The evidence of the prosecution for As treason was that A wanted to aid the Japanese army by buying trucks

and
other means of transportation to be delivered to them, as he wanted them to win the war. Several witnesses testified
to these facts. Can the Court convict A of treason?
No. There was no levying of war. More to the point, there was only mere adherence to the enemy. Adherence must be coupled
by giving aid or comfort (a positive act) In this case, there was no evidence that A bought the trucks and delivered them to the
Japs. Intention alone is insufficient.

A foreign country wanted to invade the PH. A group of Filipinos were sending money to that foreign country to help
the invasion. Is there treason?
No, theres none. Theres no war.

If Filipinos actually assembled and gathered together to overthrow the government to pave the way for the foreign
countrys invasion, is there treason?
No. The Filipinos wont be liable for treason. The levying of war must also take place in the time of war.

During the Japanese occupation, A, a Filipino, was always entertaining Japs in his house and was giving hem parties.
A, however, managed to avoid talking to them or anyone else about war and the countries at war. Was there treason?
No. That a Filipino is friendly or sympathetic is not necessarily an act of treason. To be treasonous, the extend of aid and
comfort given to the enemies must be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals.

If during the war, a citizen made speeches critical to his own government, opposed its measures, or engaged in
profiteering, thereby diminishing the strength of his own country, is he liable for treason?
No. Aid or comfort w/o adherence is not treason. If there is no adherence to the enemy, if there is no intent to betray, then
theres no treason.

Muslim exteremists in Mindanao declared War against the PH government. A, who adhered to the cause of the
Muslims, furnished them weapons. Is A liable for treason?
No. A is not liable for treason. Art 114 contemplates a breach of allegiance to a foreign power. Since Filipinos declared the war
against its own government, A cannot be held liable for treason.

A, a private individual and a Filipino, knowing that B was in conspiracy with others to commit treason against the PH,
harbored, concealed and later assisted in Bs escape. Is A criminally liable?
Yes, under Art. 116, for misprision of treason, for not reporting the conspiracy to the authorities as soon as possible.

The municipal treasurer of a town saw his servant quarreling with his wife. He then seized his servant and detained
him in the municipal jail. Is he guilty of arbitrary detention or illegal detention?
He is guilty of unlawful arrest (Art 269). When the purpose of arresting a person without authority of law or reasonable ground
therefore is to deliver the person arrested to the proper authority, like the jailer, it is unlawful arrest. He cant be guilty of AD
because he is not a public officer who has jurisdiction to arrest or order the arrest of persons. He cant be guilty of ID because
of the purpose of the detention.

Is the liability for AD limited only to those Pos or employees who actually detained a person w/o legal ground?
No. because a judge, or the fiscal, before whom an arrested person is brought for investigation, may order the detention of that
person without verifying the truth of the charge. In such a case, such PO, even though he does not actually detain, becomes a
principal by induction in the crime of AD.

What is the crime of a private individual who induced a policeman to detain a person w/o legal ground and the
policeman actually did so?
He is liable for AD, as principal by induction.

What is the liability of a private individual who detained another for a legal ground and failed to deliver the person
detained to the proper judicial authority within the time specified under Art. 125?
He would be guilty of illegal detention.

A policeman, without reasonable ground and on mere suspicion that B committed theft, arrested the latter and locked
him up in jail. 5 hours later, he delivered B to the judge by filing a complaint for theft. The prosecutor dismissed the
complaint. Is the policeman liable for AD?

Yes, because he arrested and detained B without legal ground. It was made on mere suspicion.

A policeman became angry at the owner of a house. Thus, he entered the house against the will of the owner and beat
him up inside the house. Is the policeman liable for violation of domicile?
No because the policeman was not acting in his official capacity. Only serious physical injuries with AC of dwelling. Its not
trespass to dwelling because when trespass is used as a direct means to commit the crime, it is absorbed in the other crime.

Can participants in a meeting be held liable under Art. 131?

No. If the PO are participants in a meeting which was interrupted by reason of the disturbance they created, they are not liable
under Art. 131.

What crime is committed by a PRIVATE individual who prevented or disturbed a religious ceremony or manifestation
of any religion?
If there is only a disturbance, its disturbance of public order under Art. 153. If they prevented it with violence/intimidation, it is
grave coercion

In a baptismal party where all the guests were Catholics, X slapped a priest and gravely slandered him. Is X liable for
offending religious feelings?
No. The acts were not performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony. It
was only a baptismal party

A group of persons rose publicly and took arms against the Government, resulting to the deaths of policeman. Are
they liable for rebellion?
No. because the purpose of the uprising was not shown. Homicide/murder only.

Must the purpose in rebellion be accomplished?

No need. It is sufficient that the purpose exists.

X, a the town treasurer, gave to the rebels who were taking arms to overthrow the government the funds in his
custody. What is his liability?
Only rebellion. Rebellion absorbed the crime of malversation.

A, with other Huks (rebels), asked for food from the barrio residents. They warned them not to tell authorities of their
purpose. B and C told the soldiers of their presence. In response, the soldiers ambushed the Huks. A, in retaliation,
killed B and C and stole their belongings. What is the liability of A?
Rebellion only. The killing was in furtherance of rebellion.

A, the mayor of a town, and B, a private citizen, were talking in front of a municipal bldg. In the course of their
conversation about politics, B and the mayor became engaged in an altercation, resulting in B punching A on the lips.
Is B liable for direct assault?
No. This is because the mayor was not in the performance of an official duty and it was the result of a quarrel of a private
nature not involving the official duty of the mayor. The crime committed was only physical injuries.

The Division Superintendent of schools was asked by the Provincial Governor to appoint certain applicants for the
position of teachers. The SI refused to do so because the applicants were ineligible. The agent of the governor then
saw the Superintendent on the railroad. The agent then punched the SI on the face. Is the agent liable for direct
assault?
Yes. This is because it is not necessary to commit the crime of direct assault that the offender was personally affected by the
performance of the official duty of the PA/APA. In this case, the agent punched the SI because the latter did not want to appoint
the persons the Governor recommended. It involved the performance of the official duty of the SI, a person in authority.

A found out that their mayor was having sex with his wife. A got his gun and went to the city hall. As soon as A saw
the mayor, he shot him but failed to him. Is A guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide?
In this case, motive is immaterial. A is liable for direct assault.

A, a town councilor, found out that soldiers arrested his political leaders and followers for illegal gambling. Thus, he
asked the soldiers to release them. When the sergeant refused, the councilor hit him several times with a cane,
causing serious physical injuries. Is the councilor guilty of DA?
Yes, because the sergeant was attacked while in the performance of official duties and by reason of the performance of his
official duties. The exercise of authority was not being contended as it was not the councilors official duty to intervene in a
case where the soldier lawfully arrested lawbreakers.

Two persons, who hated the councilor of their town, burned the latters house. Is there sedition?
No, because they did not rise publicly and tumultuously. At least 4 armed persons are required for it to be tumultuous.

A wanted to eliminate his political rival B before the election. A enlisted the help of rebels (Huks) to attack the barrio
where B was living, with the particular purpose of killing B. During the attack made by the rebels in which A also took
part, B was injured and his house was burned. Considering that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and A was in
conspiracy with the Huks, is A guilty of rebellion?
No. A committed sedition. The purpose of the public and tumultuous uprising was not for the purposes of rebellion, but merely
to attain by force or other unlawful means an object commit for any political end an act of hate against a private person.
While it is true that the Huks were engaged in rebellion and A was in conspiracy with them,

Dangerous Tendency in relation to inciting to sedition vs. clear and present danger
Under the dangerous tendency rule, there is inciting to sedition when the words uttered/published have a seditious tendency, in
a sense that they could easily produce dissatisfaction among people and a state of feeling incompatible with a disposition to
remain loyal to the government
Under the CPD, it is required that there must be a reasonable ground to believe that the danger to be apprehended is imminent
and the evil sought to be prevented is a serious one. It must be an evil w/c the State has a right to prevent

A, the mayor of the town, and B, a private individual, were conversing in front of the municipal bldg. In the course of their
conversation about politics, B and the mayor fought. B punched A. Is B liable for DA/
No. The mayor was not in the performance of his official duty. Moreover, it was a quarrel which was private in nature.

A slapped a barangay captain who was helping a policeman in preserving order in a procession. What crime is A liable
for?
Direct Assault. This is because the barrio captain is a PA as per Art. 152. The force employed, when the offended party is a PA
need not be serious. The law simply mentions laying of hands, without making any distinction.

A was prosecuted by the fiscal for a crime he did not commit. Thus, A was acquitted. The fiscal resigned. A met the
former fiscal and attacked him with fist blows. Is A liable for DA?
No. This is because at the time the fiscal was attacked, the fiscal was no longer a PA.

A policeman saw X attack a judge. X attacked the judge because he was fined for misbehaving in court. The
policeman approached X to arrest him, but X drew out his knife and intimidated the policeman. How many, and what
crimes were committed by X?
Two DAs. 1) Against the judge (past performance of his official duty) and 2) Against the policeman (while in the performance
of official duty) X did not commit indirect assault because the policeman was not coming to the aid of the judge when X
intimidated him. The policeman was arresting X then, performing his official duty.

Several strikers obstructed the free passage along a road by lying on the road, forming roadblocks. A policeman
ordered the to get out from the road and clear the way. They refused to do so. Did the strikers commit a crime?
Yes. Art 151(2). They disobeyed a lawful order of a PA. The disobedience was not a serious one.

The police raided As house and gamblers were arrested. As a result, A got resentful of the police. The next day, A saw
one of the policemen who made the raid. A punched him in the breast. However, the policeman held his hand.
Thereafter, A stopped from further attacking. What crime was committed?
Only slight physical injuries. A was not liable for resistance and serious disobedience because there was no order given. It is
not DA because the force employed was not of a serious nature.

A, becoming angry with employees in a government office, shouted to the top of his voice and challenged them to a
fight. There was a disturbance in the office. Is he liable for tumults or other disturbances?

No, because even if there was serious disturbance, it was not planned or intended, A having been provoked to cause the
disturbance. A is liable for alarms and scandals under Art 155.

A person caused serious disturbance in a meeting of the municipal council. What was his crime? He committed
disturbance or proceedings of a legislative body under Art 144 of RPC

A reporter in a newspaper published false news that the PH President was dead. Is the reporter liable under Art. 154?
No. The false news does not endanger or cause damage to the interest or credit of the state.

A, with the intention of helping B escape from jail, prepared an order of release and counterfeited the signature of the judge. He
then showed it to the jailer, who then released B due to the forged document. What crime did A commit?
Complex crime of delivering prisoners from jail through falsification of a public document by a private individual. Although the
falsification was the means used to commit the crime of delivery of prisoners from jail the falsification which is a graver offense,
cannot be absorbed by the lesser offense. This is not covered by the phrase other means under Art. 156.

If a prisoner is delivered from jail through bribery, these are the following liabilities:
BRIBER: Liable under Art. 156 AND corruption of public officer (Art 212)
JAILER:
If PO: infidelity in the custody of prisoners (Art 223) + bribery (210)
If private: same liability, but punished with the next lower degree of the penalty
PRISONER: If convict by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of service of sentence (A157) but is not liable under Art. 156
since he is the bject of the crime.
If he is a detention prisoner, he incurs no liability for escaping, but in the judgment in his case, if it is conviction, he will not be
entitled to an indeterminate sentence.

X is a detention prisoner in jail. B sent through C to X a file wrapped in clothes that were delivered to X. Later, X used
the file to cut through iron bars. He was able to escape. What crime did B commit? Delivering prisoners from jail under
Art. 156. B helped the escape of X. B is not an accomplice in As escape because A is not a principal. A detention prisoner (not
by FJ) who escapes does not commit a crime.

X was convicted for committing parricide under exceptional circumstance under Art 247. He was sentenced to 4 years
in prison and 10 days of destierro. He was not allowed to enter Manila. While serving the penalty, he entered Manila.
Can he be convicted of Art 157? Yes.
Must he be sentenced to destierro or PC in its medium and max? He must be imprisoned. The court cannot impose a
penalty not prescribed by law.

During a disorder in Bilibid Prisons, prisoners killed other prisoners. A, a prisoner by FJ, escaped for fear that he
might also be killed. He never gave himself up even if the disorder was over. Is he criminally liable?
Yes, under Art. 157, for evasion by escaping during the term of his sentence. He is not liable under Art. 158 because the
disorder must result from those listed in 158(2)(a).

X was convicted by final judgment of murder. While being transported to the Bilibid, he killed a jail guard. Is he a quasi
recidivist?
Yes. For purposes of the penalty for killing the jail guard, X is already considered a QR.

A was charged with parricide and was in Bilibid pending trial. An earthquake caused a disorder so A escaped. He
never returned to the jail. May he be prosecuted under Art. 158?
No, because he is not a convict serving sentence in a penal institution. Hes confined pending trial. Art 158 only applies to
convicts by final judgment.

X committed theft in 2010 and estafa in 2011. X was convicted of theft in 2010. While serving sentence for theft, X was
convicted for estafa (2011) Is X a recividist or QR?
He is merely a recidivist. This is because when he committed ESTAFA, he was not yet convicted by FJ of theft.

While A was serving sentence for homicide, he inflicted serious physical injuries on another prisoner. Is A a R or QR?
He is a QR, because when he committed the felony of Serious PI, he was already convicted by FJ of homicide and he
committed the SPI while serving his sentence

Suppose A committed the SPI before serving the sentence, but the judgment in the homicide case was final, is A still a
QR? Yes. A is still a QR because he committed the SPI after FJ for the homicide case and before serving sentence.

X counterfeited coins that were already out of circulation. May he held liable for counterfeiting coins?
Yes, under Art. 163. Even coins withdrawn from circulation may be the subject of counterfeiting

The paymaster in a government office wrote the name of one of the janitors of the office on the space for the signature of that
janitor on the payroll. He then took the salary of the janitor and spent the money. What act of falsification was committed? What
doc was falsified?
If there was an attempt or intent to imitate the signature of the janitor and there were some points of resemblance between the
signature written by A and the genuine signature of the janitor, A committed falsification by counterfeiting thee signature of the
offended party. Absent such attempt to copy, there is still falsification (by causing it to appear that a person participated in an
act when he did not in fact so participated)
It was a falsification of an OFFICIAL document because it was prepared by POs in the performance of their duties.

X, a court stenographer, deliberately and maliciously changed the transcript to favor one of the parties.
He is liable under Art 171. If on the other hand, if the chief of police altered the transcript, that chief of police is guilty under Art
172(2)
A mayor falsified an inscription in the register of births kept by the municipal secretary who then issued a certified
copy of such false inscription. Is the mayor liable under Arty 171?
No. Although he is a PO, the falsification committed by him was NOT an act, certificate or instrument the issuance of which
pertained to his office.

A protestant minister altered in the residence certificate issued to him his age and date of birth. Is he liable for
falsification by an ecc minister?
No. This is because the falsification did not affect his civil status.

A requested a stenographer in the office of the treasurer to pay his land tax and gave him PHP500. The stenographer
took the money and spent it. He then took the land tax receipt of his father, erased the name of his father and wrote in
its place the name of A, and gave it to A, telling him it was the official receipt. What crimes were committed?
Estafa and falsification of an official document. No complex. The falsification was committed to conceal the estafa, and it was
not necessary to commit estafa. Its not malversation because he didnt receive the money as a tax collector, but as a private
individual.

A found a blank check of PNB. He wrote the words cash and PHP1,000 and signed the signature of the owner of the
checkbook. He then used the check to buy Cs car. The check bounced. B was prejudiced. What the hell happened?
A is guilty for estafa through falsification of a commercial document. There was estafa because A falsely pretended to possess
property (money in the form of a check) He can also be guilty of BP 22.

A had sex with B, a woman, for PHp500. It was Bs first time to have sex. Is she a prostitute?
No. Having sex for money must be habitual.

May a woman who is physically a virgin be prostitute?

Yes, if she for money or profit, habitually indulges in lascivious conduct only.

A told the municipal treasurer of a town that he would kill B on the evening of that day. The treasurer didnt do
anything. A killed B. Is the treasurer liable?

No. The duty must be in dereliction of the duties of his office. Its not his duty to prosecute offenses.

The judge rendered a decision in favor of A. In response, A gave the judge a car. The decision was legal and when it
was appealed, the decision was affirmed. What is their liability?
The judge is liable for indirect bribery. The car was given by reason of the office of the judge. It is in effect a reward for having
performed a duty. It will therefore expose the judge to future corruption. A is liable for corruption of public officer.

How to hold gift-giver liable for corruption of PO?

In order that the gift-giver may be held liable for corruption of PO, the PO must have committed bribery, D or ID.

A, wife hired B a stranger, to kill her husband with a pistol furnished by C. B shot the husband. When C gave the pistol
to B, he knew that A induced B to kill the husband. What crime was committed?
B committed murder because he killed the husband for a price, consideration or promise.
C is an accomplice in the crime of murder for furnishing the gun.
The wife, A, is liable for parricide. This is because aggravating circumstances w/c arise from private relation of the offender
and the offended party and which qualify the crime shall aggravate the liability of, or qualify the crime as against the principals,
accomplices, and accessories to whom they are attendant.

A woman lived with 2 different men, A and B for 1 month until A gave up. He left. A child was born to the woman 8
months later. When the child was 1 week old, B killed him. Is this parricide?
No. This is because the paternity of the child is not certain. Relationship is essential in parricide. Thus, B committed murder
(qualified because killing of 1 week old kid is treachery)

A allows his 17 year old daughter to hang out with her boyfriend alone. He doesnt mind if he catches them kissing in
the dark. One day, A surprised them in a hotel having sex. A killed the boyfriend. Liable under 247?
No. He might have promoted sexual intercourse, but not the prostitution of the daughter.

A and B are common-law partners (live in). A shot B in the abdomen. B died. What crime was committed by A?
Murder, because he took advantage of his superior strength.
A asked B to drink with him knowing that he had a weak resistance to alcohol. When B was already drunk, A stabbed
him. Murder?
Yes. Means employed to weaken defense. It qualified the crime to murder

A told B to kill C. B then killed C. A then gave B PHP1000. Murder?

No. Homicide only. There was no indication that the killing was done in consideration of the PHP1000.

A and B had a quarrel. A challenged B to a fight saying Lets see who is the better man B refused to accept. C made
fun of B for refusing to accept. Are A and C liable under 260?
No. there was no challenge to a duel. The act of A in challenging B to a fight is not a challenge to a duel because it lacked the
formality that the challenge of a duel requires. C also not liable because the criminal liability for scoffing at another for decrying
a duel presupposes the existence of a valid challenge to a duel.

A and B were fighting. In the course of the fight, A sliced off Bs hand. Is it mutilation?
No. There was no intent or purpose to deprive B of his hand. Art 262 does not only look at the result but also at the intention.

A doctor removed the ovary of a woman so that she wont get pregnant again. Mutilation?
Yes, because the purpose of removing the ovary was to deprive her of an essential organ for reproduction.

A, who had killed his wife, went to this adopted brother and asked the latter to hide him in his house. The adopted
brother harbored and concealed A because he was given a diamond ring by A. is the adopted brother criminally
liable?

No, because the diamond ring which he received from A was not an effect of the crime of parricide. Even if he profited, the
adopted brother did not profit by the effect of the crime.

A, purchasing agent of a private company, bought for the company office supplies worth PHP5,000 and paid it out of the
PHP6,000 he had received from the treasurer, but in the receipt issued by the store from which the office supplies were
purchased, A erased the figure 5 and changed it to 6 and made other alterations on it to make it appear on the receipt that
the price of the office supplies was PHP6,000. What crime did A commit?
Only one simple crime of estafa with abuse of confidence was committed by A.
It cannot be a complex crime of estafa through falsification because the document that was falsified was not a necessary
means for committing estafa. Moreover, it was not necessary for him to falsify the document to get the difference of PHP1,000.
He already had the PHP1,000. Most importantly, estafa through falsification of a private document is not legally possible
BECAUSE they share the common element of damage.
They are not 2 distinct offenses because when a private doc is falsified to conceal estafa, it is plain estafa and the falsification
will be disregarded.

The treasurer of a municipality misappropriated the amount of PHP1,000 in his official custody and then made
alterations in his books to make it appear that the PHP1,000 was lawfully disbursed, is the treasurer liable for a
complex crime?
No. He is liable for 2 separate crimes. He committed malversation for misappropriating the 1k. The falsification of his book, an
official document, was not necessary to commit malversation

A gave 1k to B, a policeman because B agreed to steal a gun from the property custodian of the City Police
Department. In consideration for the 1k, B stole the gun and gave it to A.
There is no bribery because that act which B, the policeman, agreed to perform, although constituting the crime of theft, is not
connected with the performance of his official duty.
A is liable for theft as principal by induction. He is not liable for corruption of PO because the policeman didnt commit bribery.

If it was the property custodian who gave the gun to A in consideration of the 1k, what is the crime?
Two crimes will be committed. Its malversation and bribery. Art. 210 provides a penalty in addition to the penalty
corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed.

Is mere agreement enough in consummated fraud against the public treasury?

Yes, as long as the purpose is to defraud the government. If the private person was in conspiracy with the PO, then he will also
be liable under Art. 213.

What crime is committed by a tax collector who, by means of deceit, succeeded in receiving from the taxpayer a sum
larger than that fixed by law?
Estafa by means of deceit.

During the preliminary investigation by the fiscal of a theft case, the police investigators gave to the fiscal the evidence
consisting of a wallet and several money bills inside. The fiscal kept the evidence but spent the money. What was the fiscals
crime?
Malversation under Art. 222. This is because he received the money from the police by reason of his office and he had the
obligation under the law to keep the same to be used as evidence. Malversation is committed by the depository of funds or
property attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.

What crime, if any, was committed by the municipal mayor who allowed a prisoner detained in the municipal jail to eat in the
market near the municipal building 3 times a day, but always under guard?
None. Leniency or laxity is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners. However, the mayor is guilty of infidelity in the custody of
prisoner if he made the prisoner his houseboy.

In what cases is the penalty for parricide, which is RP-death, not to be imposed even if the crime committed is
parricide?
1) mistake in identity of the victim
2) death under exceptional circumstances
3) if it was through negligence or reckless imprudence
7

A punched Bs face. When A drew his gun, B turned around and fled, but A shot him, hitting him in the back and mortally
wounding him. B died.
A is only guilty of homicide. He did not deliberately choose to shoot B from the back. There was no treachery. MC: provocation

The common law husband of B shot her with a gun, hitting her in the abdominal region of her body. B died.
Liable for murder. Took advantage of superior strength. (strength and weapon)

A hit B at the back of his head. B did not need medicine as no would was caused on his head, but he was not able to work for
one week. After one week, he realized he was colorblind. What is the crime?
Serious physical injuries, because B lost the use of an eye.

A inflicted a wound on B in a fight. The wound remained open for 27 days. B only cleaned it with water and didnt apply
medicine. Bs wound did not prevent him from performing work.
Slight physical injuries only, because there was no medical attendance and no incapacity to work.

In a quarrel, A shoved the face of B until the latter fell on te floor. B did not suffer physical injuries. What is the crime?
Slight physical injury (ill-treatment)

A and B kidnapped and detained X for a week to compel the latter to work in a plantation in Mindanao without salary. Before A
and B could board a vessel for Mindanao, a policeman rescued X. what crime was committed by A and B/
Slavery (Art 272) because of the purpose.

A stabbed B in the abdomen and seriously wounded him. A left him in an uninhabited place where the crime was committed. Is
he liable for abandonment of his own victim?
No. Art 275(1) punishes a person for not helping out a person who is in danger in an uninhabited place. The person in danger
must not also be the victim of the accused. Art 275(2) also inapplicable because it requires an accident.

A, while driving his jeep, bumped and ran over a pedestrian who was seriously injured. A abandoned him
A is liable for physical injuries or homicide through reckless imprudence (if pedestrian dies) and abandonment of ones own
victim by failing to help or render assistance to another whom he accidentally injured

A saw a 4 year old child in a market place who was abandoned. A did not mind the child. Is he liable?
No. the market is not an unsafe place as contemplated by Art 275(3)

A without intent to kill, left her 1 year old child in their house, which she abandoned permanently. The child died of
hunger. A thought someone would find her there. She just wanted to avoid caring for the child
She committed abandoning a minor. There being no intent to kill, no parricide.

A, a 12 year old girl living in the house of B, invited C to come over to the house. B scolded A for letting C enter. Is C liable or
trespass to dwelling?
No. the invitation of the member of a household was enough. There was no express prohibition by the owner

What is the criminal liability of a servant who opened the window of the house of her master to make possible the entrance of
her suitor in the house through the window? What is the liability of the suitor?
Servant: principal by indispensable cooperation in qualified trespass to dwelling. Suitor is principal by direct participation in
qualified trespass to dwelling. (2012 test #7 held it was trespass to dwelling only)

A threatened a woman that he would killer her if she would not fuck him. Because of the threat, the woman let A fuck
her. What crime was committed?
Rape by intimidation. When a crime specifically punished by law, forms part of the element of another crime actually
committed, the former is absorbed by the latter.

However, if A threatened the woman that he would kill her husband if she did not consent to sex, and the next day, the
woman agreed to the condition to save her husband, what crime would be committed?
Grave threats only because A threatened the woman with the infliction upon the person of her husband of a wrong amounting
to a crime with a condition. Here, its future harm. One day elapsed.

A told B that he would kill him if the latter would not send him 10K within 24 hours, and B sent the money the next day. What is
the crime?
Grave threats only. The gain obtained was not immediate. As he only got the money the next day. If it were immediate, then it
would be robbery with intimidation.

What is blackmailing and under what provision in the RPC may it be punished?
Blackmailing is the unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the fear of the victim, or by threats of accusation or exposure. It
is punished in the RPC as light threats. It is a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, demanding money or imposing
any other condition. Thus, if A sent a note to a woman, stating therein that the would testify against her in the case where she
was charged with adultery, unless she would send him 1K, then its light threats.
Blackmailing, consisting of a threat to publish a libel and offering to prevent such publication for a compensation, is also
punished by the RPC as a crime against honor.

A, in the heat of anger, struck B with a cane, saying, I will kill you!. B suffered slight physical injuries. Whats the
crime?
Slight physical injuries. The threat was part of the assault.

A saw B enter his land to occupy the same. A, by means of force, prevented B from entering his land. Is there grave
coercion?
No. Art. 429. Doctrine of self-help. Reasonable for force necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful or
physical invasion of his property

A was an employee of a manufacturing establishment. He learned the secret of the industry. He resigned and used the
secret of the industry for his own benefit. Is he liable?
No, hes not liable for revelation. The crime of revelation requires the revelation of the secrets to the prejudice of the owner of
such secrets, and not using the secrets for himself.

A entered the house of B through the window and once inside, took money and jewelry belonging to B after
intimidating him with a pistol. What kind of robbery?
Robbery with intimidation.

A broke the wooden gate of a stone wall around the premises of B and once inside, took from the yard of B building
materials which were lying there. What crime was committed?
Theft, because although he broke open the gate, he did not enter the house with force upon things. He only entered the yard.

A smashed Bs car window and stole the laptop inside. What was the crime?
Theft because the car is not a building. Robbery w/ use of force upon things place entered must be a building.

While a woman was walking along Makati avenue, a man following her snatched her handbang and ran away.
The man is liable for theft only. Mere snatching is not violence. If, however, the hand was dragged or the woman resisted and
the man pulled it, then its robbery.

A held up B at gun point, threatening to kill him and succeeded in taking a watch from B. When he reached home, A
found that the watch was his. What crime was committed?
Grave threats.

What crime is committed by the servant who opened the locked chest with the key that she stole from the owner and
therafter took money and jewelry therefrom?

Qualified theft.

A entered the house of B through an open door. Once inside, A found a locked receptacle containing jewelry. A took it
and carried it away. As soon as he reached his house, he broke it open and took its contents. What crime was
committed by A?
Robbery w/ use of force upon things.

A gave B, a janitor in his office, PHP500 with instruction to pay As insurance premium to the insuramce company. B
spent the money. What was the crime?
Theft. Only physical possession, no juridical possession.

A found Bs wallet containing PHP100. A gave it to C to be delivered back to B. C took the money.
C liable for theft. Only physical possession acquired.

What crime is committed by a person who shot the cow which was destroying his plantation and then and there took
the meat from dead cow?
Simple theft. Cow was not taken.

What crime was committed by a person who stole crabs and shrimps from a fishpond belonging to antoher?
Qualified theft.

A boy, 7 years old, found a wallet with money in it. He gave it to his dad. His dad spent the money.
Father committed theft. When he got the wallet, he assumed by voluntary substitution, the physical possession of the wallet.
Thus, when he took and spent the money that was not his, it constituted theft.

B found on the street a ring worth PHP500. He took it home and later, claiming to be the owner thereof, sold it for
PHP300. What crimes were committed?
Theft for having found lost property and faling to return it, and estafa by means of deceit, for falsely pretending to be its owner

X, knowing he didnt have money, rode a taxi and when he reached his destination, he couldnt pay the fare.
Other deceits under Art. 318.

A person made a forecast of what would happen at a certain future time.

None. The telling of fortunes must be profit or gain. Since he wasnt paid for it, then theres no crime.

Is the husband criminally liable for taking his wifes jewelry from her wardrobe which was inherited by her from her
parents after opening the wardrobe with a piece of wire?
No. theft against the wife. Husband is only civilly liable

A visited his married sister who lived in a different house. While in his sisters house, he saw her purse, opened it and
got money. Is he criminally liable?
Yes, because bros and sis are exempt from crim liability for committing theft, swindling, or malicious mischief only when they
are living together.

A took his moms safe, carried it to a place behind the garage, and broke it open and took its contents.
Hes criminally liable for robbery w/ force upon things. The safe is a locked receptacle.

A surprised his wife in the room of a hotel with another man while both were undressed. They were not fucking when
they were surprised. Did the woman and paramour commit adultery?
No, Attempted adultery only.

A, wife of B, surprised the latter and another woman in a motel while having sex. Can A sue B for concubinage?
No. Did not keep woman in conjugal dwelling, was not scandalous and did not cohabit.

10

The husband, whnever his wife was away, fucked their maid in their house. Is the husband liable for concubinage?
No. It is necessary that the woman be taken in as a concubine. However, if the servant was under 18 and was a virgin, then its
qualified seduction.

Does the acquittal of one defendant operate as a ground for the acquittal of the other in the crimes of adultery and
concubinage?
No, because in adultery, the man may not know that the woman is married and in concubinage, the woman may not know that
the man is married. There is no joint criminal intent.

A, becoming angry with an ugly woman, grabbed her by the neck with his left arm, touched her breast and private
parts in a public place, only to put her to shame. Liable?
Yes for acts of lasciviousness. motive immaterial in acts of lasciviousness. The essence of lewdness is the very act itself.

A was courting B, a woman. B did not want to be his lover but was willing to get attention from him. One day, A
forcibly embraced her and kissed her a number of times and touched her breast.
No liability for acts of lasciviousness. A lovers embrace and kissed are not lascivious

Father had sex with his daughter, 40 years old and a widow
Qualified seduction, by an ascendant who seduced his descendant.

Brother had sex with his married sister, knowing her to be married
Adultery

A wrote a letter to B, a respectable woman, that the latter was the paramour of C. The letter was in a sealed envelope
and sent through mail.
A not liable for libel. No publicity. If, however, the letter was sent to Bs husband and the husband read it, A will be liable
because there was publicity.

A called B a swindler in the presence of other persons. It appears that B was really a swindler. Is malice presumed
from such imputation?
Yes. Even if it is true that B was a swindler, it is presumed to be malicious if no good intention and justifiable motive for making
it is shown.

A received a letter from B, a woman and As sweetheart. C happened to get a hold of the letter and as it contained a
statement of their meeting in a hotel (A and Bs meeting), C showed it to D.
C liable for libel. Because the person liable for libel is the one published or caused the publication of defamation in writing or by
similar means.

A seduced Bs daughter, C. A refused to marry C. B threatened that he would file an administrative complaint against
him with the SC to prevent him from taking the bar exam because he was immoral
No light threats. B did not threaten to commit a wrong. It is not wrong to file an admin complaint against a man who may not be
fit to be lawyer. HOWEVER if for example, the father of the seduced girl threatened to file an admin complaint if A didnt pay
him 1k and A drew a check right then and there, the father is guilty of ROBBERY WITH INTIMIDATION.

A approached B, a policeman and tld B to leave the place where he was patrolling as he would go up a house in the area
through a window to steal some stuff and promised to give him 1k as soon as he had taken the property from the house.B, the
policeman agreed and left the place. A succeeded in taking the property.
A: Corruption of public officer and theft
B: Dereliction of duty (Art. 208), for maliciously tolerating the commission of a crime and Bribery, agreeing to tolerate a crime in
relation to his official duty (enforce the law, protect and serve) for a reward

If A changed his mind and did not enter the house. Would B still be liable?
Yes, but only for bribery (agreeing to tolerate a crime for money and it was in relation to his duty) No dereliction. No frustrated
dereliction of duty under Art. 208 because its a crime of omission.

11

12