UP Criminal-Law

U.P.
LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW PRE-WEEK REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW 1
Q1: State the requisites of the justifying circumstance of self defense
A1: For one to validly claim the justifying circumstance of self-defense, he must show
1. That there was unlawful aggression;
2. That there was reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the it; and
3. That there was lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (Article
11, Revised Penal Code)
Q2: How are felonies committed?

A2: Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo), but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit
when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill (Article 4, Revised Penal Code).
Q3: Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

A3: Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was committed. It is a Latin
phrase which means “from something done afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes
it greater than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the
law governing the crime when committed. A bill of attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named
individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial.
Ex post facto law pertains to the act, while a bill of attainder pertains to a named individual or to members of a
group.
Q4: What are the stages of execution?

A4: The following are the stages of execution:
1. A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but
does not produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
2. A felony is attempted when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony
but does not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator
3. A felony is attempted when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present; the
felony is produced (Article 6, Revised Penal Code)
Q5. Kate and Meghan decided to steal multiple bottles of perfume from Harrod’s Department Store. While
they were loading the bottles to their car parked in from of the store, they were apprehended and accosted by
security guards.
The two were charged with consummated theft. Kate and Meghan claims that they should be charged with
frustrated theft only as they did not have free disposal of the bottles. Are they correct?
A5: No. They were rightly charged with consummated theft. According to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
the elements of theft are (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another;
(3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
(5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. The ability to dispose of the personally property is not an element of the crime of theft.
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which produces the felony in
its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only
be attempted theft, if at all. (Valenzuela vs People, G.R. No. 160188. June 21, 2007)
Q6: What is the Pro Reo Doctrine?
A6: The Pro Reo Doctrine states that whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of
two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient
or favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Q7: What is the Equipoise Rule?
1
U.P. LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW PRE-WEEK REVIEWER
A7: When the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are equally balanced, the scale should be tilted in
favour of the accused in obedience to the constitutional presumption of innocence. [Ursua v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996; Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991)
Q8: Orlando found out that Justin kissed his girlfriend, Miranda. Orlando thus decided to burn Miranda’s
house. He took a match, lighted a cigarette and set fire to the plastic divider that separates Justin’s room from
the living room. Scooter, Justin’s best friend, saw the divider caught fire so he fetched some water to
extinguish the fire.
Orlando was charged in an Information for arson. He claims, however, that he can only be charged with
frustrated arson. Is he correct?
A8: No. According to PD 1613, simple arson is committed any person who burns or sets fire to the property of
another. Thus, the crime of arson was consummated, notwithstanding the fact that the fire was afterwards
extinguished, for, once the fire has been started, the consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon
the extent of the damage caused. (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 31770, December 5, 1929)
Q9: After discovering Justin and Miranda’s relationship, Orlando also decided to kill Justin. He went to this
house, stabbed him while he was sleeping. He then burned Justin’s house to conceal and cover his tracks.
Orlando was charged with two separate crimes of murder and arson. Upon appeal, Orlando claims that the
arson absorbed the murder. Is he correct?
A9: No. If the purpose of the offender is to kill a particular person, and in fact he has already done so, and fire is
resorted to only as means to cover up the killing, the offender commits two separate crimes of murder and arson.
(People vs Baluntong, G.R. No. 182061, March 15, 2010)
If the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice but death but death results by reason or on the
occasion of arson, arson absorbs murder. On the other hand, if the main objective is to kill a particular person who
may be in a building or edifice, but fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal, murder absorbs arson.
Q10: Cristina, a college student, was sleeping in her dormitory when she was awakened by Marlon. Marlon
poked a knife at her neck and motioned her to keep quiet. He then boxed Cristina in the stomach, forcibly
undressed her, and forcibly inserted his private part on her private part.
Marlon was charged in an Information with rape aggravated by the circumstance of dwelling. Upon appeal,
Marlon claims that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should not be appreciated. He alleges that
Cristina was merely temporarily staying in the dormitory while she was attending school and that she does
not own the same. Is he correct?
A10: No. Dwelling, to be aggravating, need not be owned by the offended party. It is enough that he used the
place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and privacy. Be he a lessee, a boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his
home the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. (People v. Parazo, G.R. No. 121176. May 14, 1997)
Q11: What are the requisites of an impossible crime under Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code?
A11: According to Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of an impossible crime are:
1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
2. That the act was done with evil intent
3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible or that the means employed is either inadequate or
ineffectual and
4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code.
Q12: Is there a complex crime of criminal negligence?

A12: No. Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 is a
procedural device allowing single prosecution of multiple felonies falling under either compound crimes or
complex crime proper. The legislature crafted this procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in lieu of serving
multiple penalties, will only serve the maximum of the penalty for the most serious crime.
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule penalizing not an act defined as a felony but "the mental attitude
behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, a single mental attitude regardless of the
2
resulting consequences. Thus, Article 365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting in one or more consequences.
[Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. 172716, November 17, 2010)
Q13: Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a multi-billion government contract for the development of an
economic and tourism hub in the Province of Point, Mr. Hosaka allotted the amount of P100 Million to serve
as gifts for certain persons instrumental in his firm’s winning the award. He gave 50% of that amount to
Governor Suma, the official who had signed the contract with the proper authorization from the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan member who had lobbied for the award of
the project in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; 25% to Mayor Fina of the Municipality where the project would
be implemented. Governor Suma received his share through his wife, Provincial First Lady Mel, who then
deposited the amount in her personal bank account.
Previously, upon facilitation by the Bokal Diva, Mr. Hosaka concluded an agreement with Mayor Fina for the
construction of the Point Sports Arena worth P800 Million. The project was highly overpriced because it could
be undertaken and completed for not more than P400 Million. For this project, Mayor Fina received from Mr.
Hosaka a gift of P10 Million, while Bokal Diva got P25 Million.
In both instances, Bokal Diva had her gifts deposited in the name of her secretary, Bonnie, who personally
maintained a bank account for Bokal Diva’s share in government projects. Are wheel conspiracy and chain
conspiracy present in this case?
A13: Yes, both types of conspiracy exist. The distribution of commissions or gifts of Mr. Hosaka and the acceptance
of Governor Suma, Bokal Diva, Mayor Fina is a type of wheel conspiracy where a single person, Mr. Hosaka, dealt
individually with the public officials to commit the overt acts. The chain conspiracy, on the other hand, is evident
in the overpricing of the sports complex through the facilitation of Bokal Diva, conclusion of the agreements by
Mayor Fina, and the distribution of the gifts by Mr. Hosaka.
Q14: Define wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy

A14: A wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or
more persons or guests (the spokes). The latter typically interacts with the former rather than with another spoke.
In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the
instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
A chain conspiracy, on the other hand, exists when there is successive communication and cooperation in much
the same way as the legitimate business operations between a manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and
retailer, then retailer and consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002).
Q15: If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape by carnal knowledge, how does
the accused commit attempted rape by carnal knowledge?
A15: To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge, the penis of the accused must not touch the labia
of the pudendum of the victim but his acts must be committed with clear intention to have sexual intercourse.
Intent to have sexual intercourse is present if it is shown that the erectile penis of the accused is in the position to
penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 16644, October 08, 2014) or the accused actually commenced to force his penis
onto the victim’s sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013). If the offender touches
the body of the victim through force, with lewd design but without clear intention to have sexual intercourse, the
crime committed is acts of lasciviousness (People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).
Q16: Is there a crime of frustrated serious physical injuries?

A16: No. the crime of physical injuries is a formal crime since a single act consummates it as a matter of law; hence,
it has no attempted or frustrated stage. Once the injuries are inflicted, the offense is consummated.
Q17: How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in crimes punished by special laws?
A17: Under the the Indeterminate Sentence Law, in cases where the offense is punishable under special law, the
maximum indeterminate penalty shall not exceed the maximum limit of the prescribed penalty while the minimum
penalty shall not be less than the minimum limit thereof. However, if the special law adopts the technical
nomenclature of the penalties under the Revised Penal Code (People v. Macatanda, G.R. No. 51368, November 6,
1981), the provision of the Revised Penal Code will apply. Consequently, there will be an application of Art. 64 of
the Revised Penal Code. The maximum penalty shall be fixed within the range of the proper imposable period
3
after taking into consideration the modifying circumstance; while the minimum penalty shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the law (People v. Simon, G.R. No. 93028, July
29, 1994; Jacaban v. People, G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015; Malto v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21,
2007; People v. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011; People v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012;
People v. Salazar, G.R. No. 98060, January 27, 1997).
Q18: Dennis is married to Malou. Chino is the first cousin of Malou, while in the market, Dennis saw a man
stabbing Chino. Seeing the attack on Chino, Dennis picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head
which caused the latter’s death.
Can Dennis be absolved of the killing on the grown that it is in defense of a relative?
A18: No. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal
Code are his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his
relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by
affinity within the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of the spouse of the accused.
In this case, Chino is not the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Malou, the spouse of Dennis. Relative by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case, Chino is the cousin of Dennis by
affinity but not by consanguinity. Chino, therefore, is not a relative of Dennis for purpose of applying the provision
on defense of relative.
Dennis, however, can invoke defense of a stranger. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who defends a person
who is not his relative may invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful
aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Q19: Taylor learned that Jed, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out of town for three days
with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends Bam, Pat and Andrew and they planned to take the
valuables in the house while Jed was away. Taylor and Bam would go inside the house, Pat would serve as
the lookout, while Andrew would stay in the getaway car. When Jed left, they carried out their plain to the
letter. Taylor and Bam went inside the house through the backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the
rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and
immediately using the getaway car.
After driving for about 2 kilometers, Taylor realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house so he
instructed Andrew to drive back to the house. Taylor just went in thinking that the house was still empty. But,
to his surprise, Taylor found Fermin seated on a bench with Taylor’s bag and wallet beside him and appeared
to be texting using his smart phone. Taylor took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted
for help, but Taylor kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who called
the police. Taylor, Bam, Pat and Andrew were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Taylor,
Bam, Pat and Andrew? Explain.
A19: Taylor, Bam, Pat and Andrew are criminally liable as principles for the crime of Theft. They conspired to take
Jed’s personal properties without his knowledge, with the intent to gain, and without violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308, RPC). Taylor and Bam entered the house through an
unlocked backdoor and took the valuables from the rooms and drawers that were likewise left unlocked. Taylor
and Bam are liable as principles by direct participations, while Pat and Andrew are principals by indispensable
cooperation because they have concurred in the criminal resolution and cooperated by performing another act as
lookout and driver of a getaway car, respectively, which were indispensable for the commission of the crime. (Art.
17, Revised Penal Code).
Only Taylor, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homicide for the death of Fermin. The killing of Fermin
was a separate act and was not a necessary means for committing Theft (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code), because
the latter crime was already consummated. Taylor killed Fermin for a different reason, perhaps because of his
anger that Fermin was in possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his smart phone to contact
the police.
4
Q20: Zahid, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel
bound for Hongkong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Sam, also an Indonesian national,
seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Zahid steadily approached
Sam and when he was near him, Zahid stabbed and killed Sam. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The
killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime
Command arrested Zahid. Presented for the killing of Sam, Zahid contended that he did not incur criminal
liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted
in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship. Is Zahid correct?
A20: No. The argument of Zahid that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were
Indonesians, is not tenable. Under the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippines territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign characteristic of an offender and
offended party does not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v. Galacgac, C.A. 54 O.G. 1027). Under
the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the
Philippines shall have force and effect within its territory. Since the killing took place within the Philippine territory,
our penal laws applies, and Zahid may be held crimally respoinsible despite his being an Indonesian citizen.
Likewise, the contention of Zahid that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-
registered ship, is without merit. Under the English rule, which our jurisdiction recognizes and follows, crimes
committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country, except
when the crimes merely affect things within the vessel, or when they only refer to the internal management thereof.
Hence, since the crime was committed within Philippine waters and neither exception applies, Zahid may be
prosecuted in Manila.
Q21: Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism.

A21: In habitual delinquency, the offender commits serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa
or falsification. Within 10 years from his last release or conviction, the offender must be found guilty any of the said
crimes in habitual delinquency. Further, he must be found guilty for the third time or oftener for the crime specified.
On the other hand, in recidivism, it is sufficient that the accused, on the date of the trial shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Also, there is
no period of time required between the former conviction and the last conviction.
As to their effects, an additional penalty is imposed in habitual delinquency while recidivism only serves to increase
the penalty to the maximum if not offset by a mitigating circumstance.
Q22: Baste was convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act. While serving his sentence, he stabbed John Lloyd with a kitchen knife during a gang rumble. The
special aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism was appreciated. However, Baste contends that he
cannot be considered a quasi-recidivist since his firs offense was not a felony. Is he correct?
A22: No. A quasi-recidivist is any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment,
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. Such person shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. (Article 160, Revised Penal Code). Thus,
whether the crime for which the accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the felony charged
is punished under the Revised Penal Code or a special law is irrelevant in determining whether or not quasi-
recidivism should be considered. It is only the second crime required to be a felony. (People vs Peralta, GR 15959)
Q23: Cardi was n a drinking spree with some of her friends. After having had a drink too many, Nicki and Cardi
had a heated argument. Cardi stabbed Nicki resulting in serious physical injuries. Cardi was charged in an
Information of serious physical injuries aggravated by intoxication. She claims that intoxication should be
considered as a mitigating circumstance, instead. Is Cardi correct?
A23: Yes. The intoxication of Cardi may be prima facie considered as mitigating circumstance as it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. There is no clear indication that Cardi was habitually intoxicated. It is
also not shown that intoxication was intentional subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. Thus, it cannot be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Q24: Enumerate the penalties that can be simultaneously served with imprisonment.
5
A24: According to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the penalties that can be simultaneously
served with imprisonment:
1. Perpetual Absolute Disqualification
2. Perpetual Special Disqualification
3. Temporary Absolute Disqualification
4. Temporary Special Disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Public Censure
7. Fine and Bond to Keep the Peace
8. Civil Interdiction
9. Confiscation and Payment of Costs
Q25: Antonio applied for probation. The court denied his application because the maximum term of his
sentence if more than 6 years. He appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, alleging that his sentence
has been reduced because of the presence of mitigating circumstance. Will the appeal prosper?
A25: No, it will not prosper. According to PD 968 Section 4, as amended by RA 10707, an order granting or denying
probation shall not be appealable.
Q26: Chris was convicted for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery for the death of Drake. Upon appeal,
Chris noted that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was present. According to Chris, this
mitigating circumstance offsets treachery. Hence, he should have been convicted for the lesser offense of
homicide. Is he correct?
A26: No. A qualifying circumstance not only gives the crime its proper and exclusive name but also places the
author thereof in such a situation as to deserve no other penalty than that specially prescribed for said crime. Thus,
it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. (People v. Layson, G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969)
Q27: Frank was driving in a dark alley when his BMW bumped the rear of a parked Rolls-Royce inside which
Annalise was then taking a nap. Annalise alighted the vehicle and confronted Frank who also alighted.
Because of her anger, Annalise shouted: “Putang ina mo! Ang tanga mo.” Frank answered bank, “Wag ka
magyabang dayn, papatayin kita!” Annalise then drew her gun and shot Frank in the arm. The wound was
not life threatening. What are the kinds of unlawful aggression and which kind was displayed in this case?
A27: Unlawful aggression can either be (a) actual or material unlawful aggression and (b) imminent unlawful
aggression. Actual or material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force or with a weapon, an
offensive act that positively determines the intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression, on the other hand, means an attack that is impending or at the point of happening. It must not consist
in a mere threatening attitude or an imaginary one, but must be offensive and positively strong.
In this case, there is neither actual nor imminent unlawful aggression. The statement “papatayin kita” does not
constitute an attack with physical force or with a weapon or an offensive act that positively determines the intent
of the aggressor to cause the injury nor an impending attack, which is offensive and positively strong.
Q28: Charges d’ affairs Sven of Germany suffers from a psychotic disorder after a failed assassination attempt
against him in his previous assignment. One night, while he was working out in a gym along Katipunan, he
saw a group of bodybuilders who he thought were assassins who were out to to kill him. He asked for the gun
of his escort shot and killed one of the bodybuilders before he was subdued. He claims that the circumstance
of insanity shall be appreciated to exempt him from criminal liability. Is he correct?
A28: No, he is not. His psychotic condition cannot be appreciated as an exempting circumstance of insanity in the
absence of showing that there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in accordance with the cognition test.
However, he is immune from criminal prosecution given that his position of charges de affaires. Such position is
diplomatic; hence Sven is vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from criminal suit.
Q29: Sentaor Brilliantes was convicted of plunder. About a year into serving his sentence, the President
granted him absolute pardon. It sates, “In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by
the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Brilliantes, who was convicted of Plunder in Criminal
Case 123456 and upon whom the penalty of reclsion perpetua was imposed.”
1. Brilliantes now wants to run for Senator in the upcoming 2019 elections. May Brilliantes do so?
6
2. Supposing he was convicted of rebellion and received amnesty from the government instead. May Brilliante
run for Senator in the next elections?
A29:
1. No, he cannot run in the senatorial race. Under 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office unless such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Further, Article 41 of the same code states that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it perpetual
absolute disqualification, which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless
the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Risos-Vidal vs Lim G.R. No 206666, October 21, 2015)
In this case, the terms of the pardon neither expressly restore his right to public office nor remitted the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. He therefore cannot run for public office.
2. If Briliantes was convicted of rebellion and he received amnesty, he can run for public office. Under Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is extinguished completely by amnesty. Thus the penalty and all its
effects are also extinguished. This includes the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty
looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, so that the person released by amnesty
stands before the law as though he had committed no offense. (Barrioquinto v Fernandez G.R. No. L-1278, June
21, 1949)
Q30: Serena and Dan were married but had been living separately due to their irreconcilable differences.
Serena then met Nate and fell in love with him. On the notion that she can marry Nate should Dan die, Serena
decided to kill Dan. One night, she decided to kill Dan in a dark alley near his home. Serena waited for Dan to
pass by in the alley. She someone and immediately shot the same with a revolver. The person was hit in the
head and immediately died. To her surprise, the man she shot was not Dan, but Rufus. What crime did Serena
commit?
A30: Serena committed murder qualified by treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code for killing
Rufus due to mistake of identity (error in personae). Although Serena’s intention as to commit parricide, she is
liable for murder since it is the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the act committed with intent to kill her
husband.
Q31: One night, Sarah fell asleep while guarding her family’s sari-sari store which was adjacent to their house.
She was awoken by Danny who was calling her to buy some cigarettes. As she handed the cigarettes to Danny,
the latter suddenly stabbed her.
For the death of Sarah, Danny was charged with murder aggravated by dwelling. Upon appeal, Danny
contends that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should not appreciated. Is Danny correct?
A31: Yes, Danny is correct. A market stall where the victim is sleeping is not a dwelling (People v. Magnaye, G.R.
No. L-3510, May 30, 1951).
Q32: Sentaor Brilliantes was convicted of plunder. About a year into serving his sentence, the President
granted him absolute pardon. It sates, “In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by
the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Brilliantes, who was convicted of Plunder in Criminal
Case 123456 and upon whom the penalty of reclsion perpetua was imposed.”
1. Brilliantes now wants to run for Senator in the upcoming 2019 elections. May Brilliantes do so?
2. Supposing he was convicted of rebellion and received amnesty from the government instead. May
Brilliantes run for Senator in the next elections?
A32:
1. No, he cannot run in the senatorial race. Under 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office unless such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Further, Article 41 of the same code states that the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it perpetual
absolute disqualification, which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless
the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Risos-Vidal vs Lim G.R. No 206666, October 21, 2015)
In this case, the terms of the pardon neither expressly restore his right to public office nor remitted the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. He therefore cannot run for public office.
2. If Briliantes was convicted of rebellion and he received amnesty, he can run for public office. Under Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is extinguished completely by amnesty. Thus the penalty and all its
effects are also extinguished. This includes the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty
7
looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, so that the person released by amnesty
stands before the law as though he had committed no offense. (Barrioquinto v Fernandez G.R. No. L-1278, June
21, 1949)
Q33: Norma was engaged in buy and sell of gadgets and maintained a stall in Greenhills. She was charged
with violation of PD 1512 (Anti-Fencing Law) as she was found to be in possession of recently stolen
cellphones, laptops, and other gadgets valued at P1,000,000 at her stall.
As her defense, Norma claimed that she merely bought the gadgets from Ricardo, one of her suppliers. She
produced a receipt for the transaction covering the sale. She also maintains that the acquisition of the gadgets
resulted from a legal transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known
that the gadgets were proceeds from theft.
Is Norma liable under the Anti-Fencing Law?

A33: No, Norma is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. The mere possession of any good, article, item, object,
or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
(Section 6, PD 1612) As it is merely prima facie evidence, such evidence can be overturned. In this case, Norma’s
defense hat she merely acquired the gadgets through a legitimate transaction is sufficient to overturn the prima
facie evidence.
Q34: Samuel was convicted of violation of RA 123456 and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year
as minimum to three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court has become final and executory.
When summoned for execution of judgment, Samuel failed to appear. The trial judge thus issued an order for
his arrest. He was, however, able to leave the Philippines for the United States. Fifteen years later, Samuel
returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest, claiming that the penalty
imposed against him had already prescribed. Is Samuel correct?
A34: No, Samuel is not correct. His Motion to Quash shall be denied. According to Article 93 of the Revised Penal
Code, the prescription of penalties shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his
sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those
who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. In this case, Samuel never
served a second of his sentence. Thus, prescription never started to run in his favor. (Del Castillo v. Torreocampo,
G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002).
Q35: While studying in her dorm room, Katherine was prodded by her boyfriend, Justin to remove her clothing.
When she did not respond, Justin forcibly undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the
people in her dormitory as male guests were not allowed, she resisted with minimal strength. It was clear
however that she was sobbing in a muffled manner. Justin, however, saw the image of a sobbing Katherine.
Brought to his senses, Justin left her dorm room naked. In his hurry, Justin did not notice that the dormitory
supervisory saw him rush out the dormitory. Justin was charged with attempted rape. Was he charged
correctly?
A35: No, he was not. Intent to have sexual intercourse is an essential element of attempted rape. In this case, such
intent was not established for failure to show that Justin had done acts to have sexual intercourse with Katherine
or that Katherine had actually commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ. (People vs Banzuela,
G.R. No 202060, December 11, 2013). Further, he spontaneously desisted from committing further lascivious acts
after undressing Katherine. Undressing the victim with lewd design merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness
(People vs Sanico, G.R. No 208469, August 13, 2014).
Q36: Katherine immediately called her best friend Michael to report that her boyfriend, Justin, forcibly
undressed her. That same night, Michael sought to teach Justin a lesson. He waited for Justin in a dark alley
by the latter’s house. When a young man who looked like Justin passed by, he stabbed the man. However, the
man Michael stabbed turned out to be Bryan, Justin’s brother who looked like him.
For his defense, Michael claims that he had incurred no criminal liability for lack of criminal intent as his
intended victim was Justin, not Bryan. Will this defense prosper?
A36: No, it will not prosper. Michael’s defense is error in personae. According to Article 4 of the Revised Penal code,
a person committing a felony is liable criminally although the wrongful act done is different from the unlawful
8
intent.
Q37: Enraged by her conviction for estafa by Judge Fernandez, Janet escaped in order to get even with Judge
Fernandez while her case was on appeal. She discovered that the 68-year old judge would sleep in his
mistress’ home every Saturday. Janet thus waiting for Judge Fernandez to arrive on Saturday evening at his
mistress’ house. At around 8:00 pm, Janet entered the house of the mistress and stabbed the judge at least
15 times. The judge immediately died.
Janet was convicted of direct assault with murder, the killing of Judge Fernandez qualified by treachery.
Should the following aggravating circumstances be appreciated?
1. Disregard of rank and age of victim
2. Dwelling and nighttime
3. Cruelty
4. Quasi-recidivism
A37:
1. No, disregard of rank should not be appreciated. Disregard of rank, being inherent in direct assault, is
already absorbed. As for disregard of age, it was not shown that there was intent to offend or insult the
age of Judge Fernandez. Hence, it shall not be considered as well. (People vs Onabia, G.R. No 128288)
2. Dwelling and nighttime shall not be appreciated because the presence of treachery in the present case
absorbs these aggravating circumstances.
3. The crime of cruelty cannot be appreciated simply because Justice Fernandez sustained 15 stab wounds.
For cruelty to be appreciated, it must be proven that in inflicting several stab wounds on the victim, the
perpetrator intended to exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. Absent proof that the subsequent
stabs were made when the Judge was still alive, there is no cruelty to speak of (Simangan vs People, G.R.
No 157984, July 08, 2004).
4. As for quasi-recidivism, it shall be appreciated when a person commits a felony after having been
convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence or while serving the same (Article
160, Revised Penal Code). In this case, Janet stabbed Judge Fernandez while the judgment of conviction
for estafa was still on appeal. Thus, quasi-recidivism cannot be considered.
Q38: What are the effects of repeal and amendment of a penal law?
A38: The following are the effects of a repeal or amendment of a penal law:
1. If the new law makes the penalty lighter, it shall be applied except if the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is inapplicable to the pending action or existing causes of action
2. If the new law imposes a penalty heavier, the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be applied.
3. If the new law totally repeals the existing law, hence making the act not punishable, the crime is
obliterated.
Q39: Raj, a Malaysian national visiting the Philippines, purchased a vessel bound for Bali, Indonesia. While
on board the Bessel, he saw his mortal enemy Damesh, an Indian national, seated at the back portion of the
cabin, who was eating breakfast. Raj suddenly approach Damesh and stabbed him. The vessel is registered
in Indonesia. The killing happened a few minutes after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives of the
PNP Maritime Command arrested Raj. Raj contends that he did not incur criminal liability because both he
and the victim were not Filipinos. He further argued that he cannot be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel
is an Indonesian-registered. Is Raj correct?
A39: Under the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippines
(Article 14, Civil Code). Thus, the foreign characteristic of the offender and the offended party does not excuse the
offender from the operation of penal laws. (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Further, under the Revised
Penal Code, except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines shall
have force and effect within its territory. In this case, since the killing took place within the Philippine territory,
Philippine penal law applies and Raj may be held criminally responsible despite being a Malaysian citizen.
As regards to the contention of Raj that he could not prosecuted in Manila because the vessel was Indonesian-
registered, the English Rule states that crimes committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters of a country
are triable in the courts of such country, except when the crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when
they only refer to the internal management thereof. Our jurisdiction recognizes the English rule. In this case,
9
therefore, since the crime was committed within Philippine waters and neither exception applies, Raj may be
prosecuted in Manila.
Q40: Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction over offenses committed on foreign warships while in the
territorial waters of the Philippines?
A40: No. A warship of another country, even though docked in the Philippines, is considered an extension of the
territory of its respective country. This also applies to embassies. Thus, offenses committed in warships or
embassies, though in the Philippines, are therefore not covered by the generality principle.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Q41: Dana gave Clara several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They agreed that Clara would
remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items to Dana within sixty days. The period expired
without Clara remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dana demanded by phone
that Clara turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Clara promised to do so
the following day. Clara still failed to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated checks.
Thereafter, Dana made several more demands, the last of which was in writing, but they were all unheeded.
When the checks were deposited in Dana’s bank account, the checks were returned unpaid for insufficient
funds. Clara was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Will the charges against Clara
prosper?
A41: Art. 315 part. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code punishes Estafa through Misappropriation. To prove the
foregoing crime, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the offender’s receipt of money, goods,
or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any obligation involving the
duty to deliver, or to return the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the money or property
received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that the offender return the money or property
received.
In the case at hand, the pieces of jewelry received by Clara from Dana, an act which transferred the judicial
possession of the former. To have juridical possession means possession which gives the transferee right over the
thing which the transferee may set up against the owner.
Generally, demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust is necessary before an accused is convicted of
Estafa. However, if there is an agreed period of return of the thing received in trust and the accused failed to return
it within the agreed period, demand is unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within the agreed period
consummates the crime of Estafa, i.e. the misappropriation of the thing received in trust. In this case, Dana and
Clara agreed on a period, within 60 days, for the delivery of the proceeds of the sale and the return of the unsold
items to Dana. Clara’s failure to return within 60 days is a presumption of misappropriation of the jewelry. Thus,
there would be no more need to present any act of misappropriation.
Q42: Peter and Zia were and have been living happily for the last three years. Peter was removing junk from
his basement when he came across an unlabeled recordable cd. He put it in his computer’s DVD drive to check
its contents. To his surprise, he saw a video of Zia and another man, James, in the act of sexual intercourse in
the master’s bedroom of his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a complaint for adultery against Zia and
James. Will Peter’s charge of adultery against Zia and James prosper?
A42: Yes, Peter’s charge of adultery will prosper. Adultery has the following elements: (1) the woman is married;
(2) she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; (3) as regards the man with whom she has intercourse,
he must know her to be married. In the case at hand, the discovery by Peter of the video of Zia having sexual
intercourse with another man, James, is sufficient to charge his wife with Adultery.
Q43: Who is a public officer?

A43: Under Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular elected
or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government
of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an
employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
10
Q44: What are the elements of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 or RA 9165?
A44: For an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements
must concur:
(1) That the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) That such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[ People v. Partoza, G.R. No 182418, May 08, 2009)
Q45: Jennifer sold her daughter to Brad and Angelina, an American couple and agreed never to claim the
child again. May Jennifer be held criminally liable under for Abandonment of a Legitimate Child under Article
347 of the Revised Penal Code?
A45: No. The sale of a parent of his or her child is not a crime under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code.
Abandonment, in the sense that is used and understood in Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, consists of
leaving the child at a public place where other people may find him or her, and causing the child to lose his or her
civil status. Thus, there is no abandonment in this case. (US vs Capillo, G.R. No 9279, March 25, 1915)
Q46: Distinguish attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness.

A46: In attempted rape, the acts performed by the offender clearly indicate that his purpose was to have carnal
knowledge with the offended woman. The lascivious acts are merely preparatory acts to the commission of rape.
On the other hand, in acts of lasciviousness there is no intent to have sexual intercourse. Thus, the lascivious acts
are the final objective sought by the offender.
Q47: What is “fence” under PD 1612?

A47: Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item,
object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds
of the crime of robbery or theft (PD 1612, Section 2).
Q48: When is there are presumption of Fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612)
A48: Mere possession of any goods or article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. (PD 1612, Section 6)
Q49: Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band.

A49: In brigandage, the purpose is to commit robbery in a highway, or to kidnap persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence. On the other
hand, in robbery in band, the purpose is to commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway.
The agreement in a brigandage is to commit several robberies. On the other hand, the agreement in a robbery in
band is to commit a particular robbery. Further, the mere formation of a band for any of the purposes of
brigandage is sufficient to impute criminal liability; while mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable.
Q50: The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing
activities of Nathan, but could not arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Cruz, a PDEA team leader,
approached Dante and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Nathan. Dante
refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs
anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Cruz explained that only he could help capture
Nathan because he used to be his customer. SP03 Cruz then gave Dante the marked money to be used in
buying shabu from Nathan. The operation proceeded. After Dante handed the marked money to Nathan in
exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from
Dante, SP03 Cruz and his team members barged in and arrested Dante and Nathan, who were both charged
with violation of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
1. What defense, if any, may Dante invoke to free himself from criminal liability?
2. May Nathan adopt as his own Dante’s defense?
A50:
1. Dante may invoke Section 33, Art. II, Ra. No. 9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002”. He may have
violated Section 11 of RA No. 9165 for possession of shabu, but he is immune from prosecution and punishment
11
because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation. There was virtually an instigation. He is
exempted from prosecution or punishment because the information obtained from him by the PDEA agents, who
had no direct and concrete evidence of Nathan’s drug-pushing activities, led to the whereabouts, identity and
arrest of Nathan. So long as the information and testimony given are pleaded and proven, Dante cannot be
prosecuted for violation of RA No. 9165.
2. No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arresting violators of RA No. 9165. It is an effective way
of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a
crime originates from the offender, without anyone inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, the
immunity does not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA No. 9165 or the sale of shabu (Sec. 33, RA No. 9165).
Lastly, he was the offender of crime and apparently the most guilty of the offense.
Q51: After a heated argument over his philandering, Julio punched his wife Nina, who was six and a half
months pregnant. Because of the impact, Nina lost her balance, fell on the floor with her head hitting a hard
object. Nina died and the child was expelled prematurely. After 36, the child died.
1. What crime/s did Julio commit?
2. Assuming that when the incident occurred, Nina was only six months pregnant, and when she died, the
fetus inside her womb also died, what crime/s did Julio commit?
A51:
1. With respect to the killing of the wife, Julio committed parricide. Under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), parricide is committed by killing one’s own legitimate/illegitimate father, legitimate/illegitimate mother,
legitimate/illegitimate child (should not be less than 3 days old, otherwise crime is infanticide), other legitimate
ascendant, other legitimate descendant, or legitimate spouse.
With respect to the killing of the child, he is not liable for unintentional abortion under Article 257 because the
child, who was born alive, was already viable or capable of independent existence, his age being six and a half
months (People v. Paycano, Jr. GR. No. 179035, April 16, 2008); Nor is he liable for infanticide because the child is
not less than three (3) days old, for the latter after thirty-six hours from expulsion (Article 255, RPC). The crime
committed is another parricide because the victim is his child with his wife. Hence, relationship qualifies the killing.
He shall incur criminal liability for two parricides although these crimes committed are different from his criminal
intention of maltreating his wife (Article 4, RPC). This is a complex crime because the single act of punching the
victim constitutes two grave felonies (Article 48, RPC).
2. If the child died inside the womb of Nina, who was only six months, the crime committed is a complex crime of
parricide with unintentional abortion. Killing the unborn child as a result of the violence employed against the
mother without intent to abort is unintentional abortion. Since the child died inside the womb of the mother,
unintentional abortion is committed regardless of viability of the victim. Because the same violence that killed the
mother also caused unintentional abortation, the crime committed is a complex crime (People v. Paycano, Jr. GR.
No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People v. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002)
Q52: How is the chain of custody observed?

A52: To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the movements of the dangerous drugs from
its confiscation up to its presentation in court. The purpose of establishing the chain of custody is to ensure the
integrity of the corpus delicti (People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008). The following links that
must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable,
of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 29,
2010).
To establish the first link in the chain of custody, and that is the seizure of the drug from the accused, the
prosecution must comply with Section 21 of RA. No. 9165, which requires that the apprehending officer after the
confiscation of drug must immediately physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
12
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof and within twenty-four (24) hours upon such confiscation,
the drug shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for examination.
Q53: Mia was the object of Carlito’s avid sexual desires. Carlito had attempted many times to entice Mia to a
date in bed with him but Mia had consistently refused. Fed up with all her rejections, Carlito abducted Mia
into a Ford Everest and drove off with her to a green-painted house situated in a desolated part of the town.
There, Carlito succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Mia against her will.
Meanwhile, the police authorities were tipped off that at 11:30pm on that same night Carlito would be selling
marijuana outside the green-painted house. Acting on the tip, the PNP station of the town formed a buy-bust
team with PO2 Masahol being designed the poseur buyer. During the buy-bust operation, Carlito opened the
trunk of the Ford Everest to retrieve the bag of marijuana to be sold to PO2 Masahol. To cut the laces that he
had tied the bag with, Carlito took out a swiss knife, but his doing prompted PO2 Masahol to effect his
immediate arrest out of fear that he would attack him with the knife. PO2 Masahol then confiscated the bag
of marijuana as well as the Ford Everest.
Two informations were filed against Carlito in the RTC – one for forcible abduction with rape; the other for
illegal sale of drugs. Was Carlito properly charged?
A53: The charge of rape through forcible abduction is correct. The rule is settled that if the main objective of the
accused is to rape the victim, the crime committed is rape even if he abducted her forcefully. Forcible abduction is
absorbed. There doctrine of absorption rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since forcible abduction is an
indispensable means to commit rape (People v. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993; People v. Sabadlab,
G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012). If forcible abduction, however, is a necessary means to commit rape, this is a
complex crime proper under Article 48 of RPC (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, People v. Tami, G.R. Nos 101801-
03, May 02, 1995).
Where the victim was abducted with lewd design and brought to a house (People v. Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988,
April 15, 1988; People v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 137383-84, November 23, 2000) in a desolated place e.g. uninhabited
grassy upland (People v. Caraang, G.R. Nos. 14824-27, December 11, 2003) or forest (People v. De Lara, G.R. No.
124703, June 27, 2000) where she was raped, forcible abduction should be treated as a necessary means to
commit rape, and thus, the crime committed is a complex crime of rape through forcible abduction under Art. 48
of the Revised Penal Code.
The charge of sale of dangerous drugs is improper, since the crime is consummated only upon the delivery of the
dangerous drugs to the poseur buyer for a consideration. Since in this case, Carlito has not yet delivered the
marijuana to PO2 Masahol when the latter apprehended the former, the crime committed is not sale of dangerous
drugs but attempted sale of dangerous drugs. Where the sale was aborted when the police officers immediate
placed accused under arrest, the crime committed is attempted sale. (People v. Figueroa G.R. No. 186141, April 11,
2012),
Q54: What are the circumstances that qualify a killing to murder?

A54: Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides the following qualifying circumstances:
(1) With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.  
(2) In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.  
(3) By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.  
(4) On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
(5) With evident premeditation.  
(6) With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.  
Q55: What are the elements of Sedition?

A55: According to Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of Sedition:
13
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;

2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods;
3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:
a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
b. To prevent the national government or any provincial or municipal government or any public
officer from exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of an administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or
any social classes;
e. To despoil for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national
government of all its property or any part thereof
Q56: Allan and Jennifer have been married for 20 years and had two (2) children. The first few years of their
marriage went along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Allan
comes home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Jennifer would
leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Allan would “court” Jennifer with flowers and
chocolate and convince her to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Allan would ask
Jennifer to forgive him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Allan would change. After a
month of marital bliss, Allan would return to his drinking habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at
first, until it would escalate to physical violence.
One night, Allan came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight,
Jennifer shot Allan while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Allan’s rotting corpse on the
marital bed. Jennifer and the children were nowhere to be found. Jennifer was charged with parricide. She
asserted “battered woman’s syndrome” as her defense. Is Jennifer’s “battered woman’s syndrome” defense
meritorious? Explain.
A56: Yes. Under Section 3 (c) of RA No. 9262, “Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined
pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
“cumulative abuse”. Under Section 3 (b), “Battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or
her child resulting in physical and psychological or emotional distress (Section 3).
In sum, the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman in a marital relationship with the
victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical
and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must
be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode
produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear pf an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief
that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
In this case, because of the battering episodes, Jennifer, feared the onset of another violent fight and honestly
believed the need to defend herself even if Allan had not commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in the absence
of unlawful aggression, however, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Section 27 of RA No. 9262,
Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code such as unlawful aggression (Section 26 of RA No.
9262)
Q57: Explain the cycle of violence.

A57: The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence” which has three phases
(1) the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent)
phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs – it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another
form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply
staying out of his way. The acute battering incident is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes,
death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has
no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when
the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.
14
Q58: Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months
ago. Whenever he would come home drunk, he would not mind Talia and would just go straight to bed. One
night, however, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he inflicted upon Talia and
promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. Just after one week, he started drinking
again. Afraid that he might beat her up again. Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed
out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charge with the crime of parricide.
May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability?
A58: No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and
psychological or emotional distress on her part, is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance
of “Battered Woman Syndrome”.
The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital relationship with the victim
is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and
psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be
“at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner, and such final episode produced
in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer, and an honest belief that she
needed to use force in order to save her life. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
Q59: Mike, Sam, and Felix, and Roger, armed with bolos, robbed the house where Alice and her daughter Alex
were residing. While the three were ransacking Alice’s house, Sam saw Alex trying to escape. Sam chased her and
dragged her to a field behind the house and raped her. He then brought her back to the house. What crime/s, if
any, did Mike, Sam, Felix, and Roger commit?
A59: Sam is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape since he raped Alex on occasion or by reason
of robbery. Notwithstanding the fact that the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is still robbery
with rape since what is important is the direct connection between the two crimes.
As for Mike, Felix, and Roger, they are liable for robbery by band. Robbery by band occurs when more than three
or more armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. Under Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code,
a robbery by the band shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it be
shown that they attempted to prevent the same. (People vs Hamiana Gr L-3491, May 30, 1951) In this case
therefore, they are not liable for rape sine they were not present when Sam raped Alex; hence they had no
opportunity to prevent the same. (People vs Aticamara, G.R. No. 178771. June 8, 2011)
Q60: Francisco is the president of the corporate published of he daily tabloid, Ladlad. Elizabeth is the
managing editor; while Lolit is the author. In her column, Lolit wrote about Kimberly, the heard examiner of
the BIR-RDO Manila:
“Itong si Kimberly ay BUWAYA. Ang nickname niya ay Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay bayad ng
taxpayer, wala na natira sa gobyerno. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Ninakaw na niya
lahat at dapat tanggaling itong bundat na bundat na pandak na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng
kurakot”
Francisco, Elizabeth, and Lolit were all charged with libel. The three claim that the article is within the ambit
of qualified privileged communication, that there is no malice in law and in fact and that the defamatory
comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do not
constitute libel.
Was libel committed. If so, are Francisco, Elizabeth, and Loliit liable for the crime?
A60: Yes. Libel was committed. Fair comment on acts of public officers related to the discharge of their duties is
a qualified privileged communication. However, the accused can still be held liable for liable if actual malice is
shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be established by showing that comment was made with knowledge
that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. (Guingguing v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
128959, September 30, 2005)
Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their profession, even when writing about public
figures or matters of public interest. In this case, the report by Lolit describing Kimberly as corrupt cannot be
15
considered as “fair or “true” sinche she did not research before making her allegations and it has been shown that
these allegations were baseless. The articles were not fair and true, but rather wild accusations. She has written
and published them with reckless disregard whether the same were false or not. (Tulfo v. People, G.R. Nos. 161032
& 161176, September 16, 2008)
A president of the publishing company, managing director, and author are all liable for libel under Article 360 of
the Revised Penal Code. The article provides that the publisher and editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for
the defamations contained therein to the same extent. Since the law makes the publisher and editor liable for libel
as if they were the author, Francisco, Elizabeth and Lolit are all equally liable for libel (Tulfo v. People, G.R. Nos.
161032 & 161176, September 16, 2008)
Q61: Distinguish malice in law from malice in fact.

A61: Malice in law is presumed from a defamatory imputation. Proof of malice is not required because it is
presumed to exist from the defamatory imputation, unless the communication is privileged, in which case, malice
must be proved. (Art. 354 (1)) Malice in fact is that which must be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred or purpose to
injure (US v. Montalvo, G.R. No. 10077, February 26, 1915).
Q62: In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced the many extrajudicial killings committed by the men in
uniform. Policeman Stone, then attending the mass, was peeved by the denunciations of Fr. Chris. He
immediately approached the priest during the homily, openly displayed his firearm tucked in his waist, and
menacingly uttered at the priest: Father may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo tumigil. His brazenness
terrified the priest, who cut short his homily then and there. The celebration of the mass was disrupted, and
the congregation left the church in disgust over the actuations of Policeman Stone, a co-parishioner.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the case, and is mulling on what to charge
Policeman Stone with.
1. May Policeman Stone be properly charged with Interruption of Religious Worship, as defined and
punished under Art. 132 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
2. May Policeman Stone be properly charged with Offending the Religious Feelings as defined and punished
under Art. 133 of the RPC?
A62:
1. Yes, Policeman Stone may be charged with Interruption of religious worship. Under the Revised Penal Code,
a public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion shall
be liable for interruption of religious worship. Hence, Policeman Stone, a public officer, approached the priest,
displayed his firearm, and threatened the priest, which caused the disruption of the mass and the leaving of
the congregation. Policeman Stone, therefore may be charged of interruption of religious worship.
2. However, Policeman Stone may not be charged with the crime of offending religious feelings. The Supreme
Court has ruled that the acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of
ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration (People v. Baes,
G.R. No. 46000, May 25, 1939). Policeman Stone threatened the priest because of the priest’s statements
during the homily and not to mock or ridicule the ceremony; consequently, Policeman Stone may not be
charged with the crime of offending religious feelings.
Q63: Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

A63: “Malfeasance” is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all.
“Misfeasance” is the improper doing of an act which a person may or might lawfully do.
“Nonfeasance” is the omission of an act with which a person out to do. (Black’s Dictionary, 6th Edition, West
Publishing 1990)
Q64: Arnold, 25 years of age, was walking along Makati Avenue, when, without his permission, Leilani, 17
years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in
exchange for sex. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested and charged him with violation of
Section 10 of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to him, in a public place. It was
established that Arnold was not in the performance of a social, moral and legal duty at that time.
Is Arnold liable for the charge?
16
A64: No, Arnold is not liable. Under Section 10 of Ra 7610, any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer join, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
or similar places is liable for child abuse.
Arnold is not liable for the charge. To be held liable under Section 10(b) of RA No. 9610, it is indispensable that
the child in the company of the offender must be 12 years or under who in 10 years or more his junior in a public
place. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and only 8 years younger than Arnold.Moreover, Leilani sat beside
Arnold without his permission, hence, he is not in the company of a child in a public place.
Q65: Domingo is the caretaker of three cows and three horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to
lend the cows to Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are
returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the
horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horses, got
the meat and sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the all horses were stolen.
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit?
2. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain.
A65:
1. Tristan is liable for Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. He received
the cows under obligation involving the duty to return the same thing deposited, and acquired legal or juridical
possession in so doing, since their transaction is a commodatum. Selling the cows as if he owned it constitutes
misappropriation or conversion within the contemplation of Article 315.
2. Domingo is liable for qualified theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code. Although Domingo received
the horse with the consent of the owner, Hannibal, his possession is merely physical or de facto.
Q66: Bruno, a grab driver, had on indebtedness in the sum of P500,000.00 which would become due in one
week. He was starting to worry because he still had not raised the amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he
had prayed for divine intervention. One night, while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the
back seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly P50,000.00 cash, the amount of his obligation,
and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, and that his prayers were answered, he took the money and used
it to pay his debt. What crime, if any did Bruno commit?
A66: Bruno committed the crime of theft, the owner is known to Bruno because there are IDs found in the wallet.
Failure to deliver to the local authorities or to its owner, the lost property which he found, constitutes theft under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q67: A taxi driver turned over the wallet and its contents left in his taxi to the nearest police station. The chief
of police of that station who appropriated the money for his own benefit, what crime was committed by the
chief of police?
A67: The chief of police is liable for theft. Although he is not the one who found the property, he is considered as
finder in fact since the property was surrender to him by the actual finder. He acquired the position occupied by
the actual finder and assumed by voluntary substitution the obligation to surrender the property to the lawful
owner. Appropriating the property is of the same character of that made by one who originally found the same
(People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31, 1923). The liability of the find in fact is the same liability of the finder
in law. Thus, what the Chief of Police committed is theft.
Q68: What are the elements of concubinage?

A68: Under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of concubinage:
1. The man is married;
2. He is either:
(a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
(b) Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstance with a woman not his wife;
(c) Cohabiting with her in any other place;
3. As regards the woman, she knows him to be married.
Q69: Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the
needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay-at-home mom and care for their children. One day,
17
Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female
nanny, Alma, in the matrimonial bed. Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma?
A69: No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall
have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband. Thus, Felipa is having homosexual intercourse with Alma,
a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
Q70: How is direct assault committed?

A70: Under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, direct assault can be committed in 2 ways:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or by seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting
any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on
occasion of such performance.
Q71: Enraged by her conviction for estafa by Judge Fernandez, Janet escaped in order to get even with Judge
Fernandez. She discovered that Judge Fernandez would sleep in his mistress’ home every Saturday. Janet
thus waiting for Judge Fernandez to arrive on Saturday evening at his mistress’ house. At around 8:00 pm,
Janet entered the house of the mistress and stabbed the judge at least 15 times. The judge immediately died.
Janet was convicted of direct assault with murder. Was the conviction for direct assault with murder proper?
A71: Under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, the phrase “on occasion of such performance” means by reason
of the past performance of official duty. The purpose of Article 148 is to allow persons in authority to discharge
their duties without fear or being assaulted by reason thereof. (People vs Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31,
1974). In this case, attacking Judge Fernandez was by reason of his past performance of duty of convicting Janet
based on his assessment of the evidence presented. Thus, the attack constitutes qualified direct assault. (U.S. vs
Garcia, G.R. No 6820, October 16, 1911). Since the single act of attacking the judge constitutes direct assault and
murder qualified by treachery, the two shall be merged together to form a complex crime of direct assault with
murder. (People vs Dural, G.R. No. 84921, June 08, 1993).
Q72: Popoy and Basha requested Mayor Salvador to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Salvador agreed. On
the day of the ceremony, Mayor Salvador got food poisoning. When Popoy and Basha asked Mayor Salvador’s
chief of staff, Maja, where Mayor Salvador was, Maja told them that he the mayor could not make it because
he was sick. Maja told the couple that the mayor authorized her to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor
Salvador would just sign the documents when he gets better. Maja thus solemnized the marriage and turned
over the documents to Mayor Salvador for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the
marriage was solemnized by the mayor himself. What crime/s did Mayor Salvador and Maja commit?
A72: Maja committed usurpation of official function (Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code). Under Article 177, the
offender performs an act pertaining to nay person in authority or public officer of the Philippine government or
any foreign government, or any agency thereof, under pretense of official position and without being lawfully
entitled to do so. In this case, Maja performed the act of solemnizing marriage, which pertained to the mayor, a
person in authority, without being lawfully entitled to do so. On the other hand, Maja did not commit the crime of
illegal marriage since the element “the offender is authorized to solemnize a marriage” is lacking (Ronulo vs
People, G.R. 182438, July 02, 2014).
As for Mayor Salvador, he is liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code. Under Article 171, a public officer takes adavantage of his official position and commits
falsification. In this case, Mayor Salvador made an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public
document, that the marriage was solemnized by him. Mayor Salvador likewise did not commit the crime of illegal
marriage since the element “the offender is authorized to solemnize a marriage” is lacking (Ronulo vs People, G.R.
182438, July 02, 2014).
Q73: A fire destroyed the houses of the many of the inhabitants of Municipality SA. Municipality SA thus
operated a shelter assistance program. Construction materials were provided to the victims and the
beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done, when the beneficiaries stopped working
on the construction since they needed to earn income to provide for their families. Mayor Gomez thus approved
the withdrawal of 10 boxes of food from Municipality SA’s feeding program. The boxes were given to the
families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the shelter assistance
18
program and feeding program were separate items on the municipality’s project.
1. What crime did Mayor Gomez commit?
2. Can Mayor Gomez invoke the defense of good faith?
A73:
1. Mayor Gomez committed illegal use of public funds or property punishable (technical malversation) under
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. Under Article 220, the following are the elements of technical
malversation: (a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; (b) that he applies public funds or property
to some public use; and (c) the public use for which such funds or property were applies is different from the
purpose for which they were original appropriated by law or ordinance. In this case, the funds for the feeding
program are not specifically appropriated for the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program in the annual
budget. Mayor Gomez thus ought to have used the boxes of food particularly for the feeding program, not for
the shelter assistance program.
2. No, Mayor Gomez cannot invoke food faith. In technical malversation, criminal intent is not an element. The
law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or oridnace for a particular purpose to
another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibia. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law and
not the character or effect of the act that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. (Ysidro
vs People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012).
Q74: To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surrounding areas that had been devastated
by the strongest typhoon to hit the country in decades, the Government and other sectors, including NGOs,
banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs is X, headed by Ms. Josefa Chan, its President and CEO. NGO
X operated mainly as a social amelioration and charitable institution. For its activities in the typhoon-stricken
parts of Leyte Provicne, X received funds from all sources, local and foreign, including substantial amounts
from legislators, local government officials and ADB. After several months, complaints were heard about the
very slow distribution of relief goods and needed social services by X.
The COA reported the results of its audit to the effect that at least P10 Million worth of funds coming from
public sources channeled to X were not properly accounted for. The COA demanded reimbursement but X did
not respond.
Hence, Ms. Chan was criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with malversation officer to render
accounts as respectively defined and punished by Art. 217 and Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code. She was also
charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the Government.
In her defense, Ms. Chan mainly contended that he could not be held liable under the various charges because
she was not a public officer. Can Ms. Chan be charged with the said crimes?
A74: As a general rule, malversation and failure to render accounting can only be committed by an accountable
public officer. However, Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions on malversation and
failure to render account shall apply to private individuals, who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any
national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or properties. The charges, therefore, against Ms. Chan for
malversation and failure to render accounting are proper although she is a private individual.
On the other hand, As a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of RA No. 3019 if he
conspired with a public officer in committing this crime (Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602,
April 13, 2007). However, there is no showing in this case that a public officer violated RA No. 3019 and Ms. Chang
conspired with that public officer in committing this crime. Hence, the charge against Ms. Chan, as a private
individual without a co-accused, who is a public officer, is improper.
Q75: Johnny was charged for the qualified rape of Amber. The Information alleged that Amber was 14 years
old at the time was committed and that Johnny was Amber’s stepfather. The presentation of Amber’s birth
certificate during trial established the following: (1) that Amber was 14 years old at the time of the rape and
(2) that Amber’s mother is Lilly and father was the late Dan. Lilly and Johnny only became live-in partners
after Dan’s death. The RTC convicted Johnny of qualified rape. However, the CA convicted Johnny of simple
rape. Is the CA correct?
A75: Yes, the CA is correct. Johnny committed simple rape. To be held liable for qualified rape, the qualifying
circumstance should be proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Although minority and step-relationship
were alleged in the Information, what was proven is he qualifying circumstance of minority and common-law
relationship with the mother of the victim. The concept of step-relationship is different from that of common-law
relationship. In the former, the mother and the offender are legally married, while in the latter they are not. The
19
appreciate the qualifying circumstance of minority and common-law relationship will offend the constitutional
right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the crime charged against him.
Q76: Distinguish rebellion from treason.

A76: Rebellion is committed during times of peace by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for
specific purposes under Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code namely, the removal from the allegiance to the said
Government or its laws, the territory of the Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land,
naval or other armed forces and the deprivation of the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any
of their powers or prerogatives. Any person, regardless of citizenship, may commit rebellion. However, rebellion
under the Revised Penal Code, can only be committed in the Philippines. Rebellion is considered as crime against
public order.
On the other hand, treason is committed by levying war against the Philippine Government or adhering to the
enemy and giving such enemy aid and comfort. The purpose of treason is to deliver the Philippines to a foreign
power. Only Filipino citizens or aliens residing in the Philippines may commit treason. However, it may be
committed outside the Philippines. To convict one for treason, there must be a testimony of at least 2 witnesses
to the same overt act. Treason is considered as a crime against national security.
Q77: The Royal Queen Victoria, a vessel registered in Peru, was 300 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan when
its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers
and crow were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items
and loaded them in their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they detonated
from a safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen
(15) others. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed?
A77: The crime of Qualified Piracy under Article 123 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed, the elements
of piracy being present, namely, (1) that the vessel is on the high seas; (2) that the offenders are not members of
its complement or passenger of the vessel; and (3) that the offenders (a) attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the
whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
The latter act is committed when the offenders took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded
them in their own motorboat.
The crime of piracy is qualified because (1) the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding; and (2) the crime of
piracy was accompanied by murder and physical injuries. The facts show that the offenders planted an explosive
in the vessel which they detonated from a safe distance and the explosion killed ten (10) crewmen and injured
fifteen (15) others.
The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. The law considers qualified piracy as a
special complex crime regardless of the number of victims (People v. Siyoh, G.R. No. L-57292, February 18, 1986).
Q78: Distinguish proposal to commit rebellion from inciting to rebellion.

A78: In proposal to commit rebellion, the offender induces another to commit rebellion and the person who proses
the execution of the crime employs secret means. On the other hand, in inciting to rebellion, the offender induces
another to commit rebellion publicly. Furthermore, in proposal to commit rebellion, the person who proposes has
decided to commit rebellion; while in inciting to rebellion, the person who incites is not required to have decided
to commit rebellion.
Q79: What are the kinds of mutilation?

A79: The following are the kinds of mutilation:
1. Castration – intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction
2. Mayhem – intentionally making other mutilation, that is by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of
the offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction to deprive him of that part of his body.
Q80: Ram, a Canadian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw
materials at a low price from Ram. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix
with water and let stand until a gel was formed. Ram made a written commitment to the investors that he
would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When the amounts to be
20
paid by Ram to the investors reached millions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business,
absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any?
A80: The crime committed is estafa through false pretenses (Art. 315 par. 2(a)). Ram defrauded the investors by
falsely pretending to possess business or imaginary transactions. The fact that he sold all the equipment of his
perfume business, and absconded with the money when the amounts to be paid by him to the investors reached
millions of pesos shows that the transaction or his business is imaginary, and he defrauded the victims.
21

UP Criminal-Law

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

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

UP Criminal-Law

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

U.P.

LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW PRE-WEEK REVIEWER

Q2: How are felonies committed?

Q3: Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

Q4: What are the stages of execution?

Q6: What is the Pro Reo Doctrine?

Q7: What is the Equipoise Rule?

Q12: Is there a complex crime of criminal negligence?

Q14: Define wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy

Q16: Is there a crime of frustrated serious physical injuries?

Q21: Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism.

Is Norma liable under the Anti-Fencing Law?

Q43: Who is a public officer?

Q46: Distinguish attempted rape from acts of lasciviousness.

Q47: What is “fence” under PD 1612?

Q49: Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band.

Q52: How is the chain of custody observed?

Q54: What are the circumstances that qualify a killing to murder?

Q55: What are the elements of Sedition?

1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;

Q57: Explain the cycle of violence.

Q61: Distinguish malice in law from malice in fact.

Q63: Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance.

Is Arnold liable for the charge?

Q68: What are the elements of concubinage?

Q70: How is direct assault committed?

Q76: Distinguish rebellion from treason.

Q78: Distinguish proposal to commit rebellion from inciting to rebellion.

Q79: What are the kinds of mutilation?

Potrebbero piacerti anche