CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Preliminary Title
Art 2; General principles; Criminal law; characteristics 1988
No. 1:
a) What are the limitations upon the power of congress to
enact penal laws?
c) State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each.
Answer:
a) The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal
laws are as follows:
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law.
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder. 
 Schenecherberger v. Moran, 63 Phil. 250).
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment. 
 law 1978 No. I-a
However, other limitations may be considered like:
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a
condition. Congress shall punish an act an3 not the condition
or status. (?) (Robinson vs. California).
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that "penalties that may be imposed. No
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission."
c) The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:
1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who
reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex,
color, creed, or personal circumstances.
2. TERRITORIALITY — That the law is applicable to all crimes
committed with in the limits of Philippine territory, which
includes its atmosphere interiors waters and maritime zone
(Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY — That the law does not have any
retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is
a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides.
Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the
following exception:
a) "Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application"
Art 2; General principles; diplomatic immunity 1975 No. III
The American Consul accredited to the Philippines while
driving his car recklessly and imprudently along Roxas
Boulevard bumped a pedestrian who was crossing the street
and the latter died as a consequence of his injuries. Prosecuted
in court for the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence,
the Consul claimed diplomatic immunity, alleging that he is not
subject to Philippine laws and regulations. Is his defense
tenable? Why?
Answer
Under the principle of public international law, only sovereigns
or heads of states, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary and
ministers resident enjoy diplomatic immunity. Consuls do not
enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution (Rep. Act No. 75,
Art 2; General principles; features of principles of criminal
Discuss concisely the cardinal features of principles of criminal
law. Give an exception to each principle and explain the same.
Answer
The Cardinal principles of Criminal Law are generality;
territorially and prospectivity. Generality means that a penal
law applies to all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public international law
and treaty stipulations. A penal law does not therefore apply
to duly accredited foreign Ambassadors and Ministers in the
Philippines since under international law they enjoy diplomatic
immunity. Territoriality means that a penal law is enforceable
within the territory of the Philippines. However, under Article
2 of the Revised Penal Code, its provisions shall be enforced
outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those,
among others, who should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship. The exception will apply if the
Philippine ship or airship is registered under the laws of the
Philippines. The registered Philippine ship at the time of the
commission of the crime must be in the air space not within
the jurisdiction of a foreign country. Prospectivity means that
a penal law does not have any retroactive effect. Otherwise, it
will become an ex post facto law. However, if a penal law is
favorable to the accused, it may be given retroactive effect,
unless the accused is an habitual delinquent or the law
otherwise expressly provides.
Art 2; General principles; laws defining classes of crimes 1978
No. I-b
1
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Penal laws define distinct classes of crimes. Discuss and
elucidate on their distinctions.
Answer
In general, penal laws refer to the Revised Penal Code and
special laws. Crimes punished in the Revised Penal Code are
called felonies and those punished in special laws are called
offenses. A felony as a rule is an act mala in se which is
wrongful from its very nature while an offense is an act mala
prohibits, which is a wrong only because of the law punishing
it. The Revised Penal Code also classifies felonies as
intentional, if dolo or malice is present, and culpable, if there
is culpa or fault. According to gravity, felonies are grave, if the
penalty is capital or afflictive in any of its periods; less grave, if
the penalty in its maximum period is correctional; and light, if
the penalty is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200.00,
or both.
Art 2; General principles; schools of thought in criminal law
1996 No. 1
1} What are the different schools of thought or theories in
Criminal Law and describe each briefly.
2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?
Answer;
1) There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these
are (a) the classical theory, which simply means that the basis
of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the
penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the
gravity of the offense; and (b) the positivist theory, which
considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable
not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such,
punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be
blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in
the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons
would be inquired Into.
2) We follow the classical school of thought although some
provisions of eminently positivist in tendencies, like
punishment of impossible crime, Juvenile circumstances, are
incorporated in our Code,
Art 2; General principles; territoriality; exceptions 1982 No. 1
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions
of the said Code shall be applicable to crimes committed not
only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, but
also outside thereof, in the five (5) instances mentioned
therein. What are the underlying reasons behind, or rationale
for, each of those five (5) instances? Explain fully one by one.
Answer
The five instances provided in Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code in which its provisions are applicable outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines and the underlying
reasons behind each of said instances are the following:
1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship. For this exception to apply, the
Philippine ship or airship must be registered under Philippine
laws. As such it is considered an extension of Philippine
territory.
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or
currency note of the Philippines or obligations and securities
issued by the government. The reason is to protect Philippine
Currency notes and obligations or securities issued by the
government in order to preserve the financial credit and
stability of the government.
3. When the offender should be liable for acts committed with
the introduction in the Philippines of obligations and securities
mentioned in paragraph 2. The reason is to protect the
economic interests of the Philippines as the introduction of
such forged or counterfeit obligations and securities into the
country is as dangerous, if not more, as the forging or
counterfeiting of the same.
4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee
should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions. The
offense committed by the public officer affects the integrity of
the office and is against public administration of the
Philippines. The law should follow the public officer wherever
he may be. If such is not punished by the laws of the country
where the public officer is at the time of its commission, or is
not triable by its courts, the absence of this exception would
not make the provisions of the Code applicable since the crime
is committed outside of Philippine territory.
5. When the offender should commit any of the crimes against
the national security and the law of nations. The reason is to
safeguard the existence of the state.
Art 2; General principles; territoriality 1994 No. 12:
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie
in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the
Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of
Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
2
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Answer:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the
bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in
Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the
Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied
extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal
law governs the situation.
Art 2; General principles; territoriality, generality,
irretrospectivity 1998 No I.
What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of
Philippine Criminal Law? |5%1
Answer:
The three main characteristics of Philippine criminal law are:
1) Generality or its being binding to all persons who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory subject to certain exceptions;
2) Territoriality or its having force and effect only within
Philippine territory, subject to certain exceptions also;
3) Irretrospectivity or its application only to acts and omissions
committed/incurred after the effectivity of the law.
Art 2; General principles; territoriality; exception 1986 No. 1:
Aaron is the defendant in a civil case being tried in the Manila
Regional Trial Court Together with his lawyer, Aaron went to
Singapore to take the deposition' of a witness who. Aaron
hoped, would support his defense. The deposition was taken
in a function room of the Singapore Hotel before Mr. Aguila,
the Philippine Consul General. Neither plaintiff nor his counsel
attended the proceeding. After the deposition taking, Aaron,
not satisfied with the results, persuaded Aguila to make
substantial changes in the transcripts of stenographic notes.
Aaron offered $5,000.00 in Singaporean currency which Aguila
readily accepted. Leona, vacationing daughter of Aguila, was
given $200.00 by Aaron when she made the alterations in the
transcripts. The deponent, with neither notice nor knowledge
of the alterations, signed the deposition.
May Aaron, Aguila, and Leona be prosecuted in a Philippine
court for offenses punishable under our Revised Penal Code?
What are the offenses, if any? Explain.
Answer:
Only Aguila can be prosecuted before the Philippine Court.
Being the Philippine Consul General in Singapore, as a public
officer, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code can be given
extra-judicial application, as the crime committed by him is
related to the duties of his office. Aaron and Leona, being
private persons, cannot be prosecuted before the Philippine
Court because regarding the offenses committed by them, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code cannot be given extra-
territorial application.
Aguila committed bribery and Aaron corruption of a public
officer. Leona committed falsification of a public document as
a principal by direct participation and Aaron as a principal by
inducement. (Art. 2, Revised Penal Code).
Art 2; General principles; territoriality; jurisdiction over
vessel 2000 No I
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two
plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death
Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the
Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South
China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V
"Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City,
the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the
Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed
against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He
moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you
were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted.
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime
committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside
of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws
of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which
makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in
Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
Felonies
Art 3; Common law crimes 1988 No. 1:
b) Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction?
Answer:
b) There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine
lege, there is no crime if there is no law punishing it,
3
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Art 3; Criminal intent 1978 No. I-d
Is malice or criminal intent an essential requisite of all crimes?
Explain. May criminal intent be presumed to exist? Discuss.
Answer
Malice or criminal intent is not an essential element in all
crimes. It is essential only in crimes which are mala in se. In an
offense which is mala prohibita, criminal intent is not an
element Criminal intent is presumed to exist if the act is
unlawful. However, in some crimes, a specific intent cannot be
presumed because it is an integral element thereof. For
example, in frustrated homicide, the specific intent to kill is not
presumed. If it is not proved, the crime will not be frustrated
homicide but serious physical injuries.
Art 3; Dolo vs culpa 1978 No. I-c
Discuss the distinctions between dolo and culpa. Give an
example of each.
Answer
"Dolo" implies deliberate intent. It is equivalent to malice.
"Culpa" means fault, that is, there is no intent or malice. The
wrongful act is the result of imprudence, negligence, lack of
skill or lack of foresight. A felony is committed by means of
dolo or culpa and must be voluntary,
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita 1997 No. l:
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala
prohibita. May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time,
malum prohibitum?
Answer.
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or
culpa as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense, except when the crime results from
criminal negligence. On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita
are those considered wrong only because they are prohibited
by statute. They constitute violations of mere rules of
convenience designed to secure a more orderly regulation of
the affairs of society.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the
same time. In People v. Sunico, et aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was
held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll
clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is
wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to
vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is
punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised
Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita 2001 No VII
b) Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala
prohibita from a crime mala in se. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala in
se as follows, to wit:
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil
or bad. They are punished only because there is a law
prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack
of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense.
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad,
and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the offender is
involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal Intent on the part
of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of
criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the offender.
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita 2003 No I
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implications,
between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibits. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In concept:
Crimes ma/a in se are those where the acts or omissions
penalized are inherently bad, evil, or wrong that they are
almost universally condemned.
Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized are
not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for
public good, public welfare or interest and whoever violates
the prohibition are penalized.
In legal implications:
In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/
negligence is a defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good
faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it is
enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated.
Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se
even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in
crimes mala prohibits, criminal liability is generally incurred
4
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
only when the crime is consummated.
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are appreciated in imposing the penalties, while
in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not
appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme or
scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita: criminal intent 1988 No.
2:
a) Distinguish crime mala in se from crimes mala
prohibita.
 b) May a crime be committed without
criminal intent? Explain.
Answer:
a) There are three distinctions between mala in se and mala
prohibita:
1. A crime mala in se is a natural wrong. On the other hand, an
offense mala prohibita is a wrong only because it is prohibited
by law;
2. In the commission of a crime mala in se, intent is an element
whereas in the commission of an offense mala prohibits,
criminal intent is immaterial; and
3. Crimes mala in se are punished by the Revised Penal Code
although the Revised Penal Code may cover special laws while
offense mala prohibita are punished by special laws.
b) A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two
cases: 1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; an
 2.
Felonies committed by means of culpa.
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita: motive vs intent 1999 No
IV
(a) Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala prohibita"; "motive"
from "intent". (3%)
(b) When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not
necessary to be established? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
(a) In "mala in se", the acts constituting the crimes are
inherently evil, bad or wrong, and hence involves the moral
traits of the offender; while in "mala prohibita", the acts
constituting the crimes are not inherently bad, evil or wrong
but prohibited and made punishable only for public good. And
because the moral trait of the offender is Involved in "mala in
se". modifying circumstances, the offender's extent of
participation in the crime, and the degree of accomplishment
of the crime are taken into account in imposing the penalty:
these are not so in "mala prohibita" where criminal liability
arises only when the acts are consummated.
"Motive " is the moving power which impels a person to do an
act for a definite result; while "intent" is the purpose for using
a particular means to bring about a desired result. Motive is
not an element of a crime but intent is an element of
intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always
precede the intent.
(b) Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as
to the identity of the offender or when the act committed gives
rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the
proper crime to be imputed to the offender.
It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is
positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to
variant crimes.
Art 3; Mala prohibita or special laws; generally only
consummated stage punished 2000 No XVI
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private
Individual, went to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a
customs broker, and represented themselves as agents of
Moonglow Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's
clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto
to prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary
Import Entry and Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list,
a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty
Declaration which declared the shipment as children's toys,
the taxes and duties of which were computed at P60,000.00.
Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the
Manila International Container Port. However, before the
shipment was released, a spot check was conducted by
Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the
contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as
declared in the shipping documents but 1,000 units of video
cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure and
detention were then issued by the District Collector of
Customs. Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-
existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged
with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019
which makes it unlawful among others, for public officers to
cause any undue Injury to any party, including the
Government. In the discharge of official functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused
5
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
alleged that the decision was erroneous because the crime was
not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and
that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the
violation charged is not punishable, may the accused be
nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not
consummated is correct, RA. 3019 is a special law punishing
acts mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted violation of a special
law is not punished. Actual injury is required.
b) Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents, a complex crime. ...
Art 3; Motive vs intent 1996 No. 1
3) Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law
4) May crime be committed without criminal intent?
Answer;
3) Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for
a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to use a
particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an
essential element of a felony and need not be proved for
purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of
felonies by dolo.
4) Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent If
such Is a culpable felony, wherein Intent is substituted by
negligence or imprudence, and also in a malum prohibitum or
if an act is punishable by special law.
Art 3; Motive vs intent 1984 No. 5
(a) Distinguish intent from motive.
(b) When does proof of motive become a crucial consideration
in a criminal prosecution?
(c) What categories of crime do not require criminal intent?
Answer
 A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
(a) Motive is the reason which impels one to commit an act for
a definite result; intent is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such a result. Intent is an element of a crime,
whereas motive is not.
(b) It becomes a crucial consideration in criminal prosecution
when there is doubt as to whether or not the accused
committed the crime.
(c) 1. felonies committed by means of culpa. 2. offenses
punishable as mala prohibita.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
1. Motive is the reason which impels one to commit an act for
a definite result while intent is the purpose to use a particular
means to effect such a result. Motive is not an element of the
crime while intent is an element of the crime committed by
dolo.
2. Proof of motive is a crucial consideration in a criminal
prosecution if there is doubt whether the accused committed
the crime or not or whether the evidence on the commission
of the crime is circumstantial or inconclusive, or the identity of
the accused is in question.
3. Criminal intent 'is not required in felonies committed by
negligence or impudence and in offenses which are mala
prohibita.
Art 3; Motive vs intent 1978 No. II-a
Is motive indicative of criminal intent? Is lack of motive proof
of innocence? When is it necessary to prove motive? Explain
your answers.
Answer
Motive may be indicative of criminal intent. The fact that the
accused were losing heavily in their business operations
indicated the motive and therefore the intent to commit arson
for the purpose of collecting the insurance on their stock of
merchandise. (U.S. u. Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 125). However, it is
not sufficient to support a conviction if there is no reliable
evidence from which it may deduced that the accused was the
malefactor. (People vs. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468; People vs.
Martinez, 106 Phil 597). Lack of motive is not necessarily proof
of innocence because motive is not an essential element of the
crime. A crime may be committed just for the sake of
committing it due for example to the extreme moral
perversion of the accused. (People vs. Taneo, 58 Phil. 255). It
is necessary to prove motive when the identity of the person
accused of committing the crime is in dispute (People vs. del
Rosario Murray, 105 Phil. 591), or when there are no
6
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall
upon a number of persons (People vs. Mario, CA G.R. No. 371-
R, July 21, 1949).
Art 4
 1996 No. 4:
1) Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a
Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10)
persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are
passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while
lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were
ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus
tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
Answer:
1) Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and
Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the
proximate cause of the victim's death. The rule is that when a
person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a
sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape
from or avoid such danger and In the process, sustains injuries
or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible
for such injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People
vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
Art 4
 1996 No. 9:
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to
parry it with his hand, causing upon him a two-inch wound on
his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further
because three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot
Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly
charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted
homicide. Twenty-five days later, while the preliminary
investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the
hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-
inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following
day.
Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death
of Anacleto? Explain.
Answer:
Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of
Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed twenty
five days later, was brought about by an efficient supervening
cause. Vicente's felonious act of causing a two- inch wound on
Anacleto's right palm may still be regarded as the proximate
cause of the latter's death because without such wound, no
tetanus infection could develop from the victim's right palm,
and without such tetanus infection the victim would not have
died with it.
Art 4
 1997 No. 2;
While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the
Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work,
began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the
members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could
work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a
display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards
B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant
when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently
believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw
himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and
drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?
Answer;
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B, Article 4
of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability
shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41 Phil. 497. where the victim who
was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the
river but because of the strong current or because he did not
know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed
the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person
against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to
be in danger of death or great bodily harm and in order to
escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of self-
preservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in
case death results by drowning.
Art 4
 1999 No II
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits
happened to fire his gun upward in the ceiling without
meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was
hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and
was not perpetrated in connection with, or for purposes of, the
robbery.
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%)
7
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and
the proximate cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable
therefore although it may not be intended or different from
what he intended.
The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of
robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or
accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the
robbery.
Art 4
 2001 No I
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected
by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon when he visited her.
When he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking
so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell
phone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT
station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran.
While seated, he happened to read a newspaper left on the
seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of
the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list
of missing passengers who were presumed dead and came
across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from
childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his
mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck
and, using his balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who
then scampered away, with three of them Jumping out of the
train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers
died later of their injuries at the hospital.
Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped
out of the moving train? State your reasons. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing
a felony when he started stabbing at the passengers and such
wrongful act was the proximate cause of said passengers'
jumping out of the train; hence their deaths.
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a
felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended.
In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which
created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said
passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by jumping out
of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; U.S. vs. Valdez,
41 Phil. 497}
Art 4
 2001 No II
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not
openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted
Cesar's invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a
working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which
was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even
with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered
Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber
snake which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because
Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon
opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died without
regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in
pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with
Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that
he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he only
Intended to play a practical joke on Cesar.
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense
prosper? Why? (5%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given
the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was
committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded Into Cesar's room without the latter's
consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he
placed the rubber snake. Felipe was already committing a
felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is
no less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans to
get even with Cesar".
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on
Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not
friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is
parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of frightening another
is not a crime. What he did may be wrong, but not all wrongs
amount to a crime. Because the act which caused the death of
Cesar is not a crime, no criminal liability may arise therefrom.
Art 4
 2003 No V.
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B.
Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not
help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started
hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest
pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
8
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to
alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that
she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What
crime, if any, could B be held guilty of? 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his
wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on
her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is
different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal
Code).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated
by B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious
act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though
B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such
intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may
be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art.
13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
Art 4
 1976 No, VII-a
X and Y ran amuck on board a train and killed ten persons. Four
persons out of fear jumped out of the train while the same was
running and died. Are X and Y liable for the deaths of the four
persons who jumped out of the train? Reason.
Answer
X and Y are also liable for the deaths of the four persons who
jumped out of the train. By running amuck on board the train
and killing ten persons, the acts committed by X and Y are
felonious and they are responsible for the direct, natural and
logical consequences thereof. (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). These acts
of X and Y created fear in the minds of those four persons
which caused them to jump out of the running train which
resulted in their deaths. The rule is that if a man creates in
another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which
cause such person to try to escape and in so doing injures
himself, the person who creates such state of mind is
responsible for the injuries which result. (People vs. Toling, 62
SCRA 17; People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41
PhiL 1497).
Art 4
 1994 No. 5;
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's father, Robin, and
brother, Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon reaching the
house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister's
whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill
Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his
(Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott,
carrying her two- month old child, approached Rustom and
Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom's
hand from Scott's waist. But Rustom pulled Olive's hand
causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments
later.
Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child? Answer:
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child
because his felonious act was the proximate cause of such
death. It was Rustom's act of pulling Olive's hand which caused
the latter to fall on her baby. Had It not been for said act of
Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight
coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In
short, Rustom's felonious act is the cause of the evil caused.
Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for
the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although
different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, RFC; People vs,
Pugay, et al, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
Art 4
 1975 No. IV
The accused ran amuck aboard a moving train and killed eight
persons. Terrified by the happening four passengers jumped
oat of the train and died as a result of their fall. Can the
accused be held liable for the death of the four although he did
not even know that they jumped? Why?
Answer
The accused can be held liable. Because by running amuck
aboard the train and killing eight persons, he committed acts
which are felonious. The death of the four passengers who
jumped out of the train because they were terrified by the
happening is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the
running amuck of the accused- (Art. 4, par, 1, Revised Penal
Code; People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037),
Art 4; Impossible crimes 1976 No. IX-a
X, a domestic servant of Y has been nurturing a grudge against
him for long. One day, while Y was seated on his favorite
rocking chair, X suddenly fired a volley of shots towards Y. It
turned out, however, that Y has been dead from a severe
stroke an hour ago. For what crime can X be held liable?
Reasons.
Answer
9
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
X is liable for an impossible crime of murder. The reason is the
inherent impossibility of killing Y since he has been dead due
to a severe stroke one hour before X shot him. The acts of
execution would have been a crime against persons were it not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment. (Art. 4,
par. 12, RPC). Subjectively, X is a criminal although objectively,
no crime is committed. X cannot be liable for trespass to
dwelling because being a domestic servant, his entrance to the
house of Y cannot be against the will of the latter.
Art 4; Impossible crimes 1993 No. 12:
Explain and illustrate the following: 1) aberratio ictus, 2)
impossible crime, and 3) subornation of perjury.
Answer;
2) Impossible crime - Killing a dead person.
Art 4; Impossible crimes 1994 No. 10:
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay
Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who
is familiar with the place.
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and
Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay
Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the
room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal
fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around
as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another
barangay in Laurel.
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by
the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to
the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of
attempted murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
Answer:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting
the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty
of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art.
59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the
impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical
impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's absence from the
house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime
intended Inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict
the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2
practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the
consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident
independent of the actor's will which is an element of
attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Art 4; Impossible crimes 1998 No XIV.
Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy
planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached another classmate,
Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison,
which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die
because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was
actually powdered milk.
1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit?
[3%]
2. Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered
milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%]
Answer:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called "impossible
crime" because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and
thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not
poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that
what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not
poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and
Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were
it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed.
Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime
resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal.
2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and
Buddy would be liable instead for less serious physical injuries
for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10
days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the
matter which required such medical attendance, committed
with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting
injury.
Art 4; Impossible crimes 2000 No XVII
a} What is an impossible crime? (2%)
b) What is an impossible crime? (2%)
c) Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
d) Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle
driver paid by her parents to- bring and fetch her to and from
10
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00
from Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom
note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was
discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was
arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note
was not received by Carla's parents, the investigating
prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense
against person or property, were if not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2,
RPC),
b) No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-
called because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But
actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished
for his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was
committed.
c) Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for destructive arson because of
the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive,
the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime Is to be
imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any
other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals
(215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the
offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was
used in said case, which constitutes a more serious crime
though different from what was intended,
d) No, the prosecutor Is not correct in filing a case for
"impossible crime to commit kidnapping" against Enrique.
Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when
performed would be a crime against persons or property. As
kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against
persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an
"impossible crime" to commit kidnapping. There is thus no
impossible crime of kidnapping.
Art 6; Desistance 2003 No III.
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at
midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and
B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C
would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the
plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his
dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already
left the place. What was the participation and corresponding
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C
and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of
the money appears to be intimately related as component
crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned
and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they
committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when
there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already
governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to
carry out their criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of
the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to
stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he
did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime
which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to
commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed
conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
x xALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with
homicide, but B shall not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and
kill is not per se punishable.
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good
motive. It is enough that the discontinuance comes from the
person who has begun the commission of the crime but before
all acts of execution are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved from
criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the
verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to
the path of righteousness.
Art 6; Stage of execution 1976 No. III-b
X, a physician, wanted to kill his wife. He gave her food with
poison. After eating the food, the wife became unconscious.
Bothered by his own conscience, X gave her medicine to
11
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
counteract the effects of the poison and the wife was saved. X
is prosecuted for frustrated parricide. Is he guilty of the
charge? Reason,
Answer
X is not liable for frustrated parricide. Although he has already
performed all the acts of execution to kill his wife, because she
ate the food with poison which he gave her, she however did
not die due to the medicine which he administered, after she
became unconscious and because his conscience bothered
him. The death of the wife, therefore, did not result due to a
cause which depended upon the voluntary will of X. In a
frustrated felony, the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. (Art. 6, 2nd par,
RPC).
Art 6; Stage of execution; desistance 1985 No. 5
Intending to kill his estranged wife Myrna, Anthony mixed
poison in her coffee which would have normally killed her.
After drinking the coffee, Myrna felt nauseated and vomitted.
Appalled by the suffering and helplessness of his wife, Anthony
took pity on her and gave her an antidote. Myrna recovered
completely after ten(10)days.
Discuss with reasons the criminal liability, if any, of Anthony.
May he invoke desistance in his favor?
Answer:
Anthony will not be liable for frustrated parricide. Although
the wife, Myrna, had drank the poisoned coffee, and all the
acts of execution to kill her were already committed, she did
not however die due to the antidote administered by Anthony.
The crime was therefore not produced due to the voluntary act
of Anthony. In a frustrated felony, the acts of execution have
been performed which would produce the felony as a
consequence but nevertheless do not produce it by causes
independent of the will of the offender. So, if the perpetrator
himself prevented the consummation of the crime, it is not
frustrated. In that sense, when Anthony gave the antidote to
his wife, when he saw her suffering after drinking the poisoned
coffee, such act may be considered desistance in killing her,
although as a rule, desistance refers to acts of execution. The
facts of the problem merely state that after the administration
of the antidote, the wife recovered after ten (10) days. It may
be presumed that she was ill during that period. Since there is
no mention of medical attendance nor incapacity from work,
the offense will be slight physical injuries under Par. 2 of Art.
266 of the Revised Penal Code.
Art 6; Stage of execution; homicide 1979 No. XV
X and Y had a heated altercation and then exchanged blows. X
pulled out a knife and stabbed Y in the abdomen. Y ran away
but before he could reach his house was struck by lightning
and died. The Fiscal filed homicide against X. Decide.
Answer
X is not liable for homicide but for the crime constituting the
stabbing of Y in the abdomen. Since the injury was mortal, the
liability of X is for frustrated homicide. The death of the victim
was caused by the lightning which struck him. Altho a felony
was committed by X such was not the direct and proximate
cause of the death of Y. The lightning was an efficient
intervening cause (People vs. Rockwell, 39 Mich. 503). The
rational of the rule is that the cause of the cause is the cause
of the evil caused (People vs. Ural, 56 SCRA 138).
Art 6; Stage of execution; when punishable 1977 No. I-b
Acting under the impulse of hunger, Jose tried to steal the two-
pesos (2) bill in the breast pocket of a stranger. But before he
could get the money, he was seen and eventually
apprehended by a policeman. Later on, Jose was charged of
the light offense of attempted theft for P2.00. Was Jose
correctly charged considering that light offenses are
punishable only when consummated? State four reasons.
Answer
Jose was correctly charged for a light felony of attempted theft
of P2.00 because theft is a crime against property and is
punishable even though it is not consummated. (Art. 7, R.P.C.).
Art 7; Light felonies 1988 No. 2:
c) When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light
felonies?
Answer:
c) Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal
Code are punishable "only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of those committed against
persons or property."
Article 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "the
following are criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
 2. Accomplices,
12
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Art 8; Conspiracy 1976 No. I-b
X, Y, and Z fired their guns almost simultaneously at the
principal victim, resulting in his death and his driver. Is there
conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crime?
Reason.
Answer
There is conspiracy among the accused X, Y and Z. The fact that
the three fired almost simultaneously at the principal victim
shows that they have acted in concert pursuant to a common
criminal objective. (Define conspiracy). There is, therefore, a
unity of action and intention (People v.San Luis, 86 Phil 485),
To establish conspiracy, proof of previous agreement is not
necessary. It is enough that if at the time of the commission of
the crime, all the accused have the same purpose and were
united in its execution. (People v. Binasing, et al, 63 O.G. 5208).
Art 8; Conspiracy 1977 No. II-a
When L, a notorious robber in the neighborhood, was
apprehended by an irate crowd and while L was being held
from behind by M, N stoned L, hitting him on the head. O hit
him on the knee with a piece of wood, and P stabbed him on
the chest, which stabbing was the cause of the death of L. Said
acts were committed almost simultaneously to the surprise of
M. What criminal liability, if any, was incurred by M, N, O and
P? Reason fully.
Answer
M has no criminal liability for what N, O and P did because their
acts surprised him and, hence, M was not aware of what they
would have done. The criminal liability of N, O and P is
individual and not collective. The facts of the problem show
that these offenders did not act concertedly in pursuance of a
common purpose. They had no knowledge of each other's
criminal intent. There is no unity of action and intention to
hold that the act of one is the act of all Mere
"simultaneousness" of acts does not of itself indicate
concurrence of will nor the unity of action and purpose, which
are the basis of the opportunity of two or more persons.
(People vs. Ibanez, 77 Phil. 664),
Art 8; Conspiracy 1980 No. IV
"H" made a bet of P10 with "I" in a game of "beto-beto". "H"
won but "I" refused to pay the amount. A dispute arose
between them, which culminated in a fist fight. "J", the father
of "H", and "K", the brother of "H", intervened.
When the fight began, "H" held the hand of "I", "J" seized the
front part of "I's" shirt, and while they were dealing blows on
one another, "K" came with a "balisong" and stabbed "I"
inflicting upon him a mortal wound.
"H", "J", and "K" were charged with Homicide. Is it proper to
hold all the accused responsible for the fatal wound inflicted
upon the victim by "K"?
Answer
It is not proper to hold H and J liable for the fatal wound
inflicted upon the victim by K because of the absence of
conspiracy. He and J are not co-principals of K in the killing of
the victim. The liability of H, J and K is not collective but
individual They have not acted conceitedly for the realization
of a common criminal objective. H and J who dealt blows on
the victim without causing any physical injury could be liable
for ill-treatment. (Art. 266, par. 3, R.P.C.)
Art 8; Conspiracy 1988 No. 11:
b) At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty of people were
milling and walking about or standing close together, a mad
killer shot up the wedding party. The three appellants were
convicted by the owner court as co-conspirators of the killer
because they were allegedly with him before, during, and after
the shooting. It was proven conclusively that the appellant
were friends of the killer; that they went together with the
killer to the celebration; and that they left at the same time
with the killer, after the shooting. However, the appellants had
no guns and passively witnessed the shooting, without
intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer.
Is there conspiracy among them? Why?
Answer;
(b) There is no conspiracy among them because as the problem
has stated, they passively witnessed the shooting. No overt act
was committed therefore the element that the conspiracy
must be proved as the essence of the crime itself is n9t
present.
Art 8; Conspiracy 1990 No. 1:
Aki and Ben, while walking together, met Caloy. There was an
altercation between Ben and Caloy so that Ben chased and
stabbed Caloy with a knife hitting his right arm thereby causing
slight physical injury. Ben desisted from further assaulting
Caloy, but Aki lunged at Caloy and felled him this time with a
bolo which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he died.
a) What is the criminal liability of Aki? How about that of Ben?
13
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Explain your answers.
b) Assuming conspiracy is established, will your answer in
problem (a) be the same? Explain your answer.
Answer:
a) Aki is liable for homicide because, while it is clear that he
intentionally caused the death of Caloy, none of the
circumstances attendant to murder are present. Intent to kill
is clear as Aki lunged at Caloy, after the latter was inflicted a
wound at the right arm, and gave him a mortal wound.
Ben is guilty only of slight physical injuries as it is evident from
the wound he inflicted upon Caloy that he did not Intend to kill
the latter. Also, there was no other act on the part of Ben to
show such intent.
b) No, there being no conspiracy each will be liable for their
own individual act. This time both will be liable for homicide
because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (People v.
Damaso, G.R Nos. L-30116-7, 20 November 1978).
Art 8; Conspiracy 1991 No. 9:
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked
Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his
(Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente [father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son,
Bienvenido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido
passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed
him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet
entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the
ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries
on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At
that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco
brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon,
stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds
resulting in the death of the victim,
a) Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and
Rafael.
b) Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the
aggravating circumstances of quasi-recidivism be appreciated
against him?
Answer:
a) Simeon and Dulcislmo will be liable for the death of
Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained by the victim were
inflicted by the two.
Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was
not present, and there was no apparent intent to kill when he
inflicted the slight physical injuries on the arm of the victim.
Alternative Answer:
Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael will all be liable under the
principle of conspiracy, where the act of one becomes the act
of all.
Art 8; Conspiracy 1992 No. 3:
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a drinking
spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3)
Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his
revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and
fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito
ganged up on Yabang. Warlilo, using his own pistol, shot and
wounded Yabang.
a) What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito
for the injury to Yabang? Was there conspiracy and treachery?
Explain.
b) In turn, is Yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio?
Suggested Answer:
a) If they have to be criminally liable at all each will be
responsible for their individual acts as there appears to be no
conspiracy, as the acts of the three were spontaneous and a
reflex response to Yabang's shooting of Sergio. There was no
concerted act that will lead to a common purpose.
Art 8; Conspiracy 1993 No. 6:
As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was
mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his
house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they
tied Joe's hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of
wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave
to bury Joe's lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left
together. Convicted for the killing of Joe,
Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not
he who inflicted the fatal blow.
1) Would you sustain his claim? Why?
2) What was the crime committed by the four assailants?
Discuss with reasons.
14
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Answer;
1) No. Arthur's claim is without merit. The offenders acted in
conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable collectively.
The act of one is the act of all.
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be
clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed
the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and
intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each
participant is not considered because their liability is
collective.
2) The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery ...
Art 8; Conspiracy 1994 No. 9:
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were
walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them
with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino,
but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and
Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died,
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with
homicide.
1) Is there conspiracy in this case?
2) Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of
nighttime and band?
Answer:
1) Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested
by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating
a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The
existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from
the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino
and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal
design to inflict harm on their victims.
Art 8; Conspiracy 1996 No. 2:
2) Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at
about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living.
While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's
house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was
trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando,
before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her
first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo
and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando
commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before
they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification,
what crime did the four commit? Explain.
c) Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances
may be appreciated against the four? Explain.
Answer:
2) (a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while
Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape,
Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was committed by
Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the
robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other
conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the
rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime.
(People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide ... (implied:
there is still conspiracy)
Art 8; Conspiracy 1997 No. 4:
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends,
B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to
the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20
meters from their destination, the group alighted and after
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house
of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout.
C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter
the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the
others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to
the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F, A also
stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited from the
house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting
taxicab and motored away.
G died. F survived.
 Who are liable for the death of G and the
physical injuries of F? Answer:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of
the conspiracy of A. B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since B, C,
and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be
15
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
held criminally therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also held
liable for the death of G since the former was completely
unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C. should be held liable
therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for
conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led
to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned
himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however,
although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because
he left the scene before A could enter the house where the
stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the
conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution
of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same
end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44 Phil. 38),
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for
the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no
showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
Art 8; Conspiracy 1998 No XVI.
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow
alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost
and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to
work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day,
Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching
the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware
that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability
of Arturo, if any. [5%]
Answer:
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder
Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy.
What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal
liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his
participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to
kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed
Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The
overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo
is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-
conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an
accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1; People us.
Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually
participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended
before reaching the place where the crime was committed.
Alternative Answer:
Arturo is not liable because he was not able to participate in
the killing of Joel. Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless
expressly provided by law and this is not true in the case of
Murder. A co-conspirator must perform an overt act pursuant
to the conspiracy.
Art 8; Conspiracy 2003 No III.
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at
midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and
B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C
would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack.
Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the
plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his
dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already
left the place. What was the participation and corresponding
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C
and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of
the money appears to be intimately related as component
crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A
and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned
and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they
committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when
there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already
governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to
carry out their criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of
the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to
stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he
did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime
which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to
commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed
conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the crime of robbery with
homicide, but B shall not incur criminal liability because he
desisted. B's spontaneous desistance, made before all acts of
execution are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to rob and
kill is not per se punishable.
16
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
The desistance need not be actuated by remorse or good
motive. It is enough that the discontinuance comes from the
person who has begun the commission of the crime but before
all acts of execution are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted, is absolved from
criminal liability as a reward to one, who having set foot on the
verge of crime, heeds the call of his conscience and returns to
the path of righteousness.
Art 8; Conspiracy; extent of criminal liability 1986 No. 3:
Mahigpit is the general manager of Blue Chips Co. He fired
Alibugha, Bulagsak, Bisyoso, and Mabisyo for gross
incompetence The following day, the four dismissed
employees happened to meet by chance at a restaurant, a
block from the residence of Mahigpit. Then and there, the four
hatched a plan to beat up Mahigpit so he would not be so
harsh to his personnel in the future. Immediately, thereafter,
the four proceeded to Mahigpit's house. After being allowed
to enter, a heated discussion ensued. Mahigpit ordered the
four to leave his house immediately. Thereupon, Alibugha and
Bulagsak started raining blows on Mahigpit while Bisyoso held
him by his arms. Mabisyo proceeded to the second floor of the
residence where he chanced upon Katulong, the housemaid of
Mahigpit. Katulong saw what was going on and rushed to a
window shouting for help. Mabisyo hit Katulong on the head
with a metal flower vase. The four then fled from the house.
When the police arrived at the scene, they found Mahigpit
dead on the floor of the sala and Katulong, also dead, near the
window on the second floor.
Alibugha, Bulagsak, Bisyoso, and Mabisyo were charged with
murder on two counts. The Fiscal stated that the two offenses
were characterized by conspiracy and, therefore, all the
accused should be equally guilty for all the consequences of
their criminal acts. Is the Fiscal correct? Explain.
Answer:
Regarding the death of Mahigpit, only Alibugha, Bulagsak, and
Bisyoso are criminally liable. They acted pursuant to a
conspiracy to beat the deceased whose death is the direct,
natural and logical consequence of the crime agreed upon to
be committed. Mabisyo is not liable for the death of Mahigpit
because although he participated in the plan to beat him, he
did not personally perform any overt act as his contribution to
realize the common criminal objective.
Regarding the death of the housemaid, only Mabisyo will be
liable. The others are not criminally liable as the death of the
housemaid is not covered in the conspiracy nor is it a necessary
consequence thereof.
Art 8; Conspiracy; implied conspiracy 2003 No IV.
(a) State the concept of "implied conspiracy" and give its legal
effects. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An "implied conspiracy" is one which is only inferred or
deduced from the manner the participants in the commission
of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted
in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their
acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that
they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be
deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability
shall be collective, not individual.
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are:
1 ). Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will
be considered conspirators;
2). Only those who participated by criminal acts in the
commission of the crime will be considered as co-conspirators;
and
3). Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the
crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not
render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Art 8; Conspiracy; implied conspiracy 1998 No VIII.
1. What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%]
Answer:
1. The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more
persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively
responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any
agreement to that effect, when they act in concert,
demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose
or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or
deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime
and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
Art 8; Conspiracy; Robbery with serious physical injuries 1992
No. 7
Efren, Greggy and Hilario. wearing fatigues and carrying
unlicensed firearms, barged into the residence of Arnulfo Dilat
at Scout Lazcano St. (Before making their entrance, they gave
instructions to their companion Sakay to stand watch outside).
Once inside, they announced that they were members of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) on an official mission. Inside
17
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
the master bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the
wife of Arnulfo, cash and jewelries. After receiving the
jewelries but before the money could be handed to them, they
heard their companion Sakay shouting: "Pulis! Pulis!" Panic-
stricken, Efren shot Arnulfo who was seriously injured. Greggy
and Hilario picked up the jewelry box whose contents spilled
all over the floor as they rushed out. Before they could make
good their escape, however, the police blocked their way, one
of them clutching Sakay by the collar. They were forthwith
brought to the Police Headquarters nearby.
Discuss the individual and collective criminal liabilities of Efren,
Greggy, Hilario and Sakay.
Suggested Answer:
There appears to be conspiracy amongst the four offenders; in
which case the act of one becomes the act of all. Ergo, they are
all liable for the consequent crime, which is robbery under Art.
299, special complex crime of robbery with serious physical
injuries, committed in an inhabited house, by pretending to be
persons in authority. There is no band as only three are armed.
Sakay, who seems to have participated only as lookout, still will
be liable as principal because of the conspiracy. Even if there
is none, he is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
The crime is definitely consummated as offenders have
complete disposal of the subject matter of the offense.
Justifying & Exempting Circumstances Art 11; Justifying
circumstances; defense of relative 1989 No. 5:
Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who had previously killed
a policeman. The Chief of Police ordered his vice squad headed
by Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and should he resist
arrest, to shoot and kill him. Acting upon an informer's tip,
Aniceto and two (2) of his trusted men went to the Corinthian
nightclub where they saw Boy Bala dancing with a hostess.
Without any warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped on
the dance floor. As Aniceto aimed another shot at Boy Bala,
the brother of the latter, Pedro, who was seated at a table
nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed Aniceto killing
him instantly. The Chief of Police filed a homicide case against
Pedro for the death of Aniceto. On the other hand, Pedro filed
a complaint for murder against the Chief of Police for the death
of Boy Bala alleging that the issuance of the shoot-to-kill order
was illegal and the Chief of Police was liable as a principal by
inducement. How tenable are the respective claims of the
Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain.
Answer:
The charge for murder against the Chief of Police for the death
of Boy Bala is not tenable. Although, the Chief of Police is the
superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy Bala in cold blood,
he cannot be held accountable for .the act of Aniceto. His order
was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and should he resist arrest, to
shoot and kill him. Aniceto did not act in compliance with this
order. He shot Boy Bala without warning, without even
attempting to make an arrest. Consequently, it could not be
said that the killing of Bala by Aniceto was induced by the Chief
of Police so as to make the latter criminally liable as a co-
principal by inducement. The liability for the death of Bala is
individual and not collective.
On the other hand, the charge of homicide against Pedro for
the stabbing of Aniceto is likewise not tenable. Pedro acted in
legitimate defense of relative, he being the brother of Boy
Bala. All the requisites of this justifying circumstance are
present. Thus:
1. There was unlawful aggression. At the time that Pedro
stabbed Aniceto, the latter had already shot at Boy Bala and
was in the act of shooting him for the second time. The
aggression is unlawful although Aniceto is a police officer and
Boy Bala is notorious gangster. By shooting Boy Bala without
warning instead of attempting to arrest him first, Aniceto
became an unlawful agressor.
2. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed by
Pedro to prevent or repel unlawful aggression. The use of a
knife against a gun for defense is reasonable.
3. Assuming that Boy Bala had provoked that attack on his
person by Aniceto because of his having earlier killed a
policeman, it does not appear that Pedro, the one making the
defense had taken any part in said provocation.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; defense of stranger 1984 No.
4
Despite denial of a rally permit from the City Mayor, a group
of students from different schools held a rally at Liwasang
Bonifacio. At the rally site, they were met by members of the
WPD Dispersal Unit, armed with truncheons, water hose, etc.
When student A saw a policeman striking a fellow-student, B,
with a truncheon, he hit the forearm of the policeman with an
empty bottle of Coke in order to prevent the latter from
further hurting B. At this point, other policemen came,
subdued A and arrested him.
For what crime or crimes, if any, under the Revised Penal Cede
may A be charged? If A is liable for any crime, what
circumstances would mitigate or aggravate his liability under
18
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
the given facts? Explain,
Answer
A. Furnished by Office of Justice Palma
None. When the policeman struck B with a truncheon, he goes
beyond the limits of his powers. Consequently, A who
employed adequate means to prevent the policeman from
hurting B could not be held liable for assault or resistance nor
for physical injuries considering that he merely acted in
defense of a stranger.
B. Comments and Suggested Answer
A is not liable under the Revised Penal Code. He is entitled to
defense of stranger, which has the following-requisites: 1)
unlawful aggression, 2) reasonable necessity to prevent or
repel it, 3) the person defending is not induced by revenge,
resentment of any evil motive. (Art. 11, par. 3, Rev. Penal Code
People vs. Lara CA 43 O.G. 3152). The policeman who hit the
student B with a truncheon, while the students were at the
rally site, abused or exceeded his authority. In this case, the
policeman would be an unlawful aggressor. A acted on impulse
by striking the policeman on the forearm with an empty coke
bottle to prevent him from farther hurting B. From the facts of
the case B was already injured by the policeman when A hit
him and the means employed under the circumstances would
be reasonable. A was, not actuated by revenge, resentment or
any evil motive.
Alternative Answer
A can be held liable for simple resistance When the policeman
hit B with a truncheon the presumption is he acted in
fulfillment of his duty as a peace officer to maintain and
preserve order in the rally site. However, the act of the
policeman can be considered sufficient provocation to A for
him to bit the policeman on the arm with a coke bottle to
prevent him from further hurting B. A can invoke such
mitigating circumstance. The crime committed is not direct
assault as a policeman is an agent of a person in authority and
the act of A under the facts cannot constitute manifest
defiance to the authority of the law. {U.S. vs. Tabiana, 37 Phil.
975) The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the rank of
the policeman is also present. (People vs. Regala, 113 SCRA
613 [1982] )
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; defense of stranger 2002 No
XV.
B. A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist
blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not
knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had
earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the
latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a
stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of
stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C
when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication
that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par 3, Article 11
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; euthanasia 1990 No. 3:
a) In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable
for deliberately turning off the life support system
consequently costing the life of the patient? State reasons.
b) How about in an instance when in saving the life of the
mother, the doctor sacrificed the life of the unborn child?
Explain your answer.
Answer:
a) The attending physician is criminally liable. Euthanasia is not
a justifying circumstance in Philippine jurisdiction.
b) There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor
because his acts are justified under Article 11(4) of the Revised
Penal Code which provides that: The following do not incur any
criminal liability: x x x 4) any person, who in order to avoid an
evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another,
provided that the following requisites are present: First: That
the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the
injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That
there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it."
Alternative Answer:
There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because
his acts are justified under Article 11(5) of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that: "The following do not incur any
criminal liability: x x x (5) Any person who acts in the fulfillment
of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office."
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; fulfillment of duty 2000 No
VI
a) Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her
home. The following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,
19
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
a neighbor, 22-year old Jun- Jun, who had an unsavory
reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia
noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun.
As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police
station and sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie
Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun- Jun to
confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a
policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and
ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots
in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7
meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was
hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending
to pass through an opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was
about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting
him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun- Jun to the
hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died.
Pat Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide. During
the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration,
that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense
tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of
having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition,
inter alia, that the Injury or offense committed be the
unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257).
It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already
crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him
further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1992 No. 3:
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a drinking
spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3)
Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his
revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and
fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito
ganged up on Yabang. Warlilo, using his own pistol, shot and
wounded Yabang.
a) What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito
for the injury to Yabang? Was there conspiracy and treachery?
Explain.
b) In turn, is Yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio?
Suggested Answer:
a) The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under
pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11, RPC, that is, self-defense or defense
of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that Yabang might
not be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three being friends
and companions of the victim. Hence, they are entitled to
protect their own lives and limbs from the unlawful aggression
of Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified right to defend
a stranger (Sergio) whose life at that moment might still be
saved by ganging up on Yabang to prevent the latter from any
further attack by the latter. In either case reasonable necessity
of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation are
present
b) Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the
attack was frontal (Alternative: Murder, because of the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, in terms
of weapon). Sergio, being a suspected killer, is no justification
to be killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis).
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1977 No. I-a
When A saw B rushing towards him holding a bolo and poised
to strike him, he immediately picked up a pointed iron bar and
believing that his life was in danger as B was close enough, he
made a trust on B hitting him on the stomach which caused the
death of B thereafter. The truth, however, is that B was merely
trying to play a joke on C who was then behind A. Is A criminally
liable for the death of B? State your reasons.
Answer
A is not criminally liable because he acted in self-defense due
to mistake of facts. As the facts of the problem state, A thrust
the pointed iron bar on B, hitting him on the stomach as he
believed that his life was in danger because B was close enough
when he rushed towards A holding a bolo and poised to strike
him. (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488). Under the
circumstances, he had no time or opportunity to verify
whether B was only playing a joke on C who was behind A.
Hence, his mistake of the facts was without fault or
carelessness. He had no alternative but to take the facts as
they appeared to him to justify his act. So A acted in good faith
without criminal intent.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1978 No. IV-b
B repeatedly stabbed A with a kitchen knife. A managed to
escape with minor injuries, and to run away from B who
continued to pursue him. A, upon reaching the safety of his
house, took a scythe with which to defend himself against B.
Thus armed, A went out of his house and dared B to come
forward and fight. In the ensuing struggle, A killed B. Charged
with homicide, A claimed self-defense. Is A entitled to the
20
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
justifying circumstance? Decide and give your reasons.
Answer:
A is not entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense.
There is no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim B.
There are two stages in the fight. The first stage was when B
stabbed A repeatedly with a kitchen knife, who managed
however to escape and ran away, pursued by B. When A
reached the safety of his house, he was already safe from the
unlawful aggression of B and so such was deemed to have
ceased. When A took a scythe inside his house and while thus
armed he went out of his house and dared B to come forward
and fight, be became therefore the challenger. From the facts,
a struggle ensued, which implies that the challenge of A was
accepted by B, which is an agreement to fight and hence there
can be no unlawful aggression. (People vs. Astilla, CA- GR No.
4391 6 Velayo's Digest, page 124).
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1979 No. VI
X, a private citizen, saw two masked men break into a drug
store across his home. He telephoned the police to come.
Without waiting for the police, he went outside his house with
a pistol and tried to intercept the thieves. He told them to stop
but they did not. He fired several shots at them, wounded
them and caused their hospitalization for 20 days. May the
thieves file any criminal case against X? May X invoke the
defense of the person or rights of a stranger?
Answer
The thieves can file a criminal action against X. In defense of
the person or property of a stranger, the elements of (1)
unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) that the person
defending must not be induced by revenge, resentment or any
other evil motive, must be present. In self-defense of property,
the doctrine is that the attack on the property must be coupled
with an attack upon the person of the possessor of the
property. (People vs. Apolinar, CA 38 O.G. 2870). The same rule
should apply to defense of the property of a stranger since the
first two elements of defense of a stranger are also the first
two elements of self-defense, that is unlawful aggression and
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or to
repel it. The means employed by X in firing several shots at the
thieves was not reasonable as there was no attack upon the
person of the owner of the drugstore or of any person present
therein. Nor can there be defense of the person of a stranger
since unlawful aggression is absent.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1980 No. III
"F" and "G" quarreled. "F" attacked "G" with a club two or
three times, but "G" was able to parry the attack. "G" did not
move backwards but struck back hitting "F" on his head with a
lead pipe which he picked up from the ground, causing "F's"
death.
"G" was charged with Homicide. If you were the Judge, would
you find "G" guilty as charged?
Answer
If the term "quarreled" implies an agreement to a fight, G
would be guilty of the crime charged. He cannot invoke, self-
defense because if there is an agreement to fight there would
be no unlawful aggression. Any attack is considered as a mere
consequence of the agreement to fight.
On the other hand, if the word "quarreled" involves only a
verbal altercation, G would not be guilty because F committed
unlawful aggression when he attacked G three times with a
club. When G struck back hitting F on his head with a lead pipe
which he picked up on the ground, he acted in self-defense
because the aggression of F was still present and the pipe was
the only means available to him in defending his person as he
was acting under the instinct of self-preservation. The
assumption is that G did not give any sufficient provocation
which immediately preceded the attack made by F.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1981 No. 3
"A" is the wife of "B", but she and "X", her former boyfriend,
were having an illicit relation. One afternoon, "B", unnoticed
by "A", followed his wife to a motel and saw her enter a room
and close the door. After the lapse of some minutes, "B"
managed to get in and found "A" and "X" lying together in bed.
With his knife, "B" lunged at "X " but the latter parried the
thrust and was able to wrest the weapon from "B" and stabbed
the latter to death.
Prosecuted for Homicide, "X" invoked the justifying
circumstance of self- defense in killing "B".
Would you uphold the defense? Explain briefly. Answer
X cannot invoke the justifying circumstance of self-defense. An
essential requisite of self-defense is unlawful aggression. The
act of B in assaulting X when he found him and A, B's wife, lying
together in bed in a room of the motel is natural and lawful, as
it was made by B, the deceived and offended husband in order
to defend his honor and rights. X should have known that
having illicit relations with A, a married woman, X being her
former boy friend, he was performing an unlawful and criminal
act that would expose him to the vengeance of the offended
21
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
husband. The act of B in assaulting X under the circumstances
cannot constitute unlawful aggression (U.S. vs. Merced 39 Phil.
198). Furthermore, in view of his illicit relations with A, B's
wife, and the situation in which B found them, lying together
in bed, would constitute sufficient provocation to B for him to
attack X. The third requisite of self-defense which is lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself is, therefore, also absent.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1982 No. 2
"A", intending to kill "B", attacked the latter with a bolo. "In
trying to defend himself with a piece of wood by parrying the
blows delivered by "A", "B" hit "C", an onlooker, on the head,
as a result of which "C" died. Is "B" liable for "C'"s hat
intended?" Explain your answer.
Answer
B is not liable for C's death because he acted in self-defense.
The legal provision that "although the wrong done be different
from that intended" contemplates the commission of a felony
and the wrong done is the direct, natural and logical
consequence thereof even though not intended. Had B acted
in incomplete self-defense, then this provision would apply,
because there is mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus. In the
case of self-defense, however, which is a justifying
circumstance, the act committed is lawful, hence B would not
incur any criminal or civil liability.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1982 No. 3
"A" intending to kill "B", shot the latter with a gun at close
range. Although hit but not mortally wounded, "B" grappled
with "A" for the possession of the gun until "B" succeeded in
wresting it from his adversary. Immediately thereafter, "B"
fired the gun at "A" whom he killed. Prosecuted for homicide,
"B" interposed self- defense. The prosecution however
contended self-defense was untenable because "A" had
already been disarmed. Decide, explaining fully your decision.
Answer
The contention of the prosecution that self-defense was
untenable because A had already been disarmed must be
sustained. The reason is there is no more aggression to be
prevented or repelled. Upon almost identical facts, in the case
of People vs. Dayag et al, 98 SCRA 851 (1980) the Supreme
Court held that as the victim was killed after the accused had
wrested the gun from the former, since there was no more
aggression to stop or repel as the victim was shot and killed
when he was already unarmed and defenseless, self-defense
cannot be invoked,
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1985 No. 9
Feeling homesick and terribly missing his wife after a long
absence, Ronald, without notice, came home from Saudi.
Arriving at their residence, he immediately proceeded to their
bedroom where he saw his wife lying on their bed under a
mosquito net locked in embrace with his compadre Dante
Ayala He immediately drew his gun but was beaten to a draw
by Dante whose bullet felled him.
Prosecuted for Homicide for killing Ronald, Dante set up self-
defense but was nevertheless convicted.
(A) Comment on the validity of Dante's conviction.
(B) In the above given case, supposing Ronald shot Dante and
his (Ronald's) wife, while Dante was on top of the latter, thus
killing both of them, will you grant him the benefit of Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
Answer:
(A) The conviction of Dante was valid. He cannot claim self-
defense as there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim. When Ronald drew his gun upon surprising his wife
locked in embrace with his compadre Dante while lying on
their bed at their residence, his act was natural and lawful as it
was made by a deceived and offended husband. The act of
Dante in maintaining illicit relations with the wife of his
compadre was unlawful. (U.S. v. Merced 89 Phil. 189).
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1987 No. VII:
Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the latter's house
and angrily inquired why he let loose his carabaos which
destroyed his plants. Pedro saw that Jose was armed with a
dagger tucked on his waist and thinking that Jose would react
violently. Pedro immediately drew his revolver. Instinctively,
Jose grabbed the gun from Pedro's hand and a struggle for
possession of the gun ensued, as a result of which the gun was
thrown one meter away. Pedro jumped for the gun, and Jose
unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro at the base of his
neck, causing the latter to fall down. Jose ran away as he was
afraid Pedro's relatives might kill him. He was apprehended
three days later in another barrio. Fortunately, Pedro survived
after 40 days of hospitalization. The gun turned out to be
without live bullets. During the trial for frustrated homicide
against Jose, Pedro testified that he drew his gun even while
he knew it had no bullets, merely to scare Jose, and he jumped
for it when it was thrown away for the same purpose. Jose
pleaded self-defense. The Fiscal argued that Jose's act of
running away is evidence of guilt and negates self-defense. He
also said that, in any event, there was no reasonable necessity
22
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS

of the means employed — namely, stabbing with a dagger - peril on his life; Yes, excessive force Is used.
because Pedro's gun had no bullets.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
Decide the case.
 Answer:
 Jose is entitled to self-defense. honor 1998 No XV.

One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in

Considering the circumstance of the case, unlawful aggression,
her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
the first element of self-defense is present. Pedro loose his
was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his
carabaos which destroyed his plants and he then loose his
business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the
carabaos which destroyed his plants and then immediately
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
drew his revolver which Jose instinctively grabbed from
recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was
Pedro's hand. In the struggle for the possession for the
not Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and
revolver, it was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro
shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability
jumped for the gun, Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed
on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? [5%]
Pedro who fell down. Jose ran away. The intimidating attitude
of Pedro when he drew his revolver constitutes imminent
Answer:
unlawful aggression. Jose did not give any provocation to
Pedro. Pedro was in a violent mood and in the mind of Jose,
No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not
was armed, with revolver, in hand, and what Jose did in
tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had
grabbing the gun was to prevent an aggression that is expected
already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense,
(People vs. Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing Pedro with a
must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful
dagger was the only available means to prevent the expected
aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful
aggression considering that Jose acted by following his instinct
aggression no longer exists.
of self-preservation. The flight of Jose after stabbing Pedro
cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because he did so as
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
he was afraid the relatives of Pedro might kill him.
honor 2002 No XV.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense 1993 No. 11
A. When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon
seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him.
1] Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail and
Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his
ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon
daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit
attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear, Filemon missed In
of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%)
his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before he could strike
again, Pat. Negre shot and killed him.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain.
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in
having killed B since the rape was already consummated;
2) Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon ran away
moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression
without parting with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon
to defend against and no defense to speak of.
but the latter was running so fast that Pat Negre fired warning
shots Into the air shouting for Filemon to stop. Inasmuch as
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating
Filemon continued running Pat, Negre fired at him hitting and
circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a
killing him.
grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then
hold Pat, Negre criminally liable? Discuss.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
property 1983 No. 2
Answer;
Considering that the Revised Penal Code provisions on
1) Yes. self-defense can be claimed as there is an Imminent and
justifying circumstances apply to anyone "who acts in defense
great peril on the life of Negre.
of his person or rights," can there be self-defense when there
is simply an aggression against one's property, not coupled
2) No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more
with an attack against his person? Explain.

23
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Answer
No. Self-defense will be incomplete. Under the Civil Code there
is unlawful aggression on the property rights of another. But
to constitute self-defense of property two other elements
must be considered, namely, reasonable necessity of the
means employed to repel the aggression and lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending his property.
People v. Apolinar (38 O.G. 2079 ) held that there is no self-
defense of property if the attack on the property is not coupled
with an attack on the person of the owner or possessor of the
property. If for example, the owner shot the aggressor altho
his person was not attacked, self-defense of property will not
be present, altho there is unlawful aggression on his property
right, because the means adopted to repel the aggression is
not reasonable. (People vs. Navaez (1983) 121 SCRA 403)
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
property 1996 No. 6:
1) A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a
factory compound which he was guarding, shot and killed the
latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived
at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim
was unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the security
guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property
and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide?
Explain.
Answer:
1) Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were
the Judge, because his claim of having acted in defense of
property and in performance of a duty cannot fully be Justified.
Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the
factory compound to commit a crime inside the same,
shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act
is considered unlawful aggression on property rights. In People
vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his
property rights, but all the elements of self-defense under Art.
11, must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes,
the second element (reasonable necessity of the means
employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of
homicide but entitled to Incomplete self-defense.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
property 1977 No. II-b
While C was approaching his car, he saw D slowly driving it
away. So he shouted at D to stop but D instead accelerated his
speed. To prevent his car from being car-napped, C drew at
once hit revolver and fired at D who was by then about twenty
meters away, fatally hitting him on the head. When charged
for the death of D, C interpose the defense of his rights to
property. If you were the judge, will you acquit or convict C?
State your reason.
Answer
If I were the Judge, I would convict C. There is no defense of
his right to property because although D drove the car of C
away and he did not stop in spite of his shouts for him to do
so, D had not attacked him. To be entitled to complete self-
defense of property, the attack on the property must be
coupled with an attack upon the person of the owner or
possessor of said property. (People vs. Apolinar, CA 38 O.G.
2870).
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; defense of
property 1990 No. 4:
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an
intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw
a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong's personal
effects in his study. He shot and killed Gorio.
a) Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State
your reasons.
b) Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he was running away from
Enyong's house with his television set, what is Enyong liable
for? Explain your answer.
Answer;
a) Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in
defense of property rights. Under the case of People v. Narvaez
(G.R Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389} defense
of property need not necessarily be coupled with aggression
against persons.
b) There is criminal liability this time with the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Under the case of
People v. Narvaez, defense of property can be availed of even
when there is no assault against a person. It is recognized as
an unlawful aggression.
Art 11; Justifying circumstances; self-defense; unlawful
aggression & mistake of fact 2003 No II
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often
was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to
investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited
24
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger
looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun
seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on,
the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother- in-law on
his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused
was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused,
given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the
facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when
there is no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified.
Defense of property or property right does not justify the act
of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the
accused is already in imminent and immediate danger.
Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the
facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent
robberies in the neighborhood, the time was past midnight,
and the victim appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark
and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an
honest belief that his life and limb or those of his family are
already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be
reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake of
fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake
of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused
from criminal liability.
Art 11; Justifying vs exempting circumstances 1978 No. II-b
Justifying and exempting circumstances have some similar
effects but are different concepts. Discuss their similarities and
distinctions.
Answer
In justifying circumstance, the act committed is lawful, and the
actor does not incur any criminal nor civil liability. In an
exempting circumstance, a crime is committed but there is
absent in the person of the offender any of the elements of
voluntariness, and so he is not criminally liable but is civilly
liable except in the exempting circumstances of accident and
lawful or insuperable cause. To recapitulate, in a justifying
circumstance, the act is lawful and hence, there is no crime
committed. In an exempting circumstance, the actor does not
incur any criminal nor civil liability. In an exempting
circumstance, the offender is not criminally liable because the
act is not committed voluntarily but he is civilly liable because
the source of the obligation which is the crime is present.
Art 11; Justifying vs exempting circumstances 1998 No IV
1. Distinguish between justifying and exempting
circumstances. [3%] Answer;
 1. In justifying circumstances:
a) The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; 

b) The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as
not a crime; 

c) Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal; 

d) There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor
civil liability. 

Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
a) The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
b) The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted
without voluntariness;
c) Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the
actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
d) There being a wrong done but no criminal, there is civil
liability but no criminal liability.
Art 11; Mistake of fact 1977 No. I-a
When A saw B rushing towards him holding a bolo and poised
to strike him, he immediately picked up a pointed iron bar and
believing that his life was in danger as B was close enough, he
made a trust on B hitting him on the stomach which caused the
death of B thereafter. The truth, however, is that B was merely
trying to play a joke on C who was then behind A. Is A criminally
liable for the death of B? State your reasons.
Answer
A is not criminally liable because he acted in self-defense due
to mistake of facts. As the facts of the problem state, A thrust
the pointed iron bar on B, hitting him on the stomach as he
believed that his life was in danger because B was close enough
when he rushed towards A holding a bolo and poised to strike
him. (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488). Under the
circumstances, he had no time or opportunity to verify
whether B was only playing a joke on C who was behind A.
Hence, his mistake of the facts was without fault or
carelessness. He had no alternative but to take the facts as
they appeared to him to justify his act. So A acted in good faith
25
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
without criminal intent.
Art 11; Mistake of fact 1988 No. 10:
(b) Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong to harvest
coconuts from a plantation which he told them belonged to
him. Unknown to them, the ownership of the land was in
dispute, and the registered owner subsequently filed a case of
qualified theft against them.
How would you defend them? Explain briefly.
Answer:
b) I would defend them by citing U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil.
488) on mistake of facts and charge the owner with violation
of Article 282 on grave threats. In U.S. vs. Ah Chong, the
accused was exempted from criminal liability because he
performed an act which would be lawful had it been true as he
believed that "Grave, threats.— Any person who shall threaten
another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property
of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime,
shall suffer. ..".
Art 11; Mistake of fact 1985 No. 6
Pat. Josue, a member of the INP Western Police District,
together with two (2) other policemen, was chasing Katindig,
a notorious police killer. Katindig entered a nearby dimly
lighted warehouse. Josue and his companions continued
pursuing him. When they reached the mezzanine, Josue saw a
man crouching behind a pile of boxes, holding what appeared
to be a long rifle. When the man suddenly stood up and faced
Josue and his companions, Josue fired at the man hitting him
fatally. It turned out, however, that the deceased was the
warehouseman who was holding a mere lead pipe.
Discuss Pat. Josue's criminal liability for the said killing stating
your reasons.
Answer:
Patrolman Josue will not incur any criminal liability. He can
invoked in his favor mistake of facts due to good faith. Under
the circumstances, Patrolman Josue shot the victim in the
honest belief that he was the notorious police-killer whom
they were chasing until he entered a dimly lighted warehouse.
In the mezzanine of the warehouse, Patrolman Josue saw a
man crouching behind a pile of boxes holding what appeared
to be a long rifle. The patrolman fired at the man when he
suddenly stood up and faced him. He had no opportunity to
verify first the identity of the victim before acting. He acted,
therefore, without criminal intent and had the facts turned out
to be true, as Patrolman Josue believed them to be, that is,
that the victim was the notorious police-killer, that act
committed would be lawful.
Art 11; Qualifying circumstances as elements of a crime 2003
No IV.
(b) When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all,
elements of a crime? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b). A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of
a crime when -
1). it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more
serious crime and a heavier penalty;
2). it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other
crime is committed; and
3). it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven
during the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime
when it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition
of a crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; accident 1981 No. 1
"A" and "B", both civilian guards, were seated inside the
guardhouse. While "A" was cleaning his service pistol, "B"
snatched it. In the ensuing struggle for the possession of the
weapon. "A" succeeded in wresting it from the hand of "B". But
then the pistol exploded with the bullet hitting the breast of
"C", another civilian guard, who died as a consequence of the
gunshot wound.
Is "A " criminally liable for the death of "C''? Why?
Answer
A is not criminally liable. Since his service pistol was snatched
by B, in trying to regain its possession, A was in the lawful
exercise of a right. When A succeeded in wresting the pistol
from the hand of B and it exploded with the bullet hitting C, A
cannot incur any criminal liability as he was performing a
lawful act. Even under the Civil Code, he is justified to employ
reasonable force to repel the unlawful deprivation of his
property, (Art. 429, Civil Code). Criminal intent is not present
nor is there negligence under the circumstances. The death of
26
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
C was, therefore, accidental. (People vs. Bindoy 56 Phil. 15).
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; accident 1989 No. 2:
Nicandro borrowed Valeriano's gun, a high-powered M-16
rifle, to hunt wild pigs. Nicandro was accompanied by his
friend, Felix. On their way to the hunting ground, Nicandro and
Felix met Pedro near a hut, Pedro told them where to hunt.
Later, Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed it. The same
bullet, however, that killed the pig struck a stone and
ricocheted hitting Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May
Nicandro be held liable for the death of Pedro? Explain.
Answer:
Nicandro may be held liable for the death of Pedro. While
Pedro's death would seem to be accidental, the requisites of
exempting circumstance of accident are not all present. Said
requisites are:
4. A person is performing a lawful act; 
 home for extended periods of time. The prosecution on the
5. With due care; 
 he acted with discernment. After trial, the court convicted the
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
 4.
Without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4, RPC).
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano's high powered M-16 rifle
and used it for hunting wild pigs, he committed the crime of
illegal possession of firearms, as he does not appear to have
either a license to possess a high-powered gun or to carry the
same outside of his residence. At the time he shot at the wild
pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing a lawful act.
Furthermore, considering that the M-16 is a high-powered
gun. Nicandro was negligent in not foreseeing that bullets fired
from said gun may ricochet.
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; Article 332 2000 No XI
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with
his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as
a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their
common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of
their home in the presence of his friends.
What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)
Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the
Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things.....
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332
because said Article applies only to theft, swindling or
malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; insanity 1991 No. 7:
A raped X. In the process, X resisted and slapped A. Angered, A
grabbed a stone and hit X. She was dying when A
consummated the sexual attack. A psychiatrist from the
National Center for Mental Health testified that he conducted
physical, mental and psychological examinations on A and
found him to be suffering from a mental disorder classified
under organic mental disorder with psychosis. A's father
testified that A was playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters,
stole his mother's jewelry which he sold for low sums,
wandered naked sometimes, and oftentimes did not come
other hand, presented an array of witnesses to prove A that
was lucid before and after the crime was committed and that
accused and sentenced him to "life imprisonment" considering
that under the Constitution death penalty could no longer be
imposed.
Given the conflicting testimonies as to sanity of the accused,
was the trial court correct in ruling out insanity as an
exempting circumstances in this case? Is the sentence of "life
imprisonment" a correct imposition of penalty?
Answer:
Yes, the court is correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting
circumstance. While there was testimony that A was suffering
from a metal disorder, the testimony of A's father disclosed
that A had lucid intervals. Because what is presumed is sanity,
not insanity, it is to be presumed that A was sane when he
committed the crime. Consequently, evidence being wanting
that A is completely deprived of reason at the moment of
committing the crime, he should be liable. Besides, the crime
committed and the acts done by the accused in the
commission of the crime hardly reconciles with Insanity of the
offender, as rape presupposes evident premeditation.
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; minority 1998 No IV
2. John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the
television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening while he was
engrossed watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid
changed the channel to enable her to watch "Home Along the
27
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Riles." This enraged John who got his father's revolver, and
without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing
her instantaneous death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]
Answer;
2. No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he
is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor
below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal
liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; minority 2000 No IV
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at
the school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of
Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in
Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,
Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen.
The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled
profusely. Realizing what she had caused. Katreena
immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely
admitted to the school principal that she was responsible for
the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury.
Pomping lost his right eye.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)
 b) Discuss the
attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) SUGGESTED
ANSWER;
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly
liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although
over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from
criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution
proved that the act was committed with discernment. The
burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused
acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without
discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact that
Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using
in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping's vexatious act
of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury
was accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance
under Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall
be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she
acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a
privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty
lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the
crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article
68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The sentence, however,
should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section
5(a) of Rep. Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family
Courts Act of 1997";
3. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating
circumstance of not Intending to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal
Code; and
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation on the part of the offended party immediately
preceded the act.
Art 12; Exempting circumstances; uncontrollable fear 1979
No. V
X, engaged in illegal gambling, was accused of bribing Y, a
policeman. X's defense was fear of reprisal from the police in
case of non-payment of bribe money. He testified that when
he attempted to stop giving bribe money to Y, the police raided
his establishment without warrant for half a dozen times. Y
also threatened to plant incriminating evidence on him. X was
also manhandled by Y on the pretext of resisting arrest. X
would park his police jeep in front of his house obviously to
drive away his regular customers. X's defense is that he bribe
Y under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury. Please decide.
Answer
X's defense that he bribed Y, a policeman, under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or greater injury, is
untenable. This exempting circumstance can be appreciated if
a person is compelled to commit a crime by another through
intimidation. It is also essential that the person intimidated
must not have any opportunity for escape or to avoid the
threat. The facts of the problem show that X could have easily
reported to the authorities the alleged acts of harassment
committed by the policeman. Lastly, the fear must not be
speculative or fanciful but must be actual or real. All the acts
testified to by X do not show any actual or direct intimidation
on the part of Y in case of non-payment of the bribe.
Art 12; Minority; effect on accused’s liabilities 1984 No. 2
In what specific ways does the Revised Penal Code exhibit due
regard for the minority of an accused;
28
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
(a) in the determination of is criminal liability
(b) in the determination of the degree of his culpability
(c) in the imposition of penalties upon him
Answer:
A, Furnished by Office of Justice Palma (a) Re: Criminal liability
of a minor.
Under Art. 12 of the RPC: A person under nine years of age is
exempt from criminal liability.
A person over nine years of age and under fifteen is also
exempt from criminal liability, except when he acts with
discernment in which case he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with Art. 80 of the RPC, which suspends the
sentence of minor delinquents. Under Art. 80 of RPC,
whenever a minor under 16 years of age at the date of the
commission of the offense, a grave or less grave felony, is
accused thereof, the court after hearing the evidence in the
proper proceedings, instead of pronouncing judgment of
conviction shall suspend all further proceedings and shall
commit such minor to the custody or care of a public or private
benevolent or charitable institution, established under the law
for the care, correction or education of orphaned, homeless,
defective and delinquent children, or to the custody or care of
any responsible person — until such minor shall have reached
his majority age or for such less period as the court may deem
proper.
However, under P.D. 1179, which amended P.D. 603 (The Child
and Youth Welfare Code), which in turn, under Articles 189 and
192, thereof {P.D. 603), amended Art. 80 of RFC, the
suspension of sentence and commitment of youthful
offenders covers minors over nine years and under eighteen
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense who
acts with discernment. If he acts without discernment, then he
is exempt from criminal liability.
(b) Re: Degree of Culpability
Minority is treated as a mitigating circumstance under Art. 13
of the RPC, Under said article, a minor is a person under 18
years of age, in which case he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Article 80 (as amended by
P.D. 603, as amended by P.D, 1179.)
But the rule is now settled that minority under 18 years is a
privileged mitigating circumstance under Art 68 of the RPC,
which provides for the imposition of penalty one or two
degrees lower than that prescribed for the offense.
(e) Re: Imposition of Penalties on Minors — Article 68 of RPC
provides:
When the offender is a minor under 18 years and his case is
one coming under the provisions of the Code (RPC), the
following rules shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under 15 but over 9 years of age, who is not
exempted from liability by reason of the court having declared
that he acted with discernment, a discretionary penalty shall
be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than that
provided by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over 15 and under 18 years of age, the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper period.
— The provisions of P.D. 603, as amended by P.D. 1179, on
suspension of penalties in the case of youthful offenders
(under 18) are also applicable.
A. Comments and Suggested Answer
The specific ways provided by the Revised Penal Code
regarding the minority of an accused follow:
a) In the determination of his criminal liability
A minor 9 years of age and under at the time of the commission
of the crime is exempt from criminal liability,
A minor over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime is also exempt from
criminal liability unless he has acted with discernment. (Art.
12, Rev. Penal Code as amended by Art. 189, P.D. 603 amended
by P.D. 1179)
A minor 15 years and under 21 years of age is dealt with like
an adult offender:
(b) In the determination of his degree of culpability
A minor under eighteen years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime is entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance, (Art. 68 Rev. Penal Code, People vs. Jose et a!
(1975) 71 SCRA 273). A minor 18 years and under 21 years of
age is not entitled to a mitigating circumstance, whether
ordinary or privileged.
c) In the imposition of the penalty
A minor over 9 years and under 15 years of age at the time of
the commission of the crime, who acted with discernment, is
29
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
entitled to a discretionary penalty lower by two degrees at
least than that prescribed by law for the crime committed. If
he is 15 years and under 18 years of age, the penalty lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed in the proper
period.
Under P.O. 603 as amended by P.D. 1179, the imposition of the
sentence may be suspended upon the application of the minor
if found guilty after trial. If granted by the court, the minor is
ordered committed to an institution until he reaches the age
of majority. If the minor during confinement has been found
to be incorrigible, he is returned to the court for the
pronouncement of the sentence. He shall be credited in the
service of the sentence the full time spent in actual
confinement and detention in said institution. The benefit of
this provision shall not apply to a minor who has already
enjoyed suspension of sentence nor to one convicted of an
offense punishable by death or life imprisonment. The minor
is under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime (P.D. 1179) and at the time of the trial (People vs.
Casiguran L 43387, Nov. 7, 1979) Art 80 of the Rev. Penal Code
has been expressly repealed by Presidential Decree 1179
which amended Presidential Decree 603. Under Art. 189
thereof said minor who acted with discernment shall be
proceeded against under Art, 192 of said Presidential Decree
as amended.
Art 12; Minors; liability 1995 No. 7:
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang
Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and
Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer
Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang
Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a
knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang
Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to
prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of
the store to seek help from people next door she was chased
by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and
Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!"
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles
looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the
houses of Victor and Ricky.
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and
Ronnie.
Answer:
1. All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death,
of Rod in .boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping
Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her
in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money from the cash
box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and
announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a
consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who
took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of
robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the
killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218). Further, the
aggravating circumstance of craft could be assessed against
the accused for pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy,
Although Rod is only 14 years old, his act of boxing Lucy to
prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of
discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from criminal
liability under Art. 12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are,
however, entitled to two and one degrees lower, respectively
from the penalty of the principal under Art. 68z. RPC.
Mitigating Circumstances Art 13; Mitigating and aggravating;
when not considered
1975 No. VI
 In what cases are mitigating and aggravating
circumstances not
considered in the imposition of the penalty? Answer
a) If the penalty is single and indivisible. 

b) If the offense is punished by a special law. 

c) If the penalty provided in an ordinance is a fine. 

d) In felonies committed by negligence or imprudence. 

e) If the offender is a Muslim or a non-Christian, (Sec. 106, Rev,
Adm. Code; People v. Moro Disim-ban, L-1746, Jan. 31, 1951).
1) Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene,
stabbed and killed the latter. After the stabbing, he brought his
son home. The Chief of Police of the town, accompanied by
several policemen, went to Hilario's house, Hilario, upon
seeing the approaching policemen, came down from his house
to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police
Station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When
eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on
appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he
entitled to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
30
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Answer:
1} Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender. The crux of the Issue is whether the fact
that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and
met the police officers and went with them is considered
"Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness of surrender is
tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities.
This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or
(b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses
necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes'
Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding
after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the
policemen who had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was
held to be mitigating circumstance.(People vs. Dayrit, cited in
Reyes' Commentaries, p. 299)
Art 13; mitigating circumstance; voluntary surrender 1999 No
I
When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and
constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is
spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally
to the authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
(a) spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt
and not for convenience nor conditional;
(b) made before the government incurs expenses, time and
effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts; and
(c) made to a person in authority or the latter's agents.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; analogous circumstances
1979 No. IV
X is charged with (1) assaulting a policeman, and (2) serious
physical injury thru reckless imprudence. The prosecution
evidence shows that X, while driving his car, ran through a red
light, hit a bystander along a street curve that caused his
hospitalization for more than 30 days and when arrested by a
policeman, assaulted the arresting officer. The defense
evidence shows that three (3) days before the incident, X saw
a doctor for treatment of a recurring back problem. He was
prescribed valium. X declared that on the day of the incident,
the valium had strange effects on him and that he completely
lost control of himself. A medical expert testified that
drowsiness, fatigue, ataxia, and confusion are the normal side
effects of valium. He added that hyperexcitability, though rare,
was a possible side effect. If you were the judge, how would
you decide the case?
Answer
If I were the judge, I would hold X criminally liable. Loss of
control of X as a result of the administration of the valium is
not an exempting circumstances since there is no deprivation
of freedom of action nor of intelligence. At most X would be
entitled to a mitigating circumstance analogous to passion or
illness since there is loss of self-control and reason. (Art. 13,
par. 10).
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; applicability in special laws
1981 No. 6
An accused was charged with Illegal Possession of a caliber .45
pistol. Upon arraignment, he pleaded "guilty" to the charge
and invoked his plea as a mitigating circumstance.
Can the court consider that plea as a mitigating circumstance
in imposing the proper penalty on him? Why?
Answer
The plea of guilty cannot be considered a mitigating
circumstance. Alleged possession of a firearm is punished by a
special law. The imposition of the penalty provided in a special
law rests upon the discretion of the court. Furthermore, the
plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the Revised
Penal Code, is appreciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot
be applied to a penalty which is indeterminate, that is, not
divisible into periods of fixed duration, which is the penalty
provided in special laws like the law punishing illegal
possession of firearms.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; applicability in special laws
1989 No. 8:
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The
penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less
than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon
arraignment, he entered the plea of guilty.
a) In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the
Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied?
b) If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would
you impose on Andres?
31
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Answer:
The plea of guilty cannot be considered as a mitigating
circumstance in this case. The imposition of the indeterminate
penalty in a special law rests upon the discretion of the court.
Also, the pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the
Revised Penal Code is appreciated only in a divisible penalty. It
cannot be applied to a penalty which is not divisible into
periods of fixed duration, like the penalty provided in special
laws.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; immediate vindication
1988 No. 13:
(a) The victim Dario went to the Civil Service Commission at
about 11:00 a.m. to have some documents signed, and
because his efforts were frustrated, he angrily remarked in the
presence of the accused Benito that the Civil Service
Commission is a hang-out of thieves. The accused felt alluded
to because he was then facing criminal and administrative
charges on several counts involving his honesty and integrity,
and pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot Dario, inflicting a
fatal wound. Benito is now invoking the mitigating
circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense.
Decide the case.
Answer:
(a) The mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of
grave offense cannot be considered because to be applicable,
Article 13 par. 5 requires that: "Mitigating circumstances.—
xxxx 5. That the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony
(delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees."
Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be
considered. Benito should be charged with frustrated
homicide with the mitigating circumstances of passion.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; immediate vindication
2000 No II
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping
on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her.
Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo,who had returned
from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed
the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual
intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said
"Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang
realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang
grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death.
When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor.
Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained
because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she
stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1,
Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1)
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful
aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured
or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled
party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him,
as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not
a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual
intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an
immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against
her, which is only mitigating.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; incomplete self-defense
1990 No. 4:
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an
intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw
a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong's personal
effects in his study. He shot and killed Gorio.
a) Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State
your reasons.
b) Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he was running away from
Enyong's house with his television set, what is Enyong liable
for? Explain your answer.
Answer;
a) Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in
defense of property rights. Under the case of People v. Narvaez
(G.R Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389} defense
of property need not necessarily be coupled with aggression
against persons.
b) There is criminal liability this time with the mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. Under the case of
People v. Narvaez, defense of property can be availed of even
when there is no assault against a person. It is recognized as
32
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
an unlawful aggression.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; minority 1985 No. 1
Minority is generally a privileged mitigating circumstance
which entitles the minor offender to a suspended sentence. It
may however, under certain circumstances, be considered as
a mere ordinary circumstance in which case the offender may
be immediately sentenced and made to serve the penalty
imposed upon him instead of being placed under suspended
sentence.
Discuss.
Answer
Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is considered
in the imposition of the penalty, (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
However, the age of the minor at the time of the commission
of the crime may be considered in suspending the sentence
upon conviction. So under the Child and Youth Welfare Code
(Presidential Decree 603, as amended) a minor under 18 years
old at the time of the commission of the offense and at the
time of the trial, if found guilty after trial may apply for the
suspension of the sentence. The only instance where there is
no suspension of the sentence in spite of minority is that
provided in Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code where the
minor under 16 years old at the time of the commission of a
light felony if found guilty, the sentence is immediately
imposed. But Article 80 has been expressly repealed by
Presidential Decree 1179 which took effect on August 15,
1977. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court held in People vs,
Sanchez (132 SCRA 103 1984) that there are only two instances
where there can be no suspended sentence, to wit: 1) if the
offense committed by a minor is punishable by death or life
imprisonment; 2) if the minor is 18 years and above at the time
of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; minority; vindication 1993
No. 18:
B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with M, a sixteen year old
boy, with C, who had been previously convicted of Serious
Physical Injuries, and with R, whose sister was raped by X a day
before, to kill the latter. B, C and R were armed with .38 caliber
revolvers, while M carried no weapon and acted only as a look
out. They proceeded to the house of X riding in a motorized
tricycle. Thereupon, C, on instruction of B to give X no chance,
shot X who was then sleeping. Indicted for Homicide, as the
information alleges no qualifying circumstance, specify the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, and explain
In whose favor, and against whom, must they be considered.
Answer:
1. Mitigating circumstances:
a) B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph
8 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code;
b) M is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstances of
minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code;
c) Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R because his sister
was raped by X a day before the shooting, and even if there
was an interval of one [1) day between the rape and the killing.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; no intent to commit so
grave a wrong; intoxication 2000 No XIV
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against
firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations,
Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in
Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999,
Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking
spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their
conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping
a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos
inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the
super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly
warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what
he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight,
Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that
he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance.
Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm
to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted
super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him
so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but
missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old
son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously,
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with?
Explain. (2%)
b) If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses
would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain. (2%)
c) If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case?
33
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS
Explain. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of
attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused
a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)....
b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following
defenses:
(1) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten
Jepoy;
(2) That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication
thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand the
wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a
mitigating circumstance (People us. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600
(1997); Art. 15, RPC.).
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; plea of guilty 1999 No X
(a) In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what
requisites must be complied with? (2%)
(b) An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded
"not guilty" during the preliminary investigation before the
Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the
Regional Trial Court the Court of competent jurisdiction, he
pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his
plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and
thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous
plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime
charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try
the case and render judgment; and
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of
evidence for the prosecution.
(b) Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be
considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty
before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during
preliminary investigation only and before a court not
competent to render judgment.
Art 13; Mitigating circumstances; plea of guilty and voluntary
surrender 1997 No 5:
After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded
in eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the
authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he
pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented
two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his
plea to that of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender
and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused?
Answer;
1. Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. After two years, the police were still unaware of
the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have
continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the
accused should be considered mitigating because it was done
spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the
part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the
accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
Alternative Answer:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the
accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender
as spontaneous (People us. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the
government had already incurred considerable efforts and
expenses in looking for the accused.
2. Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance because the prosecution had already started
with the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised
Penal Code).
Art 13; Mitigating; voluntary surrender; plea of guilty 1992
No. 5
Upon learning that the police wanted him for the killing of
Polistico, Jeprox decided to visit the police station to make
inquiries. On his way, he met a policeman who immediately
served upon him the warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in
the course of the presentation of the prosecution's evidence,
Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of
guilty.
Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender and plea of guilty? Explain.
34
 CRIMINAL LAW SAMPLE QUESTIONS

Suggested Answer:

Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of

voluntary surrender as his going to the police station was only
for the purpose of verification of the news that he is wanted
by the authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender must be
spontaneous and that he acknowledges his guilt.

Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it

was qualified plea; besides, Art. 13, par. 7 provides that
confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution had
started to present evidence.

35