Training & Convention Division
University of the Philippines Law Center
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE
2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN
CRIMINAL LAW
PART I
A.1.
Define/distinguish the following terms:
(a) Mala in se and mala prohibita (2%)
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are
deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law.
Accordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other
elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other
hand, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently
immoral but become punishable only because the law says that they are
forbidden [Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006].
(b) Grave, less grave, and light felonies (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), grave felonies are
those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which
in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the same
Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties
which in their maximum period are correccional, also in accordance with
Art. 25. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of
which a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000 or both
is provided (As amended by RA 10951).
(c) Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 4, par. 1 of the RPC, criminal liability shall be incurred
by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act
done be different from that which he intended. Thus, a person committing
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 1 of 19
a felony is still criminally liable even if: a) there is a mistake in the identity
of the victim or error in personae; b) there is a mistake in the blow or
aberratio ictus; and c) the injurious result is greater than that intended or
praeter intentionem.
A.2.
Mr. X has always been infatuated with Ms. Y. Scorned by Ms. Y's
disregard for his feelings towards her, Mr. X came up with a plan to abduct
Ms. Y in order to have carnal knowledge of her with the help of his buddies,
A, B, and C.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
On the day they decided to carry out the plan, and while
surreptitiously waiting for Ms. Y, C had a change of heart and left. This
notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B continued with the plan and abducted Ms.
Y by forcefully taking her to a deserted house away from the city. There, Mr.
X restrained Ms. V's arms, while A held her legs apart. B stood as a lookout.
Mr. X was then able to have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y, who was resisting
throughout the entire ordeal.
Consequently, Mr. X was charged with the crime of Forcible
Abduction under the Revised Penal Code.
(a) Is the charge against Mr. X proper? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the charge against Mr. C is not proper. Mr. X should be charged
with the crime of Rape. Based on the facts, the main objective of Mr. X was
to have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y. The crime of Forcible Abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused was to
rape the victim [People v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, Sept. 18, 2013].
(b) Assuming that A, B, and C are also charged, may they be held
criminally liable together with Mr. X? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Only A and B may be held criminally liable together with Mr.
X. Under Art. 8, par. 1 of the RPC, a conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. With A holding Ms. Y’s legs apart and B standing as
a lookout, they actively participated in the commission of the crime and
are guilty as co-conspirators. [People v. Tumalip, G.R. No. L-28451, October
28, 1974]
C may not be held criminally liable. C dissociated himself from the
conspiracy when he had a change of heart and left. His disavowal of the
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 2 of 19
conspiracy was effective since he decided not to perform his part in the
conspiracy before any material act of execution leading to the Rape was
committed. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act without
cooperation is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy [Taer
v. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990].
A.3.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Mr. O, a 75-year old retiree who has been a widower for the last ten
(10) years, believed that, at past 70, he is licensed to engage in voyeurism to
satisfy his lustful desires. If not peeping into his neighbors' rooms through
his powerful single-cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely girls
along the hallways and corridors of shopping malls. While going up the
escalator, he stayed a step behind a mini-skirted, 20-year old girl, and, in the
heat of the moment, put his hand on her left buttock and massaged it. The
girl screamed and hollered for help. Mr. O was thus apprehended and
charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
Code. Mr. O's counsel, however, claimed that Mr. 0 should only be charged
with the crime of Unjust Vexation.
Is the contention of Mr. O's counsel tenable? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Mr. O’s counsel is un tenable. Under Article
366 of the RPC, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are: (1) that the
offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that the
lascivious act is committed against a person of either sex; and (3) that it is
done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or
intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fradulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; or (d) when the offended party is under 12 years of age
or is demented. Lascivious conduct is defined as “the intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttock, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia,
anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with
an intent to abuse , humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition
of the genitals or pubic area of a person”. [Orsos v. People, G.R. No. 214673,
November 20, 2017] Here, when Mr. O touched the buttocks of the
offended party, he was animated with lewdness; thus acts of
lasciviousness was committed.
A.4.
In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal from his next-door
neighbor, Mrs. V. On the night of May 15,2010, Mr. R proceeded with his
plan and entered Mrs. V's bedroom by breaking one of the windows from
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 3 of 19
the outside. Finding Mrs. V sound asleep, he silently foraged through her
cabinet, and stashed all the bundles of cash and jewelries he could find.
As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V shout, "Stop or I will shoot
you!", and when he turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle which was
pointed at him. Fearing for his life, Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able
to wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr. R shot Mrs. V, which
resulted in her death. Mr. R's deeds were discovered on the very same night
as he was seen by law enforcement authorities fleeing the crime scene.
(a) What crime/s did Mr. R commit under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Mr. R committed Robbery with Homicide under Art. 293, in relation
to Art. 294, par. 1 of the RPC. The elements of the crime are: a) the taking
of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the
person; b) the property taken belongs to another; c) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and d) on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used it is generic
sense, was committed. It must be established that the original criminal
design of the malefactor is to commit robbery and the killing is merely
incidental thereto. Here, Mr. R’s intent to commit robbery preceded the
taking of Mrs. V’s life. The killing took place on the occasion or by reason
of the robbery.
(b) Based on your answer in question (a), within what period should
the prosecution file the criminal charge against Mr. R in order to
avoid prescription? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The prosecution should file the criminal charge within 20 years from
the date of discovery. Under Art. 90 of the RPC, crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua shall prescribe in 20 years. Here, the crime of Robbery
with Homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the crime shall
prescribe in 20 years.
(c) May Mr. R validly invoke the justifying circumstance of selfdefense? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mr. R may not invoke the justifying circumstance of selfdefense. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of Mrs. V, who was
defending her property. As the owner of the cash and jewelry, Mrs. V had
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 4 of 19
the lawful right to take back the goods stolen by Mr. R who was actually
the unlawful aggressor. (People v. Salamuddin, 52 Phil. 670)
A.5.
In August 2018, B entered into a contract with S for the purchase of the
latter's second-hand car in the amount of P400,000.00, payable in two (2)
equal monthly installments. Simultaneous with the signing of the contract
and S' s turnover of the car keys, B executed, issued, and delivered two (2)
post-dated checks, all payable to S, with the assurance that they will all be
honored on their respective maturity dates.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
However, all two (2) checks were dishonored for being drawn against
insufficient funds. Consequently, notices there for were duly issued to and
received by B, but this notwithstanding, no payment arrangements were
made by him. Further, upon S's investigation, it was uncovered that B's
checking account had only P50,000.00 when it was opened in June 2018 and
no further deposits were made after that. S also found out that B knew fully
well of such circumstances at the time he issued the two (2) checks.
What crime/s should B be charged with and for how many counts?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B should be charged with 1 count of Estafa and 2 counts of violation
of B.P. 22. Under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, estafa by postdating a check
or issuing a check in payment of an obligation is committed when: (a) the
offender post-dated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation;
and (b) such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. Here, B’s act of postdating
checks in payment of an obligation was the efficient cause of the
defraudation. Postdating the checks was committed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
B should also be charged with 2 counts of violation of B.P. 22 or the
Bouncing Checks Law. B.P. 22 may be violated by making or drawing and
issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of
issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check, which check is subsequently
dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been
dishonoured for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. Here, all the elements of the
offense are present. B issued 2 checks which was subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen
of B.P. 22 is the issuance of the check, thus, the issuance of each bouncing
check constitutes as one count of the offense.
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 5 of 19
While a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an identical
set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action, which,
under the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and independent" from
each other. [Rimando v. Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014]
A.6.
Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's
numerous transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to bum down Mr. B's
rest house.
One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and started pouring gasoline
on its walls. However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for burning, he was
discovered by Mr. B' s caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently prevented
from setting the rest house on fire. Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated
Arson.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
(a) Is the charge of Frustrated Arson proper? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the proper charge is Attempted Arson. Under Art. 6 of the RPC,
there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. Here, Mr. A commenced the
commission of arson by pouring gasoline on the house and lighting a
match. However, he did not perform all the acts of execution which
includes setting the rest house on fire. Thus, Mr. A should only be liable
for Attempted Arson.
(b) Assuming that Mr. A successfully burned down Mr. B's rest house,
and as a result, Ms. C was trapped therein and was subsequently
killed in the fire, what crime/s did Mr. A commit? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine
what crime was committed, there is a need to ascertain the main objective
of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building
or edifice but death results by reason or on occasion of arson, the crime is
simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if the main
objective is to kill a particular person who may be in the building or
edifice, when fire is resorted to as a means to accomplish such goal, the
crime committed is murder only; and (3) if the objective is to kill a
particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but the fire
is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate
and distinct crimes committed- homicide/murder and arson. [People v.
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 6 of 19
Sota and Gadjadli, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017] Here the main
purpose was to burn the house and the death of Mr. C was only incidental,
hence, arson was committed and the homicide is absorbed.
A.7.
Mr. L is a newspaper reporter who writes about news items concerning
the judiciary. Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary can be criticized
and exposed for the prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of the public
nature of their offices. Upon receiving numerous complaints from private
citizens, Mr. L released a scathing newspaper expose involving Judge G and
his alleged acts constituting graft and corruption. Consequently, Mr. L was
charged with the crime of Libel.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a valid defense in Libel and
in this relation, claimed that he was only exposing the truth regarding Judge
G's misdeeds. Further, Mr. L contended that in any event, his expose on
Judge G is based on the complaints he received from private citizens, and as
such, should be deemed as a mere fair commentary on a matter of public
interest.
(a) Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mr. L’s contention that truth is a valid defense in libel is tenable.
Under Art. 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a
public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and
functions, and the truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will be
entitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation
was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (Lopez v.
People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011).
(b) What is the effect on the criminal liability of an accused if he or she
publishes a libelous article on an online news platform? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused may be liable under RA 10175, or the Cybercrime
Prevention Act of 2012. Under Sec. 4(c)(4), a cybercrime offense includes
the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC
committed through a computer system or any other similar means which
may be devised in the future. Thus, RA 10175 penalizes the publication of
a libelous article on an online news platform, and the penalty to be
imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided under the RPC,
pursuant to Section 6 thereof.
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 7 of 19
A.8.
After a successful entrapment operation by the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency, Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on January
15,2019 for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a
prohibited drug, to the poseur-buyer. Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by
the arresting officer, and aluminum foils, plastic lighters, and another plastic
sachet of shabu were obtained from him. The items were marked
immediately upon confiscation, and they were likewise inventoried and
photographed at the place of arrest. Throughout the process, a media
representative was able to witness the conduct of the marking, inventory,
and photography of the seized items in the presence of Mr. D.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Mr. D was then charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In defense, he lamented that the chain of
custody procedure under Section 21, Article II of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, was not followed because only
a media representative was present. In response, the prosecution maintained
that the said media representative was a very credible reporter and as such,
the presence of any other witness was unnecessary.
(a) Was the chain of custody procedure validly complied with in this case?
If not, was the deviation from such procedure justified? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the chain of custody was not validly complied with. Under Sec.
21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the presence of at least two
insulating witnesses are required: (1) an elected public official, and (2) a
representative from the media, or a representative from the National
Prosecution Service. Here, only a media representative was present to
witness the conduct of marking, inventory and photography.
Further, the credibility of the media reporter as the lone witness in a
buy-bust operation is neither a plausible explanation nor an unacceptable
justification for the PDEA’s non-compliance with the chain of custody
rule. The Supreme Court listed the following acceptable justifications in
case of the absence of witnesses: (1) their attendance was impossible
because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety was
threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused; and (3)
earnest efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses within the period
required under Art. 125 of the RPC prove futile through no fault of the
arresting officers [People v. Sipin, as cited in People v. Lim, G.R. 231989,
September 04, 2018].
(b) What is the consequence of an unjustified deviation from the chain of
custody rule to the criminal case against Mr. D? Explain. (2%)
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 8 of 19
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule would lead
to Mr. D’s acquittal. Well settled is the rule that the procedure under Sec.
21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
procedural technicality [People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018].
A.9.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested him to solemnize their
marriage. On the day of the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's office
but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of staff, Mr. U, however, represented
that he himself can solemnize their marriage and just have Mayor Z sign the
marriage certificate when the latter comes back. Consequently, upon X and
V's assent, Mr. U solemnized the marriage, despite his lack of authority
therefor.
(a) What crime may Mr. U be charged with under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC)? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mr. U can be charged with the crime of Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions. Under Art. 177 of the RPC, Usurpation of Authority
may be committed by performing any act pertaining to any person in
authority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign
government or any agency thereof, under the pretense of official position,
and without being lawfully entitled to do so. Here, despite his lack of
authority, Mr. U knowingly solemnized a marriage pertaining to Mayor Z.
(b) Assuming that Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which stated
that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y, what crime may Mayor Z
be charged with under the RPC? Explain. (2.5%)
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 9 of 19
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mayor Z may be charged with Falsification under Art. 171, par. 2 of
the RPC. Its elements are: (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) that
the takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a
document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act
of proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. Here, all the
elements of the crime are present. Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate
which states that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y when in fact, he
did not participate in its solemnization.
A.10.
Distinguish Rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and Terrorism
under the Human Security Act of 2007. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Under Art. 134 of the RPC, rebellion is, by nature, a crime of the
masses or of a multitude; it is a vast movement of men and a complex net
of intrigues and plots (People v. Almazan, CA, 37 O.G. 1932). Its elements
are: 1) that there be a public uprising and taking arms against the
government; and 2) that the purpose of the uprising or movement is either
to: a) remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws the
territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval,
or other armed forces, or b) deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives.
Under RA 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007, rebellion may be
subsumed in the crime of terrorism; it is one of the means by which
terrorism can be committed. Sec. 3 states that a person who commits an act
punishable as rebellion, thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in
order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be
guilty of the crime of terrorism.
END OF PART I
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 10 of 19
PART II
B.11.
Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for
Hong Kong via an Indonesian-registered commercial vessel. While on board
the vessel, which was still docked at the port of Manila, she saw her mortal
enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion
of the cabin and was busy using her laptop, with no idea whatsoever that
Ms. M was likewise onboard the ship.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached
the Australian from behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck with a
pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's immediate death. Operatives from the
Philippine National Police - Maritime Command arrested Ms. M for the
killing of Ms. A and thereafter, intended to charge her under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). Ms. M contended that the provisions of the RPC cannot
be applied and enforced against her because both she and the victim are not
Filipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an
Indonesian-registered vessel.
(a) Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against her
tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the RPC can be applied and enforced against Ms. M although
both the offender and the offended party are foreign nationals and the
crime was committed onboard a foreign vessel. Based on the territorial
principle, the English rule adopted in the Philippines, crimes perpetrated
aboard foreign vessels are generally triable in the courts of the country
within the territory in which they were committed. [People v. Wong Chen,
G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922] Moreover, under the Principle of
Generality, the penal laws of the Philippines apply to all who live or
sojourn in the country regardless of their citizenship. The fact that the
vessel was registered in Indonesia is likewise irrelevant. Thus, the killing
committed by Ms. M while onboard an Indonesian-registered vessel that
is docked at the port of Manila is triable within the jurisdiction of the
Philippines.
(b) Assuming that the provisions of the RPC can be applied against Ms.
M, what crime under the RPC should she be charged with? Explain.
(2%)
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 11 of 19
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ms. M should be charged with the crime of Homicide under the RPC.
Article 249 of the RPC punishes any person who shall kill another without
the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
248, including treachery. The suddenness of the attack does not by itself,
suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so
long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless
position was accidental [People v. Lubreo, 200SCRA11].
In a number of cases, the Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated
simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected [People v. Vilbar].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Ms. M should be charged with Murder. She killed Ms. A by
stealthily approaching the latter from behind and stabbing the latter’s
neck ith a pocketknife. Ms. M therefore employed means and methods
which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the planned
killing, without risk to herself arising from the defense which Ms. A
might make. Hence, there was treachery on Ms. M’s part, and treachery
qualifies an act of killing to Murder.
B.12.
In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal, was found guilty of three
(3) counts of Murder and was consequently sentenced with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count. A month after, he was likewise found
guilty of five (5) counts of Grave Threats in a separate criminal proceeding,
and hence, meted with the penalty of prision mayor for each count.
(a) What are the respective durations of the penalties of reclusion
perpetua and prision mayor? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 27 of the RPC, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years; while the duration of the penalty of
prision mayor shall be from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years.
(b) How long will Mr. N serve all his penalties of imprisonment?
Explain. (2.5%)
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 12 of 19
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mr. N will serve all this penalties of imprisonment for a total of 40
years. Under Art. 70 of the RPC, when the culprit has to serve two or more
penalties, he shall serve then simultaneously if the nature of the penalties
will so permit. However, the maximum duration of the convict’s sentence
shall not be more than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the
most severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to which
he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
equals the same maximum period. Such maximum period shall in no case
exceed 40 years.
(c) May Mr. N avail of the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
with respect to his convictions for Murder and Grave Threats?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
As to the crime of Murder, Mr. N cannot avail of the benefits of the
Intermediate Sentence Law (ISLAW). Reclusion perpetua is a single
indivisible penalty, with no minimum or maximum periods. Hence, the
ISLAW cannot be properly applied and a straight penalty of reclusion
perpetua should be imposed. However, ISLAW can be applied to the 5
counts of Grave Threats, so long as the penalty imposed for each count
does not exceed 6 years.
(d)Is Mr. N considered a habitual delinquent? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mr. N is not a habitual delinquent. Under Art. 62 of the RPC, a
person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent, if within the period
of 10 years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crimes
of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or
oftener. Here, Mr. N did not commit the specific crimes above mentioned.
B.13.
Mr. Q was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Serious Physical Injuries, and accordingly, was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6) months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1)
day of prision correccional, as maximum. He was also ordered to pay the
victim actual damages in the amount of'P50,000.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Was the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment proper? Explain. (3%)
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 13 of 19
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, subsidiary imprisonment does not apply to civil liability but
only for non-payment of fine. Here, there is no penalty of fine imposed by
the trial court.
B.14.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Mr. X and Mr. Y engaged in a violent fistfight which Mr. X instigated.
This culminated in Mr. X repeatedly smashing Mr. Y's head on the concrete
pavement. Thereafter, Mr. X left Mr. Y barely breathing and almost dead. A
few minutes after the incident, Mr. X immediately went to the police station
to confess what he did and told the police where he left Mr. Y. Fortunately,
the police rescued Mr. Y and he survived with the help of timely medical
intervention. Mr. X was then charged in court with Frustrated Homicide, to
which he openly confessed his guilt upon arraignment.
(a) Based on the above-stated facts, what is/are the mitigating
circumstance/s that may be appreciated in favor of Mr. X. Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mitigating circumstances of Voluntary Surrender and
Voluntary Confession of Guilt can be appreciated in Mr. X’s favor. Mr. X
voluntarily and immediately went to the police station after his altercation
with Mr. Y. He acknowledged his wrongdoing and saved the authorities’
time and investigative resources [People v. Gervacio, G.R. No. 107328
September 26, 1994]. This satisfies the requirements for Voluntary
Surrender.
Mr. X likewise voluntarily pleaded “Guilty” in open court during
his arraignment. This satisfies the requirements for a Voluntary
Confession of Guilt, (a) that the offender spontaneously confessed his
guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, or before the
competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt
was made prior to the presentation for the prosecution [People v. Bueza,
G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990].
(b) Under the Revised Penal Code, Homicide is punished with the penalty
of reclusion temporal. Without applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, what penalty should be imposed against Mr. X assuming that he
is found guilty of the charge of Frustrated Homicide, and that the
presence of two (2) ordinary mitigating circumstances have been duly
alleged and proven? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 14 of 19
Conformably with Art. 50 of the RPC, Frustrated Homicide is
punished with prision mayor, which is the penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony. Assuming that
two ordinary mitigating circumstances were duly alleged and proven, the
proper penalty should be prision correccional in its medium period. Under
Art. 64, par. 5, where there are two or more mitigating circumstances and
no aggravating circumstances are present, the court shall impose the
penalty next lower to that prescribed by law, in the period that it may
deem applicable, according to the number and nature of such
circumstances.
B.15.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
In June 2017, Mr. P was criminally charged with Qualified Theft under
the Revised Penal Code. After due proceedings, the Regional Trial Court
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, sentenced him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of six (6)
years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
and one (1) day, of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Thereafter, Mr. P
applied for probation.
(a) May Mr. P be extended the benefits of the Probation Law? Explain.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mr. P may not be extended the benefits of Probation Law
because he is a disqualified offender. Under Section 9 of PD 968, as
amended by RA 10707, the benefits of probation shall not be extended to
those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than
6 years.
(b) In what instance may an accused who appeals a judgment of
conviction still apply for probation? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 4 of PD 968, as amended by RA 10707, no application
for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. However, when a
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probationable penalty is
appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the
imposition of a probationable penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to
apply for probation based on the modified decision before such decision
becomes final.
B.16.
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 15 of 19
Ms. E was charged with the complex crime of Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents before the trial court. Prior to her
arraignment, Ms. E moved for the dismissal of the criminal case against her,
pointing out that the private offended party is her biological father, and that
such relationship is an absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC).
(a) Explain the concept of complex crimes under the RPC. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There are two kinds of complex crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC. The
first one is a compound crime, when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies. The second one is a complex crime proper
when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
(b) Is Ms. E's contention correct? Explain. (3%)
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ms. E’s contention is incorrect. While Art. 332 of the RPC
provides an absolutory cause for the crimes of theft, swindling or estafa,
and malicious mischief against defendants, the exemption does not apply
to complex crimes.
B.17.
One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of ABC Corp., happened to
bump into the Labor Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case filed by
certain employees against his company. During their encounter, Mr. X
promised the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a favorable ruling.
The Labor Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and walked away.
(a) What crime did Mr. X commit under the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
if any? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mr. X committed the crime of Attempted Corruption of a Public
Official. He offered to give the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for
a favorable ruling on a pending illegal dismissal case. By making such
offer, Mr. X already commenced the performance of material acts of
execution in corrupting the Labor Arbiter. He was not able to perform all
the material acts of execution only because the Labor Arbiter refused to
accept the offer [Pozar v. CA, G.R. No. L-62439, October 23, 1984].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 16 of 19
Mr. X committed no crime. Because there was no acceptance, there is
no crime, and therefore, no penalty should be imposed. Nullum crimen
nulla poena sine lege. There is no crime where there is no law punishing it.
(b) Assuming that Mr. X's offer was instead accepted, should the Labor
Arbiter be held liable for any crime under the RPC? If so, for what
crime? May the Labor Arbiter also be held liable for violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter should be held liable for Direct Bribery. Under
Art. 210 of the RPC, public officer commits direct bribery by accepting a
gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties. By
accepting Mr. X’s offer of a luxury car, the Labor Arbiter agreed to render
a ruling in Mr. X’s favor.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
The Labor Arbiter may also be held liable for violation of RA 3019,
or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Under Sec. 3(e), it is
considered a corrupt practice of any public officer to cause any undue
injury to any party, including the Government, or give any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality
when evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. There is manifest
partiality when there is a clear, notorious or plain inclination or
predilection to favor one side or person rather than another [Fuentes v.
People, G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017]. Here, the Labor Arbiter committed
manifest partiality in favor of Mr. X.
B.18.
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of
Municipality M. Accordingly, the local government passed an appropriation
in the amount of Pl,000,000.00 to implement a Calamity Assistance Program
for the typhoon victims, and the funds therefor were eventually earmarked
for the purpose. Upon the orders, however, of Mayor T of Municipality M,
these funds were disbursed for the reconstruction of the municipal hall
which was substantially damaged by the typhoon. According to Mayor T,
the reconstruction of the municipal hall was a more pressing concern than
the relief program because the vital functions of the local government would
be impeded if the said structure would not be immediately fixed.
What crime did Mayor T commit under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 17 of 19
Mayor T committed the crime of Technical Malversation under
Article 220 of the RPC. In this crime, public fund or property is considered
appropriated if it had been earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific
expenditure [Dela Cuesta v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 164068-69,
November 19, 2013]. The law punishes the act of diverting public property
earmarked for a particular public purpose to another public purpose
[Ysidro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012].
B.19.
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Ms. L, dean of a duly recognized private school, caught K, one of her
students, vandalizing one of the school's properties. Ms. L called K's
attention and proceeded to scold him, causing a crowd to gather around
them. Embarrassed with the situation, K attacked Ms. L by repeatedly
punching her on the face. Just as K was about to strike Ms. L again, J, another
student, intervened. K then turned his anger on J and also hit him repeatedly,
causing him physical injuries.
What crime/s did K commit under the Revised Penal Code for his acts
against Ms. L and J? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
K committed two counts of Direct Assault. The elements of direct
assault under Art. 148 of the RPC are: 1) that the offender makes an attack,
employs force, makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious resistance;
2) that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; 3) that at
the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in
the actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason
of the past performance of official duties; 4) that the offender knows that
the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise
of his duties; and 5) that there is no public uprising. Art. 152 further
provides that teachers, professors, and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges, and
universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on
the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority.
Here, all the elements of direct assault are present, where K repeatedly
punched Ms. L, a person in authority engaged in the performance of her
official duties.
K also committed Direct Assault against J. Art. 152 states that any
person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an
agent of a person in authority. Here, while K was attacking Ms. L, K also
hit J, an agent of a person in authority who came to the aid of a person in
authority [Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010].
B.20.
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 18 of 19
Mr. S, a businessman and information technology practitioner,
claimed to have devised an innovative business model. He would diligently
compile a list of known personalities and entities in the fields of
entertainment, arts, culture, and sports, and acquire numerous domain
names in the internet using the names of these known personalities and
entities for the purpose of selling these registered domain names to said
personalities and entities in the future.
Does Mr. S's "innovative business model" expose him to any criminal
liability under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? If so, for what
crime? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BRIGTDEJESUS2020
Yes. Mr. S’s “business model” exposes him to liability for Cyber
Squatting under Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
Cyber Squatting is the acquisition of a domain name over the internet in
bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from
registering the same, if such a domain name is: (i) similar, identical or
confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the
appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name
registration; (ii) identical or in any way similar with the name of a person
other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and (iii) acquired
without right or with intellectual property interests in it.
-END OF PART II
UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 19 of 19