Sei sulla pagina 1di 49

(3) Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita.

(1988; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2003)


FREQUENTLY ASKED OBJECTIVE
QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW ANSWER: Mala in se is a wrong from its
very nature, as most of those punished in the
RPC. Hence, in its commission, intent is an
(1) Distinguish motive from intent. (1996; 1999) element and good faith is a defense. The test
to determine whether an offense is mala in se
ANSWER: Motive is the reason which is not the law punishing it but the very nature
impels one to commit an act for a definite of the act itself.
result, while intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to effect such result. Intent On the other hand, an act mala prohibita
is an element of the crime (except in is a wrong because it is prohibited by law.
unintentional felonies), whereas motive is Without the law punishing the act, it cannot
not. be considered a wrong. Hence, the mere
commission of that act is what constitutes
the offense punished and criminal intent will
(2) What do you understand by aberratio ictus, be immaterial for reason of public policy.
error in personae and praeter intentionem? Do
they alter the criminal liability of the accused?
(1989; 1993; 1994; 1999) (4) What are heinous crimes? Name ten specific
heinous crimes. (1994; 1995; 1997)
ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or mistake in
the blow occurs when the offender delivered ANSWER: Heinous crimes are those
the blow at his intended victim but missed, grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and
and instead such blow landed on an which by reason of their inherent or manifest
unintended victim. The situation generally wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and
brings about complex crimes where from a perversity, are repugnant and outrageous to
single act, two or more grave or less grave the common standards and norms of decency
felonies resulted, namely the attempt against and morality in a just, civilized and ordered
the intended victim and the consequences on society. They are punishable by reclusion
the unintended victim. As complex crimes, perpetua to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, R.A.
the penalty for the more serious crime shall 7659)
be the one imposed and in the maximum
period. It is only when the resulting felonies
are only light that complex crimes do not
result and the penalties are to be imposed The ten specific heinous crimes are:
distinctly for each resulting crime. 1. Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
Error in personae or mistake in identity 3. Qualified Bribery
occurs when the offender actually hit the 4. Parricide
person to whom the blow was directed but 5. Murder
turned out to be different from and not the 6. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
victim intended. The criminal liability of the 7. Robbery with Homicide
offender is not affected, unless the mistake 8. Destructive Arson
in identity resulted to a crime different from 9. Rape committed by two or more persons,
what the offender intended to commit, in or with a deadly weapon or with homicide
which case the lesser penalty between the 10. Plunder
crime intended and the crime committed
shall be imposed but in the maximum period
(Art. 49, RPC). (5) What are the instances when the death
penalty could not be imposed, although it
Praeter intentionem or where the should otherwise be meted out? (1997; 1998)
consequence went beyond that intended or
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance ANSWER: Under Art. 47 of the RPC, the
(Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a death penalty shall not be imposed when:
notorious disparity between the act or means
employed by the offender and the resulting 1. The guilty person is below 18 years of age
felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be at the time of the commission of the
reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the crime, or
offender from the act or means employed by 2. Is more than 70 years of age, or
him. 3. When upon appeal of the case by the SC,
the required majority vote is not
obtained for the imposition of the death
penalty.
officer to entrap or apprehend a person who
has committed a crime. With or without the
(6) When is the benefit of the Indeterminate entrapment, the crime has been committed
Sentence Law not applicable? (1999; 2003) already. Hence, entrapment is not mitigating.

ANSWER: The Indeterminate Sentence


Law does not apply to: (9) What is the purpose of the Probation Law?
(1986; 1989)
1. Persons convicted of offenses punishable
with death penalty or life imprisonment; ANSWER: The purposes of the Probation
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or Law are:
proposal to commit treason; a. To promote the correction and
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rehabilitation of an offender by providing
rebellion, sedition or espionage; him with individualized treatment;
4. Those convicted of piracy; b. To provide an opportunity for the
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; reformation of a penitent offender which
6. Those who shall have escaped from might be less probable if he were to
confinement or evaded sentence; serve a prison sentence; and
7. Those who violated the terms of c. To prevent the commission of offenses.
conditional pardon granted to them by
the Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of (10) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?
imprisonment does not exceed one year; (1998; 2003)
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law
(December 5, 1933), had been sentenced ANSWER: The doctrine of implied
by final judgment; conspiracy holds two or more persons
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of participating in the commission of a crime
destierro or suspension. collectively responsible and liable as co-
conspirators although absent any agreement
to that effect, when they act in concert,
(7) What is an impossible crime? (1993; 2003) demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a
common purpose or objective. The existence
ANSWER: It is an act which would be an of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced
offense against persons or property, were it from their criminal participation in pursuing
not for the inherent impossibility of its the crime and thus the act of one shall be the
accomplishment, or on account of the act of all.
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means. (Art. 4, par. 2)
(11) Are reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment
But where the acts performed which the same? Can they be imposed
would have resulted in an impossible crime interchangeably? (1991; 1994; 2001)
also 1) constitute an offense under the RPC,
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

or (2) would subject the accused to criminal ANSWER: NO. Reclusion perpetua is a
liability although of a different category, the penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a fixed
penalty to be imposed should be that for the duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1
latter and not that for an impossible crime. day to 40 years, and carries with it accessory
penalties.

Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is


a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no
fixed duration of imprisonment and without
any accessory penalty.
(8) Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (1990;
1995; 2003)
LAW

(12) What is a memorandum check? Is a person


ANSWER: Instigation takes place when a who issues a memorandum check without
peace officer induces a person to commit a sufficient funds guilty of violating B.P Blg. 22?
crime. Without the inducement, the crime (1994;1995)
would not be committed. Hence, it is
exempting by reason of public policy. ANSWER: A memorandum check is an
Otherwise, the peace officer would be a co- ordinary check with the word “Memorandum,”
principal. “Memo,” or “Mem” written across the check,
signifying that the maker or drawer engages to
On the other hand, entrapment signifies pay its holder absolutely, thus partaking the
the ways and means devised by a peace nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a

48
bank and is a bill of exchange within the CHU before the lapse of three days and before the
purview of Sec. 185 of the Negotiable criminal proceedings were instituted, are pertinent
Instruments Law. only when the crime committed is Slight Illegal
Detention. These circumstances mitigate the liability
A person who issued a memorandum check of the offender only when the crime committed is
without sufficient funds is guilty of violating Slight Illegal Detention. The crime committed by DAN
B.P Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks was Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention because
whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in he is a private individual who detained and kidnapped
payment of a pre-existing obligation, or as CHU, who is a minor. (Arts. 267 and 268, Revised
deposit or guarantee. Penal Code)

QUESTION II
A. On his way home from office, ZZ rode in
a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same
jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX
2004 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a
hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet
IN CRIMINAL LAW and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out
of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the
QUESTION I pavement, causing his instant death.
A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD Is XX liable for ZZ’s death? Explain briefly.
that she could send them to London to work there
as sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and B. MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged
received from them various amounts of money for as a drug pusher under the Comprehensive
recruitment and placement fees totaling P400,000. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pre-trial, he
After their dates of departure were postponed offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense
several times, the four prospects got suspicious and concerning use of dangerous drugs.
went to POEA (Philippine Overseas Employment Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea to the
Authority). There they found out that RR was not lesser offense? Explain briefly.
authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund to no Suggested Answers:
avail. A. YES, XX is liable for ZZ’s death because
Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain criminal liability is incurred by a person committing a
briefly. felony although the wrong done be different from
that which he intended. He is responsible for all the
B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped direct, natural and logical consequences of his
CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released felonious act. XX’s act of announcing a hold-up is an
CHU even before any criminal information was filed attempted robbery. ZZ’s death is the direct, natural
against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the and logical consequence of XX’s felonious act because
defense that he did not incur any criminal liability ZZ jumped out of the vehicle by reason of XX’s
since he released the child before the lapse of the announcement of a hold-up. XX is liable for ZZ’s
3-day period and before criminal proceedings for death even if he did not intend to cause the same.
kidnapping were instituted. (Art. 4, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Arpa, 27
Will DAN’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. SCRA 1037 [1969]).

Suggested Answers: B. NO, the judge should not allow MNO to


A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having plead to a lesser offense because plea bargaining is
engaged in illegal recruitment constituting the expressly prohibited under the Comprehensive
offense of economic sabotage which is punishable Dangerous Act of 2002. (R.A. 9165, Sec. 23)
with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.
Economic sabotage is an offense defined in
38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Presidential QUESTION III
Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal A. BB and CC, both armed with knives,
recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, upon seeing the
syndicate. It is a large scale when there are three or attack, drew his gun but was prevented from
more aggrieved parties, individually or as group. And shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with
it is committed by a syndicate when three or more him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife
persons conspire or cooperate with one another in wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
activity. (UP Law Center) circumstance of avoiding of greater evil or injury,
contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB
B. NO, DAN’s defense will not prosper and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil.
because he is liable for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly.
Detention and the circumstances that he released
offended party nor has the crime been discovered by
B. PX was convicted and sentenced to the authorities or their agents. (Revised Penal Code,
imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one Art. 91)
hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of
another crime for which the penalty imposed on B. NO, TRY’s contention is incorrect because
him was thirty days only. the pardon granted by the President does not
Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. expressly extinguish the accessory penalty of
perpetual disqualification to hold public office. A
Suggested Answers: pardon granted by the President shall not work the
A. NO, AA’s defense will not prosper because restoration of the right to hold public office, or the
AA was not avoiding any evil when he sought to right of suffrage, unless such right is expressly
disable ST. AA’s act of preventing ST from shooting restored by the terms of the pardon. (Revised Penal
BB and CC, who were the aggressors, was designed to Code, Art. 36)
insure the killing of FT without any risk to his
assailants. Even if ST was about to shoot BB and CC,
his act being in defense of his father FT, is not an evil QUESTION V
that could justifiably be avoided by disabling ST. A. The death penalty cannot be inflicted
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 11, par. 4,) under which of the following circumstances:
1. When the guilty person is at
B. YES, PX may apply for probation. His least 18 years of age at the time of the
previous conviction for another crime with a penalty commission of the crime.
of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) 2. When the guilty person is more
month, does not disqualify him from applying for than 70 years of age.
probation; the penalty for his present conviction does 3. When, upon appeal to or
not disqualify him either from applying for probation, automatic review by the Supreme Court, the
since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years. required majority for the
(P.D. NO. 968, Sec. 9) imposition of death penalty is not obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of
a capital crime but before execution
QUESTION IV becomes insane.
A. OW is a private person engaged in cattle 5. When the accused is a woman
ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV while she is pregnant or within one year after
treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body delivery.
into a ravine. For 25 years, CV’s body was never Explain your answer or choice briefly.
seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had
witnessed. B. CBP is legally married to OBM. Without
Yesterday, after consulting the parish obtaining a marriage license, CBP contracted a
priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he second marriage to RST.
witnessed and revealed that AM killed CV 25 years Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason briefly.
ago.
Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite Suggested Answers:
the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly. A. Understanding the word “inflicted” to
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its


B. TRY was sentenced to death by final execution, the circumstance in which the penalty
judgment. But subsequently he was granted pardon cannot be inflicted is no. 2: “when the guilty is more
by the President. The pardon was silent on the than 70 years of age” (Article 47, Revised Penal
perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any Code). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to
public office. reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of provided in Article 40, RPC.
APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to In circumstance no. 1 the guilty person is at
disqualify him. TRY contended he is not least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of
disqualified because he was already pardoned by the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since
the President unconditionally. the offender is already of legal age when he
Is TRY’s contention correct? Reason briefly. committed the crime.
LAW

Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,


Suggested Answers: considering the decision of the Supreme Court in
A. YES, AM can be prosecuted for murder People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R. No. 147678-87, July 7,
despite the lapse of 25 years, because the crime has 2004) providing an intermediate review by the Court
not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period of Appeals for such cases where the penalty imposed
has not even commenced to run. is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
The period of prescription of a crime shall before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
commence to run only from the day on which the While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory
crime has been discovered by the offended party, the review by the Supreme Court of cases where the
authorities or their agents. OW, a private person who penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life
saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it

48
proscribed an intermediate review. A prior 1. What crime was committed by CD?
determination by the Court of Appeals on, 2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly?
particularly, the factual issues, would minimize the
possibility of an error of judgment. If the Court of B. GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece
Appeals should affirm the penalty of death, reclusion and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in
perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render the information that the victim was a minor below
judgment imposing the corresponding penalty as the seven years old and her mother testified that she
circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering was only six years and ten months old, which her
judgment and elevate the entire records of the case aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The
to the Supreme Court for its final disposition. information also alleged that the accused was the
In circumstances nos. 4 and 5, the death victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law On automatic review before the Supreme
violated although its execution shall be suspended Court, accused-appellant contends that capital
when the convict becomes insane before it could be punishment could not be imposed on him because
executed and while he is insane. Likewise, the death of the inadequacy of the charges and the
penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the
execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond
and for one year after her delivery. (UP Law Center) reasonable doubt.
Is appellant’s contention correct? Reason
B. Whether CBP could be held liable for briefly.
bigamy or not, depends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage Suggested Answers:
license. Although as a general rule, marriages A. 1. The crime committed by CD is arson
solemnized without license are null and void ab under Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law)
initio, there are marriages exempted from license which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to
requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family the property of another (Section 1 of Pres. Decree
Code, such as in Article 27 which is marriage in No. 1613).
articulo mortis. If the second marriage was valid even 2. CD is criminally liable although he is
without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable the stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt,
for bigamy. Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy because such relationship is not exempting from
but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the Revised criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in
Penal Code, specifically designated as “Marriage crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious
contracted against provisions of laws.” (UP Law mischief (Article 332, Revised Penal Code). The
Center) provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the effect that
burning property of small value should be punished as
Alternative Answer: malicious mischief has long been repealed by Pres.
YES, CBP is liable for bigamy because the Decree 1613; hence there is no more legal basis to
legality of the second marriage is immaterial as far as consider burning property of small value as malicious
the law on bigamy is concerned. Any person who mischief. (UP Law Center)
shall contract a second or subsequent marriage,
before the former marriage has been legally B. YES, the appellant’s contentions are
dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been correct, because the victim’s minority was not
declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment sufficiently proved by the prosecution, and neither
rendered in the proper proceedings, is criminally was the appellant’s relationship with the victim
liable for the crime of bigamy. A plain reading of the properly alleged in the information. The testimony
law, therefore, would indicate that the provision of the mother regarding the age of TC, although
penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a corroborated by her aunt, is not sufficient proof of
subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid the age of the victim in order to justify the
marriage. imposition of the death penalty. Testimonial
To hold otherwise would render the State’s evidence on the age of the victim may be presented
penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow only if the certificate of live birth or similar
individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital authentic documents such as baptismal certificate
contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus and school records which show the date of birth of
escape the consequences of contracting multiple the victim, is shown to have been lost or destroyed or
marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless women otherwise unavailable. (PEOPLE vs. PRUNA, G.R. No.
with the promise of futurity and commitment. 138471, October 10, 2002)
(TENEBRO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 150758, Furthermore, if the offender is merely a
February 18, 2004) relative, not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or
guardian or common-law spouse of the mother of the
victim, the information must allege that he is a
QUESTION VI relative by consanguinity or affinity, as the case may
A. CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD be, "within the third civil degree." Thus, it is not
got very mad at FEL for failing in his college enough for the information to merely allege that
courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suitcases of appellant is the "uncle" of the victim even if the
FEL and burned it together with all its contents. prosecution is able to prove this matter during trial.
It is still necessary to allege that such relationship being the mother of DCB,she cannot be held liable
was "within the third civil degree," so that in the as an accessory.
absence of said allegation, appellant can only be held Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason briefly.
liable for simple rape and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. (PEOPLE vs. Suggested Answers:
HEREVESE, G.R. No. 145407, September 11, 2003) A. NO, PH should be convicted only of
murder. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance only and
QUESTION VII not punishable separately. If homicide or murder is
A. AX was convicted of reckless committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered
sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay as an aggravating circumstance. (R.A. NO. 8294, Sec.
P150,000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his 1)
appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He
left a young widow, 2 children and a million-peso B. MCB’s defense will not prosper because
estate. she profited from the effects of the crime committed
What is the effect, if any, of his death on by her daughter DCB. An accessory is not exempt
his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly? from criminal liability even if the principal is his
spouse, ascendant, descendant, or legitimate,
B. OX and YO were both courting their co- natural or adopted brother, sister, or relative by
employee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ affinity with in the same degree, if such accessory
decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ profited from the effects of the crime, or assisted the
poured a substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was principal to profit therefrom. The reason is that the
arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white accessory in such cases act not by the impulse of
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened affection but by detestable greed. (Revised Penal
to YO after he drank the coffee. Code, Art. 20.)
What criminal liability did OZ incur, if any?
Explain briefly.
QUESTION IX
Suggested Answers: A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It
A. The death of the accused pending the appears from the evidence that she failed to give
appeal of his conviction will extinguish his criminal immediately the required medical attention to her
liability as well as his civil liability arising from the adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally
crime committed. However civil liability arising from bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries
sources other than the crime committed survives and and impaired vision that could lead to night
maybe pursued in a separate civil action. Sources of blindness. The accused, according to the social
civil liability other than crime are law, contracts, worker on the case, used to whip him when he
quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. (PEOPLE vs. failed to come home on time from school. Also, to
BAYOTAS, G.R. NO. 152007, September 2, 1994) punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she
sometimes sent him to bed without supper.
B. OZ incurred criminal liability for She moved to quash the charge on the
impossible crime. The crime committed by OZ could ground that there is no evidence that she
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

have been murder, which is a crime against persons, maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added
if it were not on account of the employment of that the accident was caused by her driver’s
inadequate or ineffectual means. The substance negligence. She did punish her ward for
poured by OZ on YO’s drink was not arsenic as OZ naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly.
thought it would be, but was merely white sugar Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly.
which was ineffectual to produce YO’s death.
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 4) B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob
Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one
of the windows in house. After taking her personal
QUESTION VIII properties and as they were about to leave, XA
A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in the decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was
election campaign for Mayor of their town. The molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of
LAW

information against PH alleged that he used an her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from
unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and raping OD.
this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC
prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two commit, and what is the criminal liability of each?
crimes: murder and illegal possession of firearms. Explain briefly.
Is the conviction correct? Reason briefy.
Suggested Answers:
B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the A. NO, MNA is guilty of Child Abuse under
earrings of XZY, a stranger. MCB pawned the R.A. NO. 7610. Said statute penalizes acts of child
earnings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 abuse whether habitual or not. [Sec. 3 (b), R.A. NO.
loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that 7610] MNA’s act of whipping her adopted child when

48
he failed to come home on time, sending him to bed public uprising, while coup d ‘etat may be committed
without supper for carelessness in washing dishes, by only one person.
and failure to immediately give medical treatment to
her injured adopted child resulting in serious 2. Compound crime is when a single act
impairment of growth and development and in his constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies
permanent incapacity, constitutes maltreatment and while a complex crime is when an offense is a
is punishable as Child Abuse. [Sec. 3 (b) of R.A. NO. necessary means for committing the other.
7610] 3. Justifying circumstance are those when
the act of a person is said to be in accordance with
B. The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is law, so that such person is deemed not to have
the composite crime of robbery with rape, a single, transgressed the law and is free from both criminal
indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised and civil liability. On the other hand, exempting
Penal Code. circumstances are those grounds for exemption from
Although the conspiracy among the offenders punishment because there is wanting in the agent of
was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the crime any of the conditions which makes the act
the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and voluntary or negligent.
aware of the rape being committed by their co-
conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from 4. Intent is the purpose to use a particular
committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in means to effect a definite result while motive is the
the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator moving power which impels one to action for such
XA. result.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC,
shall be the same, as principals in the special 5. Oral defamation, known as slander, is a
complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, malicious imputation of any act, omission or
indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the circumstance against a person, done orally in public,
robbery is just a component. (UP Law Center) tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt,
embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a
crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the
QUESTION X Revised Penal Code.
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Criminal conversation is a term used in
1. Between rebellion and coup d’etat making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as in
based on their constitutive elements as certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It
criminal offenses. has no definite concept as a crime. (UP Law Center)
2. Between compound and complex crimes
as concepts in the Penal Code.
3. Between justifying and exempting BAR TYPE QUESTIONS BASED ON
circumstances in criminal law.
4. Between intent and motive in the PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE
commission of an offense.
5. Between oral defamation and criminal
conversation. Question No. 1
A armed with a revolver, suddenly
Suggested Answers: approached C who was seated at the driver’s seat
1. Rebellion is committed by a public of an FX taxi and shot him on the abdomen. After
uprising and taking arms against the government which A moved back while B shot the victim again
while coup d’ etat is committed by means of swift this time twice. A and B then fled together from
attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, the scene. A and B were convicted of murder
threat, strategy, and stealth. qualified by treachery for conspiring to kill B and
The purpose of rebellion is either to remove sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
from the allegiance to the Philippine Government or perpetua.
its laws the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof or any body of land, naval or other armed (a) Was there conspiracy between A and B?
forces; or to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress (b) Was the there treachery in the mode of
wholly or partially of any of their powers or attack?
prerogatives. On the other hand, the purpose of a (c) Was the penalty properly imposed?
coup d’ etat is to seize or diminish state power from
the duly constituted authorities of the government or ANSWERS:
any military camp or the installation communication (a) YES, A and B conspired to kill C.
networks, public utilities and other facilities needed Conspiracy may be implied if two or more persons
for the exercise of continued possession of powers. aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of
Rebellion may be committed by any group of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that
persons while coup d ‘etat is committed by a person their combined acts, though apparently independent
or persons belonging to the military or police, or of each other, were, in fact, connected and
holding any public office or employment. Rebellion cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal
is committed by more than 1 person as it involves a association and a concurrence of sentiment. It may
be deduced from the acts of the malefactors before,
during and after the commission of the crime which ANSWER:
are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted acts and They are guilty of murder, not kidnapping.
concurrence of sentiments. Once conspiracy is The act of the malefactors of abducting Mody was
established, the act of one is deemed the act of all. merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing
In this case, the collective acts of A and B before, him. Where the detention and/or forcible taking
during and after the shooting, evince no other away of the victim by the accused, even for an
conclusion than that they conspired to kill C. appreciable period of time but for the primary and
(b) YES, although the attack was frontal and ultimate purpose of killing them, holds the offenders
in broad daylight, it was sudden and unexpected, liable for taking their lives or such other offenses
giving C no opportunity to repel the same or offer any they committed in relation thereto, but the
defense on his person. incidental deprivation of the victims' liberty does not
(c) YES, under Article 248 of the Revised constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention.
Penal Code, the imposable penalty for murder is What is primordial then is the specific intent of the
reclusion perpetua to death. There being no malefactors as disclosed in the information or
modifying circumstances attendant to the crime, the criminal complaint that is determinative of what
appellants should be sentenced to suffer the penalty crime the accused is charged with — that of murder
of reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of or kidnapping. In murder, the specific intent is to kill
the Revised Penal Code, which provides that when the victim. In kidnapping, the specific intent is to
the penalty consists of two indivisible penalties, the deprive the victim of his/her liberty. In this case, it is
lesser penalty shall be imposed in the absence of any evident that the specific intent of R, C, and J in
modifying circumstance. (PEOPLE vs. ALLAWAN, G.R. barging into the house of Mody was to kill him and
No. 149887. February 13, 2004) that he was seized precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances. (PEOPLE vs.
DELIM, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003)
Question No. 2
Lex was found guilty by the RTC of four
counts of rape and imposed upon him the supreme Question No. 4
penalty of triple death sentence and life One evening, A, B, C and D, each armed
imprisonment. with handguns, barged into the house of George
Was the imposition of the penalty of life and his 10-year old son Christopher. The four
imprisonment proper? intruders dragged George and Christopher out of
the house into their get away car and drove off.
After about fifteen minutes, A and B alighted from
ANSWER: the car bringing Christopher with them. In the
NO, the Revised Penal Code does not impose meantime, the police received a radio report that
the penalty of life imprisonment in any of the crimes George and his son Christopher had been
punishable therein. The proper penalty imposable is kidnapped. A checkpoint was put up and it was
reclusion perpetua, not life imprisonment. It bears there that the police intercepted the car carrying
reiterating that reclusion perpetua and life George, and was thus able to rescue the latter.
imprisonment are not synonymous penalties. They are After one week, George received a handwritten
distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory letter, demanding P3M for Christopher’s release.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

penalties.. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment No ransom money, however, was ever paid, for the
for 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. It also carries with police was able to rescue Christopher.
it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual absolute What crime or crimes were committed by
disqualification and civil interdiction for life or for A, B, C, and D?
the duration of the sentence. It is not the same as
"life imprisonment" which, for one thing, does not ANSWER:
carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, As to the abduction of Christopher, A, B, C,
does not appear to have any definite extent or and D are liable for kidnapping and serious illegal
duration. (PEOPLE vs. MEDINA, SR. G.R. Nos. 127756- detention under Art. 267 of the Revised Penal
58. June 18, 2003.) Code (RPC), the elements of which are as follows:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he detains another or in any manner
LAW

Question No. 3 deprives the latter of his liberty;


Armed with shotguns, R, C, and J barged 3. That the act of detention must be illegal;
into the house of Mody while the latter was having and
dinner with his family. R poked his gun at Mody 4. That in the commission of the offense,
while C and J simultaneously grabbed the hog-tied any of the following circumstances is
Mody. A piece of cloth was placed in the mouth of present:
Mody and he was herded into a van. Mody was a. That the detention lasts for more
taken to a secluded area in the next town and was than 3 days;
shot to death. b. That it is committed simulating
Were the R, C, and J guilty of murder or public authority;
kidnapping?

48
c. That any serious physical injuries two (2) then alighted from the bus and fled. During
are inflicted upon the person the investigation conducted by the police, it was
detained or threats to kill him are found out that the slain passenger was a
made; or policeman.
d. That the person detained is a Juan and Victor were charged with and
minor, female, or a public found guilty of Robbery with Homicide as penalized
officer. under Art. 294 of the RPC.
In the problem at hand, the detention of (a) Was treachery attendant in the
Christopher lasted for more than 3 days. commission of the crime?
Furthermore, Christopher is a minor. Neither actual (b) Is treachery a generic aggravating
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is circumstance in robbery with homicide?
necessary for the crime to be committed. Although
kidnapping for a certain purpose is a qualifying ANSWER:
circumstance, the law does not require that the (a) YES, treachery was attendant in the
purpose be accomplished. commission of the crime. There is treachery when
As to the abduction of George, they are liable the following essential elements are present, viz: (a)
for slight illegal detention, which is committed if the at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
kidnapping is committed in the absence of any of the position to defend himself; and (b) the accused
circumstances qualifying the crime to serious illegal consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
detention. In the instant case, George was kidnapped means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.
and detained illegally by the malefactors only for less The essence of treachery is the sudden and
than a day. Also George was not detained for the unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
purpose of extorting ransom for his release. Neither unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any
was he inflicted with any serious physical injuries, chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
nor did the malefactors simulate public authority, or commission without risk to himself. Treachery may
threatened to kill George. also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of
Although A, B, C, and D kidnapped George the danger to his life where he was defenseless and
and Christopher on the same occasion and from the unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the
same situs, they are guilty of two separate crimes: coup de grace. In the case at bar, the victim was
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and slight disarmed and then shot even as he pleaded for dear
illegal detention. The malefactors were animated by life. When the victim was shot, he was defenseless.
two sets of separate criminal intents and criminal He was shot at close range, thus insuring his death.
resolutions in kidnapping and illegally detaining the (b) YES, treachery is applied to the
two victims. The criminal intent in kidnapping constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the
Christopher was separate from and independent of constituent crime of "robbery" of the special complex
the criminal intent and resolution in kidnapping and crime of robbery with homicide. Going by the letter
detaining George for less than three days. In the of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes
mind and conscience of the malefactors, they had against persons as enumerated in Title Eight,
committed two separate felonies; hence, should be Chapters One and Two, Book II of the Revised Penal
meted two separate penalties for the said crimes. Code. However, the Supreme Court of Spain has
(PEOPLE vs. PAGALASAN, G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991, consistently applied treachery to robbery with
June 18, 2003) homicide, classified as a crime against property.
Citing decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, Cuello
Calon, a noted commentator of the Spanish Penal
Question No. 5 Code says that despite the strict and express
On September 28, 1996, Juan and Victor reference of the penal code to treachery being
boarded at around 3:00 a.m. a Five Star Bus driven applicable to persons, treachery also applies to other
by Rodolfo Cacatian, bound for Pangasinan, in crimes such as robbery with homicide. Thus,
Camachile, Balintawak, Quezon City. Twenty (20) treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to
minutes or so later, when the bus reached the robbery with homicide although said crime is
vicinity of Nabuag, Plaridel, Bulacan, along the classified as a crime against property. (PEOPLE vs.
North Expressway, the accused with guns in hand ESCOTE, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003)
suddenly stood up and announced a hold-up.
Simultaneously with the announcement of a hold-
up, Juan fired his gun upwards. Victor, Question No. 6
meanwhile, took the gun of a man seated at the On the night in question, Manuel and Jose
back. Both then went on to take the money and went to the house of Ronito and Maria Fe to borrow
valuables of the passengers, including the bus money. Maria Fe refused at first to lend the money
conductor's collections. Thereafter, the duo but she was prevailed upon by Ronito. Manuel, Jose
approached the man at the back telling him in the and Ronito then had a drinking spree in the sala.
vernacular "Pasensiya ka na pare, papatayin ka After midnight, Maria Fe spread a mat for Manuel
namin. Baril mo rin ang papatay sa iyo." They and Jose to sleep on, while she and Ronito went to
pointed their guns at him and fired several shots their room to sleep.
oblivious of the plea for mercy of their victim At around 2:00 a.m., Manuel, armed with
afterwhich the latter collapsed on the floor. The a .38 caliber gun, and Jose, armed with a knife,
entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria Fe who inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of
were sleeping. Manuel poked the said gun on Maria robbery, there is only one special complex crime of
Fe. She woke up and attempted to stand up but robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the
Manuel ordered her to lie down. Manuel ordered result obtained without reference or distinction as to
Jose to tie the hands of Maria Fe behind her back the circumstances, cause, modes or persons
and put a tape on her mouth. Jose complied. They intervening in the commission of the crime.
then divested Maria Fe of her jewelries and later Furthermore, robbery with homicide is
on her money. committed even if the victim of the robbery is
Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to different from the victim of homicide, as long as the
kill Ronito with it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
knife, covered Ronito with the blanket and sat on of the robbery. It is not even necessary that the
top of him then stabbed the latter several times. victim of the robbery is the very person the
Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the
body. Manuel hit Ronito with the butt of his gun. special complex crime, the robbery itself must be
Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took the latter's proved as conclusively as any other element of the
wristwatch and ring. crime. In this case, the prosecution proved through
Manuel and Jose stayed in the house until the testimony of Maria Fe that the appellants
4:00 a.m. Before they left, Manuel and Jose told threatened to kill her and her family and robbed her
Maria Fe that they were acting on orders of certain of her money and jewelry.
people. They also warned her not to report the It may be true that the original intent of
incident to the police authorities, otherwise they appellant Manuel was to borrow money from Ronito
will kill her. Maria Fe managed to untie herself and and Maria Fe but later on conspired with Jose and
reported the incident to police authorities. robbed the couple of their money and pieces of
May Manuel and Jose be convicted of the jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, they killed
special complex crime of robbery with homicide or Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of
separate crimes of murder and robbery? robbery with homicide. In People v. Tidong, this
Court held that the appellant was guilty of robbery
with homicide even if his original intention was to
ANSWER: demand for separation pay from his employer and
Manuel and Jose are liable of the special ended up killing his employer in the process. (PEOPLE
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The vs. DANIELA, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003)
elements of the crime are as follows: (1) the taking
of personal property is committed with violence or
intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken Question No. 7
belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo Orlando was the owner of a parcel of land
lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the located in Talisay, Cebu. On December 14, 1987
occasion thereof, homicide is committed. Orlando sold the above mentioned property for
A conviction for robbery with homicide P60,000.00 to Abraham pursuant to a contract to
requires certitude that the robbery is the main sell entered into between them. It was stipulated
purpose and objective of the malefactor and the in the contract that Abraham will tender an initial
killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The animo down payment of P20,000.00, while the balance of
lucrandi must preceed the killing. If the original the total amount of the property will be paid on a
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

design does not comprehend robbery, but robbery monthly basis; that failure on the part of the buyer
follows the homicide either as an afterthought or to pay any monthly installments within 60 days
merely as an incident of the homicide, then the from its due date will entitle the seller to sell the
malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of property to third persons; and that the deed of sale
homicide or murder and robbery, and not of the and the title to the property will be transferred to
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a the vendee only after full payment of the purchase
single and indivisible offense. It is the intent of the price has been tendered.
actor to rob which supplies the connection between Abraham faithfully paid the monthly
the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute installments. He also obtained Orlando’s consent in
the complex crime of robbery with homicide. having the property fenced. However, on January
However, the law does not require that the 13, 1989, Orlando sold the same parcel of land to
sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits William for P200,000.00 as evidenced by the Deed
LAW

homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. In of Absolute Sale executed by the former in favor of
People vs. Tidula, et al., this Court ruled that even if the latter. Consequently, while Abraham was in the
the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it process of fencing the lot, he was shocked to know
does not preclude his conviction for the special that the same had been sold by Orlando to William.
complex crime of robbery with homicide. A This event prompted William to file a case of estafa
conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if under Art. 316 (2) of the RPC Orlando for disposing
the homicide is committed before, during or after the previously encumbered property.
commission of the robbery. The homicide may be Is Orlando liable for the crime of estafa as
committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or defined in Art. 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code?
by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are
killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are ANSWER:

48
NO, the gravamen of the crime is the the attack on the victim, treachery cannot thus be
disposition of legally encumbered real property by appreciated.
the offender under the express representation that May treachery be appreciated in the case at
there is no encumbrance thereon. Hence, for one to bar?
be criminally liable for estafa under the law, the
accused must make an express representation in the ANSWER:
deed of conveyance that the property sold or NO, because Isidro failed to see how the
disposed of is free from any encumbrance. attack started. When he looked out through the
The prosecution is burdened to allege in the window, he saw Joel pulling out his knife from the
information and prove the confluence of the chest of the victim. Isidro did not see the initial stage
following essential elements of the crime for the of the stabbing and the particulars of the attack on
accused to be criminally liable for estafa under Art the victim. Treachery cannot thus be appreciated.
316, paragraph 2 of the RPC: (1) that the thing The mere fact that Agapito was unarmed when he
disposed of be real property; (2) that the offender was stabbed is not sufficient to prove treachery. The
knew that the real property was encumbered, settled rule is that treachery cannot be presumed. It
whether the encumbrance is recorded or not; (3) that must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, as
there must be express representation by the offender the crime itself. It behooves the prosecution to prove
that the real property is free from encumbrance; and that the appellant deliberately and consciously
(4) that the act of disposing of the real property be adopted such means, method or manner of attack as
made to the damage of another. However, Orlando would deprive the victim of an opportunity for self-
did not expressly represented in the sale of the defense or retaliation. Hence, the appellant is guilty
subject property to William that the said property only of homicide and not murder. (PEOPLE OF THE
was free from any encumbrance. Irrefragably, then, PHILIPPINES vs.JOEL PEREZ, G.R. No. 140772,
petitioner may not be charged with estafa under Art. December 10, 2003)
316, par. 2 of the RPC. (NAYA vs. SPS. ABRAHAM
AND GUILLERMA ABING and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, GR. No. 146770. February 27, 2003) Question No. 9
At about 7 o’clock in the morning, Miguel
Question No. 8 went to his farm to clear his land preparatory to
Joel, Agapito, and Isidro were having a plowing and planting. While he was cutting weeds
drinking spree near the Agapito’s rented in the farm, Roberto and his group, namely:
apartment. By the time they had consumed about Hilario, Felix, Pepito, Leonardo, Domingo and
two-and-a-half round bottles of gin, Joel started Berto arrived at the farm. From a distance of about
singing on top of his lungs the song "Si Aida, Si 10 meters, Miguel noticed that Roberto and his
Lorna, o Si Fe." He was immediately cautioned by group were all armed with either a long bolo or
Agapito to lower his voice as the singing might slingshot or buckshot (shotgun). As Roberto
disturb the neighborhood. Peeved, Joel confronted approached Miguel, he drew his shotgun, aimed it
Agapito. An altercation ensued. Joel warned at Miguel and fired hitting the latter on the chest.
Agapito "Babalikan kita. Makita mo," (I'll get back at Hilario also fired his shotgun which was directed at
you. You'll see.) then left in a huff. The group Miguel. Immediately thereafter, Roberto and his
decided to end their drinking spree. By then, it group ran away. Miguel went directly to the police
was past 9:00 p.m. Isidro advised Agapito to get station to report the incident.
inside their house. However, Agapito was still upset Then Miguel was taken to the hospital for
about his argument with Joel and lingered outside treatment of his gunshot wounds on his chest and
his house. Meanwhile, Isidro went inside their left side of the body.
rented apartment at the second floor of the house, Roberto was then tried for frustrated
while his wife prepared his dinner. At around homicide. He contends that he had no intent to kill
10:00 p.m. while he was taking his supper, Isidro Miguel, thus, he is guilty only of slight or less
heard somebody shouting "Huwag, Joel Saklolo, serious physical injuries.
may tama ako!" Isidro then peeped outside and saw Is Roberto correct?
Joel pulling out from Agapito's chest a bladed
weapon. Shocked, Isidro and his wife went down ANSWER:
to help Agapito. By then, Joel had already fled NO, Roberto acted with intent to kill in firing
from the scene. The couple woke up some of their the gun at Miguel. Usually, the intent to kill is shown
neighbors to help them carry Agapito and bring him by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the
to the hospital. Some neighbors arrived and parts of the victim’s body at which the weapon was
brought Agapito to the hospital. On the way, aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. Corollarily,
Agapito expired. conviction for a frustrated felony requires that the
Joel was charged with and convicted of offender must have performed all the acts of
murder qualified by treachery for the fatal stabbing execution which would produce the felony as a result
of Agapito, with Isidro as prosecution witness. On but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause
appeal, he asserts the trial court’s appreciation of independent of the offender’s will.
the circumstance of treachery on the ground that Here, it is undisputed that appellant fired his
the prosecution witness Isidro did not see the gun point-blank at Migeul, hitting the latter at his
initial stage of the stabbing and the particulars of breast. The nature of the weapon used and the
location of the wounds speak for themselves of Question No. 11
Roberto’s intent to finish off Miguel Beran who, by Adam, a dealer in shabu was contacted by a
now, must have been dead if no timely medical poseur buyer for the purchase of shabu. They met
attendance was given him. (GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE OF at the parking lot of a shopping mall. When Adam
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 147974, January 29, 2004) showed the poseur-buyer a transparent plastic tea
bag which contained white crystalline substances,
the said poseur-buyer in turn handed over an
Question No. 10 envelope containing the marked P1,000.00 bills
Norma was charged with violation of Batas and the boodle money to Adam. The poseur buyer
Pambansa Blg. 22 before the Municipal Trial Court. then immediately identified himself as a police
After trial she was convicted and sentenced to officer and arrested Adam.
suffer imprisonment of one year. The petitioner When tried for violation of the Dangerous
remained at large and no appeal was filed from any Drugs Act of 2002, Adam contends that he cannot
of the said decisions. In the meantime, the be convicted of the consummated crime of selling
Supreme Court issued Supreme Court shabu for he was arrested before he could hand
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 enjoining all over the plastic tea bag to the poseur-buyer and
courts and judges concerned to take notice of the that he was not aware that the envelope handed to
ruling and policy of the Court enunciated in Vaca v. him contained the marked money nor was there
Court of Appeals and Lim v. People with regard to meeting of the minds between him and the poseur-
the imposition of the penalty for violations of B.P. buyer to transfer ownership in exchange for the
Blg. 22. price. He insists that the prosecution was not able
After five years, the petitioner was finally to prove the that a sale of 200 grams of shabu took
arrested while she was applying for an NBI place between him and the poseur-buyer for
clearance. She was forthwith detained. She then Republic Act No. 9165 defines the sale of illicit
filed an urgent motion with the Municipal Trial drugs as "the act of giving a dangerous drug,
Court asking the court to apply SC Admin. Circular whether for money or any material consideration."
No. 12-2000 and order her release from detention. May Adam be convicted of the
She posits that SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 consummated crime of selling shabu when he was
deleted the penalty of imprisonment for violation arrested even before he could hand over the
of B.P. Blg. 22 and allows only the imposition of a plastic tea bag containing shabu?
fine.
Is Norma’s contention correct? ANSWER:
NO, because Adam merely showed the bag
ANSWER: containing the shabu and held on to it before it was
NO, SC Admin. Circular No. 13-2001, SC confiscated. There is no evidence that the poseur-
Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 merely lays down a rule buyer talked about and agreed with Adam on the
of preference in the application of the penalties for purchase price of the shabu. There is no evidence
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It does not amend B.P. Blg. that Adam handed over the shabu to the poseur
22, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. buyer. The elements necessary for the prosecution
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative of illegal sale of drugs are the identity of the buyer
Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment and the seller, the object, and consideration; and the
as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

preference in the application of the penalties Neither was there evidence to prove that Adam was
provided for in B.P. Blg. 22. aware that the envelope contained money.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not However, Adam is guilty of the crime of
foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for violators attempted sale of shabu. Adam intended to sell shabu
of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the legislative and commenced by overt acts the commission of the
intent behind the law. Thus, Administrative Circular intended crime by showing the substance to the
No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of preference in the poseur-buyer. (PEOPLE vs. ADAM, G.R. No. 143842,
application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 October 13, 2003)
such that where the circumstances of both the
offense and the offender clearly indicate good faith
or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, Question No. 12
the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as At about 9:00 a.m., Marilyn and Ailyn were
LAW

the more appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the asked by their parents to buy tinapa (dried fish)
determination of whether the circumstances warrant from a store about half a kilometer away from their
the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the residence. They used a foot path to get to the
Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is store. After buying the dried fish, they walked back
the more appropriate penalty, Administrative Circular home. Momentarily, they saw the fifteen-year-old
No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a hindrance. (DE Dario emerge from a catmon tree. He struck Ailyn
JOYA vs. THE JAIL WARDEN OF BATANGAS CITY AND twice with a piece of wood on her back and boxed
HON. RUBEN A. GALVEZ, G.R. Nos. 159418-19, her on the left side of her face. She felt
December 10, 2003.) excruciating pain on her back and face, and all
over her body. She fell unconscious. Dario then
struck Marilyn twice on the back with the piece of

48
wood. He then carried Ailyn to a grassy area and Alfredo after having a drinking spree with
left her there. When Ailyn regained her bearings, other crew members went back to F/B Ever IV,
she looked for Marilyn but Dario and her sister were he was working as a cook. Xander, the
were nowhere to be found. captain of the vessel, ordered food from Alfredo.
Upon investigation made by the policemen, Alfredo only gave rice to Xander, and told the
Marilyn's dead body was found in a grassy area near latter that he was not able to cook any viand.
bushes and trees along a river. She was lying face Xander was incensed and told Alferdo that he was a
down; her legs spread apart and was completely useless cook and it would be better for him to
naked. There was blood on her nose, her mouth, resign from his employment. Alfredo ignored
and her vagina. Her hair was disheveled. The Xander's diatribes and went to the kitchen to tidy
policemen arrested Dario and had him detained in things up. Meanwhile, Xander went to the kitchen
jail. After trial, Dario was convicted of rape with and took the knife from the tray near the door.
homicide and attempted muder and sentenced to With the knife in his hand, Xander went near
suffer the penalty of imprisonment of reclusion Alfredo, who moved backward towards the front
perpetua and imprisonment of TWO (2) MONTHS part of the boat; but Xander pursued the him.
and ONE (1) DAY to FOUR (4) MONTHS of arresto When he was cornered, Alfredo was forced to
mayor in its medium period, respectively. grapple with Xander for the possession of the knife.
Were the penalties properly imposed? With his left hand, Alfredo held Xander’s right
forearm, and with his left hand, twisted Xander’s
ANSWER: right hand towards the chest. Xander placed his
NO. Dario was over 9 years but under 15 left hand on Alfredo's shoulder. Alfredo was able to
years old when he committed the crime and clearly wrest possession of the knife, and stabbed Xander
acted with discernment when he committed the on the chest. Xander placed his right hand on
same. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides Alfredo's other shoulder, as he was stabbed on the
that the imposable penalty should be reduced by two chest, on the abdomen and on the back. Xander
degrees. Under the RPC, rape with homicide is fell, his head hitting the edge of the deck. Alfredo
punishable by death. Reducing the penalty by two could no longer remember the number of times he
degrees, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, stabbed Xander.
from which the maximum of the indeterminate Charged with and convicted of murder,
penalty should be taken. To determine the minimum Alfredo argues that the killing of Xander was made
of the penalty, it should be reduced by one degree, in self-defense.
which is prision mayor. Applying the indeterminate Did the appellant act in self-defense?
sentence law and taking into account how the ghastly
crime was committed, Dario should be sentenced to ANSWER:
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 6 years and NO, the inceptual aggression of Xander had
one day of prision mayor in its medium period, as already ceased after Alfredo had wrested possession
minimum, to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion of the knife. Alfredo managed to wrest possession of
temporal in its medium period, as maximum. the knife from the victim. While Alfredo was
For attempted murder, the trial court grappling for the possession of the knife, Xander
sentenced Dario to an indeterminate penalty, from 2 placed his left hand on Alfredo’s right shoulder. Even
months and one day to 4 months of arresto mayor. after Alfredo had wrested possession of the knife, he
The penalty imposed by the trial court is erroneous. stabbed Xander while the latter placed his right hand
The penalty of consummated murder under Article on Alfredo’s other shoulder. Nevertheless, Alfredo
248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is stabbed the hapless Xander six more times. Two of
reclusion perpetua to death. The imposable penalty the stab wounds were at the back of Xander.
should be reduced by two degrees under Article 68 of Furthermore, the number, locations and
the Revised Penal Code because the appellant is a depth of the wounds sustained by Xander belie
minor. As reduced, the penalty is reclusion temporal. Alfredo's pretension that he killed the victim in self-
Reclusion temporal should be reduced by two degrees defense; the same are proof that Alfredo intended to
lower, conformably to Article 51 of the Revised Penal kill the victim and not merely to defend himself. The
Code which is prision correccional, because the victim sustained no less than six (6) stab wounds. It
murder was committed in the attempted stage. This certainly defies reason why Alfredo had to inflict such
penalty should be reduced by one degree, which is injuries on the victim if he was only defending
arresto mayor, to determine the minimum of the himself.
indeterminate penalty. Accordingly, Dario should be Self-defense must be distinguished from
sentenced to a straight penalty of four (4) months. It retaliation; in that in retaliation, the inceptual
goes without saying that if the trial court decides to unlawful aggression had already ceased when the
impose on the accused a penalty of imprisonment of accused attacked him. In self-defense, the unlawful
one year or less, it should impose a straight penalty aggression was still existing when the aggressor was
and not an indeterminate penalty. (PEOPLE vs. injured or disabled by the person making the
DARILAY, G.R. Nos. 139751-52, January 26, 2004) defense. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GALLEGO,
G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003)

Question No. 13
Question No. 14
Late in the evening on October 10, 1997, robbery with homicide was filed against Lito and
Totoy, Randy, Rot-Rot, and Jon-Jon, boarded a NED Papang.
MAJ Taxicab in Alabang, driven by Manny. When Are Lito and Papang guilty of robbery with
the taxi stopped under the bridge at Moonwalk homicide?
subdivision, Totoy told Manny, “Tol, pera-pera
lang ito, dahil kailangan lang.” However, Manny
resisted and tried to get out of the taxi cab. Totoy ANSWER:
pulled him back in and stabbed him with a bladed YES, the accused are guilty of robbery with
weapon on the chest. Randy, Rot-Rot, and Jon-Jon homicide. In robbery, there must be an unlawful
took turns in stabbing Manny with bladed weapons. taking or apoderamiento which is defined as the
Manny managed to get out of the taxicab, and flee taking of items without the consent of the owner, or
from the scene. He was later on taken to a hospital by means of violence against or intimidation of
where he expired. persons, or by using force upon things. Taking is
Are Totoy and his confederates guilty of the considered complete from the moment the offender
consummated crime of robbery with homicide? gains possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. There is,
ANSWER: likewise, no need to prove the exact amount of
NO, there was no showing that Totoy and his money taken, as long as there is proof of the unlawful
cohorts managed to take any money from the victim. taking. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an
For Totoy and his cohorts to be guilty of element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act,
consummated robbery, there must be hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things.
incontrovertible proof that property was taken from In robbery with homicide, the original
the victim. The malefactors are guilty of attempted criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery with homicide only, because they robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion
commenced the commission of robbery directly by or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit
overt acts but was not able to perform all the acts of robbery must precede the taking of human life. The
execution which would produce robbery by reason of homicide may take place before, during or after the
some causes or accident other than their own robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with
spontaneous desistance. homicide through reckless imprudence or simple
In this case, Totoy demanded from the negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime,
victim, "Tol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil kailangan namely, robbery and homicide, must be
lang." The victim refused to part with his earnings consummated. As long as there is a nexus between
and resisted. He even tried to get out of the taxicab the robbery and the homicide, the latter crime may
but Totoy pulled him back and stabbed him. Randy, be committed in a place other than the situs of the
Rot-Rot and Jon-Jon followed suit and stabbed the robbery. (PEOPLE vs. HERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 139697,
victim with their bladed weapons. The victim was June 15, 2004)
able to flee from the vehicle without anything being
taken from him. Totoy and his confederates
commenced by overt acts the execution of the Question No. 16
robbery, but failed to perform all the acts of From behind Dominador, Artemio pointed
execution by reason of the victim's resistance. his shotgun at Dominador and shot the latter once
(PEOPLE vs. BOCALAN, G.R. No. 141527, September on the back. Dominador fell to the ground face
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

4, 2003) down. Then came Arturo and Zosimo, who were


armed with a small bolos. Arturo turned
Dominador's body face up, and stabbed him more
Question No. 15 than once with the bolo. Zosimo followed suit and
At around 12:00 noon, Cesar saw his stabbed Dominador once with his bolo. The three
cousin-in-law, Lito and Papang dragging his then fled from the scene, towards the direction of
seventy-two-year-old auntie, Natividad, in the Baliri river.
direction of a forested area where there were also The three were then tried and convicted of
mango and coconut trees. Cesar shouted, "Hoy, murder for the killing of Dominador. The trial court
bakit ninyo kinakaladkad ang aking tiya?" Papang concluded there was a conspiracy between
and Lito approached and told him not to interfere. Artemio, Arturo, and Zosimo. On appeal, the
Then Papang pointed a knife at Cesar and warned appellants contend that the trial court erroneously
LAW

him not to reveal what he saw to anyone; ruled on the existence of conspiracy because no
otherwise, they would kill him and his family, agreement among the appellants to kill the victim
including his children. Later Cesar saw how Lito was proved.
and Papang forcibly took the possessions of May conspiracy exist despite absence of an
Natividad and also saw how they strangled express agreement to kill the victim?
Natividad using a white rope. Initially, Cesar kept
what he saw to himself because of fear of ANSWER:
retaliation from the accused. Later on however, he YES. Direct evidence is not required to prove
revealed what he saw during the commission of the conspiracy. It may be proved by circumstantial
crime. As a result, a criminal information for evidence. It is not even required that they have an
agreement for an appreciable period to commence it.

48
What is important is that all participants performed even during the trial. (PEOPLE vs. CORTEZANO,
specific acts with such cooperation and coordination G.R. No. 123140. September 23, 2003)
bringing about the death of the victim. When
conspiracy is present, the act of one is the act of all.
In this case, Artemio, Arturo, and Zosimo acted in QUESTION NO. 18
concert to achieve a common purpose, i.e., to kill Between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight,
Dominador. Artemio shot Dominador at close range. Bobby was sitting infront of the house of a certain
Artemio and Zosimo followed suit and stabbed Aling Pet. Bobby reeked of liquor and appeared to
Dominador with their bolos. The three fled from the be drunk. Greg arrived together with Jaime and
scene together, carrying their weapons with them. began talking about the basketball game that they
Indubitably, the three acted in concert; hence, all had just seen. Bobby, who was seated beside
are guilty for the killing of Dominador. (PEOPLE vs. Jaime, did not take part in the conversation.
ELLORABA, et al., G.R. No. 123917. December 10, Suddenly, Bobby frisked Jaime’s waist and uttered
2003) that he “wanted to kill.” Jaime and Greg became
frightened and immediately went to their house,
which was just adjacent to Aling Pet’s house.
QUESTION NO. 17 While Greg was about to open the door to his
On May 6, 1990, while Leah was sleeping, house, Bobby, carrying two knives, emerged and
she saw Joel and Bernardo, 13 and 12 years old immediately and without warning, stabbed
respectively, holding her hands and feet as she was Gregorio at the right side of the belly with one of
being undressed. Leah struggled but was easily the knives.
overpowered by the two. She threatened to shout, Was the aggravating circumstance of
but she was told that nobody would hear her. Joel evident premeditation present in this case?
wetted Leah’s vagina with his saliva and proceeded
to have carnal knowledge with her. Bernardo ANSWER:
stood by the door of the room as a lookout while NO. For evident premeditation to be
Joel was having his way with Leah. After their appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it is
dastardly deed, Joel and Bernardo then called Lou indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill
and Lionel, Lea’s sisters, into the room, letting was hatched or how much time had elapsed before it
them see their sister naked. Joel and Bernardo was carried out. The facts does not show when
threatened to kill her and the members of the Bobby decided to commit the crime and that a
family if she told anyone about what happened to sufficient amount of time elapsed for him to reflect
her. Joel and Bernardo left the room together. upon his resolution to kill Gregorio. Where there is no
In a prosecution for rape, should Joel and evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was
Bernardo be exempted from criminal liability on decided and what time had elapsed before it was
the ground of minority? carried out, evident premeditation cannot be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
ANSWER: For evident premeditation to be appreciated,
NO, the facts show beyond cavil that Joel and the following requisites must concur: (1) the time
Bernardo acted with discernment when they raped when the offender determined to commit the crime;
the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victim's vagina (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit has
before they raped her; (b) one of them acted as a clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of
lookout while the other was raping the victim; (c) time between the determination and execution to
they threatened to kill the victim if she divulged to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
her parents what they did to her; (d) they ordered act. The essence of evident premeditation is that
Leah Lou and Lionel to look at their sister naked after the execution of the criminal act was preceded by
they had raped her. A minor who is over nine years cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to
old and under fifteen years old at the time of the carry out the criminal intent during a space of time
commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. It must be
liability only when the said minor acted without based on external acts which must be notorious,
discernment. It is the burden of the prosecution to manifest and evident – not merely suspecting –
prove that a minor acted with discernment when he indicating deliberate planning. Evident
committed the crime charged. The discernment that premeditation, like other circumstances that would
constitutes an exception to the exemption from qualify a killing as murder, must be established by
criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age clear and positive evidence showing the planning and
but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, preparation stages prior to the killing. Without such
is his mental capacity to understand the difference evidence, mere presumptions and inferences, no
between right and wrong, and such capacity may be matter how logical and probable, will not suffice.
known and should be determined by taking into (PEOPLE vs. BORBON, G.R. No. 143085. March 10,
consideration all the facts and circumstances 2004)
afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment
and behavior of said minor, not only before and QUESTION NO. 19
during the commission of the act, but also after and Oscar was cleaning his car infront of
Jimmy’s house when the latter arrived and
confronted Oscar about the noise coming from depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or
Oscar’s car stereo. Oscar ignored Jimmy and retreat. The rule does not apply if the attack was not
proceeded to clean his car. Insulted, Jimmy raised preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of
his voice and shouted invectives at Oscar. This Edgar on an act made by Ondo. In the present case,
time Oscar faced Jimmy and retorted with it is apparent that the attack was not preconceived.
invectives of his own. Then Oscar boarded his car It was triggered by Edgar’s anger because of the
and sped away. After an hour, Oscar came back Ondo’s refusal to have a drink with the former and
and parked his car a few meters away from his companion.
Jimmy’s house. He took a hand gun and stealthily Treachery cannot be appreciated if it has not
approached Jimmy from behind as the latter was been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
sweeping the sidewalk. Oscar then called Jimmy’s assailant did not make any preparation to kill the
name, and when the latter turned around he was victim in such a manner as to insure the killing or to
shot by Jimmy in the stomach. Jimmy died as a make it impossible or difficult for the victim to
consequence. defend himself. The prosecution must prove that the
Can treachery be considered to exist in this killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a
case? method of attack directly and specially to facilitate
and insure the killing without risk to himself. The
ANSWER: mode of attack must be planned by the offender and
YES, Jimmy had no opportunity to anticipate must not spring from the unexpected turn of events.
the imminence of the Oscar’s attack, nor was Jimmy (PEOPLE vs. DUMADAG, G.R. No. 147196. June 4,
in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression 2004)
because he was unarmed. As a rule, there can be no
treachery when an altercation ensued between the
offender and the victim. However, the facts reveal QUESTION NO. 21
that after the altercation, Oscar left and Jimmy was Jojo was convicted of the crime of murder,
not aware that Oscar had come back armed with a and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death
hand gun. by lethal injection, for causing the death of Ricardo
That Jimmy was shot facing Oscar does not on February 23, 1997, with the use of an
negate treachery. The settled rule is that treachery unlicensed firearm. The trial court sentenced Jojo
can exist even if the attack is frontal, as long as the to suffer the penalty of death, appreciating the use
attack is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no of an unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating
opportunity to repel it or to defend himself. What is circumstance pursuant to R.A.8294 which took
decisive is that the execution of the attack, without effect after the killing on July 6, 1997.
the slightest provocation from an unarmed victim, Was the trial court correct in imposing the
made it impossible for the latter to defend himself or death penalty?
to retaliate. (PEOPLE vs. PEREZ, G.R. No. 134485.
October 23, 2003) ANSWER:
NO. Under Article 248 of the RPC, as
amended by RA No. 7659, the imposable penalty for
QUESTION NO. 20 murder is Reclusion Perpetua to Death. Since RA No.
On June 24, 2005, Ondo and his friends 8294 took effect after the crime charged was
went to the Clear Water Resort for a swimming committed, it should be applied prospectively and
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

party. At about 5:00 p.m., Ondo and his friends not retroactively. For if the new law were to be
headed back home. Two men, one of whom was applied retroactively as the trial court did, the same
Edgar, were having some drinks. When they saw would aggravate the criminal liability of Jojo and the
Ondo, Edgar and his friend offered him a drink of imposable penalty for the crime charged. (PEOPLE vs.
Tanduay. Ondo, declined, saying "Bay, I am not AQUINDE ET. AL., G.R. No. 133733. August 29, 2003)
drinking now." Thereafter, Ondo left. Edgar was
peeved. He rose from his seat and followed Ondo.
Edgar then took hold of Ondo's right shoulder, took
out a stainless knife and stabbed the latter on the QUESTION NO. 22
breast. Edgar left the scene. Mortally wounded, Marita was charged with and convicted of
Ondo ran towards the vehicle and fell inside it. the crime of theft for stealing jewelries. She was
Ondo's companions brought him to the Hospital, also ordered to pay the private offended party the
LAW

where he was pronounced dead on arrival. sums of P1,500,000 for the value of the stolen
Was there treachery in the fatal stabbing jewelries and P100,000 for moral damages. During
Ondo? the pendency of her appeal to the Supreme Court
she died. The private offended party moves that
ANSWER: she be paid the sums awarded representing the
NO, mere suddenness of the attack on the Marita’s civil liability.
unarmed and unsuspecting victim does not justify the May amounts representing civil liability ex-
finding of treachery. As a general rule, a sudden delicto be awarded despite the death of the
attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from accused pending appeal?
behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was
deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of ANSWER:

48
NO, the civil action instituted with the did so because she had nowhere to go and she
criminal action for recovery of civil liability ex delicto believed, at that time, that she was safe with
is ipso facto extinguished, upon the extinction of the Tupeng, who was her neighbor. (PEOPLE vs.
criminal action due to the death of the accused. The SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. May 21, 2004.)
pecuniary liabilities adjudged against Marita are
undeniably ex delicto. She was ordered to pay actual
damages, which is the value of the pieces of jewelry QUESTION NO. 25
allegedly taken from the private complainant, and May kidnapping be committed if the private
moral damages for the fear and trauma caused to the complainant never resisted nor complained to go
complainant by reason of the commission of the with the offender at the inception of the crime?
crime. These civil liabilities arose from the crime of
Theft and are based solely on said delict. (DE
GUZMAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 154579. October 8, ANSWER:
2003) YES. The essence of the crime of kidnapping
is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty under
any of circumstances mentioned in Article 267
QUESTION NO. 23 coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the
Does the absence of spermatozoa in the accused to effect the same. The victim’s lack of
victim’s genitalia disprove rape? consent is also a fundamental element of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. The involuntariness of
ANSWER: the seizure and detention is the very essence of the
NO, the negative findings of spermatozoa crime. Although the victim my have inceptually
does not prove that rape was not committed. The consented to go with the offender to a place but the
absence of spermatozoa does not disprove rape. It victim is thereafter prevented, with the use of force,
has been long settled that absence of spermatozoa from leaving the place where he was brought to with
does not necessarily mean that rape was not his consent and is detained against his will, the
committed; the slightest penetration of the female offender is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal
organ is enough. In any case, a negative sperm- detention. (PEOPLE vs. PICKRELL, G.R No. 120409.
detection test is immaterial to the crime of rape, it October 23, 2003)
being firmly settled that the important consideration
in rape is penetration and not emission. (PEOPLE vs.
MALONES, G.R. Nos. 124388-90. March 11, 2004) QUESTION NO. 26
Jose was convicted of rape for allegedly
ravishing Marina, a mental retardate. Marina
QUESTION NO. 24 testified that Jose kissed and undressed her, and
Mida, after being berated by her mother, then pulled her yellow-colored pants down to her
left their house. Tupeng, who was a neighbor of knees. He then mounted her and inserted his
Mida, invited the latter to his apartment to spend private organ into her vagina. He put his clothes
the night therein to which Mida voluntarily agreed. back on and left. The information charged that
Tupeng led Mida to a room where she was to sleep. Jose, by means of force, violence, threats and
Ten minutes after leaving the room, Tupeng intimidation, did then and there willfully,
returned and sat on the bed in the evening of the unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge
same day, completely naked. He then had carnal of Marina, against her will.
knowledge with Mida against her will. After On appeal, Jose asserts that under the
gratifying his lust, Tupeng warned Mida not to tell criminal complaint, he was charged of rape under
anyone about the incident and warned her that her paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
mother would condemn her for sleeping at his as amended. However, the prosecution, through
apartment. Mida was padlocked inside the house the victim herself, failed to prove that he forced,
for five days until she was rescued. threatened or intimidated her into having sexual
Was the complex crime of serious illegal intercourse with him. Furthermore, according to
detention with rape committed? Jose, the prosecutor merely proved that the victim
was a mental retardate and that he had sexual
ANSWER: intercourse with her. He cannot be convicted of
NO, Tupeng is guilty only of rape and not of rape under paragraph 2, Article 335 of the Revised
serious illegal detention. The original and primordial Penal Code; otherwise, he would be deprived of his
intention of Tupeng in keeping Mida in his apartment right to be informed of the nature of the crime
was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty. charged against him. Despite the trial court’s
Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if findings that the prosecution failed to prove rape
the real objective of the accused is to rape the as charged in the criminal complaint under
victim. Hence, Tupeng is guilty only of rape under paragraph 1, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, the court still convicted him of rape under the
and not of the complex crime of serious illegal second paragraph of the said Article
detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to May the appellant be convicted of rape
Articles 335 and 48 of the Code. Although Mida through force or intimidation?
initially agreed to stay at appellant’s apartment, she
ANSWER:
YES, it bears stressing that force or
intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this QUESTION NO. 28
case, the victim is a mental retardate. Jose took Rogelio was convicted by the trial court of
advantage of her condition and succeeded in having homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of
sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of voluntary surrender appreciated in his favor. He
forcible rape. was sentenced to the penalty of imprisonment
Carnal knowledge of an insane woman, ranging from EIGHT (8) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
knowing her to be insane, is rape. There is a lack of prision mayor, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT
capacity to consent, and it is presumed that the act (8) MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal minimum.
was done without her consent, hence it is against the Was the penalty properly imposed?
female’s will; the force required may be in the
wrongful act itself. It follows that such act is done ANSWER:
‘forcibly and against her will.’ In an indictment the YES. The imposable penalty for homicide
office of the words ‘against her will’ is merely to under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is
negative consent. (PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. reclusion temporal in its full range. From this
118027. January 29, 2004) penalty, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty
shall be determined by taking into account the
attendant modifying circumstances. Under Article 64,
QUESTION NO. 27 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, when only a
Francisco rented a room in the house under mitigating circumstance is present in the commission
the care of Purita. Purita occupied another room of a crime, the maximum of the indeterminate
in the house. She had a very close relationship penalty shall be taken from the minimum of the
with Francisco, but became disillusioned when he penalty imposed by law, viz., reclusion temporal in
failed to pay the monthly rentals. Exasperated, its minimum period which has a range of 12 years and
Purita had the matter placed in the police blotter. 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. To determine the
This infuriated Francisco. minimum of the indeterminate penalty, reclusion
One evening, Francisco arrived at his temporal has to be reduced by one degree without
neighbor’s residence and blurted: “Pare, I will kill taking into account the attendant modifying
Purita.” However, the neighbor told Francisco that circumstances. The penalty lower by degree is prision
Purita was very kind to him and counseled against mayor in its full range. Under Section 1 of the
killing her. At 5:00 a.m. on October 11, 1995, Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the
Francisco stabbed Purita while the later was asleep penalty shall be within the full range of prision mayor
inside her room, thereby causing her death. which is 6 years and 1 day to 12 years. The trial court
Were the aggravating circumstances of is given the widest discretion to fix the minimum of
treachery and evident premeditation present in the indeterminate penalty provided that such penalty
this case? is within the range of prision mayor. In fixing the
minimum of the indeterminate penalty, the trial
ANSWER: court is to consider two aspects, namely: first, the
NO, the facts fail to show that Francisco more or less mechanical determination of the
deliberately or consciously adopted a mode of attack extreme limits of the minimum imprisonment period;
to ensure the killing. There is even no showing of the and second, the broad question of the factors and
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

particulars as to how the aggression commenced or circumstances that should guide the discretion of the
the events that led to the stabbing. For treachery to court in fixing the minimum penalty within the
be qualifying, the prosecution must prove the ascertained limits.
confluence of the following requisites: (a) the Hence, the trial court may impose prision
employment of means of execution that gives the mayor in its minimum, or medium, or maximum
person attacked the opportunity to defend himself or period as the minimum of the indeterminate penalty.
retaliate; (b) that the accused deliberately and In this case, the trial court correctly imposed 8 years
consciously adopted the means of execution. and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum. (GARCIA vs.
Neither was evident premeditation attendant PEOPLE, G.R. No. 144699. March 10, 2004)
in the commission of the crime. Francisco may have
intended to kill the victim even before October 11,
1995. However, there is nothing in the facts to show QUESTION NO. 29
LAW

that from that time on, until the victim was stabbed A criminal complaint was filed against
and killed, Francisco performed overt acts indicating Esteban for acts of lasciviousness allegedly
his determination to commit the crime. For evident committed against Marilyn, the former’s 13-yr-old
premeditation to be appreciated the following must step-daughter.
be present: (1) the time when the accused decided During the trial Marilyn testified that
to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that Esteban would torment her day-by-day by
the accused clung to their determination to commit persistently kissing her and touching her private
the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient period of parts. On August 5, 1996, Esteban and Marilyn
time, as to allow the accused to reflect upon the were alone in the house. He again touched
consequences of the act. (PEOPLE vs. SANTIAGO, Marilyn’s private parts, kissed her on the lips,
G.R. No. 147314. February 6, 2004) mashed her breasts, and touched her thighs and

48
legs. Unable to bear the acts of Esteban, Marilyn Gabby, they stopped. Gabby was then stabbed at
ran away and went to her sister who was working his side and back and then finally shot. Greenan
as a housemaid. Marilyn related to him her dumped the dead body at a meat grinder where it
traumatic ordeals at the hands of Esteban. was shredded beyond recognition.
Marilyn’s sister took pity on her and accompanied Can cruelty be appreciated as an
her to the police station where she reported aggravating circumstance in this case?
Esteban’s sexual assault and lascivious acts on her.
Marilyn was also subjected to a medical ANSWER:
examination. NO. Paragraph 21, Article 14 of the Revised
At the arraignment, Esteban entered a plea Penal Code provides that there is cruelty in the
of not guilty. After trial, the trial court convicted commission of a felony when the wrong done in the
him of the crime charged. Esteban contends that commission of the crime is deliberately augmented
although he touched the private parts of Marilyn by causing other wrong not necessary for its
and grabbed her breasts, held her thighs and legs commission. There is no cruelty when the other
and kissed her, the said acts were not lewd and do wrong is done after the victim is already dead. The
not constitute the felony of acts of lasciviousness. test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating
Did the trial court commit error in circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and
convicting Esteban of acts of lasciviousness? sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly
ANSWER: increased the victim's suffering or outraged or scoffed
NO. There can be no doubt that Esteban was at his person or corpse. In this case, Juan and his
propelled by lewd designs when he touched Marilyn’s confederates threw Gabby into the meat grinder, the
private part, mashed her breasts, touched her thighs latter was already dead. (PEOPLE vs. SIBONGA, et
and legs and kissed her. What constitutes lewd or al., G.R. No. 95901. June 16, 2003)
lascivious conduct must be determined from the
circumstances of each case. The presence or absence
of the lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the QUESTION NO. 31
acts themselves and the environmental In a party, Leo and his wife were singing
circumstances. Esteban had been subjecting Marilyn together. After their duet, the couple decided to
to lascivious acts whenever he and Marilyn were go home. Leo handed the microphone to Bernabe,
alone by themselves in the house. remarking, "Bayaw, its your turn because we are
The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: going home with my wife." Bernabe took the
(1) that the offender commits any act of microphone and began to sing with his wife Gracia.
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under However, he was enraged when the videoke
any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force suddenly stopped. Bernabe shouted. "Vulva of your
or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is mother, who is tough here, you are fouling me."
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) Simultaneously, Bernabe pulled a table and turned
when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of it upside down. He grabbed an empty bottle of
age. (PEOPLE vs. VICTOR, G.R. No. 127904. beer grande and smashed it. He then shouted
December 5, 2002) invectives at the Pontawe family: "Vulva of your
mother, you Pontawe family" Leo confronted
Bernabe and demanded to know why Bernabe was
QUESTION NO. 30 so mad at his family. To prevent the already tense
Vicente, on his way home from work, found situation from further escalating, Gracia prodded
his wife and daughter, Teodora and Julia Leo to leave. As Leo was retrieving his slippers,
respectively, at a neighbor’s house hiding. He Bernabe tried to hit him with the broken bottle.
found out that, Gabby, the husband of his other Leo parried the thrust and boxed Bernabe on the
daughter Julia, earlier came to Vicente’s house nose.
drunk and started boxing and kicking Julia; after They were separated by the Barangay
which Gabby went home and slept. Kagawads who brought Bernabe to his tricycle. On
Frightened of further trouble from Gabby, his way, to the tricycle, Bernabe warned Leo: "Wait
Vicente referred the matter to Juan, the leader of for me and I will come back." Nonong, Bernabe's
“Greenan,” an aggrupation of civilians armed with son, drove the tricycle and brought the latter
bolos and hunting knives who tasked themselves to home.
preserve the peace and order in the community. After about thirty to forty minutes,
Vicente talked to Juan and the latter agreed to Bernabe returned, armed with a short gun. He
arrest Gabby. The other members of Greenan were positioned himself in a dark place. Suddenly,
then called to help in the arrest. They went to Gracia heard a gunshot. She turned her head
Gabby’s house and were able to eventually awaken towards the direction where the gunshot emanated
him and tied his hands behind him. Gabby was from and saw that Leo was hit on the left temple
brought before Julia and was asked why he had and fell to the ground, mortally wounded.
boxed Julia. Gabyy said it was because he was After trial, the court rendered a decision
angry and that he was drunk. Juan then and there finding Bernabe guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
adjudged him guilty. They then started walking. murder qualified by treachery and evident
When Juan and the others were 3 meters ahead of premeditation.
(1) Did the trial court gravely err in finding his daughter, Princess, while he was out on his
that the crime committed was one of tricycle making a living. The two consented and
murder qualified by treachery? stayed at Rolando’s house. At that particular
(2) Did the trial court gravely err in moment, Samuel, was staying with his brother
appreciating evident premeditation as Rolando.
an aggravating circumstance? At about 6:30 pm, Leah was seen emerging
from the house of Rolando, running towards the
ANSWER: street while shouting “uncle Sam, uncle Sam!” She
(1) NO. Treachery is committed when two was followed by Samuel who was in possession of
conditions concur, namely: (1) at the time of the an 8-inch knife. Samuel stabbed Leah eighteen
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend times which ultimately caused her death.
himself; and (b) the assailant consciously and After trial on the merits, the court a quo
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods found Samuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of murder, qualified by the circumstance of abuse of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the superior strength, for the death of Leah. Samuel
assailant on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the contends that the trial court erred in holding him
latter of any real chance to defend himself and guilty of murder since the killing was not made
thereby ensuring its commission without risk to with abuse of superior strength.
himself. There may still be treachery even if before Was there present in the killing abuse of
the assault, the assailant and the victim had an superior strength as to qualify the crime to
altercation and a fisticuffs where, after the lapse of murder?
some time from the said altercation, the assailant
attacked the unsuspecting victim without affording
him of any real chance to defend himself. In this ANSWER:
case, Bernabe, armed with a gun, shot the victim as YES. Samuel was armed with a knife and used
the latter was conversing with his wife and Beverly's the same in repeatedly stabbing Leah, a young wisp
other guests in front of the gate of the latter's house. of a girl, no less than eighteen times after overtaking
The victim was unarmed. The attack of the appellant her. Infragably, then, Samuel abused his superior
was sudden. The victim had no inkling that the strength in stabbing Leah. There are no fixed and
appellant had returned, armed with a gun. invariable rules regarding abuse of superior strength
(2) YES. For evident premeditation to be or employing means to weaken the defense of the
appreciated, it must be proved the confluence of the victim. Superiority does not always means numerical
following elements: (1) the time when the offender superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the
determined to commit the crime; (b) an act relative strength of the aggressor vis-a-vis the victim.
manifestly indicating that he has clung to such There is abuse of superior strength even if there is
determination; and (c) sufficient lapse of time only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of
between the determination and execution to allow superiority is determined by the excess of the
the offender to reflect upon the consequence of his aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim,
act. The aggravating circumstance must be proved considering the position of both and the employment
with equal certainty as the commission of the crime of means to weaken the defense, although not
charged. The mere lapse of time does not prove annulling it. The aggressor must have taken
evident premeditation. There must be proof of overt advantage of his natural strength to insure the
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

acts of the appellant, showing when he conceived the commission of the crime. (PEOPLE vs. LORETO, GR
plan to kill the deceased, and that in the interim, he No. 137411-13. February 28, 2003)
clung to his determination to kill, and that sufficient
time had elapsed between his determination and the
execution of the crime to allow his conscience to QUESTION NO. 33
overcome the resolution of his will. The mere fact Diego, who was wearing a pair of short
that after his fight with Leo, Bernabe came back with pants but naked from waist up, entered the
a gun and shot Leo does not constitute proof of bedroom of Mona, went on top of her, held her
evident premeditation. The facts show that after hands, removed her panty, mashed her breasts and
Bernabe left the gathering at Beverly's house, he touched her sex organ. However, Diego saw Rossel,
returned armed with a gun after the lapse of thirty to Mona’s younger brother peeping through the door
forty minutes. Considering that it took Bernabe of the room and dismounted. He berated Rossel for
LAW

twenty to thirty minutes to get to his house and a peeping and ordered him to go back to his room
similar period of time to return to Beverly's and to sleep. Diego then left Mona’s room.
residence, it cannot be said that Bernabe had Is Diego guilty of consummated acts of
sufficient time to ponder upon the dire consequences lasciviousness defined in Article 336 of the Revised
of the crime he had decided to commit. (PEOPLE vs. Penal Code or attempted rape under Article 335 of
MONTEMAYOR, G.R. No. 125305. June 18, 2003) the said Code?

ANSWER:
QUESTION NO. 32 Diego is guilty of attempted rape and not of
On November 9, 1995, Rolando asked Leah acts of lasciviousness. Diego intended to have carnal
and Lettymar, could stay in his house to watch over knowledge of Mona, and by the series of his overt

48
acts he commenced the execution of rape which, if felonious act. The requisites of Mistake of Fact are
not for his desistance, will ripen into the crime of as follows:
rape. Although Diego desisted from performing all the 1. That the act done would have been
acts of execution however his desistance was not lawful had the facts been as the accused
spontaneous as he was impelled to do so only because believed them to be;
of the sudden and unexpected arrival of Rossel. 2. That the intention of the accused in
(PEOPLE vs. LIZADA, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January performing the act should be lawful.
24, 2003) 3. That the mistake must be without
fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.

QUESTION AND ANSWER


QUESTION
QUESTION What are the kinds of desistance
What are the cardinal principles of criminal recognized by law under Art. 6 of the RPC?
law? Give the exceptions thereto.
ANSWER:
ANSWER: Legal desistance- the desistance referred to
The three cardinal principles or in law which would obviate criminal liability unless
characteristics of criminal law are: the overt or preparatory act already committed in
(a) GENERALITY. Criminal laws apply to all themselves constitute a felony other than what the
persons who commit crimes in Philippine actor intended.
territory, regardless of their nationality, Factual desistance- actual desistance of the
gender, age or other personal actor which is made after the attempted stage of the
circumstances. Exceptions to this are crime; the actor is still liable for the attempt
treaty stipulations, laws of preferential
application, and principles of public
international laws. QUESTION
(b) TERRITORIALITY. Criminal laws apply to Felipe was having a drinking binge with
all offenses committed within Philippine Pablo. Then, Pablo, who was sited beside Felipe,
territory. Exceptions to this rule are placed his right arm around Felipe and, with his
those found in Art. 2 of the RPC which left hand, stabbed him, whispering, “This is my
provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction Christmas gift to you, Brod”. Felipe was wounded
of our courts. on his left chest and fell down. For his injuries,
(c) PROSPECTIVITY. Penal laws cannot make Felipe was brought to the Bayawan District Hospital
an act punishable in a manner in which it where he was confined for four days. According to
was not punishable when committed. the doctor who treated Felipe, the only way by
Exception to this rule is whenever a new which Felipe's life would have been endangered
statute dealing with a crime establishes was if the wound developed a major infection.
conditions more lenient or favorable to Discuss Pablo’s criminal liability.
the accused, it can be given retroactive
effect. However, this exception has no ANSWER:
application: 1) where the new law is Pablo is liable for attempted murder. When
expressly made inapplicable to pending the wound inflicted could not have caused
actions or existing causes of action and; instantaneous death, the offender is liable only for
2) where the offender is a habitual the attempted stage of the crime. The element of
criminal under Art. 62, RPC. treachery attended the stabbing incident, which
qualifies the attempted killing to murder. Indeed, the
essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected
attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. The stabbing
was not preceded by an altercation nor did Felipe
give the slightest provocation. Pablo’s act of putting
his right arm around Felipe's shoulder right before
QUESTION stabbing Felipe ensured that his victim would not be
What is Mistake of Fact? What are its able to dodge his attack. (PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ,
requisites? G.R. Nos. 154348-50. June 8, 2004)

ANSWER:
Mistake of Fact is a misapprehension of fact QUESTION
on the part of the person who caused injury to What is the subjective phase of the
another. He is not, however, criminally liable commission of an offense?
because he did not act with criminal intent. An
honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of ANSWER:
criminal intent which arises upon the commission of a The subjective phase is that portion of the
act constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the crime and the which is the transporting of Y to the island in his boat
last act performed by the offender which, with the which is the only one in the locality, without which
prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. the crime would not have been accomplished.
From that point forward, the phase is objective. (Revised Penal Code, Art 17, Par. 3)
May also be said to be the period occupied by the
acts of the offender over which he has control – that
period between the point where he begins and the QUESTION
point which he voluntarily desists. If between these Is prior agreement to commit a crime
2 points the offender is stopped by reason of any necessary for the existence of conspiracy?
cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the
crime is attempted. If he is not so stopped but ANSWER:
continuous until he performs the last act the crime is NO, conspiracy is present so long as the acts
frustrated. of the accused clearly manifest a concurrence of the
will and a common intent or design to commit a
crime. It may be inferred if it is proven that two or
QUESTION more persons aimed their acts towards the
X, after promising Y to give him accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
P10,000.00, induced the latter (Y) to kill Z, who at doing a part so that their acts – although apparently
the time was vacationing in an isolated island in independent- were in fact connected and
the sea which can easily be reached by a boat. W, cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal
who owns the only motor boat in the locality, association and a concurrence of sentiment. This is
offered to transport and actually transported Y to also known as the Doctrine of Implied Conspiracy.
said island. Upon the reach the island, Y killed Z. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of
Indicate whether X, Y and W is a principal or the accused-- from the beginning, during and after
accomplice in the commission of the crime. Give the crime-- which are indicative of design, concerted
your reasons. action and concurrence of sentiments. Once it is
shown that there is concurrence in action or action in
ANSWER: concert to achieve a criminal design, the act of one is
X is a principal by inducement. By promising deemed the act of all the conspirators. (PEOPLE vs.
to give Y P10,000.00 to kill Z, which is an agreement FELIPE, G.R. No. 142505. December 11, 2003)
for a consideration, the inducement was made
directly with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime. Further, the facts show that QUESTION
Y has no personal reason to kill Z except the At one time, past midnight, the accused
inducement which is therefore, the determining went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate
cause for the commission of the crime by Y. what he thought were the footsteps of an uninvited
Y is a principal by direct participation guest. After seeing what appeared to him an
because he killed Z pursuant to the inducement or armed stranger looking around and out to rob the
agreement for a consideration and he, therefore, house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man.
personally took part in the execution of the act When the lights turned on, the unfortunate victim
constituting the crime. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 17, turned out to be his brother in law on his way to
par. 1) the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

W is neither a principal nor an accomplice. was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should
Although W offered and actually transported Y to the the accused, given the circumstances, be acquitted
island where Z was vacationing as he owns the only or convicted? Why?
motor boat in the locality, the facts of the problem
do not show that W has any knowledge of the ANSWER:
criminal design nor purpose of Y. The accused should be convicted because,
To be a principal by indispensable even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his
cooperation, it is essential that there be either act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful
anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose an aggression on the person is not justified. Defense of
intention immediately before the commission of the property or property right does not justify the act of
crime. This means participation in the same firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of
resolution of Y, the principal by direct participation. the accused is already in imminent and immediate
LAW

W is not a principal by direct participation because danger. Although the accused acted out of a
he did not participate directly in the execution of the misapprehension of the facts, hi is not absolved from
act constituting the crime. Clearly, he also is not a criminal liability. (2003 Bar Examinations)
principal by inducement because he did not induce Y
to kill Z.
W is not an accomplice because he has also QUESTION
no knowledge of the criminal design of Y, the (1) Distinguish between an ordinary
principal by direct participation. If W has knowledge complex crime and a special complex
of the criminal purpose of Y then he will be a crime as to their concepts and as to the
principal by indispensable cooperation because he imposition of penalties.
cooperated in the commission of the crime by Y,

48
(2) Can there be a complex crime of coup The rules in Art. 48 are not applicable:
d’etat with rebellion? (1) When the crimes subject of the case have
(3) Can there be a complex crime of coup common elements;
d’etat with sedition? (2) When the crimes involved are subject to
the rule of absorption of one crime by the
ANSWER: other;
(1) In concept – (3) Where the two offenses resulting from a
An ordinary complex crime is made up of two single act are specifically punished as a
or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions single crime, such as less serious physical
of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one injuries with serious slander of deed,
information either because they were brought about since this is punished under Art. 265 par.
by a single felonious act or because one offense is a 2, as the single crime of less serious
necessary means for committing the other offense or physical injuries with ignominy;
offenses. They are alleged in one information so that (4) In special complex crimes;
only one penalty shall be imposed. (5) When the crimes involved cannot be
A special complex crime, on the other hand, legally complexed, viz:
is made up of two or more crimes which are a) Malicious obtention or abusive
considered only as components of a single indivisible service of search warrant (Art.
offense being punished in one provision of the 129) with perjury;
Revised Penal Code. b) Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity
As to penalties – in the custody of prisoners;
In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for c) Maltreatment of prisoners (Art.
the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its 235) with serious physical
maximum period. injuries;
In special complex crime, only one penalty is d) Usurpation of real rights (Art.
specifically prescribed for all the component crimes, 312) with serious physical
which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The injuries; and
component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes e) Abandonment of persons in
and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not danger (Art. 275) and crimes
the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. against minors (Arts. 276-278)
It is the penalty specifically provided for the special with another felony.
complex crime that shall be applied according to the
rules on imposition of the penalty.
(2) YES, if there was conspiracy between the QUESTION
offender(s) committing the coup d’etat and the When may insanity be appreciated as an
offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, exempting circumstance under Article 12 of the
the crime of one would be the crime of the other and Revised Penal Code?
vice versa. This is possible because the offender in
coup d’etat may be any person belonging to the ANSWER:
military or the national police or public officer, Insanity under Art. 12, par. 1, of The Revised
whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the Penal Code exists when there is a complete
crime of coup d’etat may be committed singly, deprivation of intelligence in committing the act,
whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and i.e., appellant is deprived of reason; he acts without
taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted the least discernment because of complete absence
government. Since the two crimes are essentially of the power to discern; or, there is a total
different and punished with distinct penalties, there deprivation of freedom of the will. The fact that a
is no legal impediment to the application of Art. 48 of person behaves crazily is not conclusive that he is
the Revised Penal Code. insane. The prevalent meaning of the word "crazy" is
(3) YES, coup d’etat can be complexed with not synonymous with the legal terms "insane," "non
sedition because the two crimes are essentially compos mentis," "unsound mind," "idiot," or "lunatic."
different and distinctly punished under the Revised The popular conception of the word "crazy" is being
Penal Code. Sedition may not be directed against the used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out
Government or non-political in objective, whereas of the ordinary. A man may behave in a crazy manner
coup d’etat is always political in objective as it is but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove
directed against the Government and led by persons that he is legally so. (PEOPLE vs. FLORENDO, G.R.
or public officer holding public office belonging to No. 136845. October 8, 2003)
the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code
may apply under the conditions therein provided.
(2003 Bar Examinations) QUESTION
Distinguish provocation from vindication of
a grave offense as mitigating circumstances.
QUESTION
In what cases is Art. 48 not applicable? ANSWER:
In the case of provocation, it is made directly
ANSWER: only to the person committing the felony; in
vindication, the grave offense may be committed also immaterial because it was made during preliminary
against the offender’s relatives mentioned by the investigation only and before a court not competent
law. to render judgment. (1999 Bar Examinations)
In vindication, the offended party must have
done a grave offense to the offender or his relatives
mentioned in the law; while in provocation, the QUESTION
cause that brought about the provocation need not Four armed persons casually met another
be a grave offense. group of three armed persons in an uninhabited
In provocation, it is necessary that the place at nighttime. An altercation ensued between
provocation or threat immediately preceded the act, the two groups which led to a street fight. In the
i.e., that there be no interval of time between the heat of anger, the four armed persons were able to
provocation and the commission of the crime; while kill all the members of the other group. May their
in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense criminal liability for the death of the three armed
may be proximate, which admits of an interval of persons be aggravated by the circumstances of
time between the grave offense done by the nighttime, uninhabited place and by a band?
offended party and the commission of the crime by
the accused. ANSWER:
NO. When the meeting between the
offenders and the group of the deceased was casual,
QUESTION the offenders could not have sought for the
Lionel was being arrested for having circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, and
committed a crime. When he saw the police their forming a band. When the offenders attacked
moving towards him, he offered no resistance and the group of the deceased in the heat of anger, they
allowed them to arrest him without protest. May could not have taken advantage of such
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender circumstances. Furthermore, since they did not
be appreciated in Lionel’s favor? afford the offenders any advantage, such
circumstances could not have facilitated the
ANSWER: commission of the crime. (Revised Penal Code, Art.
NO, the fact that Lionel did not resist arrest 14)
or deny his criminal act did not constitute voluntary
surrender. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be
spontaneous and must clearly indicate the intent of QUESTION
the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the May the aggravating circumstance of
authorities. Here, the Lionel was arrested. There dwelling be appreciated if the offender did not
was, therefore no voluntary surrender to speak of enter the victim’s house, as when the offender
because Lionel was in fact arrested. There is shot the victim with a rifle from a distance with the
voluntary surrender only when the following bullet passing through the window?
requisites are proven, namely: (1) the offender has
not actually been arrested; (2) the offender ANSWER:
surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (3) YES, it is not necessary that the accused
the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be should have actually entered the dwelling of the
voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of victim to commit the offense — it is enough that the
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the victim was attacked inside his own abode, although
authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate
or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense the assault from the outside. The triggerman showed
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. greater perversity when, although outside the house,
Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. he attacked his victim inside the latter's own house
(PEOPLE vs. OSPIG, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, when he could have very well committed the crime
2003) without necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the
QUESTION victim's home. He who goes to another's house to hurt
An accused charged with homicide pleaded him or do him wrong is guiltier than he who offends
“not guilty” during the preliminary investigation him elsewhere. (PEOPLE vs. BAGSIT, G.R. No.
before the Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of 148877, August 19, 2003)
the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), he
LAW

pleaded “guilty” freely and voluntarily upon


arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before the RTC QUESTION
be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to Topak, a pervert, raped Maria who was at
the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of that time only 10 years old. Maria’s family filed a
guilty? complaint against Topak. When Topak knew this
he went to Maria’s family and offered a promise to
ANSWER: marry Maria. When Topak was being arrested he
YES, his plea of guilty before the RTC can be argued that there was already a promise to marry
considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to Maria hence, his criminal liability should be
the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His extinguished. Decide.
plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is

48
ANSWER: QUESTION
Topak’s criminal liability was not T lodged in the Maharlika Hotel without
extinguished. Article 266-C of RA 8353 requires that notifying the management of the hotel of the goods
there be a subsequent valid marriage to effect the he brought along with him. Neither did he follow
extinction of the criminal liability. Mere promise to the directions of the hotel with respect to the care
marry is not enough. Further, there can be no valid and vigilance over said goods. One evening, the
marriage between Maria and Topak as Maria is only 10 bellboy of the hotel poked a gun on T and divested
years old, she lacks the capacity to enter into a valid him of his goods.
marriage. Assuming that the said bellboy absconded,
may the owner of the hotel be made subsidiarily
liable for the restitution of said goods, or to pay
QUESTION the value thereof? Reason fully.
What are the distinctions between pardon
by the President and by the offended party? ANSWER:
The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily and
ANSWER: civilly liable for the restitution of the goods or to pay
1. Pardon by the President extinguishes the the value thereof. An inkeeper or tavernkeeper is
criminal liability of the offender; such is not subsidiarily and civilly liable for restitution of goods
the case when the pardon is given by the taken by means of robbery with violence and
offended party. intimidation against persons when the same is
2. Pardon by the President cannot include civil committed by the inkeeper’s employees. Maharlika
liability that the offender must pay; but the Hotel is subsidiarily liable because the goods were
offended party can expressly waive the civil taken by the hotel’s bellboy by means of robbery.
liability that the offender must pay. The nature of the business of the hotel is to provide
3. In cases where the law allows pardon by the not only lodging for the guests but also security to
offended party (Art 344), the pardon should their persons and effects. The necessity for this
be given before the institution of the criminal security to their persons and effects is apparent from
prosecution and must be extended to both the provisions of Articles 1998-2003 of the New Civil
offenders; whereas, pardon by the President Code and Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code. The
is granted only after conviction and may be security mentioned is not confined to effects
extended to any of the offenders. delivered to the hotel management for safekeeping
but also to all effects brought in the hotel. The
reason is that the hotel management has supervision
QUESTION and control over their inns and the premises thereof.
What is subsidiary imprisonment? When
may a person undergo subsidiary imprisonment?

ANSWER:
Under Article 39 of the RPC, subsidiary QUESTION
imprisonment is a subsidiary personal liability Juan de Castro already had three (3)
imposed when the person has no property with which previous convictions by final judgment for theft
to meet the FINE mentioned in Article 38, paragraph when he was found guilty of Robbery with
3 at the rate of one day for each P8.00. Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge
However, in order that subsidiary considered against the accused both recidivism and
imprisonment may be enforced, it must be expressly habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and
stated in the judgment that in case of failure to pay contended that in his last conviction, the trial
the fine, the accused must suffer subsidiary court cannot consider against him a finding of
imprisonment. In absence of such express statement, recidivism and, again, habitual delinquency. Is the
the subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed. The appeal meritorious? Explain.
reason is because subsidiary imprisonment is a
substitute principal penalty, not an accessory ANSWER:
penalty. (Ramos v. Gonong, 72 SCRA 59) Moreover, NO, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism
there is no subsidiary penalty if: and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in
a) The principal penalty is higher than this case because the basis of recidivism is different
prision correccional; from that of habitual delinquency.
b) It is not of fixed duration; Juan is a recidivist because he had been
c) The subsidiary penalty, though properly previously convicted by final judgment for theft and
imposable is not expressly stated in the again found guilty of robbery with homicide, which
judgment; are both crimes against property, embraced under
d) The penalty is not FIDS (Fine; the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised
Imprisonment and fine; destierro and fine; Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing
suspension and fine); or in the commission of crimes against property, hence
e) The penalty does not include fine. aggravating in the conviction for robbery with
homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an full appeal regarding the imposition of damages.
additional penalty when an offender is convicted a The RTC denied to give due course to the notice of
third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly appeal. May Efren file a notice of appeal
considered because Juan had already three (3) notwithstanding his application for probation?
previous convictions by final judgment for theft and
again convicted for robbery with homicide. And the ANSWER:
crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency YES, the appeal in this case involved only the
includes, inter alia, theft and robbery. civil aspect of the trial court’s judgment. It must be
remembered that the civil liability of the accused is
not part of the penalty for the crime committed. PD
QUESTION 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law provides
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of that the filing of the application for probation shall
parricide. The court found three mitigating be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Relying
circumstances, namely plea of guilty, lack of solely on the letter of the law, the filing of the
instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a application for probation should be deemed a waiver
wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty of the right to appeal. However, the above law
for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. provides only for the suspension of the sentence
Impose the proper principal penalty. imposed on the accused by virtue of his application
for probation. It has absolutely no bearing on civil
ANSWER: liability. Although the execution of sentence is
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. suspended by the grant of probation, it does not
Even if there are two or more mitigating follow that the civil liability of the offender, if any, is
circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by extinguished. (SALVAN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 153845,
one degree. In cases in which the law prescribes a September 11, 2003)
penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the
lower penalty shall be applied when the commission
of the crime is attended by some mitigating QUESTION
circumstances and there are no aggravating A was two months below eighteen years of
circumstances. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 63, par. 3) age when he committed the crime. He was charged
with the crime three months later. Instead of
preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a
QUESTION suspension of the sentence on the ground that he
A was convicted of the complex crime of was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a
death through falsification of public document. suspension of sentence? Reasons.
Since the amount involved do not exceed P200.00,
the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto ANSWER:
mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The NO, A is not entitled to a suspension of the
penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time
document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed of the promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of
P5,000.00. suspension of sentence, the offender’s age at the
Impose the proper penalty. time of promulgation of the sentence in the one
considered, not his age when he committed the
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

ANSWER: crime. So, although A was below eighteen when he


The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN committed the crime, but he was already twenty
prision correctional (six months and one day to six three years only when sentenced, he is no longer
years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision eligible to suspension of sentence. (2003 Bar
mayor maximum (ten years and one day to twelve Examinations)
years) as MAXIMUM. For the purpose of determining
the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that
should be considered as a starting point is the whole QUESTION
of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists,
law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, validly ask for suspension of sentence? Explain.
which is only the penalty actually applied because of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty ANSWER:
LAW

next lower in degree therefor is prision correccional YES, so long as the offender is a minor at the
and it is within the range of this penalty that the time of promulgation of sentence. The law
minimum should be taken. (R.A. NO. 4103) establishing family courts, Republic Act 8369,
provides to this effect: that if the minor is found
guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and
QUESTION ascertain any civil liability which the accused may
Efren, a bus driver, was charged with have incurred. However, the sentence shall be
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide for the suspended without the need of application pursuant
death of Romy. The trial court found him guilty as to PD 603, otherwise known as the Child and Youth
charged. Efren applied for probation and was given welfare code. (RA 8369, Sec. 5A) It is under PD 603
due course by the trial court. He thereafter filed a that an application for the suspension of the sentence

48
is required and thereunder it is one of the condition Arnie committed homicide. He voluntarily
of suspension of sentence that the offender be a first surrendered to the police. Impose the
time convict: this has been displaced by RA 8369. indeterminate penalty.
(2003 Bar Examinations)
ANSWER:
Having been found guilty of the crime of
QUESTION homicide, the penalty that should be imposed on
What is the purpose for fixing the maximum Arnie should be reclusion temporal under Article 249
and minimum terms in the Indeterminate Sentence of the Revised Penal Code. There being one (1)
Law? mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the
penalty to be imposed shall be the minimum period
ANSWER: of reclusion temporal, that is, from twelve (12) years
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
term of the sentence is to set the grace period at months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
which the convict may be released on parole from the minimum of the penalty to be imposed shall be
imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not the penalty next lower which is prision mayor in any
deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving of its periods. Therefore, Arnie may be sentenced to
his prison term in jail but in no case to go beyond the an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and one
maximum term fixed in the sentence. The minimum (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen
and maximum terms are fixed because they serve as (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion
bases for the following rules: temporal, as maximum. (PEOPLE vs. ANTONIO, G.R.
1. Whenever a prisoner has: (a) served the No. 128900, July 14, 2000)
MINIMUM penalty imposed on him, and (b) is fit
for release on parole, upon terms and conditions
prescribed by the Board of QUESTION
Indeterminate Sentence, he shall be released on On June 1, 1988, a complaint for
parole. concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed
2. But when the paroled prisoner violates against Roberto in the municipal trial court of
any of the conditions of his parole during the Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary
period of surveillance, he may be rearrested to serve investigation. For various reasons, it was only on
the remaining unexpired portion of July 3, 1998 when the judge of said court decided
the MAXIMUM sentence. the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction
3. Even if a prisoner has already served the since the crime was committed in Manila. The case
MINIMUM, but he is not fitted for release on was subsequently filed with the city fiscal of Manila
parole, he shall continue to serve his sentence until but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime
the end of the MAXIMUM term. had already prescribed. The law provides that the
crime of concubinage prescribes in 10 years. Was
the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain.
QUESTION
In fixing the indeterminate penalty, how ANSWER:
are the minimum and maximum periods NO, the fiscal’s dismissal of the case on
determined? alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the
complaint with the municipal trial court, although
ANSWER: only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and
When the crime is punished by the Revised suspended the period of prescription in as much as
Penal Code, the maximum period is that which could the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
be properly imposed in view of the ordinary determined by the allegation in the complaint or
mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The information, not by the result of proof. (2001 bar
minimum period is that which shall be within the examinations)
range of the penalty next lower to that provided by
the RPC for the offense without regard to the
ordinary mitigating and aggravating circumstances. QUESTION
Except in the case of privileged mitigating A war between Philippines and China was
circumstances, which are taken into consideration in declared as the latter sought to invade the country.
determining such penalty next lower. The penalty Members of the Chinese army then bought
next lower is determined according to the scale bandages from a drugstore owned by Juan. When
provided in Art. 71 of the RPC. the Philippine army found out, Juan was charged
When the crime is punished by special law and later on convicted of treason. Was his
maximum and minimum terms shall not be more than conviction proper?
nor less than the period of imprisonment fixed by the
special law. ANSWER:
NO, the sale of bandages to the enemy does
not per se constitute treason because the said
QUESTION articles are not exclusively for war purposes and their
sale does not necessarily carry an intention on the
part of Juan to adhere to the enemy. Although it likewise admitted that he and Edwin were
may constitute giving aid or comfort to the enemy, members of the Sparrow Unit and that they
still there is no treason as there is no intent to betray undertook the killing of Pfc. Manatad upon the
the Philippines. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 114) orders of their rebel commander.
Should Rodrigo and Edwin be convicted of
direct assault with murder, for the reason that
QUESTION Manatad was a killed in the performance of his
Roger and Andres boarded by means of a duties as a person in authority?
motorboat, the M/T Tabangao as said vessel was
sailing along the island of Mindoro. Armed with M- ANSWER:
16 rifles, they detained the crew and took NO, where the accused who was charged with
complete control of the vessel. Thereafter, Roger murder admitted his membership with the NPA and
ordered the crew to take the "M/T Tabangao" to a the killing of an agent of a person in authority, the
port in Singapore. There, the vessel’s cargo was crime committed is not direct assault with murder
transferred to the hold of another vessel, the "Navi but rebellion. Since the killing was made pursuant to
Pride". Roger and Andres sold the cargo and the order of a rebel commander, the crime was
divided the proceeds between themselves. When politically motivated, in that the same was
charged with qualified piracy under P.D. 532, committed in the furtherance of the rebellion.
Roger and Andres argue that they cannot be Crimes committed in furtherance of a rebellion are
convicted for acts done outside Philippine waters deemed absorbed therein and are not punishable
or territory, since the cargo was taken and separately.
disposed of beyond Philippine waters. The crime of rebellion consists of a vast
Is there contention correct? movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and
plots. Acts committed in the furtherance of rebellion
ANSWER: though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in
NO, because the attack on and seizure of one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a
"M/T Tabangao" and its cargo were committed in police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a
Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was person in authority, is a mere component or
later brought by the pirates to Singapore where its ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance
cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. of the rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a
Notwithstanding that Presidential Decree No. 532 separate charge. (PEOPLE vs. DASIG, 221 SCRA 549)
requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and
its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo QUESTION
is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the During the May 2004 elections, five
same need not be committed in Philippine waters. persons, armed with guns and knives, attacked a
Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book jeepney wherein eight policemen, the chief of
Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an police, and other passengers were riding. Two
exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. policemen, the jeepney driver and two children
The same principle applies even if Roger and Andres were killed while two policemen were wounded.
were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy The accused were charged with the crime of
under the penal code but under a special law, sedition with multiple murder and double
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in frustrated murder. Decide.
Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532
should be applied with more force here since its ANSWER:
purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy In sedition, the uprising must be done
in Philippine waters. It is likewise, well-settled that publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force,
regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a intimidation, or by other means outside of legal
reprehensible crime against the whole world. methods any of the following objects:
(PEOPLE vs. TULIN, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 1. to prevent the promulgation or execution
2001) of any law or the holding of any popular
election;
2. to prevent the national government, or
QUESTION any provincial or municipal government,
LAW

Private First-Class Manatad was or any public officer thereof from freely
treacherously gunned down by a group of 8 men exercising its or his functions, or prevent
while manning the traffic at Bonifacio St. in the execution of any administrative
Mandaue City. As a result of the killing, two teams order;
of police officers were tasked to conduct 3. to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members the person or property of any public
of the New People’s Army (NPA) Sparrow Unit officer or employee;
located in Cebu City. Here, they were able to 4. to commit, for any political or social end,
arrest Rodrigo and Edwin. Rodrigo executed an any act of hate or revenge against private
extrajudicial confession wherein he confessed that persons or any social class; and
he and the group of Edwin killed Pfc. Manatad. He

48
5. to despoil, for any political or social end, ANSWER:
any person, municipality or province, or The accused committed the crime of direct
the national government of all its assault. There are two forms of direct assault and
property or any part thereof. the first is committed where the offenders through
In the instant case, there is no sedition force, violence, or intimidation committed acts
because the purpose of the attack was not known. It aimed at any of the objectives of Rebellion or
does not appear that the purpose of the accused in Sedition. In the instant case, all the requisites for
attacking the jeepney passengers is one of those the first form of sedition was present:
mentioned above. 1. the accused used force, violence or
intimidation;
2. there was no public uprising because
QUESTION there were only 3 of them;
May arbitrary detention be committed if 3. their aim is to attain any of the purposes
the offended party is not kept within an enclosure of rebellion or sedition, which in this case
to restrict him of his freedom of locomotion? is, to despoil for any political or social
end, any person, municipality or
ANSWER: province, or the national government of
YES, arbitrary detention may still be all its property or any part thereof.
committed even if the offended party was not kept (Revised Penal Code, Art 148)
within an enclosure. In establishing the intent to
deprive the victim of his liberty, it is not necessary
that the offended party be kept within an enclosure QUESTION
to restrict his freedom of locomotion. The prevailing Juan was sentenced to the penalty of
jurisprudence on illegal detention is that the Destierro wherein he was prohibited to enter the
curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve barrio of Lubang for a specified period. On May 2,
any physical restraint upon the victim's person. If the the barrio of Lubang celebrated its fiesta, and Max,
acts and actuations of the accused can produce such the best friend of Juan since childhood invited the
fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze latter. Juan excitedly attended the celebration
the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled and consequently violated his sentence. What is
to limit his own actions and movements in the crime committed by Juan and what is penalty
accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the to be imposed?
victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained
against his will. (ASTORGA vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. ANSWER:
154130, October 1, 2003) Juan committed the crime of evasion of
service of sentence under Art. 157 of the RPC. This
crime may be committed even if the convict was
QUESTION originally sentenced to Destierro, as when he will
Jason falsified a private document and used enter the prohibited places or come within the
the same to obtain fraudulent gain by means of prohibited radius to such places as stated in the
deceit. He was charged with estafa through judgment.
falsification. Was the charge proper? The penalty to be imposed is not
ANSWER: imprisonment but also destierro. The reason is that
NO, in such case, the crime committed is the penalty for the evasion cannot be more severe
falsification of private document only and not estafa than the penalty that was evaded.
through falsification. There is no complex crime of
estafa through falsification of private document,
because the immediate effect of falsification of QUESTION
private document is the same as that of estafa. The Nono was convicted of the crime of theft
falsification of a private document cannot be said to and was sentenced to imprisonment. His mother,
be a means to commit estafa, because the fraudulent desperate to have him released, went to the
gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the Municipal Mayor and asked for his help. The mayor
commission of which a private document was demanded P100,000.00 in exchange for the release
falsified, is nothing more or less than the very of Nono from imprisonment. When Nono was not
damage caused by the falsification of such document. released, the mother filed a bribery case against
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 172) the mayor. Decide.

ANSWER:
QUESTION The crime is not bribery because in bribery it
3 armed men broke into the GSIS building is essential that the act which the offender agrees to
and expressed grief over the poor performance of perform or which he executes be connected with the
the agency. They called the people there to help performance of his official duties. In the instant
themselves to all the things found in the premises case, the release of a prisoner is not connected with
but they, the accused, did not help themselves to a the Mayor’s duties. Instead, the Mayor is guilty of
single object. What was the crime committed? estafa because by promising the mother that he
would release Juan, he pretended to possess pants and shirt belonging to A which were stolen a
authority to do so. month ago while being hanged outside A’s house to
dry.
Realizing this, A immediately accosted Q
QUESTION and asserted his ownership over the personal
May the crime of Malversation be apparel worn by Q. A further demanded its return
committed by a private individual? May private and when Q refused to remove the clothing, the
property be the subject matter of the crime of former drew a fan knife and threatened Q who
Malversation? eventually conceded.
Did A commit any crime?
ANSWERS:
YES, private individuals who, having charge of ANSWER:
any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenue YES, A is guilty of grave coercion. Q was in
or property appropriate, take, or misappropriate or the actual possession of the disputed garments and
consent, or through abandonment or negligence with violence, A compelled Q to remove the same
permit another person to take them, are liable for and turn the things to him which the latter initially
the crime of malversation. The same criminal did not desire to give up if not for the threat given by
liability may be incurred by an administrator or A.
depositary of funds or property, attached, seized or A compelled Q with violence and threat to do
deposited by public authority, even if such property something against the latter’s will, this constitutes
belongs to a private individual. grave coercion punished under the Revised Penal
YES, the expression, “even if such property Code.
belongs to a private individual”, is a sweeping and all Even granting that A is the owner of the
embracing statement so as to include a case where clothes, Q being in actual possession of the same,
private funds or property are involved, as long such the duty devolves upon A to seek the aid of proper
funds or property are placed in the custody of authority and assert ownership in a manner provided
accountable public officers. (Revised Penal Code, by law.
Article 222)

QUESTION
QUESTION A has an illegitimate son B, who mauled and
What is technical malversation? killed the legitimate father of A. Is B guilty of
parricide?
ANSWER:
Technical malversation is a crime committed ANSWER:
by any public officer who shall apply any public NO, because under Art. 246 of the RPC on
funds or property under his administration to any parricide, in case of other ascendants (grandparents,
public use other than that for which funds or great-grandparents, etc.) the relationship with the
property were appropriated by law or ordinance. killer must be legitimate. The same is true with other
(Revised Penal Code, Article 220) descendants, that is, grandchildren, great
grandchildren, etc. Since B is an illegitimate child of
A he can’t be held guilty of parricide for killing A’s
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

QUESTION father (B’s grandfather).


Edong threw a bag containing gasoline at
the house of another and lit it. The front wall of
the house started blazing. Forthwith, the QUESTION
neighbors poured water on the burning portion of Mr. X killed: (1) a woman with whom he
the house. Only a portion of the house was lived without the benefit of clergy, (2) their child
burned. Discuss Edong’s criminal liability. who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and
(4) their adopted son.
ANSWER: What crime or crimes did Mr. X commit?
Edong is liable for destructive arson in the
consummated stage. It is destructive arson because ANSWER:
fire was resorted to in destroying an inhabited house Mr. X committed the following crimes:
LAW

or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the (1) Homicide or murder as the case may be,
house was in fact already burned although not for the killing of his common-law wife
totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises who is not legally considered a spouse.
be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. (2) Infanticide for the killing of the child as
It is enough that the premises suffer destruction by said child is less than (3) days old.
burning. (Revised Penal Code, Art 320) However the penalty corresponding to
parricide shall be imposed since A is
related to the child within the degree
QUESTION defined in the crime of parricide.
A, while attending a fiesta at a neighboring (3) Parricide for the killing of their
town chanced upon Q who was wearing the shoes, daughter, whether legitimate or

48
illegitimate, as long as she is not less
than three (3) days old at the time of the
killing.
(4) Murder for the killing of their adopted QUESTION
son as the relationship between Mr. X Lucas raped his sister Y. Y testified that
and the said son must be by blood in Lucas inserted his penis inside her vagina and that
order for parricide to arise. (1999 Bar Lucas ejaculated twice during the sexual
Examinations) intercourse that lasted for about thirty minutes,
after which Lucas withdrew his penis and left. The
trial court convicted Lucas of two counts of
QUESTION qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the
Tito struck X in the mouth with a lead pipe, penalty of death on both counts, the rape being
causing the loss of the latter’s four front teeth. qualified by the circumstance of relationship under
What is the crime committed? Art. 15 of the Revised Penal Code.
(1) Should Lucas be convicted of two
ANSWER: counts of rape?
Tito is liable for serious physical injury as the (2) Will the alternative circumstance of
loss of teeth constitutes a deformity. By deformity is relationship warrant the imposition of the death
meant physical ugliness, permanent and definite penalty?
abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible. The
injury contemplated is an injury that cannot be ANSWERS:
repaired by the action of nature. The fact that the (1) NO. Lucas committed only one act of
injured party may have artificial teeth, if he has the rape although he ejaculated twice during the sexual
necessary means and so desires, does not repair the act. Lucas did not withdraw his penis to insert it
injury, although it may lessen the disfigurement. again into the vagina or to "touch" the labia majora or
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 263) the labia minora when he ejaculated the second
time. It is not the number of times that the offender
ejaculates rather it is the penetration or "touching"
QUESTION that determines the consummation of the sexual act.
Rudy was charged with rape. It was alleged Y testified that Lucas’ penis penetrated her genitalia.
in the information that the victim was a minor and At that point, Lucas had already consummated the
that Rudy was the step-father of the victim. During rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the
the trial of the case, it was proved, among others, labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the
that Rudy was a live-in partner of the victim’s crime of rape. Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry"
mother. In the event of a conviction for the crime of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora
of rape, may Rudy be imposed the penalty of of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that
death? consummates rape.
(2) NO. The Revised Penal Code is silent as
ANSWER: to when the alternative circumstance of relationship
NO. Under section 11 of Republic Act No. is mitigating and when it is aggravating.
7659, the death penalty is imposed in rape cases Jurisprudence considers relationship as an
where "the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity.
and the offender is . . . the common-law spouse of However, rape is no longer a crime against chastity
the parent of the victim." Being in the nature of for it is now classified as a crime against persons.
special qualifying circumstances, the minority of the Moreover, the aggravating circumstance sufficient to
victim and her relationship to the offender must be justify the imposition of the death penalty must not
both alleged and proved with certainty. only be duly alleged and proven, it must be one of
In the case at bar, although the information those enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal
against Rudy alleged that he is the stepfather of the Code or that specified by law such as under Section
victim, the evidence shows that complainant's 11 of Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of
mother, was not married to Rudy and that he was in the Revised Penal Code. Wherein it is provided that
fact merely the common-law spouse of the victim’s the death penalty is to be imposed in rape cases
mother. The death penalty could not be imposed "when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
since there is a disparity in the allegation made in and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
the information and proof offered in the course of guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the trial, as accused was not in fact the victim’s the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
stepfather. Indeed, a stepfather has been defined as the parent of the victim." The Court has since held
the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage that the circumstances enumerated by the
subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is amendatory law are to be regarded as special
the offspring. For the foregoing reason, the death qualifying (aggravating) circumstances.
penalty cannot be imposed on Rudy, should he be When the penalty to be imposed is a range of
convicted, he shall be punished with reclusion penalties where the maximum penalty is death and
perpetua. (PEOPLE vs. GONZALES, G.R. Nos. the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance
139445-46, June 20, 2001) would call for the imposition of the maximum
penalty, which is death, the term "aggravating
circumstance" must be strictly construed. The law with homicide. He argues that it was absurd that
must declare unequivocally an attendant he be charged with, much less convicted of six
circumstance as qualifying to warrant the imposition counts of rape with homicide because the victim in
of the death penalty. The Constitution expressly this case could not have died six times and that
provides that the death penalty may only be imposed there was only one woman (victim) killed. Is he
for crimes defined as heinous by Congress. Any correct?
attendant circumstance that qualifies a crime as
heinous must be expressly so prescribed by Congress. ANSWER:
However, resort must be made to the strict NO, he can be charged with and convicted of
interpretation of the term "aggravating circumstance" six counts of the special complex crime of homicide
only for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. even if only one person was killed. In the special
In all other cases where the maximum penalty is not complex crime of rape with homicide, the homicide is
death, the term "aggravating circumstance" must be used to qualify or raise a penalty provided by law. It
interpreted in its broad or generic sense so as to is not necessary that there are as many persons killed
include the alternative circumstances under Article as are the crimes of rape with homicide. It is possible
15 of the Revised Penal Code. (PEOPLE vs. ORILLA, that only one person is killed and the death of that
G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004) person is used to qualify or to aggravate the penalty
for each of the rapes committed by the accused.
There is one common denominator, the homicide
QUESTION aggravates the penalty in all six crimes of rape. Thus,
Under Art. 2230 of the Civil Code, where the offender commits six acts of rape against
exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability the same victim, the homicide committed on the
may be imposed when the crime was committed occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed
with one or more aggravating circumstances. May as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape
the appreciation of the qualifying aggravating with homicide. Therefore, there will be as many
circumstance of relationship in rape cases justify crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes
the award of exemplary damages? committed.
In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies
ANSWER: the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the
YES, the term "aggravating circumstances" highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the
used by the Civil Code, the law not having specified occasion or by reason of the rape, loses its character
otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic as an independent offense, but assumes a new
sense. The commission of an offense has a two- character, and functions like a qualifying
pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the circumstance. By fiction of law, it is merged with
social order and the other upon the private victim as rape to constitute a constituent element of a special
it causes personal sufferings, each of which is complex crime of rape with homicide. (Sanchez vs.
addressed by, respectively, the prescription of Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993)
heavier punishment for the accused and by an award
of additional damages to the victim. The increase of
the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores QUESTION
the exacerbation of the offense by the attendance of Crisanto, a jeepney driver, was speeding
aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or along a public thoroughfare, when suddenly his
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

qualifying, in its commission. Unlike the criminal cellphone beeped. As he reached for his cellphone,
which is basically a State concern, the award of he did not notice the traffic light turn red. As he
damages, however, is likewise, if not primarily, crossed the intersection, he bumped a pregnant
intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. lady crossing the street. The violent impact caused
It would make little sense for an award of exemplary the baby to be dislodged from the lady’s womb.
damages to be due the private offended party when What crime, if any, did Crisanto commit?
the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be
withheld when it is qualifying. Withal, the ordinary or ANSWER:
qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a Crisanto is liable for unintentional abortion
distinction that should only be of consequence to the through reckless imprudence. Abortion is committed
criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the whenever by reason of the application of violence
offender. In fine, relative to the civil aspect of the upon a pregnant woman, the foetus dies while in the
LAW

case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary mother’s womb or after it is expelled therefrom. The
or qualifying, should entitle the offended party to an abortion is unintentional because the violence, which
award of exemplary damages within the unbridled caused the expulsion of the fetus, was inflicted
meaning of Article 2230 of the Civil Code. (PEOPLE without intending an abortion. The violence was
vs. CATUBIG, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001) inflicted through reckless imprudence as it resulted
from Crisanto’s inexcusable lack of precaution in
driving his jeepney. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 257)
QUESTION
Mayor Anton raped Ms. S six (6) times. After
satisfying his lust, he killed the hapless victim. QUESTION
Mayor Anton was charged with 6 counts of rape

48
Distinguish robbery with violence against intimidation should be present from the very
and intimidation of persons from grave threats to beginning.
extort money. But when the violence results in (a) homicide,
(b) rape, (c) intentional mutilation, or (d) any of the
ANSWER: serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1
The distinctions are: and 2 of Art. 263, the taking of personal property is
1. In robbery, the intimidation is actual and robbery complexed with any of those crimes, even if
immediate; while in threats, the intimidation is the taking is already complete when the violence was
conditional or future, that is, not immediate; used by the offender. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 294)
2. In robbery, the intimidation is personal,
while in threats, it may be through an
intermediary; QUESTION
3. In threats, the intimidation may refer to At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, after
the person, honor or property of the offended attending mass, sisters Marilou and Maritess,
party or that of his family; while in robbery, the together with their friends Imperio and Tumang,
intimidation is directed only to the went home using an Isuzu pick-up. Suddenly, Gaid
person of the victim; and Fortich, armed with handguns emerged from
4. In robbery, the gain of the culprit is the rear end of the vehicle and fired a shot which
immediate; whereas in threats, the gain of the hit the left side of the pick-up. They ordered
culprit is not immediate. Imperio and Tumang to get out of the vehicle. Gaid
thumped Imperio on the head with a .38 caliber
revolver causing him to fall down, while Tumang
QUESTION was hit several times by Fortich with fistblows in
Where robbery was committed with violence various parts of the body and momentarily lost
against or intimidation of persons, and force upon consciousness. Imperio and Tumang were then
things was also present and employed by the divested of their valuables.
offender, should the crime be categorized and Gaid and Fortich drove the pick-up, with
punished under the first mode (Art. 294) or the Marilou and Maritess at the back seat, towards a
second mode (Art. 299)? dirt road where they parked the vehicle. At this
juncture, Gaid had transferred to the backseat with
Marilou while Maritess was made to sit up in front
with Fortich. Gaid poked his gun at the right side of
ANSWER: Marilou's neck and succeeded in having sexual
In the case of People vs. Sebastian, et al. (85 intercourse with her. Maritess, on the other hand,
Phil. 601), it was held that the crime should be was ravaged by Fortich. They switched victims
categorized under the first mode, i.e., through twice before divesting them of their possessions.
violence or intimidation under Art. 294 and not under What crime/s were committed by Gaid and
the second mode (Art. 299). This was justified on the Fortich?
theory that violence or intimidation should supply the ANSWER:
controlling qualification since it is graver than As for the unlawful taking of Imperio and
robbery through force upon things and produces Tumang’s valuables, Gaid and Fortich are liable for
greater disturbance to social order and the security simple robbery. The asportation by Gaid and Fortich
of the individual. of the personal properties was done by means of
However, a modification of this rule appears violence against or intimidation upon the persons of
to have been later introduced by Napolis vs. CA, et Imperio and Tumang. The physical injuries inflicted
al., (43 SCRA 301) and People vs. Disney, et al. (GR upon Imperio and Tumang by reason of or on the
No. L-41336, February 18, 1983). Here, it was held occasion of the robbery are penalized under Article
that Art. 294 applies only where robbery with 294, paragraph 7 of the Revised Penal Code. Slight
violence against or intimidation of persons takes physical injuries and less serious physical injuries
place without entering an inhabited house under the inflicted in the commission of the robbery are
circumstances in Art. 299. When both circumstances absorbed in the crime of simple robbery.
were present, the offense shall be considered as a As for the violence inflicted upon the person
complex crime under Art. 48, and the penalty shall of Tumang, the element of intent to kill was not
be for the graver offense in the maximum period. present. It must be stressed that while Fortich was
armed with a handgun, he never shot Tumang but
merely hit him on the head with it. It has been held
QUESTION that intent to kill being an essential element of the
In robbery, when should violence or offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, said
intimidation be present? element must be proved by clear and convincing
evidence and with the same degree of certainty as is
ANSWER: required of the other elements of the crime. The
The general rule is that if there is violence or inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the
intimidation at any time before asportation is absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such
complete, the taking of personal property is qualified intent beyond reasonable doubt.
to robbery. It is not necessary that violence or
Fortich and Gaid are each guilty of the crime
of forcible abduction with rape and, likewise, of two ANSWER:
counts of rape as defined and penalized in Article Alberto committed the special complex crime
342, in relation to Article 226-A, of the Revised Penal of robbery with rape. He committed both robbery
Code for the abduction of Marilou and the subsequent and rape with the intent to take personal property of
acts of rape committed against her. The same another preceding the rape. Under Art. 294, par. (1),
criminal liability is incurred by Fortich and Gaid with of the Revised Penal Code, ". . . [a]ny person guilty of
respect to the forcible abduction of and subsequent robbery with the use of violence against or
acts of rape committed against Maritess. They are intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The penalty of
liable not only for the acts of rape committed reclusion perpetua to death . . . when the robbery
personally by them but also for each act of rape shall have been accompanied by rape . . ."
committed by the other because of the existence of As for the subsequent rape, the same cannot
conspiracy. Fortich and Gaid acted in concert, each be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
of them doing his part in the commission of the despite a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein
offense. It has been held that in such a case, the act robbery with rape would be on the same level as
of one becomes the act of all and each of the robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The
accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the Court realized that there was no law providing for the
crime committed. additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be
More importantly, when the first act of rape considered as aggravating circumstance. It further
was committed by Fortich and Gaid, the complex observed that the enumeration of aggravating
crime of forcible abduction with rape was then circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal
consummated. Any subsequent acts of intercourse Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code
would be only separate acts of rape and can no which enumerates the mitigating circumstances
longer be considered separate complex crimes of where analogous circumstances may be considered,
forcible abduction with rape. (PEOPLE vs. FORTICH hence, the remedy lies with the legislature.
and GAID, G.R. No. 80399-404, November 13, 1997) Consequently, unless and until a law is passed
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s
may be considered aggravating, the Court must
QUESTION construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no
X, Z and Y successfully robbed a person may be brought within its terms if he is not
supermarket, however on their way out, X and Z clearly made so by the statute. Under this view, the
killed Y to enable them to get a larger share of the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is
loot. not considered an aggravating circumstance.
Is robbery with homicide committed even if (PEOPLE vs. REGALA, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000
the person killed is one of the robbers? and PEOPLE vs. SULTAN, G.R. No. 132470, April 27,
2000)
ANSWER:
YES, robbery with homicide is committed
when in the course of the robbery another robber is QUESTION
killed by companion, who wants to partake his share A was in need of money. Despaired and
of the loot. pressed by his needs and after learning B’s plan,
The law does not require that the person his neighbor, of going to the province to attend on
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

killed is the owner of the property taken. Article 294 some important matters, he finally decided to rob
of the Revised Penal Code provides: “ Any person latter’s house. While B was away, A went to the
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against xxx former’s house to carry out his plan. Upon
any person”. Par. 1 points that when by reason or discovering that a padlock was attached to B’s
on the occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide maindoor, A hammered the said lock. As a result
shall have been committed. The killing of any person thereof, the lock was damaged. Thereafter, A was
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery should be able to enter the dwelling and has successfully
punished with the highest penalty regardless of the taken some of the personal property of B therein.
person killed. Was robbery with force upon things
committed?

QUESTION ANSWER:
LAW

As Juditha was walking home, Alberto YES. Before, if the door was not damaged but
poked a knife at her back and dragged her towards only the lock attached to the door was broken, the
his house. Once inside, Alberto divested her of her taking from within is only theft. But the ruling is now
valuables. Then, he poked a knife at her neck and abandoned because the door is considered useless
had carnal knowledge of her against her will. After without the lock. Even if it is not the door that was
satisfying his lust, Alberto went outside of the broken but only the lock, the breaking of the lock
house and smoked a cigarette. Afterwhich, Alberto renders the door useless and it is therefore
returned and again had carnal knowledge of tantamount to the breaking of the door. Hence, the
Juditha against her will. What crime was taking inside the house is considered robbery with
committed by Alberto? May the subsequent rape force upon things. (Revised Penal Code, Art. 299)
be considered as an aggravating circumstance?

48
motor vehicle is killed in the course of the
QUESTION commission of the carnapping shall be reclusion
Mrs. X was on board her Mercedes Benz, perpetua to death. (PEOPLE vs. SIRAD, G.R. No.
when her personal driver, Isabelo pulled over the 130594, July 5, 2000)
side of the highway. A man, who introduced
himself as Mito, boarded the car. Isabelo explained
to Mrs. X that Mito was his nephew and they QUESTION
wanted to get money from her. At this juncture, Mrs. S was a bank teller. In need of money,
Mito poked a gun at Mrs. X’s neck. Frightened, she took P5,000.00 from her money drawer and
Mrs. X immediately handed over to Mito all the made it appear that a certain depositor made a
money in her bag. withdrawal from his account when in fact no such
Are Isabelo and Mito liable for highway withdrawal was made. What crime was committed
robbery under P.D. 532 for the reason that the by Mrs. S?
robbery was committed along a highway?
ANSWER:
ANSWER: Mrs. S is liable for qualified theft. Mrs. S was
NO, because Isabelo and Mito did not commit the only in material possession of the deposits as she
robbery indiscriminately against any person, instead received the same in behalf of the bank. Juridical
they committed the same against a particular victim. possession remains with the bank. Juridical
Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as highway possession means possession which gives the
robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery transferee a right over the thing which the transferee
perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any may set up even against the owner. If a bank teller
person or persons on Philippine highways as defined appropriates the money for personal gain then the
therein, and not acts of robbery committed against felony committed is theft. Further, since Mrs. S
only a predetermined or particular victim. If the occupies a position of confidence, and the bank
purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only places money in her possession due to the confidence
robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four reposed on her, the felony of qualified theft was
armed participants. committed. (ROQUE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 138954.
The mere fact that the robbery was committed on a November 25, 2004)
highway does not invite the application of
Presidential Decree No. 532. The preambular clause
of Presidential Decree No. 532 reveals the intention QUESTION
of the law to prevent lawless elements from Does a novation or compromise affect the
committing acts of depredation upon the persons and criminal liability of a person accused of estafa?
properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants Explain.
who travel from one place to another, thereby
disturbing the peace, order and tranquility of the ANSWER:
nation and stunting the economic and social progress Novation or compromise does not affect
of the people. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of how a criminal liability of the offender of the accused. So,
single act of robbery against a particular person partial payment or extension of time to pay the
chosen by the accused as their specific victim could amount misappropriated or acceptance of a
be considered as committed on the "innocent and promissory note for payment of the amount involved
defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to does not extinguish criminal liability, because a
another," and which single act of depredation would criminal offense is committed against the people and
be capable of "stunting the economic and social the offended party may not waive or extinguish the
progress of the people". (PEOPLE vs. PUNO, G.R. No. criminal liability that the law imposes for the
97471, February 17, 1993) commission of the offense.
In order that novation of contract may relieve
the accused of criminal liability, the novation must
QUESTION take place before the criminal liability is incurred;
Akmad was accused of unlawfully taking a criminal liability for estafa is not affected by
motorcycle with the use of violence and compromise or novation of contact for it is a public
intimidation, and killing the owner thereof by offense which must be prosecuted and punished by
reason of such unlawful taking. After trial, he was the state at its own volition.
convicted of Carnapping with Homicide. Was his But if the compromise is executed before a
conviction proper? criminal action is instituted or where the amount
misappropriated was converted into a contract of
ANSWER: loan and the accused was made to acknowledge the
NO, because there is no such crime debt, there is novation of contract so as to extinguish
denominated as Carnapping with Homicide. The any incipient criminal liability of the accused; but the
proper denomination for the crime is Carnapping as novation must be express and must refer only to the
defined and penalized under of Republic Act No. incipient criminal liability. (PEOPLE vs. BULI-E, G.R.
6539, Sections 2 and 14. Under Republic Act No. No. 123146, June 17, 2003)
6539, Section 14, the penalty for carnapping in case
the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
the accused had bought from it. This kind of a
QUESTION situation is not unusual in the trading of commodities
When does the act of postdating or issuing a like sugar and rice. If Suki had such knowledge, then
check constitute estafa? it follows that there was no deceit. And where there
is no proven deceit or fraud, there is no crime of
ANSWER: estafa. On the other hand, one who is guilty of bad
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or faith would probably not have acted the way the Sita
issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be did. If she had fraudulent intentions at the time of
the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it the sale and the issuance of the subject checks, her
should be either prior to or simultaneous with, the normal reaction would have been to hide or at least
act of fraud. (NAGRAMPA v. PEOPLE, 386 SCRA 412) avoid or delay confrontation with Suki. But she did
neither. On the contrary, as soon as she was, notified
of the dishonor, she immediately went to Suki to
QUESTION offer replacement checks and later, partial payment,
Can an agent who failed to turn over the both of which were accepted by Suki. (PEOPLE vs.
part of his collection which represents his SINGSON, G.R. No. 75920, November 12, 1992)
commission be held liable for estafa?

ANSWER: QUESTION
It depends. if the agent is authorized to Can a drawer who was acquitted or
retain his commission out of the amounts he convicted under the Revised Penal Code or estafa
collected, there is no estafa. Otherwise, he is guilty be prosecuted under BP Blg. 22?
of estafa because the right to a commission does not
make the agent a joint owner with a right to the
money collected. ANSWER:
YES. An acquittal or conviction of the drawer
under the Revised Penal Code is not a bar to his
prosecution or conviction under BP 22, because the
latter law requires the additional fact of the drawer’s
QUESTION knowledge of lack of insufficiency of funds.
Sita purchased 1,000 bags of sugar from Suki, in QUESTION
payment thereof, Sita issued six post-dated checks. M, a married woman, had sexual
Only two of the checks were honored by the intercourse with a man who was not her husband.
drawee bank while the rest were returned for lack The man did not know she was married. What
of suficient funds. Upon knowledge of the dishonor crime, if any, did each of them commit? Why?
of her checks, Sita issued another set of checks as
replacement for the ones that were dishonored. ANSWER:
Regrettably, these checks were also dishonored. M, the married woman, committed the crime
Sita then went to Suki and offered to make a of adultery under article 333 of the Revised Penal
partial payment, explaining that she was unable to Code, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with
fund her checks on time due to the sudden and a man not her husband while her marriage was still
unforeseen fluctuation in the price of sugar, which subsisting. But the man who had carnal knowledge of
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

resulted in her inability not only to collect from her her not knowing her to the married shall not be liable
own buyers, but to sell all the sugar as she had for adultery. (2002 Bar Examinations)
expected. Suki accepted the partial payment and
allowed Sita to return 92 bags of sugar.
Upon failure of Sita pay the rest of the QUESTION
amount, she was charged with estafa under par. Mr. O is married. He has a paramour with
2(D), Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. May Sita whom he has sexual relations on a more or less
be convicted of the crime charged? regular basis. They meet at least once a week in
hotels, motels and other placed where they can be
ANSWER: alone. Is Mr. O guilty of any crime?
NO, because there was no fraud or deceit on
the part of Sita. For the crime of estafa to exist, the ANSWER:
LAW

element of fraud or bad faith is indispensable. And its Mr. O is guilty of the crime of concubinage by
presence must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt having sexual intercourse under scandalous
before the accused can be found guilty of such crime. circumstances with a woman who is not his wife.
These circumstances — the prompt action of Having sexual relations on a more of less regular basis
Sita in offering to replace the dishonored checks and on motels, hotels and other places may be considered
in later making partial payment and the taking of a scandalous circumstance that offends public
postdated checks and subsequently of the conscience giving rise to criticism and general
replacement checks, and the acceptance of partial protest, such act being imprudent and wanton and
payment — show, first, that in all probability Suki setting a bad example. (2002 Bar Examinations)
knew that the funds to cover the six postdated
checks were to come from the sale of the sugar which

48
QUESTION Malice in fact - If the article is not
What is the meaning of virginity in qualified defamatory on its face or it is ambiguous, but it can
seduction and consented abduction? be considered libelous in light of the surrounding
ANSWER: circumstances which gave rise to its existence, then
Virginity in qualified seduction does not require actual malice on the part of the offender has to be
physical virginity (virgo intacta) or as the term is proved.
understood in medical science.
The legal view is that qualified seduction only
requires virginity in law, i.e., that the victim has no QUESTION
other voluntary carnal relations with another man. What is the rule regarding proof of truth
Likewise, virginity inconsented abduction is not to be under Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code?
understood in its material sense, as to exclude a
virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence ANSWER:
of the crime of abduction is not injury to the woman As a general rule, proof of truth of the
but the outrage and alarm to her family. defamation against the victim is not a defense.
Nonetheless, such proof of the truth is admissible if
the act imputed constitutes a crime, whether the
victim is a private individual or a public officer. In
such cases, proof of the truth plus good motives and
justifiable ends will warrant the acquittal of the
QUESTION accused.
Who are the persons responsible for libel? However, in the imputation of a crime
against public officers in connection with the
ANSWER: performance of public functions, proof of truth is an
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or absolute defense; no need to establish good motive.
causes the publication, or exhibition of
any defamation in writing or similar
means (Art.360,par. 1) QUESTION
2. The author or editor of a book of When is slander considered grave or
pamphlet simple?
3. The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine or serial ANSWER:
publication (Art. 360, par.2) It is considered grave when it is of a serious
4. The owner of the printing plant which or insulting nature, (Example: a false charge of
publishes a libelous article with his immorality) otherwise, it is only considered simple
consent and all other persons who in any slander.
way participate in or have connection
with its publication
QUESTION
Is the defense of contributory negligence
QUESTION applicable in criminal cases through reckless
Is honest mistake a compete defense in imprudence?
libel?
ANSWER:
ANSWER: NO, the defense of contributory negligence
No, the publication of the article through an does not apply in criminal cases through reckless
honest mistake is not a complete defense but serves imprudence since one cannot allege negligence of
only to mitigate damages where the article is libelous another to evade the effects of ones own negligence.
per se.

QUESTION
QUESTION Bob was a neophyte of the Pasaway
What is malice in law and malice in fact in Fraternity. He was taken to the house of Dong,
relation to the crime of libel? one of the members of the fraternity, for his final
initiation rights. The initiation rights were
ANSWER: conducted in the garage of the house. During the
Malice in Law - If on its fact the article is initiation rights, Onyok, Dong’s house boy, was
defamatory, even if the facts therein are true, it is ordered by Dong to serve drinks and food to the
presumed that the offender acted with malice. members of the fraternity who were having a
Hence, no evidence regarding malice has to be drinking spree as the initiation was conducted. In
submitted except where what is involved is privileged the midst of the initiation rights, which involved
communication under Art. 354, in which case malice physical violence, Bob collapsed. The members of
in law cannot arise and malice in fact has to be the fraternity, including Dong, panicked and
proved. immediately left the house. Before leaving, Dong,
instructed Onyok to take Bob to the hospital.
Onyok did so, but upon arriving at the hospital, Bob QUESTION
was already dead. Onyok was arrested by the How does B.P. Blg. 22 differ from estafa
police. After police interrogation, Onyok reasoned under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
that he was a mere house boy and he was not a with regards to the drawer’s knowledge of
member of the Pasaway Fraternity who conducted insufficiency of funds?
the hazing. His statements led to the arrest of
Dong. For his part, Dong admitted having ANSWER:
participated in hazing Bob but argued that he had In violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the drawer’s
no intention to commit so grave a wrong. knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in or credit
(1) May Onyok be charged for violation of with the bank is required but not under the Revised
the Anti-Hazing Law? Penal Code. Deceit constituting false pretenses and
(2) Is Dong entitled to the mitigating fraudulent acts is inherent under the Revised Penal
circumstance that there was no intention Code but not under B.P. Blg. 22. Pursuant to the
to commit so grave a wrong? Revised Penal Code, the check is issued in payment of
an obligation (for value) while B.P. Blg 22, makes
reference to a check issued to apply on account or
ANSWER: for value. From that fact the relevant provisions of
(1) YES, Onyok may be charged under the the Revised Penal Code exclude checks issued in
Anti-Hazing Law because his presence during the payment of a pre-existing obligation because deceit
hazing is prima facie evidence of participation or false pretense must be prior to or simultaneous
therein as a principal unless he prevented the with the commission of the fraud. (PEOPLE vs. SABIO,
commission of the acts of leading to the death of 86 SCRA 568)
Bob. The Anti-Hazing Law in creating this
presumption does not distinguish whether the person
present is a member of the fraternity or not. The law QUESTION
merely uses the phrase “any person”. The facts Francisco purchased on installment, from
clearly show that Onyok did not do anything to Francel Realty Corporation, a townhouse unit.
prevent the infliction of physical violence against Bob Francisco then a postdated check, in payment of
causing the latter’s death. (R.A. No. 8049, sec. 4, the purchase price. After moving in his unit,
par. e) Francisco complained to Francel regarding defects
(2) NO, the Anti-Hazing Law expressly in the unit and incomplete features of the
provides that any person charged with any violation townhouse project. Francel ignored the complaint.
thereof shall not be entitled to the mitigating Francisco sent "stop payment orders" to the bank.
circumstance that there was no intention to commit Upon suggestion of the bank, Francisco closed his
so grave a wrong. (R.A. No. 8049, sec. 4, par. e) checking account to avoid the paymeny of bank
charges. Due to the closure of petitioner's checking
account, the drawee bank dishonored six postdated
QUESTION checks. Francel filed a complaint against petitioner
Jenny was applying as a sales lady in the MS for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 involving said
Superstore. Greg, the head of the Human dishonored checks.
Resources Department, asked Jenny if she could Francisco argues that he cannot be
raise her skirt so that he could see her legs. Greg convicted for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, considering
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

told Jenny that it was his policy that all sales ladies that he had cause to stop payment of the checks
in MS Superstore had flawless legs. Jenny refused issued to respondent. Considering that under P.D.
and decided to leave. Greg denied Jenny’s No. 957, the buyer of a townhouse unit has the
employment application for her refusal to accede right to suspend his amortization payments, should
to his demand. the subdivision or condominium developer fail to
Is Greg liable for sexual harassment? develop or complete the project in accordance
with duly-approved plans and specifications.
ANSWER: May Francisco be held liable for violation of
YES, Greg’s act of demanding Jenny raise to B.P. Blg. 22?
her skirt to view her legs clearly constitutes a
ANSWER:
demand for a sexual favor as a condition for her
NO, there is no showing that the time said
employment. The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
checks were issued, Francisco had knowledge that his
LAW

provides that a manager or employer who demands,


deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from
cover them when presented for encashment. The
another in a work related or employment
closure of Francisco’s account with the bank was not
environment shall be liable for sexual harassment,
for insufficiency of funds. It was made upon the
regardless of whether the demand request or
advice of the drawee bank, to avoid payment of hefty
requirement is accepted by the object of the act.
bank charges each time Francisco issued a "stop
Hence, Greg’s criminal liability is not affected by
payment" order to prevent encashment of postdated
Jenny’s refusal to accede to his demand. (R.A. No.
checks in Francel's possession. Such fact contradicts
7877, sec. 3)
the prima facie presumption of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds.

48
Conviction under B.P. Blg. 22 requires be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of
knowledge on the part of the issuer at the time of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of
the check's issuance that he did not have enough knowledge of lack of funds to arise. Neither does it
funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof upon discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain
its presentment. B.P. No. 22 creates a presumption sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable
juris tantum that knowledge of insufficiency of funds time thereof. Under Section 186 of the Negotiable
prima facie exists when the first and third elements Instruments Law, "a check must be presented for
of the offense are present, namely: the making, payment within a reasonable time after its issue or
drawing and issuance of any check to apply for the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon
account or for value; and the subsequent dishonor of to the extent of the loss caused by the delay." By
the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of current banking practice, a check becomes stale after
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had more than six (6) months, 23 or 180 days. The check
not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the was deposited 157 days after the date of the check,
bank to stop payment. But such evidence may be hence said checks cannot be considered stale. Only
rebutted. If not rebutted or contradicted, it will the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
suffice to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue, funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be
which it supports. Such knowledge of the proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. (WONG
insufficiency of Francisco’s funds "is legally vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 117857, February 2,
insufficiency of funds." But such presumption cannot 2001)
hold if there is evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, following Article 11 (5) of the QUESTION
Revised Penal Code, petitioner's exercise of a right of May a person, who issued a check which
the buyer under Article 23 of P.D. No. 957 is a valid was dishonored upon presentment for payment, be
defense to the charges against him. Offenses convicted of B.P. 22 if he paid the amount of the
punished by a special law, like the Bouncing Checks check even before receipt of the notice of
Law, are not subject to the Revised Penal Code, but dishonor?
the Code is supplementary to such a law. There is What if the reason for the dishonor of the
nothing in the text of B.P. Blg. 22, which would check was that it was “drawn against uncollected
prevent the Revised Penal Code from supplementing deposit” and not “drawn against insufficient
it. (SYCIP vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GR No. 125059, funds”, will a prosecution under B.P. 22 prosper?
March 17, 2000)
ANSWER:
NO, knowledge of insufficiency of funds is
QUESTION rebutted when it is shown that the maker or drawer
Luis issued a check to guarantee the pays or makes arrangements for the payment of the
payment of customer orders. When deposited check within five banking days after receiving notice
after 157 days from its issuance, the check was that such check had been dishonored; more so when
dishonored. the dishonored check is paid even before receipt of
In a prosecution for B.P. Blg 22, may Luis notice of dishonor. Thus, it is essential for the maker
successfully contend that: (1) the checks were not or drawer to be notified of the dishonor of her check,
issued in payment of an obligation but were merely so he could pay the value thereof or make
to guarantee payment of customer orders, and that arrangements for its payment within the period
(2) the since the check was presented for payment prescribed by law.
beyond 90 days from its issuance, the presumption If the reason for the dishonor of a check was
of knowledge of lack of funds under Section 2 of that it was “drawn against insufficient funds”, the
B.P. Blg. 22 should not apply to him? drawer thereof is still liable under B.P. 22 because
just the same, said drawer has no sufficient funds in
ANSWER: his account to cover the amount of the check at the
NO, Luis’ contentions are incorrect. First, time of its presentment. This situation arises when a
B.P. Blg. 22 punishes the issuance of a bouncing check is deposited with the bank to fund another
check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor check drawn against such bank, and the check so
the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. To deposited has not been credited by the bank. Even
determine the reason for which checks are issued, or with uncollected deposits, the bank may honor the
the terms and conditions for their issuance, will check at its discretion in favor of clients, in which
greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the case there would be no violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
stability and commercial value of checks as currency Corollarily, if the bank so desires, it could likewise
substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in dishonor the check if drawn against uncollected
banking communities. So what the law punishes is the deposits, in which case the drawer could be held
issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for liable for violation of BP Blg. 22. (ABARQUEZ vs.
which it was issued nor the terms and conditions COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 148557, August 7,
relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a 2003)
worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Second, the law does not require a maker to
maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days. It QUESTION
is not an element of the offense. That the check must
What is the crime of plunder under the
Plunder Law (R.A. No. 7080)?
QUESTION
ANSWER: Is the crime of plunder malum in se or
It is committed by any public officer who, by malum prohibitum?
himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business ANSWER:
associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, Plunder is a crime of malum in se because the
accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a constitutive crimes are mala in se. The elements of
combination or series of overt or criminal acts: mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
(a) misappropriation or malversation of plunder. Moreover, any doubt as to whether the
public funds; crime of plunder is malum in se must be deemed to
(b) receiving any commission or kickbacks by have been resolved in the affirmative decision of
reason of his public position; Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous
(c) illegal disposition of assets belonging to crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
the government; The legislative declaration in R.A. 7659 that plunder
(d) receiving or accepting shares of stocks or is a heinous offense implies that it is malum in se. For
equity in any business enterprise or when the acts punished are inherently immoral or
undertaking; inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not
(e) establishing monopolies or combinations matter that such acts are punished in a special law,
or implementation of decrees and orders especially since in the case of plunder the predicate
intended to benefit particular persons; crimes are mainly mala in se. (Joseph Ejercito
(f) taking undue advantage of official Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
position to the prejudice of the November 21, 2001)
government;
in the aggregate amount of at least P50
Million. QUESTION
These acts are mentioned only as predicate Manzo was arrested for robbery of valuable
acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations pieces of jewelry owned by his former employer.
relative thereto are not to be taken or to be He admitted that he took the jewelry but sold the
understood as allegations charging separate criminal same to appellant. Subsequently, appellant was
offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code, the arrested and from his possession the police
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and other recovered some of the stolen pieces of jewelry. He
related penal statutes. These predicate acts merely was charged with violation of P.D. 1612 or the
constitute acts of plunder and are not crimes Anti-Fencing Law. By way of defense, he claimed
separate and independent of the crime of plunder. that the valuables recovered from him were
(SERAPIO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148468, legitimately acquired by him from other sources
January 28, 2003) other than Manzo and that he is not involved in the
crime of robbery committed by Manzo.
(1) Does the Anti-Fencing Law require the
QUESTION accused to be, in any way, involved in
What is meant by “combination” and the crime of robbery (or theft)?
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

“series” of overt or criminal acts under the (2) Did appellant committed a violation of
Plunder Law? the Anti-Fencing Law?

ANSWER: ANSWER:
When the Plunder Law speaks of (1) NO. It is enough that the elements
“combination”, it is referring to at least two (2) acts concur:
falling under different categories of enumeration a) a crime of robbery or theft has been
provided in Sec. 1, par. (d). Example: raids on the committed;
public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and b) the accused is not a principal or
fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the accomplice in the commission of the
National Government under Sec. 1 par. (d), subpar. robbery or theft, but receives, keeps,
(3). acquires, buys and/or sells, or in any
LAW

On the other hand, to constitute a “series” matter deals in any article, item,
there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts object or anything of value derived
falling under the same category of enumeration found from robbery or theft;
in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, c) the accused knows or should have
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of known that such article, item, object
which falls under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, or thing was the proceeds of robbery
had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive or theft; and
meaning for “combination” and “series”, it would d) there is, on the part of the accused,
have taken greater pains in specially providing for it an intent to gain for himself or for
in the law. (ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR No. another. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs.
148560, November 21, 2001) People, 234 SCRA 63)

48
(2) YES. All the elements of the crime of such as government authorities or representatives of
fencing are present. The prosecution has sufficiently organized groups from installing devices in order to
established the fact of robbery as testified to by the gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate,
person who committed the same. At any rate, the blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over
law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen the telephone users. Consequently, the mere act of
articles by the accused as mere possession thereof is listening, in order to be punishable must strictly be
enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. with the use of the enumerated devices in RA No.
Appellant, who was in possession of some of the 4200 or others of similar nature. (GAANAN vs.
stolen articles has not rebutted this presumption. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. L-69809,
(Capili vs. CA, G.R. No. 139250, August 16, 2000) October 16, 1986)

QUESTION QUESTION
Atty. Tito telephoned Leo to discuss the Petitioner, a BIR official tasked to examine
settlement of a direct assault case filed by Atty. the Books of Accounts for Income and Business Tax
Tito’s client against Leo. Atty. Ed, Leo’s retained and other accounting records of professionals, one
counsel, secretly listened to the telephone day appeared in the complainant’s office and told
conversation through a telephone extension. the latter that his tax deficiencies would amount to
(a) Was the conversation between Atty. P500,000.00. Because his books were not
Tito and Leo “private” in nature as to be the examined, complainant entertained the idea that it
subject of violation of the R.A. No. 4200, otherwise was the start of an extortion, and he tried to
known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act? negotiate for a smaller amount. He requested the
(b) Is an extension telephone among the assistance of the NBI for an entrapment operation.
prohibited devices in R.A. No. 4200, such that its On the set payoff date, petitioner appeared
use to overhear a private conversation would in the complainant’s office. The meeting ensued
constitute a violation of said Act? and the complainant handed an envelope with the
planted money. Petitioner accepted the envelope,
ANSWERS: opened it, looked inside and saw the money. He
(a) YES, the telephone conversation between then closed the envelope and placed it in front of
Atty. Tito and Leo was "private" in the sense that the him. After that, the NBI apprehended him.
words uttered were made between one person and (1) Is demand, coming from the accused
another as distinguished from words between a public officer, necessary to convict him under
speaker and a public. As worded under the law, if a Section 3 (b) of R.A. 3019?
party secretly records a public speech, he would not (2) Was there receipt of payoff money?
be penalized under Section l because the speech is
public. The conversations or communications ANSWER:
contemplated under R.A. No. 4200 are those made (1) NO. Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 penalizes
between one person and another person — not three distinct acts – (1) demanding or requesting; (2)
between a speaker and a public. (GAANAN vs. receiving; or (3) demanding, requesting and
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, G.R. No. L-69809, receiving” any gift, present, share, percentage, or
October 16, 1986; RAMIREZ vs. HONORABLE COURT benefit for oneself or for any person, in connection
OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995) with any contract or transaction between the
(b) NO, an extension telephone cannot be government and any other party, wherein a public
placed in the same category as a dictaphone, officer in an official capacity has to intervene under
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in the law. These modes of committing the offense are
Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be distinct and different from each other. Proof f
considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a existence of any of them suffices to warrant
telephone line. The telephone extension in this case conviction. The lack of “demand” is immaterial. After
was not installed for that purpose. It is a separate all, Section 3(b) of R.A. 3019 uses the word “or”
device and distinct set of a movable apparatus between requesting and receiving.
consisting of a wire and a set of telephone receiver (2) YES, because there was be a clear
not forming part of a main telephone set which can intention on the part of the public officer to take the
be detached or removed and can be transferred away gift so offered and consider it as his or her own
from one place to another and to be plugged or property from then on. Mere physical receipt
attached to a main telephone line to get the desired unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or
communication coming from the other party or end. act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the
The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use court to conclude that the crime has been
of a "device or arrangement" for the purpose of committed. To hold otherwise would encourage
secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers
communication. There must be either a physical by simply putting within their physical custody some,
interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate gift, money or other property. (PELIGRINO vs.
installation of a device or arrangement in order to PEOPLE, G.R. No. 136266, August 31, 2001)
overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
It can be readily seen that our lawmakers
intended to discourage, through punishment, persons QUESTION
What is the meaning of “gross negligence” 6. Specifically provides that in case the offender
in the context of Sec. 3 (e) of RA 3019? is a minor, privilege mitigating circumstance
of minority may be appreciated.
ANSWER: 7. Attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the
To be held liable under said section, the act crimes penalized therein are punishable with the
of the accused which caused undue injury must have same penalty as when the crime is consummated or
been done with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable actually committed.
negligence. Gross negligence has been defined as
negligence characterized by the want of even slight
care acting or omitting to act I a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully QUESTION
and intentionally with a conscious indifference to A and B were walking along Mendiola when
consequences in so far as other persons may be they saw a group of policemen approaching them.
affected. It is the omission of that care which even B immediately handed to A, the sachet of shabu he
inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on was carrying inside his pocket. The police saw A
their property. (Alejandro v. People, 170 SCRA 400) placing the shabu inside his bag. If A was unaware
In case of public officials, there is gross negligence that what was inside the sachet given to him was
when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the
(QUIBAL v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 244 SCRA 224) Dangerous Drugs Act?

ANSWER:
QUESTION: NO, A will not be criminally liable because he
May conviction under the Anti-Graft and is unaware of the content of the sachet handed to
Corrupt Practices Act preclude prosecution for him by B, and therefore, the criminal intent to
crimes committed by public officers under the possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Revised Penal Code? Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute
criminal liability to her in the absence of animus
ANSWER: possidendi. (2002 Bar Examinations)
NO, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
expressly provides that in addition to acts and
omissions of public officers already penalized by QUESTION
existing law (such as those under Title Seven of the May the crime of illegal sale of drugs be
Revised Penal Code), the acts or omissions described consummated without the exchange of the marked
therein constitute corrupt practices of public officers money?
and are punishable thereby. (R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3)
ANSWER:
YES. The consummation of the crime of
QUESTION illegal sale of drugs may be sufficiently established
What are the salient features of the even in the absence of an exchange of money. The
Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 9165)? offer to sell and then the sale itself arises when the
poseur-buyer shows the money to the offender, which
ANSWER: prompts the latter to show the contents of the
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

1. The former classification of dangerous drugs carton, and hand it over to the poseur-buyer. Mere
into either prohibited or regulated drugs has showing of the said regulated drug does not negate
been discontinued. The present classification the existence of an offer to sell or an actual sale.
now involves both dangerous drugs and The crime of illegal sale of drugs is committed as
controlled precursors and essential soon as the sale transaction is consummated. The
chemicals. payment could precede or follow delivery of the drug
2. Planting evidence to incriminate an innocent sold. In a "buy-bust" operation, what is important is
party, and acting as financier, the fact that the poseur-buyer received the shabu
protector/coddler are duly defined and from the offender and that the same was presented
correspondingly punished. as evidence in Court. In short, proof of the
3. Plea bargaining for those charged under any transaction suffices. Settled is the rule that as long
provision of the Act, and regardless of the as the police officer went through the operation as a
LAW

imposable penalty, shall not be allowed. buyer and his offer was accepted by the offender and
Convicted drug traffickers and pushers the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the
cannot avail of probation, regardless of the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of
penalty imposed the goods. (PEOPLE vs. YANG, G.R. No. 148077,
4. Some acts are punishable by life February 16, 2004)
imprisonment to death, which is a peculiar
penalty.
5. The RPC cannot apply even in a suppletory QUESTION
character because the penalties provided Who is a (1) Financier and (2)
under the RPC are not adopted therein. Protector/Coddler under R.A. NO. 9165?

48
ANSWER: ANSWER:
(1) A Financier is any person who pays for, The following acts are prohibited under PD 1829:
raises or supplies money for or underwrites any of the 1. preventing witnesses from testifying in
illegal activities proscribed under RA 9165. any criminal proceeding or from reporting
(2) A Protector/Coddler is any person who the commission of any offense or the
knowingly or willfully consents to unlawful act identity of offenders by means of bribery,
provided for in this Act and uses his/her influence, misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
power or position in shielding, harboring, screening or force or threats;
facilitating the escape of any person he or she knows
or has reasonable ground to believe or suspects has 2. altering, destroying, suppressing or
violated the provisions of this Act in order to prevent concealing evidence in criminal cases;
the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
3. harboring or concealing or facilitating the
escape of any person he knows or has
QUESTION reasonable ground to believe or suspect
What are the offenses punishable under the
Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. No. 9160)? 4. publicly using a fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime.
ANSWER:
The offenses punishable are as follows: 5. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases
(a) Money Laundering Offense – a crime by obstructing the service of process or
whereby the proceeds of an unlawful act, as defined court orders or disturbing proceedings;
in R.A. No. 9160, are transacted, thereby making
them appear to have originated from legitimate 6. making, presenting or using any record,
sources. It is committed by the following: document, paper or object with
- Any person knowing that any money knowledge of its falsity and with intent to
instrument or property represents affect the course or outcome of the
or relates to the proceeds of any investigation or official proceeding;
unlawful activity transacts or
attempts to transact said monetary 7. soliciting, accepting or agreeing to
instrument or property; accept any benefit in consideration of
- Any person knowing that any abstaining from, discounting or impeding
monetary instrument or property the prosecution of a criminal offender;
involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails 8. threatening another with the infliction of
to perform any act as the result of any wrong upon his person, honor or
which he facilitates the offense of property or that of any member of his
money laundering; and family to prevent such person from
- Any person knowing that any appearing in the investigation of official
monetary instrument or property is proceedings in criminal cases or imposing
required to be disclosed with the a condition whether lawful or unlawful in
Anti-Money Laundering Council fails order to prevent a person from
to do so. appearing;
(b) Failure to keep records of all transactions
of covered institutions, which is required to be 9. giving false or fabricated information to
maintained and safely stored for five years from the mislead or prevent the law enforcement
dates of transaction. agencies from apprehending the offender
(c) Breach of confidentiality - officers and or from protecting the life and property
employees of covered institutions are prohibited from of victim or fabricating information from
communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner the data gathered in confidence by
or by any means, to any person, the fact that a authorities for background information
covered or suspicious transaction report was made, and not for publication to mislead the
the contents thereof, or any other information in investigator or the court.
relation thereto.
(d) Malicious reporting – any person who, with
malice, or in bad faith, reports or files a completely QUESTION
unwarranted or false information relative to money If in the commission of direct assault with
laundering transaction against any person. multiple attempted homicide the accused used an
unlicensed firearm, can the accused by convicted
separately of the offenses of (a) illegal possession
QUESTION of firearms under PD 1866, as amended by RA
What are the acts considered as obstruction 8294, and (b) direct assault with attempted
in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders homicide?
punished under PD. NO. 1829?
ANSWER:
NO. RA 8294 provides that possession and use responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from
of an unlicensed firearm shall be punishable as a different acts directed against the deceased is
separate offense only if no other crime is committed. individual and not collective, each of them is liable
So if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission only for the act committed by him. Pugay is liable for
of any other crime, there can be no separate offense Homicide through Reckless Imprudence, while Samson
of simple illegal possession of firearms. Incidentally, is liable for Homicide.
the law also provides that if homicide or murder is Pugay failed to exercise all the diligence
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence
such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered arising from his act. Samson knew very well that the
as an aggravating circumstance. Since direct assault liquid poured on the body of the deceased was
with multiple attempted homicide was committed in gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not
this case, the accused cannot be separately convicted have committed the act settling the latter on fire if it
of illegal possession of firearms, and neither can the were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of the doubt,
use of the unlicensed firearm be appreciated as an it can be conceded that as of their fun-making he
aggravating circumstance because the offense merely intended to set the deceased’s clothes on
committed was direct assault with attempted fire. Art. 4 of the Revised Penal Coed provides, inter
homicide and not plain homicide or murder as alia, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any
provided in RA 8294. person committing a felony although the wrongful
Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of act done be different from that which he intended.
the accused. In this case, the plain meaning of RA (PEOPLE vs. PUGAY, No. L-74324. November
8294’s simple language is most favorable to the 17, 1988)
accused. Verily, no other interpretation is justified,
for the language of the new law demonstrates the
legislative intent to favor the accused. While it is FRUSTRATED FELONY
true that this interpretation effectively exonerates Where the offender treacherously inflicted a
the accused of illegal possession of an unlicensed wound upon the victim which was sufficient to have
firearm, an offense which normally carries a penalty caused death, but the victim survives by reason of
heavier than that for direct assault. While the prompt medical attention, the offender is liable for
penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the second frustrated murder. (PEOPLE vs. MISION. G.R. No.
it is only prision correccional. Indeed, the accused 63480. February 26,1991)
may evade conviction for illegal possession of
firearms by using such weapons in committing an
even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight SELF-DEFENSE
physical injuries, both of which are punishable by Self-defense is man’s inborn right. In a
arresto menor. This consequence, however, physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful after
necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, the attack has ceased, because there would be no
whose wisdom is not subject to judicial review. Any further harm to repel. But that is not the case when
perception that the result reached here appears it is aimed at a person’s good name. Once the
unwise should be addressed to Congress. Indeed, the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one thus
courts have no discretion to give statutes a new defamed may avail himself of all the necessary means
meaning detached from the manifest intendment and to shake it off. He may hit back with another libel
language of the legislature. Judicial power is which, if adequate, will be justified. (PEOPLE vs.
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

constitutionally confined only to applying the law and HIONG. No. 10413-R. October 20, 1954)
jurisprudence to the proven facts. (PEOPLE vs.
LADJAALAM, G.R. Nos. 136149-51. September 19, If there is no unlawful aggression, there is
2000) nothing to prevent or to repel and the second
requisite of self-defense would have no basis. Even if
we allow appellant’s contention that Tuquero was
DOCTRINES OF SELECTED CASES IN the initial unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain
his plea of self-defense. After appellant successfully
CRIMINAL LAW wrested the knife from Tuquero, the unlawful
aggression had ceased. After the unlawful aggression
CONSPIRACY has ceased, the one making the defense has no more
When accused-appellant Pugay poured right to kill or even wound the former aggressor.
LAW

gasoline on the victim’s body and thereafter his co- The presence of large number of wounds on
accused Samson set the victim on fire, there is the part of the victim, their nature and location
nothing in the records showing that there was disprove self-defense and instead indicate a
previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and determined effort to kill the victim. (PEOPLE vs. SO,
intention between the two accused-appellants G.R. No.104664. August 28, 1995)
immediately before the commission of the crime.
There was no animosity between the deceased and Plainly, the accused-appellant could no
Pugay or Samson. Their meeting at the scene of the longer retreat from the continuing assault by the
incident was accidental. It is also clear that the victim who, as inexorably shown by his relentless
accused and his group merely wanted to make fun of advance towards the accused-appellant, was poised
the deceased. Hence, the respective criminal to kill the latter. The danger to the accused-

48
appellant’s life was clearly imminent. It would not OBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF A SUPERIOR OFFICER
then be proper nor reasonable to claim that he The subordinate who, in following an order of
should have fled or selected a less deadly weapon, the superior, failed to observe all auditing procedures
because in the emergency in which, without any of disbursement, cannot escape responsibility for
reason whatever, he was placed, there was nothing such omission; but where he acted in good faith, his
more natural than to use the weapon he had to liability should only be administrative or civil in
defend himself. In the natural order of the things, nature, not criminal. (TABUENA vs.
following the instinct of self-preservation, he was SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. Nos. 103501-03. February
compelled to resort to a proper defense. It is settled 17,1997)
that reasonable necessity of the means employed
does not imply material commensurability between
the means of attack and defense. What the law INSANITY AS EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
requires is rational equivalence, in the Accuse-appellant must thus prove that he was
consideration of which will enter the principal completely deprived of reason when he killed his
factors the emergency, the imminent danger to father in order to be exempt for parricide. There is
which the person attacked is exposed, and the nothing either in the report of Dr. Gerona or his
instinct more than the reason, that moves or testimony which indubitably show that accused-
impels the defense, and the proportionateness appellant was completely without reason when he
thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but killed his father because the latter wanted him to
rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. leave the house. The defense of insanity is in the
(PEOPLE vs. GUTUAL. G.R. No. 115233. February nature of confession and avoidance and, like the
22,1996). justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden is
on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt
The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily that the accused was insane immediately before the
ordering the continuance of the fencing would have commission of the crime or at the very moment of its
resulted in the further chiseling of the walls of execution. Although schizophrenia is not exempting if
appellant’s house as well as the closure of the access it does not completely deprive the offender of the
to and from his house and his rice mill—which were consciousness of his acts, it may nevertheless be
not only imminent but were actually in progress. considered mitigating under Art 13 (9) if it diminishes
There is no question, therefore, that there was the exercise of his will power. (PEOPLE vs. BANEZ,
aggression on the part of the victims: Fleischer was G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999)
ordering, and Rubia was actually participating in the
fencing. This was indeed an aggression, not on the
person of appellant, but on his property rights. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
The reasonableness of the resistance is also a With respect to accused-appellant Rene
requirement of the justifying circumstance of self- Estepano, the records show that he was only thirteen
defense or defense of one’s rights under paragraph 1 (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the
of Article 11, Revised Penal Code. When the offense. Under Art.12, par. (3), of the RPC, a person
appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15)
his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate years is exempt from criminal liability unless it is
to the attack. Appellant who was sleeping when the shown that he acted with discernment. The minor
victims chiselled his house and fenced off his estate referred to here is presumed to have acted without
and who asked them to stop doing so is not guilty of discernment. Thus, it is incumbent upon the
sufficient provocation when he shot the victims who prosecution to prove that such minor acted
ignored his plea. (PEOPLE vs. NARVAEZ. Nos. L- otherwise.
33466-67. April 20,1983.) Even if he was indeed a co-conspirator, he
would still be exempt from criminal liability as the
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non-
sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger discernment on his part by virtue of his age. (PEOPLE
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating vs. ESTEPANO. G.R. No. 126283. May 23,1999)
attitude and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of aggression. Even if we give
credence to accused-appellant’s version of the ACCIDENT AS AN EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE
events, specifically that the deceased hurled At all events, accidents to be exempting,
invectives at him and moved as if to draw something presupposes that the act done is lawful. Here,
from his waist, the Court are unable to establish a however, the act of the accused-appellant of drawing
finding of unlawful aggression on the victim’s part. a weapon in the course of a quarrel, the same not
Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, being in self-defense, is unlawful—it at least
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not constitutes light threats (Art. 285,par. 1 of RPC).
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the There is thus no room for the invocation of accident
accused must present proof of positively strong act of as ground for exemption.
real aggression. (PEOPLE vs. ARIZALA, G.R. No. The fact that the victim is not shot in the
130708. October 22, 1999) head, or in any vital part of her body does not negate
intent to kill. The extent of the physical injury
inflicted on the victim, as above proved, manifests
intention to extinguish life. Moreover, it was likewise As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant,
declared that the bullet injured a vital organ of the whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such
victim. (PEOPLE vs. NEPOMUCENO, JR.. G.R. mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted
No.127818. November 11, 1998) by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a
chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not
apply, however, where the attack was not
VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE AS MITIGATING preconceived and deliberately adopted but was just
CIRCUMSTANCE triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the
The presence of the 5th mitigating accused because of the provocative act of the victim.
circumstance, that is, immediate vindication of a This is more so, where the assault upon the victim
grave offense to said accused, may be taken into was preceded by a heated exchange of words
consideration in favor of the two accused. There was between him and the accused. In the case at bench,
no interruption from the time the offense was the assault came in the course of an altercation and
committed to the vindication thereof. The herein after appellant had sharpened his bolo in full view of
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the victim. Appellant’s act of sharpening his bolo can
the elopement of a daughter with a man constitutes a be interpreted as an attempt to frighten the victim so
grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance the latter would leave him alone. It was simply
of the peace and tranquility of the home and at the foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to and
same time spreads uneasiness and anxiety in the fro near appellant in a taunting manner while the
minds of the members thereof. ( PEOPLE vs. latter was sharpening his bolo. The suddenness of the
DIOKNO, No. 45100 . October 26, 1936) attack does not, by itself, suffice to support a finding
of alevosia where the decision to attack was made
peremptorily and the victim’s helpless position was
REITERACION incidental. (PEOPLE vs. REAL, G.R. No. 93436.
Reiteracion requires that if there is only March 24, 1995)
one prior offense, that offense must be punishable
by an equal or greater penalty that the one for
which the accused has been convicted. There is no COMPLEX CRIME
reiteracion because that circumstance requires that Where the appellant inflicted a stab wound
the previous offenses should not be embraced in the on each of the two (2) victims who were separated
same title of the Code. While grave threats fall in a from each other by a distance of three (3) meters,
title, different from homicide, still reiteracion cannot the acts of the appellant may not be characterized as
be appreciated because such aggravating a delito compuesto. There were, in other words two
circumstance requires that if there is only one prior (2) distinct acts, directed at two (2) different victims
offense, that offense must be punishable by an equal successively, separated from each other by a brief
or greater penalty that the one for which the accused but discernible interval of time and space. A delito
has been convicted. Likewise, the prosecution has to compuesto, in contrast, arises from a single physical
prove that the offender has been punished for the act resulting in simultaneous injury to two (2) or
previous offense. There is no evidence presented by more victims. (PEOPLE vs. MISION. G.R. No. 63480.
the prosecution to that effect. (PEOPLE vs. REAL, February 26,1991)
G.R. No. 93436. March 24, 1995)
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
In the absence of other notorious acts
evincing his determination to murder the victim,
known premeditation in the instant case cannot be
deduced from the mere fact that six (6) hours before
he stabbed the victim to death, the accused-
appellant took the hunting knife of the victim. There
is nothing in the records to show that there was an
enmity between the two and it is not for the Court
to conjecture that there was. Indeed, it is foolhardy
for the Court to draw from this single act a cold-
LAW

blooded intention to take the life of another. The


killing was simply committed as a-spur-of-the-
moment, induced by that degree of intoxication
which then triggered of the bellicosity in the
accused-appellant who, incidentally, is known in the
community as an ex-convict and a killer. (PEOPLE vs.
CALIJAN, G.R. No. 94592. September 28, 1993)

TREACHERY AMNESTY

48
A person released by amnesty stands before endorsement constituted a written representation
the law as though he had committed no offense. that the payees participated in the indorsement and
Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts cashing of the checks, when in truth and in fact the
into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and true payees had no direct intervention in the
obliterates the offense with which he is charged. proceedings.
Amnesty is a public act of which the court should In the crime of falsification by imprudence
take judicial notice. Thus, the right tot he benefits of public or mercantile documents the element of
of amnesty, once established by the evidence intent to cause damage is not required because
presented either by the complainant or prosecution what the law seeks to repress is the prejudice to
or by the offense, can not be waived, because it is of the public confidence in these documents.
public interest that a person who is regarded by the (SAMSON vs. CA, et al. Nos. L-10364 and L-10376.
Amnesty Proclamation, which has force of the law, March 31.1958)
not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the
law as if he had never committed any punishable
offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or RAPE
hero, and not to be punished as a criminal. (PEOPLE There is no such crime as frustrated rape.
vs. VERA, G.R. No. 26539. February 28, 1990) Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the
offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he
actually attains his purpose and from that moment
PARDON also all the essential elements of the offense have
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done
convicted felon to public office necessarily by the offender, because he has performed the last
relinquished or forfeited by reason of the act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony
conviction although such pardon undoubtedly is consummated. The uniform rule is that for the
restores his eligibility for appointment to that consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
office. The pardon granted to petitioner resulted in essential. Any penetration of the female organ by
removing her disqualification from holding public the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or the
employment, but to regain her former post, she must lips of the female organ, without rupture of the
reapply and undergo the usual procedure required for hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
a new appointment. The Court cannot oblige her Civil warrant conviction. (PEOPLE vs. QUIÑANOLA, G.R.
liability arising from crime. It subsists No. 126148, May 5, 1999)
notwithstanding service of sentence, or for any
reason the sentence is not served by pardon, amnesty Absence of injuries doe not negate the
or commutation of sentence. Petitioner’s civil commission of rape. It is true that, although
liability may only be extinguished by the same causes complainant testified that appellant boxed her on the
recognized in the Civil Code, namely: payment, loss stomach, the medical report did not indicate any
the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the abrasion, hematoma or bruise on that part of her
rights of creditor and debtor, compensation and anatomy. This is of no consequence. Medical
novation. (MONSANTO vs. FACTORAN, G.R. No. authorities agree that when force is applied on the
78239. February 9, 1989) stomach, no marks may be detected. Injuries may
have been caused in the internal organs, but external
signs are not always visible. The absence of injuries,
however, does not negate the commission of rape.
MALVERSATION (PEOPLE vs. JOYA, G.R. No. 79090. October 1,
It is settled that good faith is a valid defense 1993)
in the prosecution of malversation for it would
negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. To It should be underscored that the presence or
constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is not
crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by determinative of the commission of rape because a
criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference sperm test is not a sine qua non for the successful
to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of
to criminal intent. The maxim is actus non facit spermatozoa in the victim’s body does not negate the
reum, nisi mens sit rea—a crime is not committed if crime of rape. The important element in rape is
the mind of the person performing the act penetration of the pudenda and not emission of
complained of is innocent. (TABUENA vs. seminal fluid. (PEOPLE vs. BONDOY, G.R. No.
SANDIGANBAYAN. G.R. Nos. 103501-03. February 79089. May 18, 1993)
17,1997)

ROBBERY
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION When robbery is committed by three (3)
Acts of endorsing of checks by way of persons in conspiracy and not by a band, that is more
identification of the signatures of the payees entitled than three (3) armed malefactors taking part in the
to said checks and their proceeds constitute the commission of the crime, only the offender
crime of estafa through falsification of mercantile committing rape shall be liable for the special
document by reckless imprudence because such
complex crime of robbery with rape. (PEOPLE vs.
MORENO, G.R. No. 92049, March 22, 1993)
KIDNAPPING WITH SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
It should be noted that there is no law The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal
providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s detention is the actual confinement or restraint of
should be considered as aggravating circumstances. the victim or the deprivation of his liberty. There
The enumeration of aggravating circumstance under is no kidnapping with murder , but only murder where
Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as a 3-year old child was gagged, hidden in a box where
opposed to the enumeration in Art. 13 of the same it did and ransom asked. The demand for ransom did
code regarding mitigating circumstances where there not convert the offense in to kidnapping with
is a specific paragraph (par 10) providing for murder. The defendant was well aware that the child
analogous circumstances. It is true that the additional would be suffocated to death in a few moments after
rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the
the occasion of robbery) would result in an analogous diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the
situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of child, to conceal his body and then demand money
the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the before the discovery of the cadaver. (PEOPLE vs.
same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, LORA, G.R. No.49430. March 30, 1982)
the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is
liberally construed in favor of the offender and no
person should be brought within its terms if he is not DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
clearly made so by the statute. In view of the There is no question that the accused
foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in
accused-appellant should not be considered as this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of
aggravating. The proper penalty of reclusion which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of a
perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. passionate outburst. Art. 247 prescribes the following
(PEOPLE vs. REGALA, G.R. No. 130508. April 5, elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises
2000) his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person; and (2) that he kills any of them
In robbery with homicide cases, the or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
prosecution need only to prove these elements: (a) These elements are present in the case.
the taking of personal property with violence or Though about one hour, had passed between
intimidation against persons; (b) that the property the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife
taken belongs toanother; (c) the taking be done with having sexual intercourse with the victim and the
animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must
robbery or by reason thereof, homicide (used in its be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit
generic sense) was committed. These elements were of the victim by the accused-appellant. The RPC, in
present when accused-appellants, acting in unison, requiring that the accused “shall kill any of them or
demanded money from her mother, forcibly took tha both of them… immediately” after surprising his
same against her will and then hacked here to death. spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, does not say
(PEOPLE vs. CABILES, G.R. No.113785. that he should commit the killing instantly
September 14, 1995) thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be
the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
SAN BEDA COLLEGE OF

It has been repeatedly held that when direct accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest
and intimate connection exists between the robbery act of infidelity. But the killing should have been
and the killing, regardless of which the two precedes actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and
the other, or whether they are committed at the must not have been influenced by external factors.
same time, the crime committed is the special The killing must be the direct by-product of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is a accused’s rage. (PEOPLE vs. ABARCA. L-74433.
settled doctrine that when death supervenes by September 14,1987).
reason or on occasion of the robbery, it is immaterial
that the occurrence of death was by mere accident. CARNAPPING
What is important and decisive is that death results Considering the phraseology of amended
by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The death of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539, the carnapping and the
robbery victim by accident can, however, be killing (or the rape) may be considered a single or
LAW

considered as a mitigating circumstance. If the indivisible or a special complex crime which,


circumstances would indicate no intention to kill, as however, is not covered by Article 48 of the Revised
in the instant case where evidently, the intention is Penal Code. As such, the killing (or the rape) merely
to prevent the deceased from making an outcry, and qualifies the crime of carnapping whick for lack of
so a “pandesal” was stuffed into her mouth, the specific nomenclature may be known as qualified
mitigating circumstance of not having intended to carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form.
commit so grave may be appreciated. The stuffing of Since Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 uses the
the “pandesal” in the mouth would not have words “IS KILLED,” no distinction must be made
produced asphyxiation had it not slid into the between homicide and murder. Whether it is one or
neckline, “caused by the victim’s own movements.” the other which is committed “in the course of
(PEOPLE vs. OPERO, No. L- 48796. June 11, 1981) carnapping or on the occasion thereof” makes no

48
difference insofar as the penalty is concerned. It
follows then that the killing of the driver, whether it
be homicide or murder—cannot be treated as a
separate offense, but should only be considered to
qualify the crime of carnapping.
On the otherhand, if attempted or frustrated
murder or homicide is committed “in the course of
the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof,” then it must be deemed to fall under the
clause (of Section 14) “when the carnapping is
committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person.” (PEOPLE vs. MEJIA.
G.R. Nos.118940-41 and G.R. No.119407. July 7,
1997)

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT


To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited
drugs, the sale must be clearly and unmistakably
established. To sell means to give, whether for
money or any other material consideration. It must,
therefore, be established beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant actually sold and delivered two tea
bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who
acted as the poseur-buyer, in exchange for twenty-
peso bills. (PEOPLE vs. SIMON. G.R. No.93028. July
29,1994.)