
*!en a man may be a !ictim of ra-e by
se6ual assault under -ar. 2 of &rticle 2CCL&
of the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended$
8when the ofenderIs -enis is inserted into
his mouth or anal ori<ce.8
0ape; 8ultiple 0apes; .orci3le (3"uction (%&&&)
:lordeluna boarded a ta6i on her way home
to ?ue4on City which was dri!en by oger$
:lordeluna noticed that oger was always
-lacing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon !entilation but did not bother as1ing
oger why. 'uddenly$ :lordeluna felt di44y
and became unconscious. (nstead of bringing
her to ?ue4on City$ oger brought
:lordeluna to his house in Ca!ite where she
was detained for two %2) wee1s. 'he was
ra-ed for the entire duration of her
detention. 7ay oger be charged and
con!icted of the crime of ra-e with serious
illegal detention# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ oger may not be charged and con!icted
of the crime of ra-e with serious illegal
detention. oger may be charged and
con!icted of multi-le ra-es. *ach ra-e is a
distinct ofense and should be -unished
se-arately. *!idently$ his -rinci-al intention
was to abuse :lordeluna. the detention was
only incidental to the ra-e.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5o$ oger may not be charged and con!icted
of the crime of ra-e with serious illegal
detention$ since the detention was incurred
in ra-ing the !ictim during the days she was
held. &t most$ oger may be -rosecuted for
forcible abduction for ta1ing :lordeluna to
Ca!ite against the latterIs will and with lewd
designs. The forcible abduction should be
com-le6ed 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 -ro!ed.
0ape; Proper Party (1991)
&riel intimidated achel$ a mental retardate$
with a bolo into ha!ing se6ual (ntercourse
with him. achelIs mother immediately <led
a com-laint$ su--orted by her sworn
statement$ before the City "rosecutorIs
+fice. &fter the necessary -reliminary
in!estigation$ an information was signed by
the -rosecutor but did not contain the
signature of achel nor of her mother. Citing
&rt. AGG of the "C %-rosecution of the
crimes of ra-e$ etc.)$ &riel mo!es for the
dismissal of the case. esol!e with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The case should not be dismissed. This is
allowed by law (People #s. -lar%e, 1*' SC!
11). (t is enough that a
Criminal Law B
ar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
com-laint was <led by the ofended -arty or
the -arents in the :iscalIs +fice.
0ape; Statutory 0ape; 8ental 0etar"ate $ictim (1996)
The com-lainant$ an eighteenLyear old
mental retardate with an intellectual
ca-acity between the ages of nine and
twel!e years$ when as1ed during the trial
how she felt when she was ra-ed by the
accused$ re-lied 87asara-$ it ga!e me much
-leasure.8
With the claim of the accused that the
com-lainant consented for a fee to the
se6ual intercourse$ and with the foregoing
answer of the com-lainant$ would you
con!ict the accused of ra-e if you were the
0udge trying the case# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ ( would con!ict the accused of ra-e.
'ince the !ictim is a mental retardate with
an intellectual ca-acity of a child less than
12 years old$ she is legally inca-able of
gi!ing a !alid consent to the se6ual
(ntercourse. The se6ual intercourse is
tantamount to a statutory ra-e because the
le!el of intelligence is that of a child less
than twel!e years of age. Where the !ictim
of ra-e is a mental retardate$ !iolence or
(ntimidation is not essential to constitute
ra-e. (People #s. Trimor, (,. 1)6'41<4*, 31
$ar 9') &s a matter of fact$ & 5o. QC=F$
the )einous Crimes Law$ amended &rt. AA=$
"C$ by adding the -hrase 8or is demented.8
C-&8": $&!:# P"-:)!+ L&1"-#2
!* S"(%-&#2
(r3itrary 5etention; +lements; Groun"s (%&&6)
-2 ;hat are the ? ways of committing
arbitrary etention+ Explain each2
312425,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The A ways of arbitrary detention
areM a) &rbitrary detention by detaining a
-erson without legal ground committed
by any -ublic oficer or em-loyee who$
without legal grounds$ detains a -erson
%&rt. 12G$ e!ised "enal Code).
b) Helay in the deli!ery of detained
-ersons to the -ro-er 0udicial authorities
which is committed by a -ublic oficer or
em-loyee who shall detain any -erson for
some legal ground and shall fail to
deli!er such -erson to the -ro-er 0udicial
authorities within the -eriod ofM twel!e
%12) hours$ for crimes or ofense
-unishable by light -enalties$ or their
e2ui!alent. eighteen hours %1E)$ for
crimes or ofenses -unishable by
correctional facilities$ or their
e2ui!alent. and thirtyLsi6 %AC) hours for
crimes or ofenses -unishable by
aRicti!e or ca-ital -enalties$ or their
e2ui!alent %&rt. 12=$ e!ised "enal
Code).
c) Helaying release is committed by
any -ublic oficer or em-loyee who delays
the release for the -eriod of time
s-eci<ed therein the -erformance of any
0udicial or e6ecuti!e order for the release
of the -risoner$ or unduly delays
60 of 86
the ser!ice of the notice of such
order to said -risoner or the
-roceedings u-on any -etition for the
liberation of such -erson %&rt. 12C$
e!ised "enal Code).
12 ;hat are the legal grouns for
etention+ 31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The commission of a crime$ or !iolent
insanity or any other ailment re2uiring the
com-ulsory con<nement of the -atient in a
hos-ital shall be considered legal grounds
for the detention of any -erson %&rt. 12GJ2K$
e!ised "enal Code).
?2 ;hen is an arrest by a peace o9icer
or by a private person consiere
lawful+ Explain2 345,
1. When the arrest by a -eace oficer is
made -ursuant to a !alid warrant.
2. & -eace oficer or a -ri!ate -erson may$
without a warrant$ arrest a -ersonM
i. When$ in his -resence$ the
-erson to be arrested has committed$
is actually committing$ or is
attem-ting to commit an ofense$
ii. When an ofense has in fact
0ust been committed$ and he has
-ersonal 1nowledge 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 ser!ing <nal 0udgment or
tem-orarily con<ned while his case is
-ending$ or has esca-ed while being
transferred from one con<nement to
another %'ec. =$ ule 11A$1FE= ules
on Criminal "rocedure).
Gra#e Coercion (199-)
(sagani lost his gold nec1lace bearing his
initials. )e saw oy wearing the said
nec1lace. (sagani as1ed oy to return to him
the nec1lace as it belongs to him$ but oy
refused. (sagani then drew his gun and told
oy$ 8(f you will not gi!e bac1 the nec1lace
to me$ ( will 1ill youV8 +ut of fear for his life
and against his will$ oy ga!e the nec1lace
to (sagani$ What ofense did (sagani commit#
%=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(sagani committed the crime of gra!e
coercion %&rt. 2EC$ "C) for com-elling oy$
by means of serious threats or intimidation$
to do something against the latterIs will$
whether it be right or wrong. 'erious threats
or intimidation a--ro6imating !iolence
constitute gra!e coercion$ not gra!e threats.
'uch 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 nec1lace
belongs to (sagani.
Gra#e Coercion #s9 8altreatment of Prisoner (1999)
:orcibly brought to the -olice head2uarters$
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$ howe!er$ 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# *6-lain your answer. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*!idently$ the -erson tortured and
maltreated by the agents of the law is a
sus-ect and may ha!e been detained by
them. (f so and he had already been boo1ed
and -ut in 0ail$ the crime is maltreatment of
-risoner and the fact that the sus-ect was
sub0ected to torture to e6tort a confession
would bring about a higher -enalty. (n
addition to the ofenderIs liability for the
-hysical in0uries inficted.
9ut if the sus-ect was forcibly brought to the
-olice head2uarters to ma1e him admit the
crime and tortured; maltreated to ma1e him
confess to such crime$ but later released
because the agents failed to draw such
confession$ the crime is gra!e coercion
because of the !iolence em-loyed to com-el
such confession without the ofended -arty
being con<ned in 0ail. (US vs. C#si, 1) Phil 143)
(t is noted that the ofended -arty was
merely 8brought8 to the -olice head2uarters
and is thus not a detention -risoner. )ad he
been !alidly arrested$ the crime committed
would be maltreatment of -risoners.
2llegal 5etention #s9 Gra#e Coercion (1999)
Histinguish coercion from illegal detention.
%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal
detention as followsM in coercion$ the basis of
criminal liability is the em-loyment of
!iolence or serious intimidation
a--ro6imating !iolence$ without authority of
law$ to -re!ent 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 wrong. while in (llegal
detention$ the basis of liability is the actual
restraint or loc1ing u- of a -erson$ thereby
de-ri!ing him of his liberty without authority
of law. (f there was no intent to loc1 u- or
detain the ofended -arty unlawfully$ the
crime of illegal detention is not committed.
7i"napping (%&&%)
& and 9 were legally se-arated. Their child
C$ a minor$ was -laced in the custody of &
the mother$ sub0ect to monthly !isitations by
9$ his father. +n one occasion$ when 9 had
C in his com-any$ 9 decided not to return C
to his mother. (nstead$ 9 too1 C with him to
the Bnited 'tates where he intended for
them to reside -ermanently. What crime$ if
any$ did 9 commit# Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9 committed the crime of 1idna--ing and
failure to return a minor under &rticle 2Q1$
in relation to &rticle
61 of 86
2QD$ of the e!ised "enal Code$ as amended.
&rticle 2Q1 e6-ressly -enali4es any -arent
who shall ta1e 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. 'ince the custody of C$ the
minor$ has been gi!en to the mother and 9
has only the right of monthly !isitation$ the
latterIs act of ta1ing C to the Bnited 'lates$
to reside there -ermanently$ constitutes a
!iolation of said -ro!isions of law.
7i"napping (%&&6)
3aime$ &ndy and 3immy$ laborers in the
noodles factory of Lu1e Tan$ agreed to 1ill
him due to his arrogance and miserliness.
+ne afternoon$ they sei4ed him and loaded
him in a ta6i dri!en by 7ario. They told
7ario they will only teach Lu1e a lesson in
Christian humility. 7ario dro!e them to a
<sh-ond in 5a!otas where Lu1e was
entrusted to *mil and Louie$ the <sh-ond
careta1ers$ as1ing them to hide Lu1e in their
shac1 because he was running from the 59(.
The trio then left in 7arioIs car for 7anila
where they called u- Lu1eIs family and
threatened them to 1ill Lu1e unless they
gi!e a ransom within 2G hours. Bn1nown to
them$ because of a lea1$ the 1idna--ing was
announced o!er the radio and T/. *mil and
Louie heard the broadcast and -anic1ed$
es-ecially when the announcer stated that
there is a shootLtoL1ill order for the
1idna--ers. *mil and Louie too1 Lu1e to the
seashore of HagatLdagatan where they
smashed his head with a sho!el and buried
him in the sand. )owe!er$ they were seen by
a barangay 1agawad who arrested them and
brought them to the -olice station. B-on
interrogation$ they confessed and -ointed to
3aime$ &ndy$ 3immy and 7ario as those
res-onsible for the 1idna--ing. Later$ the G
were arrested and charged. What crime or
crimes did the C sus-ects commit# %=>)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
a) 3aime$ &ndy and 3immy committed
1idna--ing with homicide. The original
intention was to demand ransom from the
family with the threat of 1illing. &s a
conse2uence of the 1idna--ing$ howe!er$
Lu1e was 1illed. Thus$ the !ictim was
de-ri!ed of his freedom and the subse2uent
1illing$ though committed by another -erson$
was a conse2uence of the detention. )ence$
this -ro-erly 2uali<ed the crime as the
s-ecial com-le6 crime of 1idna--ing for
ransom with homicide
(People v. $amario&, (.. No. 131''4,
45to7er 1, *))3" !rt. *61, evise% Pe&al
Co%e). b) *mil and Louie who smashed the
head of the !ictim and buried the latter in
the sand committed murder 2uali<ed by
treachery or abuse of su-erior strength.
They are not liable for 1idna--ing because
they did not cons-ire$ nor are they aware of
the intention to detain Lu1e whom they were
informed was hiding from the 59( %&rt. 2GE$
e!ised "enal Code).
c) 7ario has no liability since he was
not aware of the criminal intent and design
of 3aime$ &ndy and 3immy. )is act of
bringing Lu1e to 5a!otas for 8a
Crim
inal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
lesson in Christian humility8 does not
constitute a crime.
A+#"-!#&=" A!:."-3
a) 3aime$ &ndy and 3immy committed
1idna--ing with ransom. &fter 1idna--ing
Lu1e$ they demanded ransom with the
threat of 1illing him. )owe!er$ the 1illing of
Lu1e is se-arate from the 1idna--ing ha!ing
been committed by other -ersons$ who had
nothing to do with the 1idna--ing$ and who
will be liable for a diferent crime
%"enultimate -ar. of &rt. 2CQ$ e!ised "enal
Code).
b) *mil and Louie who smashed the
head of the !ictim and buried the latter in
the sand committed murder 2uali<ed by
treachery or abuse of su-erior strength.
They are not liable for 1idna--ing because
they did not cons-ire$ nor are they aware of
the intention to detain Lu1e whom they
were informed was hiding from the 59(
%&rt. 2GE$ e!ised "enal Code).
c) 7ario has no liability since he was
not aware of the criminal intent and design
of 3aime$ &ndy and 3immy. )is act of
bringing Lu1e to 5a!otas for 8a lesson in
Christian humility8 does not constitute a
crime.
7i"napping wD >omici"e (%&&6)
"a4 7asi-ag wor1ed as a housemaid and
yaya of the oneLwee1 old son of the s-ouses
7artin and "o-s Puri-ot. When "a4 learned
that her QD yearLold mother was seriously ill$
she as1ed 7artin for a cash ad!ance of
"1$DDD.DD but 7artin refused. +ne morning$
"a4 gagged the mouth of 7artinUs son with
stoc1ings. -laced the child in a bo6. sealed it
with mas1ing ta-e and -laced the bo6 in the
attic. Later in the afternoon$ she demanded
"=$DDD.DD as ransom for the release of his
son. 7artin did not -ay the ransom.
'ubse2uently$ "a4 disa--eared.
&fter a cou-le of days$ 7artin disco!ered the
bo6 in the attic with his child already dead.
&ccording to the auto-sy re-ort$ the child
died of as-hy6iation barely three minutes
after the bo6 was sealed. What crime or
crimes did "a4 commit# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
"a4 committed the com-osite crime of
1idna--ing with homicide under &rt. 2CQ$
:C as amended by .&. 5o. QC=F. Bnder
the law$ any -erson who shall detain another
or in any manner de-ri!e him of liberty and
the !ictim dies as a conse2uence is liable for
1idna--ing with homicide and shall be
-enali4ed with the ma6imum -enalty.
(n this case$ notwithstanding the fact that
the oneLwee1 old child was merely 1e-t in
the attic of his house$ gagged with stoc1ings
and -laced in a bo6 sealed with ta-e$ the
de-ri!ation of liberty and the intention to 1ill
becomes a--arent. Though it may a--ear
that the means em-loyed by "a4 was
attended by treachery %1illing of an infant)$
ne!ertheless$ a se-arate charge of murder
will not be -ro-er in !iew of the amendment.
)ere$ the term 8homicide8 is used in its
generic sense and co!ers all forms of 1illing
whether in the nature of murder or
62 of 86
otherwise. (t is of no moment that the
e!idence shows the death of the child too1
-lace three minutes after the bo6 was sealed
and the demand for the ransom too1 -lace
in the afternoon. The intention is controlling
here$ that is$ ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
7urder 2uali<ed by treachery because the
!ictim was only one wee1 old. The ofense
was attended with the aggra!ating
circumstance of lac1 of res-ect due to the
age of the !ictim$ cruelty and abuse of
con<dence. (n People v. 6ora ((.. No, 6<4943),
$ar5h 3), 198*), the Court found that a child
sub0ected to similar treatment as the infant
in this case would ha!e died instantly$
negating any intent to 1idna- or detain
when ransom was sought. Hemand for
ransom did not con!ert the ofense into
1idna--ing with murder because the
demand was merely a scheme by the
ofender %"a4) to conceal the body of her
!ictim.
7i"napping; +ffects; $oluntary 0elease (%&&)
H&5$ a -ri!ate indi!idual$ 1idna--ed C)B$ a
minor. +n the second day$ H&5 released
C)B e!en before any criminal information
was <led against him. &t the trial of his
case$ H&5 raised the defense that he did not
incur any criminal liability since he released
the child before the la-se of the ALday
-eriod and before criminal -roceedings for
1idna--ing were instituted. Will H&5Is
defense -ros-er# eason briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. H&5Is defense will not -ros-er.
/oluntary release by the ofender of the
ofended -arty in 1idna--ing is not
absolutory. 9esides$ such release is
irrele!ant and immaterial in this case
because the !ictim being a minor$ the crime
committed is 1idna--ing and serious illegal
detention under &rt. 2CQ$ e!ised "enal
Code$ to which such circumstance does not
a--ly. The circumstance may be a--reciated
only in the crime of 'light (llegal Hetention
in &rt. 2CE (!sistio v. Sa& 9ie2o, 1) SC! 613
?1964=)
7i"napping; 2llegal 5etention; 8inority (%&&6)
Hang was a beauty 2ueen in a uni!ersity.
3ob$ a rich classmate$ was so enamored with
her that he -ersistently wooed and -ursued
her. Hang$ being in lo!e with another man$
re0ected him. This angered 3ob$ 'ometime in
'e-tember 2DDA$ while Hang and her sister
Lyn were on their way home$ 3ob and his
minor friend 5onoy grabbed them and
-ushed them inside a white !an. They
brought them to an abandoned warehouse
where they forced them to dance na1ed.
Thereafter$ they brought them to a hill in a
nearby barangay where they too1 turns
ra-ing them. &fter satisfying their lust$ 3ob
ordered 5onoy to -ush Hang down a ra!ine$
resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but 3ob
and 5onoy chased her and -ushed her inside
the !an. Then the duo dro!e away. Lyn was
ne!er seen again.
-2 ;hat crime or crimes were committe
by Job an #onoy+ 31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
3ob and 5onoy committed 1) 1idna--ing and
serious illegal detention with homicide and
ra-e for the subse2uent death of Hang$ and
2) 1idna--ing with ra-e against her sister$
Lyn. The !ictims$ who were 1idna--ed and
detained$ were subse2uently ra-ed and
1illed %as regards Hang) in the course of
their detention. The com-osite crime is
committed regardless of whether the
subse2uent crimes were -ur-osely sought or
merely an afterthought (People v. 6arra&a2a,
(.. Nos. 138814<', Fe7r#ar3s, *))4).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
3ob and 5onoy committed 2 counts of the
com-le6 crime of forcible abduction with
ra-e %&rt. AG2$ e!ised "enal Code) and the
se-arate ofense of murder against Hang. The
crime committed is abduction because there
was lewd design when they too1 the !ictims
away and subse2uently ra-ed them. The
1illing thereafter$ constitutes the se-arate
ofense of murder 2uali<ed by treachery.
12 ;hat penalties shoul be impose on
them+ 31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'ince the death -enalty has already been
-rohibited$ reclusion -er-etua is the
a--ro-riate -enalty %&. FAGC). (n the case
of the minor 5onoy$ his -enalty shall be one
degree lower %&rt. CE$ e!ised "enal Code).
?2 ;ill #onoyDs minority exculpate him+
31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Bnder &. FAGG$ the 3u!enile 3ustice and
eform &ct$ which retroacts to the date that
the crime was committed$ 5onoy will be
e6cul-ated if he was 1= years old or below.
)owe!er$ if he was abo!e 1= years old but
below 1E years of age$ he will be liable if he
acted with discernment. &s the -roblem
shows that 5onoy acted with discernment$
he will be entitled to a sus-ension of
sentence.(N4T!;>N>A .!. 9344 is o#tsi%e the
5overa2e o. the eCami&atio&)
82 Is the non"recovery of 'ynDs boy
material to the criminal liability of Job
an #onoy+ 31245,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The nonLreco!ery of LynIs body is not
material to the criminal liability of 3ob and
5onoy$ because the cor-us delicti of the
crime which is 1idna--ing with ra-e of Lyn
has been duly -ro!en.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The nonLreco!ery of LynIs body is not
material to the criminal liability of 3ob and
5onoy$ because the cor-us delicti of the
crime which is forcible abduction with ra-e
of Lyn has been duly -ro!en.
7i"napping; Proposal to 7i"nap (1996)
*dgardo induced his friend /icente$ in
consideration of money$ to 1idna- a girl he is
courting so that he may succeed to ra-ing
her and e!entually ma1ing her accede to
marry him. /icente as1ed for more money
which *dgardo failed to -ut u-. &ngered
because *dgardo did not -ut u- the money
he re2uired$ he re-orted *dgardo to the
-olice.
63 of 86
7ay *dgardo be charged with attem-ted
1idna--ing# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ *dgardo may not be charged with
attem-ted 1idna--ing inasmuch as no o!ert
act to 1idna- or restrain the liberty of the
girl had been commenced. &t most$ what
*dgardo has done in the -remises was a
-ro-osal to /icente to 1idna- the girl$ which
is only a -re-aratory act and not an o!ert
act. The attem-t to commit a felony
commences with the commission of o!ert
act$ not -re-aratory act. "ro-osal to commit
1idna--ing is not a crime.
7i"napping; Serious 2llegal 5etention (199*)
& and 9 cons-iring with each other$
1idna--ed C and detained him. The duo
then called u- CIs wife informing her that
they had her husband and would release
him only if she -aid a ransom in the amount
of "1D$DDD$DDD and that$ if she were to fail$
they would 1ill him. The ne6t day$ C$ who
had 0ust reco!ered from an illness had a
rela-se. :earing he might die if not treated
at once by a doctor$ & and 9 released C
during the early morning of the third day of
detention.
Charged with 1idna--ing and serious illegal
detention -ro!ided in &rticle 2CQ$ "C$ &
and 9 <led a -etition for bail. They
contended that since they had !oluntarily
released C within three days from
commencement of the detention$ without
ha!ing 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 &rticle 2CE$ "C.
&fter hearing$ the trial court found the
e!idence of guilt to be strong and therefore
denied the -etition for bail. +n a--eal$ the
only issue wasM Was the crime committed
1idna--ing and serious detention or slight
(llegal detention# Hecide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed by & and 9 is
1idna--ing and serious illegal detention
because they made a demand for ransom
and threatened to 1ill C if the latterIs wife
did not -ay the same. Without the demand
for ransom$ the crime could ha!e been slight
illegal detention only.
The contention of & and 9 that they had
!oluntary 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 e!idence of guilt in
the information for 1idna--ing and serious
(llegal detention is strong.
Trespass to 5welling; Pri#ate Persons (%&&6)
Bnder what situations may a -ri!ate -erson
enter any dwelling$ residence$ or other
establishments without being liable for
tres-ass to dwelling# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Tres-ass to dwelling is not a--licable to any
-erson who shall enter anotherIs dwelling
for the -ur-ose ofM a) "re!enting some
serious harm to himself$ its occu-ants$ or a
third -erson. and b) endering ser!ice to
humanity or 0ustice.
&ny -erson who shall enter cafes$ ta!erns$
inns$ and other -ublic houses$ while the
same are o-en will li1ewise not be liable
%&rt. 2ED$ e!ised "enal Code).
Tresspass to 5welling; 0ule of (3sorption (199)
&t about 11MDD in the e!ening$ Hante forced
his way inside the house of 7amerto. 3ay.
7amertoIs son$ saw Hante and accosted him$
Hante -ulled a 1nife and stabbed 3ay on his
abdomen. 7amerto heard the commotion
and went out of his room. Hante$ who was
about to esca-e$ assaulted 7amerto. 3ay
sufered (n0uries which$ were it not for the
timely medical attendance$ would ha!e
caused his death. 7amerto sustained
(n0uries that inca-acitated him for 2= days.
What crime or crimes did Hante commit#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Hante committed 2uali<ed tres-ass to
dwelling$ frustrated homicide for the
stabbing of 3ay$ and less serious -hysical
in0uries for the assault on 7amerto.
The crime of 2uali<ed tres-ass to dwelling
should not be com-le6ed with frustrated
homicide because when the tres-ass is
committed as a means to commit a more
serious ofense$ tres-ass to dwelling is
absorbed by the greater crime$ and the
former constitutes an aggra!ating
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. !7e%o0a,
'3 Phil.188).
Hante committed frustrated homicide for
the stabbing of 3ay.... Hante is guilty of less
serious -hysical in0uries for the wounds
sustained by 7amerto...
'n:ust $e/ation #s (cts of Lasci#iousness (199)
When is embracing$ 1issing and touching a
girlIs breast considered only un0ust !e6ation
instead of acts of lasci!iousness#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The acts of embracing$ 1issing of a woman
arising either out of -assion or other moti!e
and the touching of her breast as a mere
incident of the embrace without lewd design
constitutes merely un0ust !e6ation (People
vs, -2&a5io. C! (No. '119<, Septem7er 3),
19')). )owe!er$ where the 1issing$
embracing and the touching of the breast of
a woman are done with lewd design$ the
same constitute acts of lasci!iousness
(People vs. Per5ival (ilo, 1) SC! 1'3). C-&8": A$&!:# P-)0"-#2
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (199)
then urged ,oboy and ,ongsi$ for
64 of 86
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 ANSWER3
Tata$ ,oboy and ,ongsi committed the crime
of destructi!e arson because they
collecti!ely caused the destruction of
-ro-erty by means of <re under the
circumstances which e6-osed to danger the
life or -ro-erty of others (!rt, 3*), par. ', PC.
as ame&%e% 73 ! No. 16'9).
(rson; 5estructi#e (rson (%&&&)
+ne early e!ening$ there was a <ght
between *ddie @utierre4 and 7ario Corte4.
Later that e!ening$ at about 11 oIcloc1$
*ddie -assed by the house of 7ario carrying
a -lastic bag containing gasoline$ threw the
bag at the house of 7ario who was inside
the house watching tele!ision$ and then lit
it. The front wall of the house started
bla4ing and some neighbors yelled and
shouted. :orthwith$ 7ario -oured water on
the burning -ortion of the house. 5eighbors
also rushed in to hel- -ut the <re under
control before any great damage could be
inficted and before the fames ha!e
e6tensi!ely s-read. +nly a -ortion of the
house was burned. Hiscuss *ddieIs liability$
%A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
*ddie is liable for destructi!e arson in the
consummated stage. (t is destructi!e arson
because <re was resorted to in destroying
the house of 7ario 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 re2uired that the -remises
be totally burned for the crime to be
consummated. (t is enough that the
-remises sufer destruction by burning.
(rson; <ew (rson Law (%&&)
CH is the ste-father of :*L. +ne day$ CH
got !ery mad at :*L for failing in his college
courses. (n his fury$ CH got the leather
suitcase of :*L and burned it together with
all its contents.
1. What crime was committed
by CH# 2. (s CH criminally liable# *6-lain
briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed by CH is arson under
"res. Hecree 5o. 1C1A %the new &rson Law)
which -unishes any -erson who burns or
sets <re to the -ro-erty of another %'ection
1 of "res. Hecree 5o. 1C1A).
CH is criminally liable although he is the
ste-father of :*L whose -ro-erty he burnt$
because such relationshi- is not e6em-ting
from criminal liability in the crime of arson
but only in crimes of theft$ swindling or
estafa$ and malicious mischief %&rticle AA2$
e!ised "enal Code). The -ro!ision %&rt.
A2A) of the Code to the efect that burning
-ro-erty of small !alue should be -unished
as malicious mischief has long been
re-ealed by "res. Hecree 1C1A. hence$ there
is no more legal basis to consider burning
-ro-erty of small !alue as malicious
mischief.
Criminal
Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006)
65
of
86
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (199)
1 What is a memorandum chec1#
2 (s the 8bouncing8 thereof within the
-ur!iew of 9" 9lg. 22#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1 & 87emorandum Chec18 is an ordinary
chec1$ with the word 87emorandum8$
87emo8 or 87em8 written across its face$
signifying that the ma1er or drawer
engages to -ay its holder absolutely thus
-arta1ing the nature of a -romissory note.
(t is drawn on a ban1 and is a bill of
e6change within the -ur!iew of 'ection
1E= of the 5egotiable (nstruments Law
(People vs. +#%2e 9avi% Nita.a&, (.. No.
1'9'4, 45to7er **, 199*).
2 ,es$ a memorandum chec1 is co!ered by
9atas "ambansa 5o. 22 because the law
co!ers any chec1 whether it is an e!idence
of (ndebtedness$ or in -ayment of a -reL
e6isting obligation or as a de-osit or
guarantee (People vers#s Nita<.a&).
AP %%; 8emoran"um ChecG (1996)
1 What is a memorandum chec1 #
2 (s a -erson who issues a memorandum
chec1 without suficient funds necessarily
guilty of !iolating 9.". 9lg. 22# *6-lain.
3 3ane is a money lender. *dmund is a
businessman who has been borrowing
money from 3ane by rediscounting his
-ersonal chec1s to -ay his loans. (n 7arch
1FEF$ he borrowed "1DD$DDD from 3ane and
issued to her a chec1 for the same amount.
The chec1 was dishonored by the drawee
ban1 for ha!ing been drawn against a
closed account. When *dmund was noti<ed
of the dishonor of his chec1 he -romised to
raise the amount within <!e days. )e failed.
Conse2uently$ 3ane sued *dmund for
!iolation of the 9ouncing Chec1s Law %9".
9lg. 22). The defense of *dmund was that
he ga!e the chec1 to 3ane to ser!e as a
memorandum of his indebtedness to her
and was not su--osed to be encashed. (s
the defense of *dmund !alid# Hiscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1. & memorandum chec1 is an ordinary
chec1 with the word 87emorandum8$
87emo8$ or 87em8 written across the face$
signifying that the ma1er or drawer engages
to -ay its holder absolutely thus -arta1ing
the nature of a -romissory note. (t is drawn
on a ban1 and is a bill of e6change within
the -ur!iew of 'ection 1E= of the 5egotiable
(nstruments Law.
(People vs. Nita.a&, *1' SC!
19)
2. ,es$ a -erson who issued a
memorandum chec1 without suficient funds
is guilty of !iolating 9.". 9lg. 22 as said law
co!ers all chec1s whether it is an e!idence
of indebtedness$ or in -ayment of a -reL
e6isting obligation$ or as de-osit or
guarantee. (People vs. Nita.a&)
A. The defense of *dmund is 5+T !alid.
& memorandum chec1 u-on -resentment is
generally acce-ted by the ban1. (t does not
matter whether the chec1 is in the nature of
a memorandum as e!idence of indebtedness.
What the law -unishes is the mere issuance
of a bouncing chec1 and not the -ur-ose for
which it was issued nor the terms and
conditions relating thereto. The mere act of
issuing a worthless chec1 is a malum
-rohibitum. The understanding that the
chec1 will not be -resented at the ban1 but
will be redeemed by the ma1er when the
loan falls due is a mere -ri!ate arrangement
which may not -re!ail to e6em-t it from the
-enal sanction of 9.". 9lg. 22. %"eo-le !s.
5itafan)
AP %%; Presumption of 7nowle"ge (%&&%)
& a businessman$ borrowed "=DD$DDD.DD
from 9$ a friend. To -ay the loan$ & issued a
-ostdated chec1 to be -resented for -ayment
AD days after the transaction. Two days
before the maturity date of the chec1$ &
called u- 9 and told him not to de-osit the
chec1 on the date stated on the face thereof$
as & had not de-osited in the drawee ban1
the amount needed to co!er the chec1.
5e!ertheless$ 9 de-osited the chec1 in
2uestion and the same was dishonored of
insuficiency of funds. & failed to settle the
amount with 9 in s-ite of the latterIs
demands. (s & guilty of !iolating 9.". 9lg. 22$
otherwise 1nown as the 9ouncing Chec1s
Law# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ & (s liable for !iolation of 9". 9lg. 22
%9ouncing Chec1s Law)$ &lthough
1nowledge by the drawer of insuficiency or
lac1 of funds at the time of the issuance of
the chec1 is an essential element of the
!iolation$ the law -resumes -rima facie such
1nowledge$ unless within <!e %=) ban1ing
days of notice of dishonor or non-ayment$
the drawer -ays the holder thereof the
amount due thereon or ma1es arrangements
for -ayment in full by the drawee of such
chec1s.
& mere notice by the drawer & to the -ayee
9 before the maturity date of the chec1 will
not defeat the -resum-tion of 1nowledge
created by the law. otherwise$ the -ur-ose
and s-irit of 9.". 22 will be rendered useless.
+stafa @ Trust 0eceipt Law (1996)
3ulio obtained a letter of credit from a local
ban1 in order to im-ort auto tires from
3a-an. To secure -ayment of his letter of
credit$ 3ulio e6ecuted a trust recei-t in fa!or
of the ban1. B-on arri!al of the tires$ 3ulio
sold them but did not deli!er the -roceeds to
the ban1. 3ulio was charged with estafa
under ".H. 5o. 11= which ma1es the !iolation
of a trust recei-t agreement -unishable as
estafa under &rt. A1=$ -ar. %1)$ sub-ar. %b)$ of
the e!ised "enal Code. 3ulio contended that
".H. 5o. 11= was unconstitutional because it
!iolated the 9ill of ights -ro!ision against
im-risonment for non-ayment of debt. ule
on the contention of 3ulio$ Hiscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'uch contention is in!alid. & trust recei-t
arrangement doesnIt in!ol!e merely a sim-le
loan transaction but includes li1ewise a
security feature where the creditor ban1
e6tends <nancial assistance to the debtorL
im-orter in return for the collateral or
security title as to the goods or merchandise
being -urchased or im-orted. The title of the
ban1 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 -enali4ed under "$H. 5o. 11= is the
misuse or misa--ro-riation of the goods or
-roceeds reali4ed from the sale of the goods$
documents or (nstruments which are being
held in trust for the entrusteeLban1s. (n
other words$ the law -unishes the
dishonesty and abuse of con<dence in the
handling of money or goods to the -re0udice
of the other$ and hence there is no !iolation
of the right against im-risonment for nonL
-ayment of debt. (People vs. Nita.a&, *)1 SC!
1*')
+stafa (1999)
(s there such a crime as estafa through
negligence# *6-lain. %2>)
&urelia introduced osa to /ictoria$ a dealer
in 0ewelry who does business in Timog$
?ue4on City. osa$ a resident of Cebu City$
agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet to
/ictoria on a commission basis$ on condition
that$ if these items can not be sold$ they may
be returned to /ictoria forthwith. Bnable to
sell the ring and bracelet$ osa deli!ered
both items to &urelia in Cebu City with the
understanding that &urelia shall$ in turn$
return the items to /ictoria in Timog$
?ue4on City. &urelia dutifully returned the
bracelet to /ictoria but sold the ring$ 1e-t
the cash -roceeds thereof to herself$ and
issued a chec1 to /ictoria which bounced.
/ictoria sued osa for estafa under &rticle
A1=$ .".C.$ /ictoria insisting that deli!ery to
a third -erson of the thing held in trust is not
a defense in estafa. (s osa criminally liable
for estafa under the circumstances# *6-lain$
JG>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%a) There is no such crime as estafa through
negligence. (n estafa$ the -ro<t or gain must
be obtained by the accused -ersonally$
through his own acts$ and his mere
negligence in allowing another to ta1e
ad!antage of or bene<t from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v.
Nepom#5e&o, C!, 464( 613')
%b) 5o$ osa cannot be held criminally liable
for estafa. &lthough she recei!ed the 0ewelry
from /ictoria under an obligation to return
the same or deli!er the -roceeds thereof$ she
did not misa--ro-riate it. (n fact$ she ga!e
them to &urelia s-eci<cally to be returned to
/ictoria. The misa--ro-riation was done by
&urelia$ and absent the showing of any
cons-iracy between &urelia and osa$ the
latter cannot be held criminally liable for
&meliaIs acts. :urthermore$ as e6-lained
abo!e$ osaIs negligence which may ha!e
allowed &urelia to
66 of 86
misa--ro-riate the 0ewelry does not ma1e
her criminally liable for estafa.
+stafa #s9 AP %% (1996)
The accused was con!icted under 9."$ 9lg.
22 for ha!ing issued se!eral chec1s which
were dishonored by the drawee ban1 on
their due date because the accused closed
her account after the issuance of chec1s. +n
a--eal$ she argued that she could not be
con!icted under
1 9lg. 22 by reason of the closing of
her account because said law a--lies
solely to chec1s dishonored by
reason of insuficiency of funds and
that at the time she issued the
chec1s concerned$ she had ade2uate
funds in the ban1. While she admits
that she may be held liable for estafa
under &rticle 21= of the e!ised
"enal Code$ she cannot howe!er be
found guilty of ha!ing !iolated
2 9lg. 22. (s her contention correct#
*6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the contention of the accused is not
correct. &s long as the chec1s issued were
issued to a--ly on account or for !alue$ and
was dishonored u-on -resentation for
-ayment to the drawee ban1 for lac1 of
insuficient funds on their due date$ such act
falls within the ambit of 9.". 9lg. 22. 'aid
law e6-ressly -unishes any -erson who may
ha!e insuficient funds in the drawee ban1
when he issues the chec1$ but fails to 1ee-
suficient funds to co!er the full amount of
the chec1 when -resented to the drawee
ban1 within ninety %FD) days from the date
a--earing thereon.
+stafa #s9 AP %% (%&&1)
& and 9 agreed to meet at the latterIs house
to discuss 9Is <nancial -roblems. +n his
way$ one of &Is car tires blew u-. 9efore &
left following the meeting$ he as1ed 9 to
lend him %&) money to buy a new s-are tire.
9 had tem-orarily e6hausted his ban1
de-osits$ lea!ing a 4ero balance.
&ntici-ating$ howe!er$ a re-lenishment of
his account soon$ 9 issued & a -ostdated
chec1 with which & negotiated for a new
tire. When -resented$ the chec1 bounced for
lac1 of funds. The tire com-any <led a
criminal case against & and 9. What would
be the criminal liability$ if any$ of each of the
two accused# *6-lain. E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& who negotiated the unfunded chec1 of 9 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 chec1 has
no suficient funds in the drawee ban1.
otherwise$ he is not criminally liable.
9 who accommodated & with his chec1 may
ne!ertheless be -rosecuted under 9" 22 for
ha!ing issued the chec1$ 1nowing at the time
of issuance that it has no funds in the ban1
and that & will negotiate it to buy a new tire$
i.e.$ for !alue. 9 may not be -rosecuted for
estafa because the facts indicate that he is
not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing
the chec1 which & negotiated. +b!iously$ 9
issued the -ostdated chec1 only to hel- &M
criminal intent or dolo is absent.
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A
(1994-2006)
+stafa #s9 8oney 8arGet Placement (1996)
+n 7arch A1$ 1FF=$ +r-heus :inancing
Cor-oration recei!ed from 7aricar the sum
of "=DD$DDD as money mar1et -lacement for
si6ty days at <fteen %1=) -er cent interest$
and the "resident of said Cor-oration issued
a chec1 co!ering the amount including the
interest due thereon$ -ostdated 7ay AD$
1FF=. +n the maturity date$ howe!er$
+r-heus :inancing Cor-oration failed to
deli!er bac1 7aricarIs money -lacement
with the corres-onding interest earned$
notwithstanding re-eated demands u-on
said Cor-oration to com-ly with its
commitment.
Hid the "resident of +r-heus :inancing
Cor-oration incur any criminal liability for
estafa for reason of the non-ayment of the
money mar1et -lacement# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the "resident of the <nancing
cor-oration does not incur criminal liability
for estafa because a money mar1et
transaction -arta1es of the nature of a loan$
such that non-ayment thereof would not
gi!e rise to estafa through misa--ro-riation
or con!ersion. (n money mar1et -lacement$
there is transfer of ownershi- of the money
to be in!ested and therefore the liability for
its return is ci!il 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').
+stafa #s9 Theft (%&&6)
HH was engaged in the warehouse business.
'ometime in 5o!ember 2DDG$ he was in dire
need of money. )e$ thus$ sold merchandise
de-osited in his warehouse to / for
"=DD$DDD.DD. HH was charged with theft$ as
-rinci-al$ while / as accessory. The court
con!icted HH of theft but ac2uitted / on
the ground that he -urchased the
merchandise in good faith. )owe!er$ the
court ordered / to return the merchandise
to the owner thereof and ordered HH to
refund the "=DD$DDD.DD to /.
HH mo!ed for the reconsideration of the
decision insisting that he should be
ac2uitted of theft because being the
de-ositary$ he had 0uridical -ossession of the
merchandise. / also mo!ed for the
reconsideration of the decision insisting that
since he was ac2uitted of the crime charged$
and that he -urchased the merchandise in
good faith$ he is not obligated to return the
merchandise to its owner. ule on the
motions with reasons. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The motion for reconsideration should be
granted. 9y de-ositing the merchandise in
his warehouse$ he transferred not merely
-hysical but also 0uridical -ossession. The
element of ta1ing in the crime of theft is
wanting. &t 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 / must
also be denied. )is ac2uittal is of no
moment because the thing$ sub0ect matter of
the ofense$ shall be restored to the owner
e!en though it is found in the -ossession of
a third -erson who ac2uired it by lawful
means. %&rt. 1D=$ :C)
67 of 86
+stafa; +lements (%&&6)
HH -urchased a tele!ision set for
"=D$DDD.DD with the use of a counterfeit
credit card. The owner of the establishment
had no in1ling that the credit card used by
HH was counterfeit. What crime or crimes
did HH commit# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
HH committed the crime of estafa under &rt.
A1=$ -ar. 2%a) of the e!ised "enal Code by
falsely -retending to -osses credit. The
elements of estafa under this -enal -ro!ision
are. %1) the accused defrauded another by
means of deceit. and %2) damage or
-re0udice ca-able of -ecuniary estimation is
caused to the ofended -arty or third -arty.
The accused also !iolated .&. 5o. EGEG$
which -unishes the use or -ossession of
fa1e or counterfeit credit card.
+stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocument (%&&&)
7r. Carlos @abisi$ a customs guard$ and 7r$
ico ,to$ a -ri!ate (ndi!idual$ went to the
ofice of 7r. Hiether +cuarto$ a customs
bro1er$ and re-resented themsel!es as
agents of 7oonglow Commercial Trading$ an
(m-orter of childrenIs clothes and toys. 7r.
@abisi and 7r. ,to engaged 7r. +cuarto to
-re-are and <le with the 9ureau of Customs
the necessary (m-ort *ntry and (nternal
e!enue Heclaration co!ering 7oonglowIs
shi-ment. 7r. @abisi and 7r. ,to submitted
to 7r. +cuarto a -ac1ing list$ a commercial
in!oice$ a bill of lading and a 'worn (m-ort
Huty Heclaration which declared the
shi-ment as childrenIs toys$ the ta6es and
duties of which were com-uted at
"CD$DDD.DD. 7r. +cuarto <led the
aforementioned documents with the 7anila
(nternational Container "ort. )owe!er$
before the shi-ment was released$ a s-ot
chec1 was conducted by Customs 'enior
&gent 3ames 9andido$ who disco!ered that
the contents of the !an %shi-ment) were not
childrenIs toys as declared in the shi--ing
documents but 1$DDD units of !ideo cassette
recorders with ta6es and duties com-uted at
"CDD$DDD.DD. & hold order and warrant of
sei4ure and detention were then issued by
the Histrict Collector of Customs. :urther
in!estigation showed that 7oonglow is nonL
e6istent. Conse2uently$ 7r$ @abisi and 7r.
,to were charged with and con!icted for
!iolation of 'ection A%e) of .&. AD1F which
ma1es it unlawful among others$ for -ublic
oficers to cause any undue (n0ury to any
-arty$ including the @o!ernment. (n the
discharge of oficial functions through
manifest -artiality$ e!ident bad faith or gross
ine6cusable 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
@o!ernment did not sufer any undue in0ury.
&ssuming that the attem-ted or frustrated
stage of the !iolation charged is not
-unishable$ may the accused be ne!ertheless
con!icted for an ofense -unished by the
e!ised "enal Code under the facts of the
case# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ both are liable for attem-ted estafa thru
falsi<cation of commercial documents$ a
com-le6 crime. They tried to defraud the
@o!ernment with the use of false
commercial and -ublic documents. Hamage
is not necessary.
+stafa; .alsification of Commercial 5ocuments (199*)
The accused o-ened a sa!ing account with
9an1 & with an initial de-osit of "2$DDD.DD.
& few days later$ he de-osited in the sa!ings
account a 9an1 9 chec1 for " 1D$DDD.DD
drawn and endorsed -ur-ortedly by C. Ten
days later$ he withdrew " 1D$DDD.DD from his
sa!ings account. C com-lained to 9an1 9
when the chec1 was deducted from his
account. Two days thereafter$ the accused
de-osited another 9an1 9 chec1 of "
1D$DDD.DD signed and endorsed allegedly by
C. & wee1 later$ the accused went to 9an1 &
to withdraw "1D$DDD.DD. While withdrawing
the amount$ he was arrested.
Con!icted under two informations of estafa
and attem-ted estafa both through
falsi<cation of commercial documents$ he set
u- the defenses that$ e6ce-t for the showing
that the signature of C had been forged$ no
further e!idence was -resented to establish
%a) that he was the forger of the signature of
C nor %b)$ that as to the second charge C
sufered any damage. ule on the defense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The defense is not tenable. %a) the -ossessor
of a falsi<ed document is -resumed to be the
author of the falsi<cation (People vs.
Se&%a3%te2o, 81 SC! 1*)" Foh TieB vs. People,
et al, 9e5. *1, 199)). %b) (n estafa$ a mere
disturbance of -ro-erty rights$ e!en if
tem-orary$ would be suficient to$ cause
damage. 7oreo!er$ in a crime of falsi<cation
of a commercial document$ damage or intent
to cause damage is not necessary because
the -rinci-al thing -unished is the !iolation
of the -ublic faith and the destruction of the
truth as therein solemnly -roclaimed.
*stafa. Hefense of +wnershi- %2DD2) & sold
a washing machine to 9 on credit$ with the
understanding that 9 could return the
a--liance within two wee1s if$ after testing
the same$ 9 decided not to buy it. Two
wee1s la-sed without 9 returning the
a--liance. & found out that 9 had sold the
washing machine to a third -artyL (s 9 liable
for estafa# Why# %=>) 'B@@*'T*H
&5'W*M 5o$ 9 is not liable for estafa
because he is not 0ust an entrustee of the
washing machine which he sold. he is the
owner thereof by !irtue of the sale of the
washing machine to him. The sale being on
credit$ 9 as buyer is only liable for the
un-aid -rice of the washing machine. his
obligation is only a ci!il obligation. There is
no felonious misa--ro-riation that could
constitute estafa.
+stafa; Swin"ling (199-)
Hi!ina$ is the owner of a =DDLs2uare meter
residential lot in 7a1ati City co!ered by
TCT 5o. 1FFE. &s her son needed money for
his tri- abroad$ Hi!ina mortgaged her
68 of 86
lot to her neighbor Hino for "1$DDD$DDD.
Later Hi!ina sold the same lot to &ngel for
"2$DDD$DDD. (n the Heed of 'ale$ she
e6-ressly stated that the -ro-erty is free
from any lien or encumbrance. What crime$
if any$ did Hi!ina commit# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Hi!ina committed estafa or swindling under
&rt. A1C$ -ar. 2 of the e!ised "enal Code
because$ 1nowing that the real -ro-erty
being sold is encumbered$ she still made a
misre-resentation in the Heed of 'ale 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.
0o33ery (1996)
:i!e robbers robbed$ one after the other <!e
houses occu-ied by diferent families
located inside a com-ound enclosed by a si6L
feet high hollow bloc1 fence. )ow many
robberies did the <!e commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ofenders 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 indi!isible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were
not aware that there were <!e families
inside said com-ound$ considering that the
same was enclosed by a si6Lfeet high hollowL
bloc1 fence. The series of robbery committed
in the same com-ound at about the same
time constitutes one continued crime$
moti!ated by one criminal im-ulse.
0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&&)
&$ 9$ C$ H and 9 were in a beerhouse along
7ac&rthur )ighway ha!ing a drin1ing
s-ree. &t about 1 oIcloc1 in the morning$
they decided to lea!e and so as1ed for the
bill. They -ooled their money together but
they were still short of "2$DDD.DD. * then
orchestrated a -lan whereby &$ 9$ C and H
would go out$ fag a ta6icab and rob the ta6i
dri!er of all his money while * would wait
for them in the beerhouse. &. 9$ C and H
agreed. &ll armed with balisongs$ &$ 9$ C
and H hailed the <rst ta6icab they
encountered. &fter robbing N$ the dri!er$ of
his earnings$ which amounted to "1$DDD.DD
only$ they needed "1 $DDD.DD more to meet
their bill. 'o$ they decided to hail another
ta6icab and they again robbed dri!er T of his
hardLearned money amounting to "1$DDD.
+n their way bac1 to the beerhouse$ they
were a--rehended by a -olice team u-on
the com-laint of N$ the dri!er of the <rst
cab. They -ointed to * as the mastermind.
What crime or crimes$ if any$ did &$ 9$ C$ H
and 9 commit# *6-lain fully. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&. 9$ C$ H and * are liable for two %2) counts
of robbery under &rticle 2FG of the e!.
"enal Code. not for highway obbery under
"H =A2. The ofenders are not brigands 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.
0o33ery un"er 0PC (%&&1)
& and 9 are neighbors in 9arangay 5ue!o ($
'ilang$ Ca!ite. & is a barangay Pagawad and
1nown to be a
bully$ while 9 is re-uted to be gay but noted
for his industry and economic sa!!y which
allowed him to amass wealth in lea-s and
bounds$ including registered and
unregistered lands in se!eral barangays.
esenting 9Is riches and relying on his
-olitical infuence$ & decided to harass and
intimidate 9 into sharing with him some of
his lands$ considering that the latter was
single and li!ing alone. +ne night$ & bro1e
into 9Is house$ forced him to bring out some
titles and after -ic1ing out a title co!ering
2DD s2uare meters in their barangay$
com-elled 9 to ty-e out a Heed of 'ale
con!eying the said lot to him for "1.DD and
other !aluable considerations. &ll the while$
& carried a -alti1 caliber .G= in full !iew of
9$ who signed the deed out of fear. When &
later on tried to register the deed$ 9
summoned enough courage and had &
arrested and charged in court after
-reliminary in!estigation.
What charge or charges should be <led
against &# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The charge for obbery under &rticle 2FE of
the e!ised "enal Code should be <led
against &. 'aid &rticle -ro!ides that any
-erson who$ with intent to defraud another$
by means of !iolence or intimidation$ shall
com-el him to sign$ e6ecute and deli!er any
-ublic instrument or document shall be held
guilty of robbery.
The -alti1 caliber .G= <rearm carried by &
was ob!iously intended to intimidate 9 and
thus$ used in the commission of the robbery.
(f it could be established that & had no
license or -ermit to -ossess and carry such
<rearm$ it should be ta1en only as s-ecial
aggra!ating circumstance to the crime of
robbery$ not sub0ect of a se-arate
-rosecution.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
+n the -remise that the Heed of 'ale which
& com-elled 9 to sign$ had not attained the
character of a 8-ublic8 instrument or
document$ & should be charged for the
crime of ?uali<ed Tres-ass to Hwelling
under &rticle 2ED of the e!ised "enal Code
for ha!ing intruded into 9Us house$ and for
the crime of @ra!e Coercion under &rticle
2EC of same Code$ for com-elling 9 to sign
such deed of sale against his will.
0o33ery #s9 >ighway 0o33ery (%&&&)
Histinguish )ighway obbery under
"residential Hecree 5o. =A2 from obbery
committed on a highway. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
)ighway obbery under "res. Hecree =A2
difers from ordinary obbery committed on
a highway in these res-ectsM
1 (n )ighway obbery under "H =A2$ the
robbery is committed indiscriminately
against -ersons who commute in such
highways$ regardless of the -otentiality
they ofer. while in ordinary obbery
committed on a highway$ the robbery is
committed only against -redetermined
!ictims.
2 (t is )ighway obbery under "H =A2$
when the ofender is a brigand or one who
roams in -ublic
69 of 86
highways and carries out his robbery in
-ublic highways as !enue$ whene!er the
o--ortunity to do so arises. (t is ordinary
obbery under the e!ised "enal Code
when the commission thereof in a -ublic
highway is only incidental and the
ofender is not a brigandM and
A. (n )ighway obbery under "H =A2$
there is fre2uency in the commission of the
robbery in -ublic highways and against
-ersons tra!elling thereat. whereas ordinary
obbery in -ublic highways is only
occasional against a -redetermined !ictim$
without fre2uency in -ublic highways.
0o33ery wD force upon things (%&&&)
&$ brother of 9$ with the intention of ha!ing
a night out with his friends$ too1 the
coconut shell which is being used by 9 as a
ban1 for coins from inside their loc1ed
cabinet using their common 1ey. :orthwith$
& bro1e the coconut shell outside of their
home in the -resence of his friends. What is
the criminal liability of &$ if any# *6-lain.
%A>) (s & e6em-ted from criminal liability
under &rticle AA2 of the e!ised "enal Code
for being a brother of 9# *6-lain. %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
a) & is criminally liable for obbery with
force u-on things$ because the coconut shell
with the coins inside$ was ta1en with intent
to gain and bro1en outside of their home$
%&rt. 2FF %b) %2). "C).
b) 5o$ & is not e6em-t from criminal liability
under &rt. AA2 because said &rticle a--lies
only to theft$ swindling or malicious mischief.
)ere$ the crime committed is robbery.
0o33ery wD >omici"e , 09(9 <o9 *669 (%&&6)
3ose em-loyed 7ario as gardener and )enry
as coo1. They learned that 3ose won
"=DD$DDD.DD in the lotto$ and decided to rob
him. 7ario -ositioned himself about AD
meters away from 3oseUs house and acted as
loo1out. :or his -art$ )enry surre-titiously
gained entry into the house and 1illed 3ose
who was then ha!ing his dinner. )enry found
the "=DD$DDD.DD and too1 it. )enry then too1
a can of gasoline from the garage and
burned the house to conceal the acts. 7ario
and )enry fed$ but were arrested around
2DD meters away from the house by alert
barangay tanods. The tanods reco!ered the
"=DD$DDD.DD.
7ario and )enry were charged with and
con!icted of robbery with homicide$ with the
aggra!ating circumstances of arson$ dwelling$
and nighttime.
7ario mo!ed to reconsider the decision
maintaining that he was not at the scene of
the crime and was not aware that )enry
1illed the !ictim. hence$ he was guilty only
of robbery$ as an accom-lice. 7ario also
claimed that he cons-ired with )enry to
commit robbery but not to 1ill
3ose. )enry$ li1ewise$ mo!ed to reconsider
the decision$ asserting that he is liable only
for attem-ted robbery with homicide with
no aggra!ating circumstance$ considering
that he and 7ario did not bene<t from the
"=DD$DDD.DD. )e further alleged that arson
is a felony and not an aggra!ating
circumstance. dwelling is not aggra!ating in
attem-ted robbery with homicide. and
nighttime is not aggra!ating because the
house of 3ose was lighted at the time he was
1illed. esol!e with reasons the res-ecti!e
motions of 7ario and )enry. %Q>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7ario is not correct. 7ario cons-ired and
acted in concert with )enry to commit
robbery. )ence$ the act of one is the act of
all and the e6tent of the s-eci<c
-artici-ation of each indi!idual cons-irator
becomes secondary$ each being held liable
for the criminal deed%s) e6ecuted by another
or others. &s a cons-irator$ 7ario casts his
lot with his fellow cons-irators and becomes
liable to any third -erson who may get 1illed
in the course of im-lementing the criminal
design. (People v. P#&0ala&, et al.. (.. No.
188'3, Novem7er 8, 1991)
)enry is incorrect$ since he ac2uired
-ossession of the money. The crime of
robbery with force and intimidation is
consummated when the robber ac2uires
-ossession of the -ro-erty$ e!en if for a
short time. (t is no defense that they had no
o--ortunity to dis-ose of or bene<t from the
money ta1en. (People v. Salvilia, et al., (.. No.
88163, !pril *6, 199))
'ince the crime in robbery with force and
intimidation against -ersons %robbery with
homicide)$ dwelling is aggra!ating. &rson$
which accom-anied the crime of robbery
with homicide is absorbed (!rt. *94, FC as
ame&%e% 73 .!. No. 16'9) and is not
aggra!ating because the "C does not
-ro!ide that such crime is an aggra!ating
circumstance. (People v. e2ala, (.. No.
13)')8, !pril ', *)))) 5ighttime$ li1ewise$ is
not aggra!ating. There is no showing that
the same was -ur-osely sought by the
ofenders to facilitate the commission of the
crime or im-unity.
0o33ery wD >omici"e (1996)
:ernando$ before bringing bac1 the
daughter to the house$ ra-ed her <rst.
Thereafter$ the four carted away the
belongings of Hanilo and his family. a) What
crime did 3ose$ Homingo$ 7anolo and
:ernando commit# *6-lain. b) 'u--ose$
after the robbery$ the four too1 turns in
ra-ing the three daughters of Hanilo inside
the latterIs house$ but before they left$ they
1illed the whole family
70 of 86
to -re!ent identi<cation$ what crime did the
four commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%a) 3ose$ Homingo$ and 7anolo committed
com-le6 crime of obbery with a-e.
Cons-iracy can be inferred from the manner
the ofenders committed the robbery but the
ra-e was committed by :ernando at a -lace
8distant from the house8 where the robbery
was committed$ not in the -resence of the
other cons-irators. )ence$ :ernando alone
should answer for the ra-e$ rendering him
liable for the s-ecial com-le6 crime. (People
vs. Ca&t#ria et. al, (.. 1)849), ** +#&e 199',
)omicide because the 1illings were by reason
%to -re!ent identi<cation) and on the
occasion of the robbery. The multi-le ra-es
committed and the fact that se!eral -ersons
were 1illed Jhomicide)$ would be considered
as aggra!ating circumstances. The ra-es are
synonymous with (gnominy and the
additional 1illing synonymous with cruelty$
(People vs. Solis, 18* SC!" People vs. Pla2a, *)*
SC! '31)
0o33ery wD >omici"e (199-)
&$ 9$ C and H all armed$ robbed a ban1$ and
when they were about to get out of the
ban1$ -olicemen came and ordered them to
surrender but they <red on the -olice
oficers who <red bac1 and shot it out with
them.
1. 'u--ose a ban1 em-loyee was 1illed and
the bullet which 1illed him came from the
<rearm of the -olice oficers$ with what
crime shall you charge &$ 9. C and H# JA>K
2. 'u--ose it was robber H who was 1illed
by the -olicemen and the -rosecutor
charged &$ 9 and C with obbery and
)omicide. They demurred arguing that they
%&$ 9 and C) were not the ones who 1illed
robber H$ hence$ the charge should only be
obbery. )ow would you resol!e their
argument# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1! &$ 9$ C and H should be charged with
the crime of robbery with homicide
because the death of the ban1 em-loyee
was brought about by the acts of said
ofenders 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 robbery. hence$ the
com-osite crime of robbery with
homicide.
2! The argument is !alid$ considering that a
se-arate charge for )omicide was <led.
(t would be diferent if the charge <led
was for the com-osite crime of robbery
with homicide which is a single$
indi!isible ofense.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
2. The argument raised by &$ 9 and C is not
correct because their liability is not only for
obbery but for the s-ecial com-le6 crime of
obbery with homicide. 9ut the facts stated
im-resses that se-arate crimes of obbery
8and8 )omicide were charged$ which is not
correct. What was committed was a single
indi!isible ofense of obbery with homicide$
not two crimes.
0o33ery wD >omici"e (%&&1)
& learned two days ago that 9 had recei!ed
dollar bills amounting to Z1D$DDD from his
daughter wor1ing in the Bnited 'tates. With
the intention of robbing 9 of those dollars$ &
entered 9Is house at midnight$ armed with a
1nife which he used to gain entry$ and began
2uietly searching the drawers$ shel!es$ and
other li1ely rece-tacles of the cash. While
doing that$ 9 awo1e$ rushed out from the
bedroom$ and gra--led with & for the
-ossession of the 1nife which & was then
holding. &fter stabbing 9 to death$ & turned
o!er 9Is -illow and found the latterIs wallet
underneath the -illow$ which was bulging
with the dollar bills he was loo1ing for. &
too1 the bills and left the house. What crime
or crimes were committed# E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed is robbery with
homicide$ a com-osite crime. This is so
because &Is -rimordial criminal intent is to
commit a robbery and in the course of the
robbery$ the 1illing of 9 too1 -lace. 9oth the
robbery and the 1illing were consummated$
thus gi!ing rise to the s-ecial com-le6 crime
of robbery with homicide. The -rimary
criminal intent being to commit a robbery$
any 1illing on the 8occasion8 of the robbery$
though not by reason thereof$ is considered
a com-onent of the crime of robbery with
homicide as a single indi!isible ofense.
0o33ery wD >omici"e; Special Comple/ Crime (1996)
/ictor$ ic1y$ od and onnie went to the
store of 7ang "andoy. /ictor and ic1y
entered the store while od and onnie
-osted themsel!es at the door. &fter ordering
beer ic1y com-lained that he was
shortchanged although 7ang "andoy
!ehemently denied it. 'uddenly ic1y
whi--ed out a 1nife as he announced 8)oldL
u- itoV8 and stabbed 7ang "andoy to death.
od bo6ed the storeIs salesgirl Lucy to
-re!ent her from hel-ing 7ang "andoy. When
Lucy ran out of the store to see1 hel- from
-eo-le ne6t door she was chased by onnie.
&s soon as ic1y had stabbed 7ang "andoy$
/ictor scoo-ed u- the money from the cash
bo6. Then /ictor and ic1y dashed to the
street and shouted$ 8Tuma1bo na 1ayoV8 od
was 1G and onnie was 1Q. The money and
other articles looted from the store of 7ang
"andoy were later found in the houses of
/ictor and ic1y. Hiscuss fully the criminal
liability of /ictor$ ic1y$ od and onnie.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&ll are liable for the s-ecial com-le6 crime
of robbery with homicide. The acts of ic1y
in stabbing 7ang "andoy to death$ of od in
bo6ing the salesgirl to -re!ent her from
hel-ing 7ang "andoy$ of onnie in chasing
the salesgirl to -re!ent her in see1ing hel-$
of /ictor in scoo-ing u- money from the
cash bo6$ and of ic1y and /ictor in dashing
to the street and announcing the esca-e$ are
all indicati!e of cons-iracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide ta1es
-lace as a conse2uence or on the occasion
of a robbery$ all those
71 of 86
who too1 -art in the robbery are guilty as
-rinci-als of the crime of robbery with
homicide$ unless the accused tried to
-re!ent the 1illing (People vs. ;aello, **4 SC!
*18). :urther$ the aggra!ating circumstance
of craft could be assessed against the
accused for -retending to be customers of
7ang "andoy.
0o33ery wD 2ntimi"ation #s9 Theft (%&&%)
& entered the house of another without
em-loying force or !iolence u-on things. )e
was seen by a maid who wanted to scream
but was -re!ented from doing so because &
threatened her with a gun. & then too1
money and other !aluables and left. (s &
guilty of theft or of robbery# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& is liable for robbery because of the
intimidation he em-loyed on the maid before
the ta1ing of the money and other !aluables.
(t is the intimidation of -erson relati!e to the
ta1ing that 2uali<es the crime as robbery$
instead of sim-ly theft. The nonLem-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 !iolence against or intimidation of
-ersons.
0o33ery wD 0ape (1999)
Two young men$ & and 9$ cons-ired to rob a
residential house of things of !alue. They
succeeded in the commission of their
original -lan to sim-ly rob. &$ howe!er$ was
se6ually aroused when he saw the lady
owner of the house and so$ ra-ed her.
The lady !ictim testi<ed that 9 did not in
any way -artici-ate in the ra-e but 9
watched the ha--ening from a window and
did nothing to sto- the ra-e. (s 9 as
criminally liable as & for robbery with ra-e#
*6-lain. %G>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ 9 is as criminally liable as & for the
com-osite crime of robbery with ra-e under
&rt. 2FG %1). &lthough the cons-iracy of &
and 9 was only to rob$ 9 was -resent when
the ra-e was being committed which ga!e
rise to a com-osite crime$ a single indi!isible
ofense of robbery with ra-e. 9 would not
ha!e been liable had he endea!ored to
-re!ent the commission of the ra-e. 9ut
since he did not when he could ha!e done so$
he in efect ac2uiesced with the ra-e as a
com-onent of the robbery and so he is also
liable for robbery with ra-e.
0o33ery wD 0ape; Conspiracy (%&&)
Together N&$ ,9 and OC -lanned to rob 7iss
+H. They entered her house by brea1ing one
of the windows in her house. &fter ta1ing
her -ersonal -ro-erties and as they were
about to lea!e$ N& decided on im-ulse to
ra-e +H. &s N& was molesting her$ ,9 and
OC stood outside the door of her bedroom
and did nothing to -re!ent N& from ra-ing
+H. What crime or crimes did N&$ ,9 and OC
commit$ and what is the criminal liability of
each# *6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime committed by N&$ ,9 and OC is
the com-osite crime of obbery with a-e$ a
single$ indi!isible ofense under &rt. 2FG%1)
of the e!ised "enal Code.
&lthough the cons-iracy among the
ofenders was only to commit robbery and
only N& ra-ed CH$ the other robbers$ ,9 and
OC$ were -resent and aware of the ra-e
being committed by their coLcons-irator.
)a!ing done nothing to sto- N& from
committing the ra-e$ ,9 and OC thereby
concurred in the commission of the ra-e by
their coLcons-irator N&.
The criminal liability of all$ N&$ ,O and OC$
shall be the same$ as -rinci-als in the
s-ecial com-le6 crime of robbery with ra-e
which is a single$ indi!isible ofense where
the ra-e accom-anying the robbery is 0ust a
com-onent.
0o33ery; >omici"e; (rson (1996)
)arry$ an o!erseas contract wor1er$ arri!ed
from 'audi &rabia with considerable
sa!ings. Pnowing him to be 8loaded8$ his
friends 3ason$ 7anuel and Ha!e in!ited him
to -o1er session at a rented beach cottage.
When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his sa!ings of a lifetime$
he disco!ered that he was being cheated by
his friends. &ngered by the betrayal he
decided to ta1e re!enge on the three cheats.
)arry ordered se!eral bottles of Tanduay
hum and ga!e them to his com-anions to
drin1$ as they did$ until they all fell aslee-.
When )arry saw his com-anions already
sound aslee- he hac1ed all of them to death.
Then he remembered his losses. )e rifed
through the -oc1ets of his !ictims and got
bac1 all the money he lost. )e then ran
away but not before burning the cottage to
hide his misdeed. The following day -olice
in!estigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of 3ason$ 7anuel$ Ha!e and
the careta1er of the resort.
&fter -reliminary in!estigation$ the
"ro!incial "rosecutor charged )arry with
the com-le6 crime of arson with 2uadru-le
homicide and robbery. Was )arry -ro-erly
charged# Hiscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ )arry was net -ro-erly charged. )arry
should ha!e been charged with three %A)
se-arate crimes$ namelyM murder$ theft and
arson.
)arry 1illed 3ason$ 7anuel and Ha!e with
e!ident -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$ )arry
em-loyed means which wea1ened the
defense of 3ason$ 7anuel and Ha!e. )arry
ga!e them the li2uor to drin1 until they were
drun1 and fell aslee-. This ga!e )arry the
o--ortunity to carry out his -lan of murder
with im-unity.
72 of 86
The ta1ing of the money from the !ictims
was a mere afterthought of the 1illings.
)ence$ )arry committed the se-arate crime
of theft and not the com-le6 crime of
robbery with homicide. &lthough theft was
committed against dead -ersons$ it is still
legally -ossible as the ofended -arty are
the estates of the !ictims.
(n burning the cottage to hide his misdeed.
)arry became liable for another se-arate
crime$ arson. This act of burning was not
necessary for the consummation of the two
%2) -re!ious ofenses he committed. The fact
that the careta1er died from the bla4e did
not 2ualify )arryIs crime into a com-le6
crime of arson with homicide for there is no
such crime.
)ence$ )arry was im-ro-erly charged with
the com-le6 crime of arson with 2uadru-le
homicide and robbery. )arry should ha!e
been charged with three %A) se-arate
crimes$ murder$ theft and arson.
0o33ery; 0ape (199*)
&fter ra-ing the com-lainant in her house$
the accused struc1 a match to smo1e a
cigarette before de-arting from the scene.
The brief light from the match allowed him
to notice a watch in her wrist. )e demanded
that she hand o!er the watch. When she
refused$ he forcibly grabbed it from her. The
accused was charged with and con!icted of
the s-ecial com-le6 crime of robbery with
ra-e. Was the court correct#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. the court erred in con!icting the
accused of the s-ecial com-le6 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 ob0ecti!e 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 gi!e rise to the s-ecial
com-le6 crime for which the court con!icted
the accused.
Theft (199-)
7ario found a watch in a 0ee- he was
riding$ and since it did not belong to him$ he
a--roached -oliceman " and deli!ered the
watch with instruction to return the same to
whoe!er 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$ moreo!er$ the
watch turned out to be stolen -ro-erty. (s "Is
defense !alid# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ "Is defense is not !alid. (n a charge for
theft$ it is enough that the -ersonal -ro-erty
sub0ect thereof belongs to another and not to
the ofender %"). (t is irrele!ant whether the
-erson de-ri!ed 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. &nd the crime is
committed e!en when the ofender recei!es
-ro-erty of another but ac2uires only
-hysical -ossession to hold the same.
Theft (%&&1)
:rancis @arcia$ a 3ollibee waiter$ found a
gold bracelet in front of his wor1ing -lace in
7a1ati and$ u-on ins-ecting it$ saw the
name and address of the owner engra!ed on
the inside. emembering his -arentsI
admonition that he should not ta1e anything
which does not belong to him$ he deli!ered
the bracelet to "+1 3esus eyes of the
7a1ati ?uad -recinct with the instruction to
locate the owner and return it to him. "+1
eyes$ instead$ sold the bracelet and
misa--ro-riated the -roceeds. 'ubse2uent
e!ents brought out the fact that the bracelet
was dro--ed by a snatcher who had grabbed
it from the owner a bloc1 away from where
:rancis had found it and further
in!estigation traced the last -ossessor as
"+1 eyes. Charged with theft$ "+1 eyes
reasoned out that he had not committed any
crime because it was not he who had found
the bracelet and$ moreo!er$ it turned out to
ha!e been stolen. esol!e the case with
reasons. %1D>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Charged with theft$ "+1 eyes is criminally
liable. )is 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 de!oid of merit. (t is
enough that the bracelet belonged to
another and the failure to restore the same
to its owner is characteri4ed by intent to
gain.
The act of "+1 eyes of selling the bracelet
which does not belong to him and which he
only held to be deli!ered to its owner$ is
furti!e misa--ro-riation with intent to gain.
Where a <nder of lost or mislaid -ro-erty
entrusts it to another for deli!ery to the
owner$ the -erson to whom such -ro-erty is
entrusted and who acce-ts the same$
assumes the relation of the <nder to the
owner as if he was the actual <nderM if he
would misa--ro-riate it$ he is guilty of theft
(People vs. !vila, 44 Phil. 1*)).
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%)
& <re bro1e out in a de-artment store$ &$
ta1ing ad!antage of the confusion$ entered
the store and carried away goods which he
later sold. What crime$ if any$ did he
commit# Why# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& committed the crime of 2uali<ed theft
because he too1 the goods on the occasion
of and ta1ing ad!antage of the <re which
bro1e out in the de-artment store. The
occasion of a calamity such as <re$ when the
theft was committed$ 2uali<es the crime
under &rticle A1D of the e!ised "enal Code$
as amended.
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&%)
73 of 86
& !ehicular accident occurred on the
national highway in 9ulacan. &mong the
<rst to arri!e at the scene of the accident
was &$ who found one of the !ictims already
dead and the others unconscious. 9efore
rescuers could come$ &$ ta1ing ad!antage of
the hel-less condition of the !ictims$ too1
their wallets and 0ewelry. )owe!er$ the
-olice$ who res-onded to the re-ort of the
accident$ caught &. What crime or crimes
did & commit# Why# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& committed the crime of 2uali<ed theft
because he too1 the wallets and 0ewelry of
the !ictims with e!ident intent to gain and
on the occasion of a !ehicular accident
wherein he too1 ad!antage of the hel-less
condition of the !ictims. 9ut only one crime
of 2uali<ed theft was committed although
there were more than one !ictim di!ested of
their !aluables$ because all the ta1ing of the
!aluables were made on one and the same
occasion$ thus constituting a continued
crime.
Theft; ?ualifie" Theft (%&&6)
1. :orest anger 3ay /elasco was -atrolling
the 9alara Watershed and eser!oir 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
ene and Hante coming out of the gate with
some more newlyLcut logs. )e a--rehended
and charged them with the -ro-er ofense.
What is that ofense# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The ofense is ?uali<ed Theft under 'ec. CE
of ".H. QD=$ amending ".H. 5o. AAD$ which
-enali4es any -erson who directly or
indirectly cuts$ gathers$ remo!es$ or
smuggles timber$ or other forest -roducts
from any of the -ublic forest. The 9alara
Watershed is -rotected by the cited laws.
2. Huring the -reliminary in!estigation and
u- to the trial -ro-er$ ene and Hante
contended that if they were to be held
liable$ their liability should be limited only
to the newlyLcut logs found in their
-ossession but not to those found outside
the gate. (f you were the 0udge$ what will be
your ruling# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The contention is untenable$ the -resence of
the newly cut logs outside the gate is
circumstantial e!idence$ which$ if
unrebutted$ establishes that they are the
ofenders who gathered the same.
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (199-)
(n the 0ewelry section of a big de-artment
store$ 3ulia snatched a cou-le of bracelets
and -ut these in her -urse. &t the storeIs
e6it$ howe!er$ she was arrested by the guard
after being radioed by the store -ersonnel
who caught the act in the storeIs mo!ing
camera. (s the crime consummated$
frustrated$ or attem-ted# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The crime is consummated theft because the
ta1ing of the bracelets was com-lete after
3ulia succeeded in -utting them in her -urse.
3ulia ac2uired com-lete control of the
bracelets after -utting them in her -urse.
hence$ the ta1ing with intent to gain is
com-lete and thus the crime is
consummated.
Theft; Stages of +/ecution (%&&&)
'unshine$ a beauteous 8colegiala8 but a
sho-lifter$ went to the *!er He-artment
'tore and -roceeded to the womenIs wear
section. The saleslady was of the im-ression
that she brought to the <tting room three %A)
-ieces of swimsuits of diferent colors. When
she came out of the <tting room$ she
returned only two %2K -ieces to the clothes
rac1. The saleslady became sus-icious and
alerted the store detecti!e. 'unshine was
sto--ed by the detecti!e before she could
lea!e the store and brought to the ofice of
the store manager. The detecti!e 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#
*6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The theft was consummated because the
ta1ing or as-ortation was com-lete. The
as-ortation is com-lete when the ofender
ac2uired e6clusi!e control of the -ersonal
-ro-erty being ta1enM in this case$ when
'unshine wore the swimsuit under her
blouse and -ants and was on her way out of
the store. With e!ident intent to gain$ the
ta1ing constitutes theft and being com-lete$
it is consummated. (t is not necessary that
the ofender is in a -osition to dis-ose of the
-ro-erty$
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER<
The crime of theft was only frustrated
because 'unshine has not yet left the store
when the ofense was o--ortunely disco!ered
and the article sei4ed from her. 'he does not
ha!e yet the freedom to dis-ose of the
swimsuit she was ta1ing (People vs. 9i&o, C! 4'
4.(. 3446). 7oreo!er$ in case of doubt as to
whether it is consummated or frustrated$ the
doubt must be resol!ed in fa!or of the milder
criminal res-onsibility.
'surpation of 0eal 0ights (1996)
Teresita is the owner of a twoLhectare land
in 9ulacan which she -lanted to rice and
corn. B-on her arri!al from a threeLmonth
!acation in the Bnited 'tates$ she was
sur-rised to disco!er that her land had been
ta1en o!er by 7anuel and Teo<lo who
forcibly e!icted her tenantLcareta1er 3uliana$
after threatening to 1ill the latter if she
would resist their ta1ing of the land.
Thereafter$ 7anuel and Teo<lo -lowed$
culti!ated and a--ro-riated the har!est for
themsel!es to the e6clusion of Teresita. 1)
What crime or crimes did 7anuel and Teo<lo
commit# *6-lain. 2) 'u--ose 7anuel and
Teo<lo 1illed 3uliana when the latter refused
to surrender -ossession of the land$ what
crime or crimes did the two commit#
*6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) 7anuel and Teo<lo committed the crime of
usur-ation of real rights under &rt. A12 of
the e!ised "enal Code for em-loying
!iolence against or intimidation of -ersons.
The threats to 1ill em-loyed by them in
forcibly entering the land is the means of
committing the crime and therefore absorbed
in the
74 of 86
felony$ unless the intimidation resulted in a
more serious felony.
2} The crime would still be usur-ation of
real rights under &rt. A12$ "C$ e!en if the
said ofenders 1illed the careta1er because
the 1illing is the /iolence against -ersons8
which is the means for committing the crime
and as such$ determinati!e only. )owe!er$
this gi!es way to the -ro!iso that the -enalty
-ro!ided for therein is 8in addition to the
-enalty incurred in the acts of !iolence
%murder or homicideK e6ecuted by them. The
crime is similar to a robbery where a 1illing
is committed by reason thereof$ gi!ing rise
only to one indi!isible ofense
(People vs. +#%2e !l.e5he, pl#s the G&e
me&tio&e% therei&.
C-&8": A$&!:# C;:#&#2
(cts of Lasci#iousness #s9 'n:ust $e/ation (199)
When is embracing$ 1issing and touching a
girlIs breast considered only un0ust !e6ation
instead of acts of lasci!iousness#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The acts of embracing$ 1issing of a woman
arising either out of -assion or other moti!e
and the touching of her breast as a mere
incident of the embrace without lewd design
constitutes merely un0ust !e6ation (People
#s, -2&a5io. C! (No. '119<, Septem7er 3),
19')). )owe!er$ where the 1issing$
embracing and the touching of the breast of
a woman are done with lewd design$ the
same constitute acts of lasci!iousness
(People vs. Per5ival (ilo, 1) SC! 1'3).
("ultery (%&&%)
&$ a married woman$ had se6ual intercourse
with a man who was not her husband. The
man did not 1now she was married. What
crime$ if any$ did each of them commit#
Why# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&$ the married woman$ committed the crime
of adultery under &rticle AAA of the e!ised
"enal Code$ as amended$ for ha!ing se6ual
intercourse with a man not her husband
while her marriage is still subsisting. 9ut the
man who had carnal 1nowledge of her$ not
1nowing her to be married$ shall not be
liable for adultery.
Concu3inage (199)
&be$ married to Li4a$ contracted another
marriage with Connie in 'inga-ore.
Thereafter$ &be and Connie returned to the
"hili--ines and li!ed as husband and wife in
the hometown of &be in Calamba$ Laguna. 1)
Can &be be -rosecuted for bigamy# 2) (f not$
can he be -rosecuted for any other crime#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) 5o$ &be may not be -rosecuted for bigamy
...
2) ,es$ &be$ together with Connie$ may be
-rosecuted for concubinage under &rt. AAG
of the e!ised "enal Code for ha!ing
cohabited as husband and wife. 9ut
concubinage being a -ri!ate crime re2uires
the sworn com-laint of Li4a$ the ofended
s-ouse in accordance
with ule 11D of the e!ised ules on
Criminal "rocedure.
Concu3inage (%&&%)
& is married. )e has a -aramour with whom
he has se6ual relations on a more or less
regular basis. They meet at least once a
wee1 in hotels$ motels and other -laces
where they can be alone. (s & guilty of any
crime# Why# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
& is guilty of the crime of concubinage by
ha!ing se6ual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances$ with a woman who is not his
wife.
)a!ing se6ual relations on a more or less
regular basis in hotels$ motels and other
-laces may be considered a scandalous
circumstance that ofends -ublic
conscience$ gi!ing rise to criticism and
general -rotest such acts being im-rudent
and wanton and setting a bad e6am-le
(People vs. Sa&tos, 86 SC! 1)' ?1918=).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
& is not guilty of any crime because a
married man does not incur the crime of
concubinage by merely ha!ing a -aramour$
unless under scandalous circumstances$ or
he 1ee-s her in the con0ugal dwelling as a
mistress$ or cohabits with her in any other
-lace. )is wee1ly meetings with his
-aramour does not -er se constitute
scandalous circumstance.
'n:ust $e/ation #s9 (ct of Lasci#iousness (%&&6)
*duardo ?uintos$ a widower for the -ast 1D
years$ felt that his retirement at the age of
QD ga!e him the o--ortunity to engage in his
fa!orite -astime [ !oyeurism. (f not using
his highL-owered binoculars to -ee- at his
neighborIs homes and domestic acti!ities$ his
second choice was to follow sweet young
girls. +ne day$ he trailed a teenage girl u- to
the LT station at *H'&L9uendia. While
ascending the stairs$ he stayed one ste-
behind her and in a moment of bra!ado$
-laced his hand on her left hi- and gently
massaged it. 'he screamed and shouted for
hel-. *duardo was arrested and charged
with acts of lasci!iousness. (s the
designation of the crime correct# %=>)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The designation of the crime as acts of
lasci!iousness is not correct. There is no
lewd design e6hibited by *duardo when he
-laced his hand on the left hi- of the !ictim
and gently massaging it. The act does not
clearly show an e6clusi!ely se6ual
moti!ation. The crime he committed is only
un0ust !e6ation for causing annoyance$
irritation or disturbance to the !ictim %&rt.
2EQ$ e!ised "enal Code)$ not acts of
lasci!iousness %&rt. AAC$ e!ised "enal
Code).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The crime should be +ther &cts of Child
&buse under 'ection 1D of &. QC1D$ -ar. b
of 'ection A 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$ 'ection 1D
-ro!ides criminal liability for other acts of
child abuse$ cruelty or e6-loitation$ or for
other condi
75 of 86
tions -re0udicial to the childIs de!elo-ment.
The reaction of the !ictim$ screaming for
hel- u-on the occurrence of the touching
indicates that she -ercei!ed her dignity was
being debased or !iolated.
C-&8": A$&!:# #;" C&=&+ S##%:
)9 P"-:)!:
Aigamy (199)
(ssa and 9obby$ who were <rst cousins$
were married in 1FQ=. (n 1FFA$ 9obby was
told that his marriage to (ssa was incestous
under the law then in force and therefore
!oid ab initio. )e married Caring.
Charged with bigamy$ 9obby raised the
defense that his <rst marriage is !oid ab
initio and therefore$ there is no -re!ious
marriage to s-ea1 of. Will you sustain
9obbyIs defense#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. ( will not sustain 9obbyIs defense$ 9obby
remarried in 1FFA$ or after the :amily Code
too1 efect on &ugust A$ 1FEE$ and therefore
his ca-acity to marry in 1FFA shall be
go!erned by said Code. (n &rt. GD of the
:amily Code$ it is mandated that the absolute
nullity of a -re!ious marriage maybe in!o1ed
for -ur-oses of remarriage on the basis
solely of a <nal 0udgment declaring such
-re!ious marriage !oid. In short) there is a
nee of a 7uicial eclaration of such
nullity before <obby may valily remarry
(9oroth3 Terre vs. +or%a& Terre, *11 SC! 6).
Aigamy (1996)
3oselito married amona in 3uly$ 1FF=$ only to
learn later on that amona was -re!iously
married to Ha!id$ from whom amona had
been se-arated for more than ten years.
9elie!ing that his marriage to amona was
an absolute nullity$ 3oselito contracted a
subse2uent marriage with &nabelle. Can
3oselito be -rosecuted for bigamy# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ 3oselito can be -rosecuted for bigamy
for his subse2uent marriage with &nabelle
e!en though his marriage with amona was
an absolute nullity.
Hes-ite the nullity of the <rst marriage$
3oselito should ha!e <led a case of
dissolution of such marriage under &rt. GD$
:amily Code$ before contracting a second
marriage with &nabelle.
Aigamy (%&&)
C9" is legally married to +*7. Without
obtaining a marriage license$ C9"
contracted a second marriage to 'T. (s
C9" liable for bigamy# eason briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Whether C9" could be held liable for
bigamy or not$ de-ends on whether the
second marriage is in!alid or !alid e!en
without a marriage license. &lthough as a
general rule$ marriages solemni4ed without
license are null and !oid ob initio$ there are
marriages e6em-ted from license
re2uirement under Cha-ter 2$ Title 1 of the
:amily Code$ such as in &rticle 2Q which is a
marriage in articulo mortis. (f the second
marriage was !alid e!en without a marriage
license$ then C9" would be liable for
bigamy.
+therwise$ C9" is not liable for bigamy but
for (llegal 7arriage in &rt. A=D for the
e!ised "enal Code$ s-eci<cally designated
as 87arriage contracted against -ro!isions
of laws.8
Aigamy; Prescripti#e Perio" (1996)
3oe and 7arcy were married in 9atanes in
1F==. &fter two years$ 3oe left 7arcy and
settled in 7indanao where he later met and
married Linda on 12 3une 1FCD. The second
marriage was registered in the ci!il registry
of Ha!ao City three days after its celebration.
+n 1D +ctober 1FQ= 7arcy who remained in
9atanes disco!ered the marriage of 3oe to
Linda. +n 1 7arch 1FQC 7arcy <led a
com-laint for bigamy against 3oe.
The crime of bigamy -rescribed in <fteen
years com-uted from the day the crime is
disco!ered by the ofended -arty$ the
authorities or their agents. 3oe raised the
defense of -rescri-tion of the crime$ more
than <fteen years ha!ing ela-sed from the
celebration of the bigamous marriage u- to
the <ling of 7arcyIs com-laint. )e
contended that the registration of his second
marriage in the ci!il registry of Ha!ao City
was constructi!e notice to the whole world of
the celebration thereof thus binding u-on
7arcy. )as the crime of bigamy charged
against 3oe already -rescribed# Hiscuss fully$
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. The -rescri-ti!e -eriod for the crime of
bigamy is com-uted from the time the crime
was disco!ered by the ofended -arty$ the
authorities or their agents. The -rinci-le of
constructi!e 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 7arcy <led a
com-laint for bigamy on Q 7arch 1FQC$ it
was well within the reglamentary -eriod as
it was barely a few months from the time of
disco!ery on 1D +ctober 1FQ=. (Sermo&ia vs.
C!, *33 SC! 1'')
Simulation of Airth @ Chil" TrafficGing (%&&%)
& childless cou-le$ & and 9$ wanted to ha!e
a child they could call their own. C$ an
unwed mother$ sold her newborn baby to
them. Thereafter$ & and 9 caused their
names to be stated in the birth certi<cate of
the child as his -arents. This was done in
conni!ance with the doctor who assisted in
the deli!ery of C. What are the criminal
liabilities$ if any$ of the cou-le & and 9$ C
and the doctor#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The cou-le & and 9$ and the doctor shall be
liable for the crime of simulation of birth$
-enali4ed under &rticle AGQ of the e!ised
"enal Code$ as amended. The act of ma1ing
it a--ear in the birth certi<cate of a child
that the -ersons named therein are the
-arents of the child when
76 of 86
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
8child trafic1ing8$ a !iolation of &rticle (/$
'ec. Q of e-. &ct 5o. QC1D. The law
-unishes inter alia the act of buying and
selling of a child.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The cou-le & and 9$ the unwed mother C$
and the doctor being all in!ol!ed in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child$
!iolate e-. &ct 5o. QC1D. Their acts
constitute child trafic1ing which are
-enali4ed under &rticle (/ of said law.
C-&8": A$&!:# 7)!)-
Li3el (%&&%)
&. & was nominated 'ecretary of a
He-artment in the *6ecuti!e 9ranch of the
go!ernment. )is nomination was thereafter
submitted to the Commission on
&--ointments for con<rmation. While the
Commission was considering the nomination$
a grou- of concerned citi4ens caused to be
-ublished in the news-a-ers a fullL-age
statement ob0ecting to &Is a--ointment They
alleged that & was a drug de-endent$ that he
had se!eral mistresses$ and that he was
corru-t$ ha!ing acce-ted bribes or fa!ors
from -arties transacting business in his
-re!ious ofice$ and therefore he was un<t
for the -osition to which he had been
nominated. &s a result of the -ublication$ the
nomination was not con<rmed by the
Commission on &--ointments. The oficial
sued the concerned citi4ens and the
news-a-ers for libel and damages on
account of his nonLcon<rmation. )ow will
you decide the case# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
( will ac2uit the concerned citi4ens and the
news-a-ers in!ol!ed$ from the crime of
libel$ because ob!iously they made the
denunciation out of a moral or social duty
and thus there is absence of malice.
'ince & was a candidate for a !ery im-ortant
-ublic -osition of a He-artment 'ecretary$ his
moral$ mental and -hysical <tness for the
-ublic trust in such -osition becomes a -ublic
concern as the interest of the -ublic is at
sta1e. (t is -ursuant to such concern that the
denunciation was made. hence$ bereft of
malice.
9. (f defamatory im-utations are made not
by -ublication in the news-a-ers but by
broadcast o!er the radio$ do they constitute
libel# Why# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ because libel may be committed by
radio broadcast &rticle A== of the e!ised
"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.
Li3el (%&&1)
Huring a seminar wor1sho- attended by
go!ernment em-loyees from the 9ureau of
Customs and the 9ureau
of (nternal e!enue$ &$ the s-ea1er$ in the
course of his lecture$ lamented the fact that
a great ma0ority of those ser!ing 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$ <led a
criminal com-laint against & for uttering
what the grou- claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer. (n court$ & <led a
motion to 2uash the information$ reciting
fully the abo!e facts$ on the ground that no
crime were committed. (f you were the
0udge$ how would you resol!e the motion#
E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
( would grant the motion to 2uash on the
ground that the facts charged do not
constitute an ofense$ since there is no
de<nite -erson or -ersons dishonored. The
crime of libel or slander$ is a crime against
honor such that the -erson or -ersons
dishonored must be identi<able e!en by
innuendoesM otherwise the crime against
honor is not committed. 7oreo!er$ & was not
ma1ing a malicious im-utation$ but merely
stating an o-inion. he was deli!ering a
lecture with no malice at all during a
seminar wor1sho-. 7alice being inherently
absent in the utterance$ the statement is not
actionable as defamatory.
Li3el (%&&6)
(n an inter!iew aired on tele!ision$ Cindee
uttered defamatory statements against
*ri1a$ a successful and re-utable
businesswoman. What crime or crimes did
Cindee commit# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Cindee committed libel for uttering
defamatory remar1s tending to cause
dishonor or discredit to *ri1a. Libel can be
committed in tele!ision -rograms or
broadcasts$ though it was not s-eci<cally
mentioned in the article since it was not yet
in e6istence then$ but is included as 8any
similar means.8 Hefamatory statements
aired on tele!ision is similar to radio$
theatrical e6hibition or cinematogra-hic
e6hibition$ which are among the modes for
the commission of libel. %&rts. A=A and A==$
"C)
Slan"er (19--)
:or some time$ bad blood had e6isted
between the two families of 7aria a4on
and 3udge @adioma who were neighbors.
:irst$ there was a boundary dis-ute between
them which was still -ending in court.
7ariaIs mother also <led an administrati!e
com-laint against the 0udge which was
howe!er dismissed. The a4ons also felt
intimidated by the -osition and alleged
infuence of their neighbor. :anning <re to
the situation was the -ractice of the
@adiomas of throwing garbage and animal
e6crement into the a4onIs -remises. (n an
e6-losion of anger$ 7aria called 3udge
@adioma 8land grabber8$ 8shameless8$ and
8hy-ocrite.8 What crime was committed by
7aria$ if any# *6-lain briefy.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
7aria committed the crime of slander or
slight defamation only because she was
under the infuence of anger. When 7aria
called 3udge @adioma a hy-ocrite and
77 of 86
land grabber she im-uted to him the
commission of crimes.
Slan"er (1996)
"ia$ a bold actress li!ing on to- foor of a
-lush condominium in 7a1ati City
sunbathed na1ed at its -enthouse e!ery
'unday morning. 'he was unaware that the
business e6ecuti!es holding ofice at the
ad0oining tall buildings re-orted to ofice
e!ery 'unday morning and$ with the use of
-owerful binoculars$ 1e-t on ga4ing at her
while she sunbathed. *!entually$ her
sunbathing became the tal1 of the town. 1)
What crime$ if any$ did "ia commit# *6-lain$
2) What crime$ if any$ did the business
e6ecuti!es commit# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) "ia did not commit a crime$ The felony
closest to ma1ing "ia criminally liable is
@ra!e 'candal$ but then such act is not to be
considered as highly scandalous and
ofensi!e against decency and good customs.
(n the <rst -lace$ it was not done in a -ublic
-lace and within -ublic 1nowledge or !iew.
&s a matter of fact it was disco!ered by the
e6ecuti!es accidentally and they ha!e to use
binoculars to ha!e -ublic and full !iew of "ia
sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business e6ecuti!es did not commit
any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasci!iousness Jas there was no o!ert lustful
act)$ or slander$ as the e!entual tal1 of the
town$ resulting from her sunbathing$ is not
directly im-uted to the business e6ecuti!es$
and besides such to-ic is not intended to
defame or -ut "ia to ridicule.
Slan"er 3y 5ee" #s9 8altreatment (199 )
Histinguish slander by deed from
maltreatment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'L&5H* 9, H**H is a crime committed
when a -erson -ublicly sub0ects another to
an act intended or calculated to cast
dishonor$ discredit or contem-t u-on the
latter. &bsent the intent to cast dishonor$
discredit$ contem-t$ or insult to the ofended
-arty$ the crime is only 7&LT*&T7*5T
under &rt$ 2CC. -ar. A$ where$ by deed$ an
ofender illLtreats another without causing
in0ury.
Slan"er #s9 Criminal Con#ersation (%&&)
Histinguish clearly but briefy between oral
defamation and criminal con!ersation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
+ral defamation$ 1nown as 'L&5H*$ 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 -enali4ed in &rt.
A=E of the e!ised "enal Code.
C(7(5&L C+5/*'&T(+5. The term is
used in ma1ing a -olite reference to se6ual
intercourse as in
certain crimes$ li1e ra-e$ seduction and
adultery. (t has no de<nite conce-t as a
crime.
M&:("++!")%:
Corpus 5elicti (%&&1)
&t a birthday -arty in 9ogo$ Cebu$ & got
into6icated and started 2uarrelling with 9
and C. &t the height of their arguments$ &
left and too1 a bolo from his house$ after
which he returned to the -arty and
threatened to stab e!erybody. 9 got scared
and ran towards the seashore$ with &
chasing him$ 9 ran u- a stee- incline along
the shore and was cornered on to- of a clif.
+ut of fear$ 9 0um-ed from the clif into the
sea$ & returned to the scene of their
confrontation and seeing that nobody was
there$ went home to slee-. The ne6t day$ 9Is
wife re-orted to the -olice station that her
husband had not yet come home. & search
was conducted by the residents of the
barangay but after almost two days$ 9 or his
body could not be located and his
disa--earance continued for the ne6t few
days. 9ased on the testimony of C and other
guests$ who had seen & and 9 on to- of the
clif$ & was arrested and charged with
7urder. (n his defense$ he claimed that
since 9Is body has not been found$ there was
no e!idence of 8cor-us delictiI and therefore$
he should be ac2uitted. (s the defense of &
tenable or not# 'tate the reason%s) for your
answer. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The defense of & is not tenable. 8Cor-us
delicti8 does not refer to the body of the
-ur-orted !ictim which had not been found.
*!en without the body of the -ur-orted
!ictim being found$ the ofender can be
con!icted when the facts and circumstances
of a crime$ the body of the crime or 8cor-us
delicti8 is established.
(n other words$ the nonLreco!ery of the body
of the !ictim is not a bar to the -rosecution
of & for 7urder$ but the fact of death and
identity of the !ictim must be established
beyond reasonable doubt.
Corpus 5elicti; 5efinition @ +lements (%&&&)
a) He<ne 8cor-us delicti8. %2>) b)
What are the elements of 8cor-us
delicti8# %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Corpus =elicti literally means 8the body or
substance of the crime8 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).
Elements of corpus elicti:
The actual commission by someone of the
-articular crime charged. (t is a com-ound
fact made u- of two thingsM
1 The e6istence of a certain act or result
forming the basis of the criminal charge.
and
2 The e6istence of a criminal agency as the
cause of the act or result
3 The identity of the ofender is not a
necessary element of cor-us delicti
78 of 86
+ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (1996)
Histinguished entra-ment from
(nstigation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n (5'T(@&T(+5$ the instigator -ractically
induces the -ros-ecti!e accused into
commission of the ofense and himself
becomes coL-rinci-al. (n *5T&"7*5T$
ways and means are resorted to for the
-ur-ose of tra--ing and ca-turing the
lawbrea1er while e6ecuting his criminal
-lan.
(nstigation %1FF=) 'us-ecting that 3uan was
a drug -usher$ '"+2 7ercado$ leader of the
5arcom team$ ga!e 3uan a "lDDLbill and
as1ed him to buy some mari0uana cigarettes.
Hesirous of -leasing '"+2 7ercado$ 3uan
went inside the sho--ing mall while the
oficer waited at the corner of the mall. &fter
<fteen minutes$ 3uan returned with ten
stic1s of mari0uana cigarettes which he ga!e
to '"+2 7ercado who thereu-on -laced
3uan under arrest and charged him with
!iolation of The Hangerous Hrugs Law by
selling mari0uana cigarettes. (s 3uan guilty of
any ofense -unishable under The
Hangerous Hrugs &ct# Hiscuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
3uan cannot be charged of any ofense
-unishable under The Hangerous Hrugs &ct.
&lthough 3uan is a sus-ected drug -usher$
he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere
sus-icion. 9y -ro!iding the money with
which to buy mari0uana cigarettes$ '"+2
7ercado -ractically induced and -rodded
3uan to commit the ofense of illegal
-ossession of mari0uana. 'et against the
facts instigation is a !alid defense a!ailable
to 3uan.
+ntrapment #s9 2nstigation (%&&1)
Histinguish fully between entra-ment and
instigation in Criminal Law$ *6em-lify each.
G>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
(n *5T&"7*5T L
1 the criminal design originates
from and is already in the mind of
the lawbrea1er e!en before
entra-ment.
2 the law enforcers resort to ways
and means for the -ur-ose of
ca-turing the lawbrea1er in
fagrante delictoL and
3 this circumstance is no bar to
-rosecution and con!iction of the
lawbrea1er.
(n (5'T(@&T(+5L
1 the idea and design to bring about
the commission of the crime
originated and de!elo-ed in the
mind of the law enforcers.
2 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 crime. and
3 this circumstance absol!es the
accused from criminal liability
(People v. 9a&te $ar5os, 18' SC!
1'4. ?199)=).
Example of Entrapment:
&$ an antiLnarcotic agent of the @o!ernment
acted as a -oseur buyer of shabu and
negotiated with 9$ a sus-ected drug -usher
who is unaware that & is a -olice oficer. &
then issued mar1ed money to 9 who handed
a sachet of shabu to 9. Thereu-on$ &
signaled his antiLnarcotic team to closeLin
and arrest 9. This is a case of entra-ment
because the criminal mind is in 9 already
when & transacted with him.
Example of Instigation:
9ecause the members of an antiLnarcotic
team are already 1nown to drug -ushers. &$
the team leader$ a--roached and -ersuaded
9 to act as a buyer of shabu and transact
with C$ the sus-ected drug -usher. :or the
-ur-ose$ & ga!e 9 mar1ed money to be used
in buying shabu from
C. &fter C handed the sachet of shabu to 9
and the latter handed the mar1ed money to
C$ the team closedLin and -laced 9 and C
under arrest. Bnder the facts$ 9 is not
criminally liable for his -artici-ation in the
transaction because he was acting only
under instigation by the law enforcers.
S0"(&+ P"!+ L.:
(nti,Carnapping (ct; Carnapping wD >omici"e (199-)
'amuel$ a tricycle dri!er$ -lied his usual
route using a )onda motorcycle with a
sidecar. +ne e!ening$ aul rode on the
sidecar$ -o1ed a 1nife at 'amuel and
instructed him to go near the bridge. B-on
reaching the bridge$ aul alighted from the
motorcycle and suddenly stabbed 'amuel
se!eral times until he was dead. aul fed
from the scene ta1ing the motorcycle with
him. What crime or crimes did aul commit#
\=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
aul committed the com-osite crime of
Carna--ing with homicide under 'ec. 1G of
e-. &ct 5o. C=AF$ as amended$ considering
that the 1illing 8in the course or 8on the
occasion of a carna--ing (People vs. 9e la
Cr#0, et al. 183 SC! 163). & motorcycle is
included in the de<nition of a 8motor
!ehicle8 in said e-. &ct$ also 1nown as the
I&ntiLCarna--ing &ct of 1FQ2I. There is no
a--arent moti!e for the 1illing of the tricycle
dri!er but for aul to be able to ta1e the
motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle dri!er
was 1illed brings about the -enalty of
reclusion -er-etua to death.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The crime committed by aul is carna--ing$
-unished by 'ection 1G of e-. &ct 5o. C=AF.
The 1illing of 'amuel is not a se-arate crime
but only an aggra!ating circumstance.
(nti,Graft @ Corrupt Practices , 0( 1&19 (199*)
& is charged with the crime de<ned in
'ection A%e) of the &ntiL@raft and Corru-t
"ractices &ct in an (nformation that readsM
That from D1 to AD 3anuary 1FF=$ in the City of
"asig and within the 0urisdiction of this )onorable
Court$ the accused$ being then em-loyed in the +fice of
the Histrict *ngineer$ He-artment of "ublic Wor1s
and
79 of 86
)ighways and in the discharge of his
oficial administrati!e functions$ did then
and there willfully and unlawfully wor1 for
and facilitate the a--ro!al of 9Is claim for
the -ayment of the -rice of his land which
the go!ernment had e6-ro-riated$ and
after the claim was a--ro!ed$ the accused
ga!e 9 only "1$DDD.DD of the a--ro!ed
claim of "=$DDD and willfully and
unlawfully a--ro-riated for himself the
balance of "G$DDD$ thus causing undue
in0ury to 9 and the @o!ernment.8
& has <led a motion to 2uash the
information$ contending that it does not
charge an ofense. (s he correct#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the contention of & is correct. The
information failed to allege that the undue
in0ury to 9 and the go!ernment was caused
by the accusedIs manifest -artiality$ e!ident
bad faith$ or gross (ne6cusable negligence$
which are necessary elements of the ofense
charged$ ie.$ !iolation of 'ection A%e) of the
&ntiL@raft and Corru-t "ractices &ct. The
accused is em-loyed in the +fice of the
Histrict *ngineer of the H"W) which has
nothing to do with the determination and
<6ing of the -rice of the land e6-ro-riated$
and for which e6-ro-riated land the
@o!ernment is legally obligated to -ay. There
is no allegation in the information that the
land was o!er-riced or that the -ayment of
the amount was disad!antageous to the
@o!ernment. (t a--ears that the charge was
solely based on the accused ha!ing followed
u- the -ayment for 9Is land which the
@o!ernment has already a--ro-riated$ and
that the accused e!entually withheld for
himself from the -rice of the said land$ the
amount of "G$DDD for his ser!ices. 5o
!iolation of 'ection A%e) of the &ntiL@raft and
Corru-t &ct a--ears. &t most$ the accused
should be merely charged administrati!ely
ALTERNATI6E ANSWERS3
1. ,es$ & is correct in <ling a motion to
2uash the information because 'ection A%e)
of e-ublic &ct AD1F a--lies only to oficers
and em-loyees of go!ernment cor-orations
charged with the grant of licenses or -ermits
or other concessions$ and not to H"W)$
which is not a go!ernment cor-oration.
2. & is not correct. (n the case of 7eforda
!s. 'andiganbayan. 1=1 'C& AFF$ which
in!ol!es a substantially identical information
as the (nformation 2uoted in the 2uestion$
the 'u-reme Court held that the (nformation
was !alid. While it is true that the
information 2uoted (n the 2uestion$ failed to
allege e!ident bad faith$ gross ine6cusable
negligence or manifest -artiality$ said
(nformation (s ne!ertheless ade2uate
because it a!erred the three %A) elements for
the !iolation of 'ection A%c) of &. AD12
when it stated %1) that the accused is a -ublic
oficer at the time of the commission of the
crime$ being em-loyed in the +fice of the
Histrict *ngineer$ H"W). %2) that the
accused caused undue (n0ury to 9 and the
@o!ernment$ with the statement that 9T the
owner of the land$ recei!ed only "1$DDD.DD
instead of the full !alue of "=$DDD.DD. and %A)
that in the discharge of &Is oficial
administrati!e functions$ he 8did then and
there willfully and unlawfully wor1 for and
facilitate the a--ro!al of his claim 666 and
8willfully and unlawfully a--ro-riate for
himself the balance of "G$DDD.DD 6 6 68. &n
information need not em-loy or use the !ery
words or language of the statute. (t may also
use words or language of similar im-ort.
(nti,>aHing law I 0( -&9 (%&&%)
;hat is haEing as e*ne by law+
315,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
)a4ing$ as de<ned by law$ is an initiation rite
or -ractice as a -rere2uisite for admission
into membershi- in a fraternity$ sorority or
organi4ation 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 tas1s or
acti!ities or otherwise sub0ecting him to
-hysical or -sychological sufering or in0ury.
;hat oes the law re!uire before
initiation rites may be performe+ 3?5,
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
'ection 2 of e-. &ct 5o. EDGF %&ntiL)a4ing
Law) re2uires that before ha4ing or
initiation rites may be -erformed$ notice to
the school authorities or head of
organi4ations shall be gi!en se!en %Q) days
before the conduct of such rites. The written
notice shall indicate %a) the -eriod of the
initiation acti!ities$ not e6ceeding three
%A) days. %b) the names of those to be
sub0ected to such acti!ities$ and %c) an
underta1ing that no -hysical !iolence shall
be em-loyed by anybody during such
initiation rites.
C>2L5 (A'S+; 0( *61& (%&&)
7rs. 75& was charged of child abuse. (t
a--ears from the e!idence that she failed to
gi!e immediately the re2uired medical
attention to her ado-ted child$ 9"+$ when he
was accidentally bum-ed by her car$
resulting in his head in0uries and im-aired
!ision that could lead to night blindness. The
accused$ according to the social wor1er on
the case$ used to whi- him when he failed to
come home on time from school. &lso$ to
-unish him for carelessness in washing
dishes$ she sometimes sent him to bed
without su--er.
'he mo!ed to 2uash the charge on the
ground that there is no e!idence she
maltreated her ado-ted child habitually. 'he
added that the accident was caused by her
dri!erIs negligence. 'he did -unish her ward
for naughtiness or carelessness$ but only
mildly. (s her motion meritorious# eason
briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the motion to 2uash is not meritorious.
(t is not necessary that mo!antIs
maltreatment of a child be 8habitual8 to
constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts
-enali4ed as 8Child &buse8 under e-. &ct
5o. QC1D refers to the maltreatment of the
child$ 8whether habitual or not8M this is
e6-ressly stated in 'ec. 2%b) of the said Law.
7rs. 75& should be liable for child abuse.
80 of 86
Chil" (3use; 0( *61& (%&&6)
*duardo ?uintos$ a widower for the -ast 1D
years$ felt that his retirement at the age of
QD ga!e him the o--ortunity to engage in his
fa!orite -astime [ !oyeurism. (f not using
his highL-owered binoculars to -ee- at his
neighborIs homes and domestic acti!ities$ his
second choice was to follow sweet young
girls. +ne day$ he trailed a teenage girl u- to
the LT station at *H'&L9uendia. While
ascending the stairs$ he stayed one ste-
behind her and in a moment of bra!ado$
-laced his hand on her left hi- and gently
massaged it. 'he screamed and shouted for
hel-. *duardo was arrested and charged
with acts of lasci!iousness. (s the
designation of the crime correct# %=>)
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
The crime should be +ther &cts of Child
&buse under 'ection 1D of &. QC1D$ -ar. b
of 'ection A 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$ 'ection 1D
-ro!ides criminal liability for other acts of
child abuse$ cruelty or e6-loitation$ or for
other conditions -re0udicial to the childIs
de!elo-ment. The reaction of the !ictim$
screaming for hel- u-on the occurrence of
the touching indicates that she -ercei!ed
her dignity was being debased or !iolated.
5angerous 5rug (ct4 Plea,Aargaining (%&&6)
+bie 3uan is sus-ected to ha!e in his
-ossession an uns-eci<ed amount of
metham-hetamine hydrochloride or XshabuY.
&n entra-ment o-eration was conducted by
-olice oficers$ resulting in his arrest
following the disco!ery of 1DD grams of the
said dangerous drug in his -ossession. )e
was sub0ected to a drug test and was found
-ositi!e for the use of mari0uana$ another
dangerous drug. )e was subse2uently
charged with two crimesM /iolation of
'ection 11$ &rticle (( of & F1C= for the
-ossession of XshabuY and !iolation of
'ection 1=$ &rticle (( of & F1C= for the use
of mari0uana. %=>)
a, Are the charges proper+
Explain2
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. The use of dangerous drugs is not
committed when +bie 3uan was also found
to ha!e in his -ossession such 2uantity of
any dangerous drug. (See s. 11 a&% 16, !.
No. 916')
b, So as not to be sentence to eath)
$bie Juan o9ers to plea guilty to a
lesser o9ense2 Can he o so+ ;hy+
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o. +bie 3uan cannot -lead guilty to a lower
ofense as it is -rohibited under the law.
%'ection 2A$ &. 5o. F1C=) &ny -erson
charged under any -ro!ision of this &ct
regardless of the im-osable -enalty shall
not be allowed to a!ail of the -ro!ision on
-leaLbargaining.
5angerous 5rugs (ct (199-)
'u-erintendent &l 'antiago$ Chief of the
5arcotics Hi!ision$ Western "olice Histrict$
recei!ed information that a certain Lee Lay
ofL5o. E Tindalo 'treet$ Tondo$
7anila is a member of the 1GP @ang selling
shabu and mari0uana. '"+l Loren4o and
'"+A "eralta were instructed to conduct
sur!eillance and buyLbust o-erations against
Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a
meeting was arranged at T. "in-in
estaurant at
2MDD in the afternoon on :ebruary 1G$ 1FFA.
'"+1 Loren4o and '"+A "eralta$ acting as
-oseurLbuyers$ -urchased from Lay 1D stic1s
of mari0uana and -aid "=DD. Later$ Lay
agreed to sell to them one 1ilo of dried
mari0uana fruiting to-s which he ga!e them
at his residence.
The -olicemen arrested Lay and a search
was conducted. :ound were A=C grams of
mari0uana seeds$ FA2 grams of mari0uana
fruiting to-s and =D stic1s of mari0uana
cigarettes. What ofense or ofenses did Lay
commit# J=>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Lay committed the ofenses of illegal selling
of dangerous drugs and illegal -ossession of
dangerous drugs which should be made
sub0ect of se-arate informations.
The crime of illegal selling of dangerous
drugs is committed as regards the 1D stic1s
of mari0uana and as regards the one %1) 1ilo
of dried mari0uana fruiting to-s$ which
should be sub0ect of two %2) se-arate
informations because the acts were
committed at diferent times and in diferent
-laces.
The crime of (llegal -ossession of dangerous
drugs is committed as regards the mari0uana
seeds$ mari0uana fruiting to-s and mari0uana
cigarettes which are not the sub0ect of the
sale. &nother information shall be <led for
this.
5angerous 5rugs (ct (%&&6)
&fter recei!ing reliable information that
Hante +ng$ a notorious drug smuggler$ was
arri!ing on "&L :light 5+. " 1E1$ "5"
Chief (ns-ector 'amuel @amboa formed a
grou- of antiLdrug agents. When +ng arri!ed
at the air-ort$ the grou- arrested him and
sei4ed his attache case. B-on ins-ection
inside the (mmigration holding area$ the
attache case yielded = -lastic bags of heroin
weighing =DD grams. Chief (ns-ector
@amboa too1 the attache case and boarded
him in an unmar1ed car dri!en by "+A "e-ito
Lorbes. +n the way to Cam- Crame and u-on
nearing White "lains corner *H'&$ Chief
(ns-ector @amboa ordered "+A Lorbes to
sto- the car. They brought out the drugs
from the case in the trun1 and got A -lastic
sac1s of heroin. They then told +ng to alight
from the car. +ng left with the 2 remaining
-lastic sac1s of heroin. Chief (ns-ector
@amboa ad!ised him to 1ee- silent and go
home which the latter did. Bn1nown to them$
an 59( team of agents had been following
them and witnessed the transaction. They
arrested Chief (ns-ector @amboa and "+A
Lorbes. 7eanwhile$ another 59( team
followed +ng and li1ewise arrested him. &ll
of them were later charged. What are their
res-ecti!e criminal liabilities# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
81 of 86
Chief (ns-ector @amboa and "+A "e-ito
Lorbes who cons-ired in ta1ing the attache
case are liable for the following crimes
de<ned under &. F1C=M a) 'ec. 2Q for
misa--ro-riation or failure to account for
the con<scated or sei4ed dangerous drugs.
b) 'ec. G in relation to 'ec. A%ee) for their
acts as -rotector;coddler of Hante +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 2uali<ed bribery
under &rt. 211L& of the e!ised "enal Code.
With res-ect to Hante +ng$ he is guilty of
illegal im-ortation of dangerous drugs under
'ec. G$ .&. F1C=$ if " 1E1 is an
international fight. (f " 1E1 is a domestic
fight$ he is liable for !iolation of 'ec. =$ &.
F1C= for illegal trans-ortation of dangerous
drugs.
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6%6); 8arGe" 8oney (%&&&)
&t about F oIcloc1 in the morning$ a 5arcom
@rou- laid a -lan to entra- and a--rehend
&$ a long sus-ected drug dealer$ through a
8buyLbust8 o-eration. &t the a--ointed time$
the -oseurLbuyer a--roached & who was
then with
9. & mar1ed "1DD bill was handed o!er to &
who in turn$ ga!e the -oseurLbuyer one %1)
tea bag of mari0uana lea!es. The members of
the team$ who were then -ositioned behind
thic1 lea!es$ closed in but e!idently were not
swift enough since & and 9 were able to run
away. Two days later$ & was arrested in
connection with another incident. (t a--ears
that during the o-erations$ the -olice
oficers were not able to sei4e the mar1ed
money but were able to get -ossession of the
mari0uana tea bag. & was subse2uently
-rosecuted for !iolation of 'ection G$ &rticle
(( of e-ublic &ct 5o. CG2=$ otherwise
1nown as the Hangerous Hrugs &ct$ Huring
the trial$ the mar1ed money was not
-resented. Can & be held liable# *6-lain.
%2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. & can be held liable. The absence of the
mar1ed money will not create a hiatus in the
-rosecutionIs e!idence as long as the sale of
the dangerous drugs is ade2uately -ro!en
and the drug sub0ect 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.
Hervo#laBos, *41 SC! 6*').
5angerous 5rugs (ct (6%6); Plea Aargaining (199-)
*dgardo was charged with im-ortation of
-rohibited drugs in an information <led with
the egional Trial Court of Paloo1an City on
3une G$ 1FFG. The ofense is -unishable by
reclusion -er-etua to death. Can *dgardo
a!ail of -leaLbargaining# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ *dgardo cannot a!ail of -leaLbargaining
because the im-osable -enalty for his
!iolation of the Hangerous Hrugs &ct %.&.
5o. CG2=. as amended) is reclusion -er-etua
to death. 'ection 2DL& e6-ressly -ro!ides
that -leaLbargaining shall not be allowed
where the im-osable
-enalty for the !iolation of said law is
reclusion -er-etua to death. %'ec. 2DL&$
.&. 5o. CG2=$ as amended).
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Consummation of Sale (1996)
"at. 9uensuceso$ -osing as a buyer$
a--roached onnie$ a sus-ected drug
-usher$ and ofered to buy "ADD worth of
shabu. onnie then left$ came bac1 <!e
minutes later and handed "at$ 9uensuceso
an aluminum foil containing the shabu.
)owe!er$ before "at$ 9uensuceso was able
to deli!er the mar1ed money to onnie$ the
latter s-otted a -oliceman at a distance$
whom onnie 1new to be connected with the
5arcotics Command of the "olice. B-on
seeing the latter$ onnie ran away but was
arrested thirty minutes later by other
-olicemen who -ursued him. Bnder the
circumstances$ would you consider the
crime of sale of a -rohibited drug already
consummated# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ the sale of -rohibited drug is already
consummated although the mar1ed money
was not yet deli!ered. When onnie handed
the aluminum foil containing the shabu to
"at. 9uensuceso -ursuant to their agreed
sale$ the crime was consummated. "ayment
of the consideration is not an element of
re2uisite of the crime. (f e!er$ the mar1ed
money is only e!identiary to strengthen the
case of the -rosecution.
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Criminal 2ntent to Posses (%&&%)
& and his <ancee 9 were wal1ing in the
-la4a when they met a grou- of -olicemen
who had earlier been ti--ed of that & was
in -ossession of -rohibited drugs. B-on
seeing the -olicemen and sensing that they
were after him$ & handed a sachet
containing shabu to his <ancee 9$ telling her
to hide it in her handbag. The -olicemen
saw 9 -lacing the sachet inside her
handbag. (f 9 was unaware that & was a
drug user or -usher or that what was inside
the sachet gi!en to her was shabu$ is she
nonetheless liable under the Hangerous
Hrugs &ct# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ 9 will not be criminally liable because
she is unaware that & was a drug user or
-usher or of the content of the sachet
handed to her by &$ and therefore the
criminal intent to -ossess the drug in
!iolation of the Hangerous Hrugs &ct is
absent. There would be no basis to im-ute
criminal liability to her in the absence of
animus -ossidendi.
5angerous 5rugs (ct; Plea,Aargaining (%&&)
75+$ who is AD years old$ was charged as a
drug -usher under the Com-rehensi!e
Hangerous Hrugs &ct of 2DD2. Huring -reL
trial$ he ofered to -lead guilty to the lesser
ofense concerning use of dangerous drugs.
'hould the 3udge allow 75+Is -lea to the
lesser ofense# *6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the 3udge should not allow 75+Is -lea
to a lesser ofense$ because -leaLbargaining
in -rosecutions of drugLrelated cases is no
longer allowed by e-. &ct 5o. F1C=$
82 of 86
the Com-rehensi!e Hangerous Hrugs &ct of
2DD2$ regardless of the im-osable -enalty.
>ighway 0o33ery (%&&1)
"olice 'gt. Hiego Chan$ being a member of
the Theft and obbery Hi!ision of the
Western "olice Histrict and assigned to the
'outh )arbor$ 7anila$ was -ri!y to and more
or less familiar with the schedules$ routes
and hours of the mo!ements of container
!ans$ as well as the mobile -olice -atrols$
from the -ier area to the diferent e6-ort
-rocessing 4ones outside 7etro 7anila.
:rom time to time$ he ga!e !aluable and
detailed information on these matters to a
grou- interested in those shi-ments in said
container !ans. +n se!eral instances$ using
the said information as their basis$ the gang
hi0ac1ed and -ilfered the contents of the
!ans. "rior to their sale to 8fences8 in
9anawe$ ?ue4on City and 9ang1al$ 7a1ati
City$ the gang (nforms 'gt$ Chan who then
ins-ects the -ilfered goods$ ma1es his
choice of the !aluable items and dis-oses of
them through his own sources or 8fences8.
When the high0ac1ers were traced on one
occasion and arrested$ u-on custodial
in!estigation$ they im-licated 'gt. Chan and
the <scal charged them all$ including 'gt.
Chan as coL-rinci-als. 'gt. Chan$ in his
defense$ claimed that he should not be
charged as a -rinci-al but only as an
accessory after the fact under
".H. =A2$ otherwise 1nown as the &ntiL"iracy
and &ntiL)ighway obbery &ct of 1FQ2. (s
the contention of 'gt. Chan !alid and
tenable# *6-lain$ %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ the contention of 'gt. Chan is not !alid
or tenable because by e6-ress -ro!ision of
".H. =A2$ 'ection G$ a -erson who 1nowingly
and in any manner$ aids or -rotects highway
robbers;brigands$ such as gi!ing them
information about the mo!ement of -olice
oficers or ac2uires or recei!es -ro-erty
ta1en by brigands$ or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway
robbery;brigandage$ shall be considered as
accom-lice of the -rinci-al ofenders and
-unished in accordance with the rules in the
e!ised "enal Code.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
5o$ the contention of 'gt. 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.
&n accessory after the fact in!ol!es himself
in the commission of a crime only after the
crime had already been consummated$ not
before$ :or his criminal -artici-ation in the
e6ecution of the high0ac1ing of the container
!ans$ 'gt. Chan is a coL-rinci-al by
indis-ensable coo-eration.
2llegal .ishing , P5 *& (1996)
B-on a laboratory e6amination of the <sh
sei4ed by the -olice and agents of the
:isheries Commission$ it was indubitably
determined that the <sh they were selling
were caught with the use of e6-losi!es.
&ccordingly$ the three !endors were
criminally charged with the !iolation
of 'ection AA of ".H. QDG which ma1es it
unlawful for any -erson to 1nowingly
-ossess$ deal in$ or sell for -ro<t any <sh
which ha!e been illegally caught. Huring the
trial$ the three !endors claimed that they
bought the <sh from a <shing boat which
they duly identi<ed. The -rosecution
howe!er claimed that the three !endors
should ne!ertheless be held liable for the
ofense as they were the ones caught in
-ossession of the <sh illegally caught. +n
the basis of the abo!e facts$ if you were the
0udge$ would you con!ict the three <sh
!endors# *6-lain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ ( would not con!ict the three <sh
!endors if ( were the 0udge. 7ere -ossession
of such <sh without 1nowledge of the fact
that the same were caught with the use of
e6-losi!es does not by itself render the
sellerL-ossessor criminally liable under ".H.
QDG. &lthough the act -enali4ed in said
Hecree may be a malum -rohibitum$ the law
-unishes the -ossession$ dealing in or selling
of such <sh only when 81nowingly8 done that
the <sh were caught with the use of
e6-losi!es. hence criminal intent is essential.
The claim by the <sh !endors that they only
bought the <sh from <shing boats which they
8duly identi<ed8$ renders their -ossession of
such <sh innocent unless the -rosecution
could -ro!e that they ha!e 1nowledge that
e6-losi!es were used in catching such <sh$
and the accused had 1nowledge thereof.
2llegal Possession of .irearms I 0( -%9 (199-)
'u--osing a -ublic school teacher
-artici-ated in a cou- dIetat using an
unlicensed <rearm. What crime or crimes
did he commit# J2>K
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The -ublic school teacher committed only
cou- dIetat for his -artici-ation therein. )is
use of an unlicensed <rearm is absorbed in
the cou- dIetat under the new <rearms law
%e-. &ct 5o. E2FG). & -rosecution for
illegal -ossession of <rearm under the new
law is allowed only if the unlicensed <rearm
was not used in the commission of another
crime.
2llegal Possession of .irearms @ (mmunitions (%&&&)
& has long been wanted by the -olice
authorities for !arious crimes committed by
him. &cting on an information by a ti-ster$
the -olice -roceeded to an a-artment where
& was often seen. The ti-ster also warned
the -olicemen that & was always armed. &t
the gi!en address$ a lady who introduced
herself as the elder sister of &$ o-ened the
door and let the -olicemen in inside$ the
team found & slee-ing on the foor.
(mmediately beside him was a clutch bag
which$ when o-ened$ contained a .AE caliber
-alti1 re!ol!er and a hand grenade. &fter
!eri<cation$ the authorities disco!ered that &
was not a licensed holder of the .AE caliber
-alti1 re!ol!er. &s for the hand grenade$ it
was established that only military -ersonnel
are authori4ed to carry hand grenades.
'ubse2uently$ & was charged with the crime
of (llegal "ossession of :irearms and
&mmunition. Huring trial$ & maintained that
the bag containing the unlicensed <rearm
and hand grenade belonged to &$ his friend$
and
83 of 86
that he was not in actual -ossession thereof
at the time he was arrested. &re the
allegations meritorious# *6-lain. %A>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
&Is allegations are not meritorious.
+wnershi- is not an essential element of the
crime of illegal -ossession of <rearms and
ammunition. What the law re2uires is merely
-ossession$ which includes not only actual
-hysical -ossession but also constructi!e
-ossession where the <rearm and e6-losi!e
are sub0ect to oneIs control and
management. (People #s. 9e (re5ia, *33 SC!
116" U.S. vs. +#a&, *3 Phil. 1)'A People vs. So3a2,
11) Phil. '6').
P5 6 @ 0( 6*11 @ 2n"irect Ari3ery (%&&6)
Commissioner 7arian Torres of the 9ureau of
internal e!enue %9() wrote solicitation
letters addressed to the :ili-inoLChinese
Chamber of Commerce and (ndustry and to
certain C*+s of !arious multinational
cor-orations re2uesting donations of gifts for
her ofice Christmas -arty. 'he used the
9ureauIs oficial stationery. The res-onse was
-rom-t and o!erwhelming so much so that
Commissioner TorresI ofice was
o!ercrowded with rice coo1ers$ radio sets$
free4ers$ electric sto!es and toasters. )er
staf also recei!ed se!eral en!elo-es
containing cash money for the em-loyeesI
Christmas luncheon. )as Commissioner
Torres committed any im-ro-riety or
irregularity# What laws or decrees did she
!iolate# %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es$ Commissioner Torres !iolated the
followingM
1. &. CQ1A [ Code of Conduct and *thical
'tandards for "ublic +ficials and
*m-loyees when he solicited and acce-t
gifts %'ec. QJdK).
2. ".H. GC [ 7a1ing it -unishable for -ublic
oficials and em-loyees to recei!e$ and for
-ri!ate -ersons to gi!e$ gifts on any
occasion$ including Christmas.
A. (ndirect 9ribery %&rt. 211$ e!ised
"enal Code) for recei!ing gifts ofered by
reason of ofice.
P5 6 (199)
@ino was a--ointed Collector of Customs
and was assigned at the 5inoy &2uino
(nternational &ir-ort$ @erry$ an im-orter$
hosted a dinner for 1DD -ersons at the
Westin "hili--ine "la4a in honor of @ino.
What are the ofense or ofenses committed
by @ino and @erry#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
9oth @ino and @erry are liable for !iolation
of "residential Hecree 5o. GC$ which
-unishes any -ublic oficial or em-loyee who
recei!es$ directly or indirectly$ and for
-ri!ate -ersons who gi!e$ ofer any gift$
-resent or !aluable thing on any occasion$
including Christmas$ when such gift or
!aluable thing is gi!en by reason of his
oficial -osition$ regardless of whether or not
the same is for -ast fa!or or fa!ors$ or the
gi!er ho-es or e6-ects to recei!e a fa!or or
better treatment in the future. 9eing an
im-orter$ @erry reasonably e6-ects future
fa!or from @ino. (ncluded within the
-rohibition is the throwing of -arties or
entertainment in honor of the oficial or
em-loyee or of his immediate relati!es.
84
of
86
P5 6 (199*)
&$ who is the -ri!ate com-lainant in a
murder case -ending before a egional Trial
Court 3udge$ ga!e a 0udge a Christmas gift$
consisting of big bas1et of assorted canned
goods and bottles of e6-ensi!e wines$ easily
worth "1D.DDD.DD. The 0udge acce-ted the
gift 1nowing it came from &. What crime or
crimes$ if any$ were committed#
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The 3udge committed the crime of (ndirect
bribery under &rt. 211 of the e!ised "enal
Code. The gift was ofered to the 3udge by
reason of his ofice. (n addition$ the 3udge
will be liable for the !iolation of ".H. GC
which -unishes the recei!ing of gifts by
-ubic oficials and em-loyees on occasions
li1e Christmas.
Plun"er un"er 0( *&-&; Prescripti#e Perio" (1991)
Through 1ic1bac1s$ -ercentages or
commissions and other fraudulent
schemes ;con!eyances and ta1ing ad!antage
of his -osition$ &ndy$ a former mayor of a
suburban town$ ac2uired assets amounting
to "1D billion which is grossly
dis-ro-ortionate to his lawful income. Hue to
his infuence and connections and des-ite
1nowledge by the authorities of his (llLgotten
wealth$ he was charged with the crime of
-lunder only after twenty
%2D) years from his defeat in the last
elections he -artici-ated in. 1) 7ay &ndy
still be held criminally liable# Why# 2) Can
the 'tate still reco!er the -ro-erties and
assets that he illegally ac2uired$ the bul1 of
which is in the name of his wife and
children# eason out.
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
1) &ndy will not be criminally liable because
'ection C of & QDED -ro!ides that the
crime -unishable under this &ct shall
-rescribe in twenty years and the -roblem
as1ed whether &ndy can still be charged
with the crime of -lunder after 2D years.
2) ,es$ because 'ection C -ro!ides that
reco!ery of -ro-erties unlawfully ac2uired
by -ublic oficers from them or their
nominees or transferees shall not be barred
by -rescri-tion$ laches or esto--el.
09(9 <o9 916& (nti,8oney Laun"ering (ct (%&&6)
Hon @abito$ a -hilanthro-ist$ ofered to fund
se!eral -ro0ects of the 7ayor. )e o-ened an
account in the 7ayorUs name and regularly
de-osited !arious amounts ranging from
"=DD$DDD.DD to "1 7illion. :rom this
account$ the 7ayor withdrew and used the
money for constructing feeder roads$
barangay clinics$ re-airing schools and for
all other munici-al -ro0ects. (t was
subse2uently disco!ered that Hon @abito
was actually a 0ueteng o-erator and the
amounts he de-osited were -roceeds from
his 0ueteng o-erations. What crime;s were
committed# Who are criminally liable#
*6-lain. %C>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
Don Gabito violat! t" Anti-#on$ La%n!rin& A't ((') 4*
+)A) ,o) 9160) -or .nowin&l$ tran/a'tin& mon$
a/ 0ro0rt$ w"i'" involv/ or rlat/ to t" 0ro'!/ o- an
%nlaw-%l a'tivit$ /%'" a/ 1%tn&) 2n a!!ition* " ma$ b
0ro/'%t! -or liabilit$ a/ a1%tn& o0rator) (+)A) ,o) 9234)
The mayor who allowed the o-ening of an
account in his name is li1ewise guilty for
!iolation of the &7L&. )e$ 1nowing that the
money instrument or -ro-erty in!ol!es the
-roceeds of an unlawful acti!ity$ -erforms
or fails to -erform any act which results in
the facilitation of money laundering.
0a 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (1999)
& -ublic oficer was accused before the
'andiganbayan of a !iolation of 'ection A %e)
of & 5o. AD1F$ the &ntiL@raft and Corru-t
"ractices &ct. 3ust after arraignment and
e!en before e!idence was -resented$ the
'andiganbayan issued an order for his
sus-ension -endente lite. The accused
2uestioned the said +rder contending that it
is !iolati!e of the constitutional -ro!ision
against an e6 -ost facto law. Will you sustain
the ob0ection of the accused# Why# J2>K
%c) What -reLconditions are necessary to be
met or satis<ed before -re!enti!e
sus-ension may be ordered# %2>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
%b) 5o$ ( will not sustain the ob0ection of
the accused. 'us-ension of the accused
-endente lite is not !iolati!e of the
constitutional -ro!ision against e6L-ost
facto law. *6L-ost facto law means ma1ing
an innocent act a crime before it is made
-unishable.
%c) The -reLconditions necessary to be met or
satis<ed before a sus-ension may be ordered
areM %1) there must be -ro-er notice
re2uiring the accused to show cause at a
s-eci<c date of hearing why he should not be
ordered sus-ended from ofice -ursuant to
& AD1F$ as amended. and %2) there must be
a determination of a !alid information
against the accused that warrants his
sus-ension.
0( 1&19; Pre#enti#e Suspension (%&&&)
& month after the arraignment of 9rad Pit
Commissioner of the )ousing and Land Bse
egulatory 9oard$ who was charged with
!iolation of 'ection A %h) of e-ublic &ct
AD1F J&ntiL@raft and Corru-t "ractices &ct)
before the 'andiganbayan$ the +fice of the
'-ecial "rosecutor <led a 7otion to 'us-end
&ccused "endente Lite -ursuant to 'ection
1A of the &ntiL@raft Law. The Court granted
the motion and sus-ended accused 9rad Pit
for a -eriod of FD days. &ccused assailed the
constitutional !alidity of the sus-ension order
on the ground that it -arta1es of a -enalty
before 3udgment of con!iction is reached and
is thus !iolati!e of his constitutional right to
be -resumed innocent. )e also claimed that
this -ro!ision of the law on sus-ension
-endente lite a--lies only to electi!e oficials
and not to a--ointed ones li1e him. ule with
reasons. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The sus-ension order does not -arta1e of a
-enalty and is thus not !iolati!e of 9rad
PitIs constitutional right to
be -resumed innocent. Bnder the law$ the
accused -ublic oficers shall be sus-ended
from ofice while the criminal -rosecution is
-ending in court %'ec. 1A$ &. AD1F). 'uch
-re!enti!e sus-ension is mandatory to
-re!ent the accused from ham-ering the
normal course of the in!estigation %ios !s.
'andiganbayan$2QF 'C& =E1 %1FFQ). 9unye
!s. *scareal 22C 'C& AA2 %1FFA)). 5either
is there merit in 9rad PitIs claim that the
-ro!ision on sus-ension -endente lite a--lies
only to electi!e oficials and not to a--ointed
ones li1e him. (t a--lies to all -ublic oficials
(ndicted u-on a !alid information under &.
5o. AD1F$ whether they be a--ointi!e or
electi!e oficials. or -ermanent or tem-orary
em-loyees$ or -ertaining to the career or
noncareer ser!ice %'ego!ia !s.
'andiganbayan$ 2EE 'C& A2E J1FFEK).
0( 1&19; Pu3lic =fficer (%&&1)
The Central 9an1 %9ang1o 'entral ng
"ili-inas}$ by a resolution of the monetary
board$ hires Theof 'to Tomas$ a retired
manager of a leading ban1 as a consultant.
Theof later recei!es a !aluable gift from a
ban1 under in!estigation by the Central
9an1. 7ay Theof be -rosecuted under
e-ublic &ct 5o. AD1F %&ntiL@raft and
Corru-t "ractices &ct) for acce-ting such a
gift# *6-lain. E>
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
5o$ Theof may not be -rosecuted under
e-. &ct AD1F$ but may be -rosecuted for
!iolation of "res$ Hecree 5o. GC$ under
which such act of recei!ing a !aluable gift is
-unished.
&lthough Theof is a 8-ublic oficer8 within
the a--lication of the &ntiL@raft and Corru-t
"ractices &ct %& AD1F)$ yet his act of
recei!ing such gift does not a--ear to be
included among the -unishable acts under
e-. &ct AD1F since he is not to inter!ene in
his oficial ca-acity in the in!estigation of the
ban1 which ga!e the gift. "enal laws must be
strictly construed against the 'tate. (n any
case$ Theof is administrati!ely liable.
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER
,es$ Theof may be -rosecuted under e-. &ct
AD1F because he is a 8-ublic oficer8 within
the -ur!iew of said law$ and Theof recei!ed
the !aluable gift from a ban1 which is under
in!estigation by the Central 9an1 where he
is em-loyed as a 8-ublic oficer8. ecei!ing
gift$ directly or indirectly by a -ublic oficer
from a -arty who has a transaction with the
@o!ernment is wrong$ more so when the giftL
gi!er is under in!estigation by the
go!ernment ofice to which the -ublic oficer
is connected.
0a 6*11; Co#erage (%&&1)
obert 'y$ a well 1nown businessman and a
founding member of the 7a1ati 9usiness
Club$ aside from being a classmate of the
newlyLelected "resident of the "hili--ines$
had (n!estments consisting of shares of
stoc1s in the Brban 9an1$ the "59$ the ural
9an1 of Caloocan City and his -ri!atelyL
owned cor-oration$ the ' 9uilders
Cor-oration and TransL"aci<c &ir. &fter the
85 of 86
"resident had ta1en his oath and assumed
his ofice$ he a--ointed obert as )onorary
Consul to the e-ublic of /ietnam. obert
too1 his oath before the "resident and after
furnishing the He-artment of :oreign &fairs
with his a--ointment -a-ers$ few to 'aigon$
now )o Chi 7in City$ where he organi4ed his
staf$ -ut u- an ofice 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 ma1e his
re-ort to the "resident. )owe!er$ the &ntiL
@raft League of the "hili--ines <led a
com-laint against obert for %1) falling to <le
his 'tatement of &ssets and Liabilities within
thirty %AD) days from assum-tion of ofice.
%2) failing to resign from his businesses$ and
%A) falling to di!est his shares and
in!estments in the ban1s and cor-orations
owned by him$ as re2uired by the Code of
Conduct and *thical 'tandards for "ublic
+ficials and *m-loyees. Will the com-laint
-ros-er# *6-lain. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
The com-laint will not -ros-er because the
Code of Conduct and *thical 'tandards for
"ublic +ficials and *m-loyees %e-. &ct.
5o. CQ1A)$ e6-ressly e6em-ts those who
ser!e the @o!ernment in an honorary
ca-acity from <ling 'tatements of &ssets
and Liabilities$ and from resigning and
di!esting themsel!es of interest from any
-ri!ate enter-rise %'ecs. E& and F).
ALTERNATI6E ANSWER3
,es$ the com-laint will -ros-er under 'ec. Q
of the &ntiL@raft and Corru-t "ractices &ct
%e-. &ct 5o. AD1F$ as amendedK$ which
re2uires all -ublic oficers within AD days
from assuming -ublic ofice to <le a true$
detailed sworn statement of assets and
liabilities. /iolations of this law are mala
-rohibita which admits of no e6cuses.
0( *1-,+conomic Sa3otage; 2llegal 0ecruitment (%&&)
re-resented to &&$ 99$ CC and HH that
she could send them to London to wor1 there
as sales ladies and waitresses. 'he collected
and recei!ed from them !arious amounts of
money for recruitment and -lacement fees
totalling "GDD$DDD. &fter their dates of
de-arture were -ost-oned se!eral times$ the
four -ros-ects got sus-icious and went to
"+*& %"hil. +!erseas *m-loyment
&uthority). There they found out that was
not authori4ed nor licensed to recruit
wor1ers for em-loyment abroad. They sought
refund to no a!ail. (s guilty of any gra!e
ofense# *6-lain briefy. %=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. is guilty of a gra!e ofense$ ha!ing
engaged in illegal recruitment constituting
the ofense of economic sabotage which is
-unishable with life im-risonment and a <ne
of "1DD.DDD.DD.
*C+5+7(C '&9+T&@* is an ofense
de<ned in AE%b) of the Labor Code$ as
amended by "res. Hecree 5o. 2D1E$ 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 aggrie!ed -arties$ indi!idually or as a
grou-. &nd it is committed by a syndicate
when three or more -ersons cons-ire or
86
of
86
coo-erate with one another in carrying out
the illegal transaction$ scheme or acti!ity.
0( *61& I Chil" +/ploitation (%&&6)
&ling 7aria recei!ed an urgent tele-hone
call from 3unior$ her eldest son$ as1ing for
"2$DDD.DD to com-lete his semestral tuition
fees -re-aratory to his <nal e6ams in
Commerce. Histressed and disturbed$ she
borrowed money from her com-adre 7ang
3uan with the assurance to -ay him within 2
months. Two months la-sed but &ling 7aria
failed to settle her obligation. 7ang 3uan
told &ling 7aria that she does not ha!e to
-ay the loan if she will allow her youngest
1DLyear old daughter &nnie to wor1 as a
housemaid in his house for 2 months at
"l$DDD.DD a month. Hes-ite &ling 7ariaIs
ob0ection$ 7ang 3uan insisted and brought
&nnie to his house to wor1 as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by 7ang 3uan
when he brought &nnie to his house as maid
for the -ur-ose of re-aying her motherIs
loan# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. 7ang 3uan committed the crime of
e6-loitation of child labor which is
committed by any -ersons who under the
-rete6t of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant$ guardian or
-erson entrusted with the custody of a
minor$ shall$ against the latterIs will$ retainh
im in his ser!ice %&rt. 2QA$ e!ised "enal
Code). )e can also be liable as an em-loyer
for the em-loyment of a minor below 1= yrs.
old$ under 'ec. 12$ &rt. E of &. QC1D.
2. (f &ling 7aria herself was made to wor1
as a housemaid in 7ang 3uanIs household to
-ay her loan$ did he commit a crime# %2.=>)
SUGGESTED ANSWER3
,es. 7ang 3uan committed the crime of
in!oluntary ser!itude for rendering ser!ices
under com-ulsion and -ayment of debts.
This is committed by any -erson who$ in
order to re2uire or enforce the -ayment of a
debt$ shall com-el the debtor to wor1 for
him$ against his will$ as household ser!ant
or farm laborer %&rt. 2QG$ e!ised "enal
Code)

Criminal Law Answers 1994 2006

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Criminal Law Answers 1994 2006

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ANSWERS TO BAR

Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) 1 of 86

Potrebbero piacerti anche