I.
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding
conflicting claims over the ownership of a parcel of land. One night,
Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo. Roberto
asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to
Ricardo's house. Rafael knew about Roberto's plan to kill Ricardo,
but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto
to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for
him there, until the task had been accomplished, so that he could
drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Roberto also asked
another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo's house, for the
purpose of warning him in case there was any danger or possible
witnesses, and to keep other persons away from the vicinity. All
three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their
respective roles. On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel
to the nearest corner near Ricardo's house. Roberto and Ruel walked
about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto
walked about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo's
bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When he thought that he had
accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and
together they rode in Rafael's car where they drove to the next town
to spend the night there. It turned out that Ricardo was out of town
when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time
it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured
during the incident.
(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s
committed (2.5%); and (b) If a crime was committed, what is the
degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel? (2.5%)
(a) The crime committed was impossible crime. Art. 4 par. 2 of
the RPC. The crime committed was crime against persons
but nevertheless did not occur because of its impossibility
since Ricardo was not around his bedroom when the crime
occured. (Intod v. CA)
Note : Take into consideration that an Impossible crime is a crime of
last resort. You only file for an impossible crime if the act performed
by the offender would not constitute a violation of another provision
of the RPC. If the act of the offender would constitute another
violation of the RPC, that is the appropriate charge and not an
Impossible Crime.
In the present case, the act of Ricardo constituted a crime against
property under Title X of the Revised Penal Code which is Malicious
Mischief. (the 4th element of the Impossible Crime Doctrine is
already wanting) Hence, they should be charged with such and not
of an impossible crime
(b) All of them are principal by direct participation because
there is conspiracy involved in this case. Principals by direct
participation are those who materially execute the crime and
appeared at the crime scene, performed acts which is
necessary in the commission of the crime
II. Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby
building of a bank, to serve as a lookout for Red and Rod while the
two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously
planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery.
Rico saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being
caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He
missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a
woman depositor who was coming out of the bank was fatally shot.
After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was
that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro.
Red and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the
death of the woman as they had no participation therein.
(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
Any killing committed BY REASON OR ON THE OCCASION of
the robbery, whether accidental or otherwise, is robbery with
homicide. Basta plinano ng sabay and they agreed to its execution,
conspiracy agad yan.
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the
malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to commit robbery
must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place
before, during or after the robbery. Absence of proof of an attempt to
stop the killing of one of the victims, plus the finding of conspiracy,
make accused-appellants liable as principals for the crime of
Robbery with Homicide
(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)
No, Red and Rod's contention are also not meritorious. In this case,
there is conspiracy to commit a crime, although the conspiracy
among the offenders was only to commit robbery, whenever a
homicide has been made a consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of
the crime will also be liable as principals in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take
part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored
to prevent the homicide. Since there is no clear indication to prevent
the act of homicide, all of them are liable as principal.
III. On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites.
Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the
fraternity; (ii) ten ( 10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii)
five (5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i)
Rollie, the fraternity's Vice Chancellor and who actually planned the
initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the
initiation was conducted. Due to the severe beating suffered by
Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was brought to
the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was
declared dead on arrival at the hospital. During the investigation of
the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join
the fraternity because his father is also a member of the same
fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to
join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It
was also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in
the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two (2) either merely
watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two (2)
days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use
his house as the venue for the planned initiation. Aside from those
who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and
Ronnie were criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that
resulted in the latter's death.
(a) Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)
(a) Yes, all of them are liable under Anti-hazing law. The
presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as principal, unless he
prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.
(b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that
Ronald, knowing the risks, voluntarily submitted himself to the
initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to kill
the victim affect their liability? (2.5%)
No, because Anti-hazing law is a crime mala prohibita which
punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent.
(a)People vs. Bayabos GR. No. 171222 Feb. 18, 2015 (Criminal Law
Review p. 252 Vol. II); Bar Question III (b)-People vs. Dungo GR. No.
209464 July 1, 2015 (Criminal Law Review p. 253 Vol. II)
IV. On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher.
A week later, she saw what looked like her necklace on display in a
jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display was the
same necklace snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the knowledge and consent
of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered,
and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit.
Accordingly, Rica was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised
the defense that she could not be guilty as charged because she was
the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was
lacking. What should be the verdict if:
(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica? (2.5%)
(a) Impossible crime of theft because in the crime of theft, the
mens rea is the taking of the property of another with intent
to gain. There is no intent to gain on part of the offender in
this case.
(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from
another person who was the real owner of the necklace?
(2.5%)
(b) The store is liable under Anti-fencing law. Fencing is the
act of any person who, with intent to gain, shall buy, or
dispose in any other manner deal in any article, item, object
or anything of value which should be known, to have been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
V. With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring
him a young girl that he (Robert) can have carnal knowledge
with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and
brought her to Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left
while Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the
girl. (a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged?
(2.5%) (b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is
a 15-year old lass who was enticed, through cunning and
deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert
where the latter subsequently had carnal knowledge with
her? (2.5%)
(a) Both Robert and Romy are liable for statutory rape. In
statutory rape, it is not necessary that the victim was
intimated or force used against her because the law
presumes that the victim on account of her tender age
does not and cannot have a will of her own.
(b) No, the crime may fall under qualified seduction
because the victim is over 12 years old and under 18
years of age. Qualified seduction involves sexual
intercourse which was done with the consent of the
woman; otherwise, the crime is rape. The offended
woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.
VI. A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and
occupied the houses built by the National Housing Authority (NHA)
for certain military personnel. To gain entry to the houses, the group
intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the
firearms they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks of the doors
of the houses with the use of crowbars and hammers. They claimed
that they would occupy the houses and live therein because the
houses were idle and they were entitled to free housing from the
government. For the reason that the houses were already awarded to
military personnel who have been found to have fully complied with
the requirements for the award thereof, NHA demanded the group
to vacate within ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied
and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the deadline, the
group refused to vacate the houses in question. What is the criminal
liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions? (5%)
None. Occupation is one of the modes of legally acquiring
ownership under Art. 712 of the Civil Code
Other forms of swindling. It is a wrongful taking of property from its
lawful possessor to the prejudice of the latter. The act is punishable
under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code.
VII. Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National
Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for robbery which they
committed some years before and for which they have been
sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money
owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie
anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the
stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go
to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to the
toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him
in the back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his waist.
Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest "kubol" where he fell. Robbie ran
after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie
continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died
on the spot. Robbie immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden.
When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised
provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances.
The prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that there was b,A
treachery in the commission of the crime. (a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or
a quasi-recidivist? (2.5%) (b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised
by Robb
(a) Robbie is a quasi-recidivist. A quasi‐recidivist is a special
aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony
before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the
same. Since Robbie committed a crime while serving is
sentence he may be a quasi-recidivist.
(b) (b) No, quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance, it cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances. Since quasi-recidivism has no penalty of its
own and it is not a felony, its effect is to increase the penalty
for the new felony to the maximum period
VIII. Randy was prosecuted for forcible abduction attended by the
aggravating circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the court held
that the prosecutor was able to prove the charge. Nonetheless, it
appreciated in favor of Randy, on the basis of the defense's evidence,
the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable
fear, and provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), the penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion temporal.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty should be
imposed on Randy? (5%)
Offsetting – 2 natira
IX. Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in six (6)
months and, as payment for the loan, Rashid issued a postdated
check for the said amount plus the agreed interest. Rashid assured
Rene that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date.
On that date, Rene presented the check to the drawee bank for
payment but it was dishonored for the reason that it was drawn
against insufficient funds (DAIF). Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of
dishonor of the check and demanded the latter to make good the
same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-
day notice, Rene redeposited the check with the drawee bank but it
was again dishonored for the same reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter
filed two (2) separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) Estafa
under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, i.e,
estafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation without sufficient funds in the bank; and
(2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. (a) Can he be
held liable under both actions? (2.5%) (b) If the check is presented for
payment after four (4) months, but before it becomes stale, can the
two actions still proceed? (2.5%)
(a) Yes, Rashid can be held liable for Estafa and BP 22. Estafa is
mala in se, while violation of BP 22 is mala prohibita.
(b) (b) No, Rashid may only be liable for estafa but not BP 22
because in BP 22 there is a prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficient funds when the check was
presented within 90 days from the date appearing on the
check and was dishonored. Since the check was presented
only after 90 days, in this case, 120 days, prima facie may be
disputed.
X. Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having sexual
intercourse with Rocco in the maid's room of their own house. Rafa
shot both lovers in the chest, but they survived. Rafa charged Rachel
and Rocco with adultery, while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with
frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide. In the adultery case,
Rachel and Rocco raised the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to
the incident in question, executed a notarized document whereby
they agreed to live separately and allowed each of them to get a new
partner and Page 5of10 ~ 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS CRIMINAL
LAW live with anyone of their choice as husband and wife. This
document was executed after Rachel discovered that Rafa was
cohabiting with another woman. Thus, they also raised the defense
of in pari delicto. In the frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide
cases, Rafa raised the defense that, having caught them in flagrante
delicto, he has no criminal liability. Assuming that all defenses have
been proven: (a) Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%) (b) Will
the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide prosper?
(2.5%)
(a) a. No, under the Rules on Criminal Procedure the offended
party cannot institute criminal prosecution if the offended party
has consented to the offense.
(b) (b) Yes, Rafa is liable for frustrated parricide and frustrated
homicide but under exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of destierro is prescribed.
Article 247 governs since Rafa surprised his wife Rachel in the
act of having sexual intercourse with Rocco, and inflicting injury
to both of them.
XI. Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a bank. After
taking the bank's money, the robbers ran towards their getaway car,
pursued by the bank security guards. As the security guards were
closing in on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at the pursuing
security guards. As a result, one of the security guards was hit on the
head causing his immediate death. For the taking of the bank's
money and killing of the security guard with the use of loose
firearms, the robbers were charged in court in two separate
informations, one for robbery with homicide attended by the
aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms, and the other for
illegal possession of firearms. Are the indictments correct? (5%)
No, the crime would only be robbery with homicide because the use
of loose firearm is only considered as an aggravating
circumstance.the penalty imposed upon shall be the maximum of the
corresponding penalty provided by law.

Yes, the indicments are correct. Section 29 of RA 10591 provides that
if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by
the law with a maximum penalty which is equal to that imposed
under the preceding section for illegal possession of firearms, the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in
addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised
Penal Code or other special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
XII. Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived under the care of his
grandmother Rosario. Now 18, Rocky entered Rosario's bedroom
who was then outside doing her daily marketing. He ransacked the
bedroom and took Rosario's money and valuables amounting to
PhP100,000. When Rosario came home, she found her room in
disarray, and her money and valuables gone. She confronted Rocky,
who confessed to taking the money and valuables in order to pay his
debts. (a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%) (b) Does he
incur criminal and/or civil liability? (2.5%)
a) Rocky committed the crime of qualified theft because of
abuse of confidence. In this case, Rocky committed the act
while his grandmother is outside and doing a daily
marketing.
b) Yes, while Rocky is direct descendant of the offended party,
qualified theft however, is not among the exemption of
crime committed in crimes against property which is only
include theft, estafa and malicious mischief
XIII. The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both Filipino citizens,
led a group of armed men in seizing a southern island in the
Philippines, and declaring war against the duly constituted
government of the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban, responded and a
full Page 6of10 #f 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS CRIMINAL LAW
scale war ensued between the AFP and the armed men led by the
brothers. The armed conflict raged for months. When the brothers-
led armed men were running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a Filipino,
and a good friend and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked
to leave for abroad in order to solicit arms and funding for the cash-
strapped brothers. He was able to travel to Rwanda, and there he
met with Riboli, a citizen and resident of Rwanda, who agreed to
help the brothers by raising funds internationally, and to send them
to the Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their armed struggle
against the Philippine government. Before Ricalde and Riboli could
complete their fund-raising activities for the brothers, the AFP was
able to reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising. Ricalde
and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to commit treason. During
the hearing of the two cases, the government only presented as
witness, General Riturban, who testified on the activities of the
Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli. (a) Can Ricalde and Riboli be
convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason? (2.5%) (b)
Will the testimony of General Riturban, assuming he can testify on
acts within his personal knowledge, be sufficient to convict the
Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli? (2.5%)
Yes, since the crime is not treason, two witness rule is not applicable.
As long as General Riturban has personal knowledge of the crime he
is qualified to become a witness.
conspiracy to commit treason does not apply. this is only applicable
in times of war. war means phil is at war with another state. the
general can testify but the crime should be rebellion or act of
terrorism.
 Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of accessing and sharing on
Facebook the private pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for
Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been classmates since
what crime? (2.5%)
grade school. When the boys graduated from high school, their
parents gifted them with a trip to Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At
age 16, this was their first European trip. Thrilled with a sense of
(a) No. Under the territorial characteristics of Philippine
freedom, they decided to try what Amsterdam was known for. One
criminal laws, penal laws of the country have force and
night, they scampered out of their hotel room, went to the De
effect only within its territory. While Article 2 of the Revised
Wallen, better known as the Red-light District of Amsterdam. There,
Penal Code applies for extraterritoriality, it is not among the
they went to a "coffee shop" which sells only drinks and various
exception to the application of the extraterritorial application
items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of
of criminal law. Thus, Robin and Rowel cannot be
which are legal in Amsterdam. They represented themselves to be of
prosecuted for the crime committed outside the territorial
age, and were served, and took shots of, cannabis and marijuana
jurisdiction of the Philippines
products. They indulged in these products the whole night, even if it
(b) (b) No. Robin and Rowell is still a minor at the time of the
was their first time to try them. Before returning to Manila, they
commission of the crime. Under RA 9344 or Juvenile Justice
bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir and
Welfare Act, when a child is fifteen (15) years but below
"pasalubong" for their friends. They were accosted at the Manila
eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from criminal
International Airport and were charged with importation of
liability unless acted with discernment.
dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
(c) c) Grating that Robin and Rowell are acted with
2002. They were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after
discernment, they are liable for importation of illegal drugs
pictures of them in the "coffee shop" in Amsterdam were posted on
with privilege mitigating circumstance of a minor. In this
Facebook, showing them smoking and taking shots of a whole menu
case, the penalty is lowered by degree than based on penalty
of cannabis and marijuana products. Their own captions on their
to be imposed upon the offender of the crime.
Facebook posts clearly admitted that they were using the dangerous
(d) No. Based on the latest decision of the Supreme Court, the
products. The pictures were posted by them through Private
act of liking and sharing are not cyber crime.
Messenger (PM) only for their close friends, but Roccino, the older
brother of one of their best friends, was able to get hold of his
XV. During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence,
younger brother's password, and without authority from his brother,
Reichter was called to the witness stand with the stated
accessed his PM and shared Robin and Rowell's Amsterdam photos
purpose that he would testify that his wife Rima had shot
on ~Al Facebook. ,.,,-, Page 7of10 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
him in the stomach with a .38 caliber pistol, resulting in near
CRIMINAL LAW (a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of
fatal injuries. Upon objection of the defense on the ground of
dangerous drugs for their one-night use of these products in
the marital disqualification rule, the presiding judge (Judge
Amsterdam? (2.5%) (b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of
Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying in the case. Its
dangerous drugs? (2.5%) (c) If found liable under either (a) or (b)
motion for reconsideration having been denied, the People
above, what is the penalty that may be imposed on them? (2.5%) (d)
 of the Philippines went up on certiorari to the Court of
Appeals (CA) questioning Judge Rossano's ruling. After due
proceedings, the CA rendered judgment declaring Judge
Rossano's ruling void ab initio for having been made with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and directing Judge Rossano to allow Reichter
to testify in the criminal case for the stated purpose. This is
based on the fact that the marital privilege rule does not
apply where a spouse committed the crime against the other.
As the CA decision became final and executory, the criminal
case before the RTC was calendared for trial. At the
scheduled trial, the prosecution called Reichter to the
witness stand in order to testify on the same matter it earlier
announced. The defense objected on the ground that the CA
erred in its disposition of the certiorari case. Judge Rossano
sustained the objection and again disallowed Reichter from
testifying in the criminal case. Repeated pleas from the
prosecution for Judge Rossano to reconsider his ruling and
to allow Reichter to testify fell on deaf ears. May Judge
Rossano be convicted of a crime? If yes, what crime did he
commit? (5%)
Yes, under malicious delay in the administration of justice. Delay is
malicious with deliberate intent because the judge intent to inflict
damage on either party in the case.
XVI. For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie had been living
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
Initially, they had a happy relationship which was blessed with a
daughter, Rona, who was born on March 1, 2014. However, the
partners' relationship became sour when Ruben began indulging in
vices, such as women and alcohol, causing frequent arguments
between them. Their relationship got worse when, even for slight
mistakes, Ruben Page 8of10 /j 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
CRIMINAL LAW would lay his hands on Rorie. One day, a tipsy
Ruben barged into their house and, for no reason, repeatedly
punched Rorie in the stomach. To avoid further harm, Rorie ran out
of the house. But Ruben pursued her and stripped her naked in full
view of their neighbors; and then he vanished. Ten days later, Ruben
came back to Rorie and pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie
expressed her wish to live separately from Ruben and asked him to
continue providing financial support for their daughter Rona. At
that time, Ruben was earning enough to support a family. He
threatened to withdraw the support he was giving to Rona unless
Rorie would agree to live with him again. But Rorie was steadfast in
refusing to live with Ruben again, and insisted on her demand for
support for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an agreement, no
further support was given by Ruben. What crimes did Ruben
commit: (a) For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%) (b) For
withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%)
a) Violence against women and their children under A 9262.
Violence refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman with whom the person has or
had a sexual relationship, or with whom he has a common
child, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering.
b) (b) Under the same reason, withdrawing of support to a
women with whom who has a child is a violation of RA 9262
which is an financial or economic abuse.
XVII. Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside property located in
Romblon. At that time, she was in the process of returning to the
Philippines as a returning resident, after retiring from her work in
Russia, and was planning to set up a diving school in the area. In a falsification of public document filed against Robina prosper? (2.5%)
non-notarized "Kasunduan ng Pagbibili," Ramsey represented the (b) Will the case for falsification of private document filed against
property as alienable and disposable, and that he had a valid title to Ramsey prosper? (2.5%)
the property. When the sale was completed, and as she was applying
for permits and licenses for her school, she found out that the
property was a public non-alienable and nondisposable land which a Yes. See David v Agbay, 18 March 2015. Robina merely reacquired
Ramsey had bought from someone who only had a foreshore lease but did not retain her Fil citizenship thus she was still a Russian at
over the same. As she was bent on setting up the diving school in the time she filed MLA. Gain or injury not material in falsification of
area, having made all the preparations and having already bought public document
all the equipment, she filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application
(MLA) with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) at the Community Environment and Natural Resources
b. Yes. If the falsification of the private document was essential
Office in Romblon. In her application, she stated that she was a
in the commission of estafa because without the falsification,
Filipino citizen, although she was still a naturalized Russian citizen
estafa cannot be committed, the crime is falsification.
at that time. It was only six months after she filed the MLA that she
filed her petition for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. When
DENR discovered that, at the time of filing the MLA, she was still a
XVIII. Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an elementary school. In one of
Russian citizen, her application was denied and she was charged
her classes, she found, to her consternation, that an 8-year old
with falsification of a public document for misrepresenting herself as
Richard was always the cause of distraction, as he was fond of
a Filipino citizen. Infuriated, Robina also filed charges against
bullying classmates smaller in size than him. One morning, Reymart,
Ramsey for falsification of a private document for stating in their
a 7-year old pupil, cried loudly and complained to Mrs. Robinson
"Kasunduan" that the property was alienable and disposable. In the
that Richard had boxed him on the ear. Confronted by Mrs.
case for falsification of a public document, Robina's defense was that,
Robinson about Reymart's accusation, Richard sheepishly admitted
at the time she filed the MLA, she had every intention to reacquire
the same. Because of this, Mrs. Robinson ordered Richard to lie face
Philippine citizenship, as in fact she filed for dual citizenship six
down on a desk during class. After Richard obliged, Mrs. Robinson
months thereafter, and that she had no intent to gain or to injure the
hit him ten (10) times on the legs with a ruler and pinched his ears.
Philippine government since she expected that her application for
Richard ran home and reported to his mother what he had suffered
dual citizenship would be approved before the MLA could be
at the hands of Mrs. Robinson. When Richard's parents went to Mrs.
approved. On the other hand, she claimed in the action against
Robinson to complain, she interposed the defense that she merely
Ramsey that intent to gain was present since he received the
performed her duty as a teacher to discipline erring pupils. Richard's
purchase price as a result of his ,;(/( Page 9 of 10 2018 BAR
parents ask your advice on what actions can be instituted against
EXAMINATIONS CRIMINAL LAW misrepresentation. Ramsey's
Mrs. Robinson for acts committed on their minor child. (a) May Mrs.
defense was that he had a valid Transfer Certificate of Title in his
Robinson be charged with child abuse OR slight physical injuries?
name, and he had a right to rely on his title. (a) Will the case for
(2.5%) (b) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse AND
slight physical injuries? (2.5%)

a) No. She must be charged with separate offenses of CHILD ABUSE

and SLIGHT PI since there were two acts committed, one on the SPL
of child abuse when she inflicted corporal punishment to face lie
down on the desk during class hour under her act exercising as
special parental authority as provided in Art 233 of the FC, the
purpose of which is to humilate the child and the second act is
inflicting slight PI by hitting 10 times on the leg and pinching his
ears which is punishabled under the RPC.

b) No, even if the acts committed arises on the same occassion cannot
be treated as single act that produces grave or less grave offenses
which can be complexed since both acts punishes on different penal
laws, one is SPL and the other is RPC.

XIX. Ricky was driving his car when he was flagged down by a
traffic enforcer for overspeeding. Realizing his undoing, but in a
hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500 bill in the traffic
enforcer's pocket and whispered to the latter to refrain from issuing
him a traffic violation receipt. The traffic enforcer still issued him a
/IA ticket, and returned his money. /v"f What crime, if any, was
committed by Ricky? (5%

The crime committed by Ricky is corruption of public officer. It is the

act of the giver in the crime of bribery. While the crime was not
consummated by reason of non acceptance of traffic enforcer, the
mere act of giving consummate the crime.

Frustrated bribery. Following Article 6 of RPC, Ricky performed all

acts of execution but failed to produce the felony because of the
nonacceptance of the traffic enforcer, which is independent of
Ricky's will.