Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum prohibitum which is
committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was
issued on account or for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason,
the request of Frankto defer the deposit of the check as it ahs insufficient funds will not militate
against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged. Moreover, if what is
charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held criminally liable
under Article 332, RPC.
Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault. First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person
in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, who was in the
performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when he repeatedly
punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when he came to the aid of a
person in authority, Miss Reyes (Celig v. People, GR No. 173150, July 28, 2010).
(7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mariano is liable of 2 counts of Direct Assault.
The elements of Direct Assault are:
(a) that the accused makes an attack, employs force, makes a serious intimidation or a serious
resistance;
(b) that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
(c) that at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance
of his official duties or that the assault was on the occasion of the performance of his official duties;
(d) that the accused knows that the person he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in
the exercise of his duties; and
(e) that there is no public uprising.
The first Direct Assault is qualified by laying of hands on a person in authority. Mariano slapped Ms.
Reyes, a person in authority under Article 152, RPC, while she was in the performance of her official
duties.
The second Direct Assault was committed when Mariano repeatedly punched Dencio who became an
agent of a person in authority when he came to the aid of Ms. Reyes, a person in authority who was
a victim of direct assault.
(7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the criminal charge of estafa through falsification of public document is proper. William forged
the signature of his mother in law in the Special Power of Attorney, a public document, as a
necessary means to sell her properties without remitting the proceeds thereof, thereby committing
estafa. Although the relationship of affinity created between Wiliam and his mother in law survived
the death of his wife Anita, the absolutory cause under Article 332(1), RPC does not apply to him.
Said absolutory cause is strictly limited to the simple cases of theft, estafa/swindling, and malicious
mischief. It does not apply where any of these crimes is complexed with another crime. (Intestate
Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De Carungcong vs. People, GR 181409, February 11, 2010)
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT