CRIM 2 Clarificatory Questions for Midterms:

1. RA 1060 provides that failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be
prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. How can
this be harmonized with the constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence?
2. Art. 217. Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. Any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall
appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate. Is there any prevailing case which
discusses the kind of appropriation and misappropriation to be considered malversation? In the
Abra Valley Case, it was held that facilities (first floor classroom, second floor, a house) which are
incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the main purposes is
considered actual use germane to the purpose. Can a barangay captain contend that living in the
barangay hall should not be considered misappropriation of public property since the fact that he
lives in the hall makes his presence available 24/7 to his jurisdiction?
3. In anti-subversion act, one of the acts punished is That one who conspires with any other person
to overthrow the Government of the Republic of the Philippines or the government of any of its
political subdivisions by force, violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means, for the purpose
of placing such Government or political subdivision under the control and domination of any alien
power
a. Can a person violated the anti-subversion act be charged, in addition, with conspiracy to
commit rebellion (or rebellion if succeeded)?
b. Is violation of anti-subversion act a continuing crime?
c. If there is domination of alien power, would that mean he can also be charged with
treason?
4. In Article 152, barangay chairman is specifically enumerated as person in authority (PIA) while
barangay leader is specifically enumerated as agent of a person in authority. What is the
difference of barangay chairman and barangay leader?
5. In Art 153, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting,
association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or in
such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order. In
Art 138, any person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government,
shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in article 134 of this Code, by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations tending
to the same end. The difference mainly is the intent. In inciting rebellion, the intent is an
aforethought while in Art 153, it is the unconscious outburst. How can the intent be proven?
What if the intent is not alleged, what crime to charge?
6. Article 19 par 3 provides that a person becomes an accessory by harboring, concealing, or
assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of
his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or
an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some
other crime. Can a person be held as an accessory to the crime of treason, parricide, murder in
addition to his crime of delivering prisoners from jail?
7. Falsification of US Treasury Warrants In People vs Loteyro covered by Art 172, but in People vs
Esteban, covered by Art 166. Which doctrine should prevail?
8. There is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document and there is no
complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. Can there also be complex
crime of estafa with falsification of commercial document, since in falsification of commercial
document, intent to cause damage is not required (since credit is sought to be protected)?

9. Certificate any writing by which testimony is given that a fact or has not taken place, while
Document is writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed. Is there any

significant difference? If a person falsify a certificate, can he also be charged with violation of Art
171 or 172 (par 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts)?