CRIMINAL LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related Special Laws
A.
Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC; exclude the provisions on civil liability)
1. Fundamental principles ................................................................................ 1
a) Definition of Criminal Law ....................................................................... 1
(i) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita
(ii) Construction of penal laws
b) Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law ....... 30
(i) Generality....................................................................................... 32
(ii) Territoriality..................................................................................... 32
(iii) Prospectivity .................................................................................. 36
(a) Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
c) Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws 36
(i) Equal protection ............................................................................. 37
(ii) Due process .................................................................................. 37
(iii) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines
(a) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 9346)
(iv) Bill of attainder ............................................................................... 39
(v) Ex post facto law ........................................................................... 39
2. Felonies ..................................................................................................... 39
a) Classifications of felonies ...................................................................... 40
b) Elements of criminal liability .................................................................. 40
c) Impossible crime ................................................................................... 45
d) Stages of execution .............................................................................. 51
e) Conspiracy and proposal....................................................................... 53
f) Multiple offenders (differences, rules, effects) ....................................... 73
(i) Recidivism
(ii) Habituality (Reiteracion)
(iii) Quasi-Recidivism
(iv) Habitual Delinquency
g) Continuing crimes .................................................................................. 78
h) Complex crimes and special complex crimes ......................................... 79
3. Circumstances affecting criminal liability .................................................... 96
a) Justifying circumstances ........................................................................ 97
(i) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(R.A. No. 9262)
(a) Battered woman syndrome
b) Exempting circumstances .................................................................... 108
(i) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also
refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
.................................................................................................... 115
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility
(c) Determination of age
(d) Exemption from criminal liability
(e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility
(f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 9344
(g) Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58 of R.A. No.
9344
c) Mitigating circumstances ...................................................................... 121
d) Aggravating circumstances .................................................................. 129
(i) Generic ......................................................................................... 129
(ii) Qualifying ..................................................................................... 136
(a) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended
by R.A. No. 8294) as an aggravating circumstance
(b) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165)
(i) As a qualifying aggravating circumstance
(ii) Immunity from prosecution and punishment, coverage
(iii) Minor offenders
(iv) Application/Non- application of RPC provisions (Sec. 98,
R.A. No. 9165) provisions (Sec. 98) cf. Art. 10, RPC
e) Alternative circumstances .................................................................... 141
f) Absolutory cause .................................................................................. 141
4. Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation ...................................... 142
a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of
Criminal Offenders (P.D. 1829) .......................................................... 156
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal
liability)
5. Penalties .................................................................................................. 157
a) General principles ................................................................................. 162
(i) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines
(R.A. No. 9346)
b) Purposes.............................................................................................. 168
c) Classification ........................................................................................ 168
d) Duration and Effect .............................................................................. 168
e) Application ........................................................................................... 168
(i) Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence
(b) Coverage
(c) Conditions of parole
(ii) Three-fold rule
(iii) Subsidiary imprisonment
f) Execution and service ........................................................................... 179
(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended) ....................................... 180
(a) Definition of terms
(b) Purpose
(c) Grant of probation, manner and conditions
(d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation
(e) Disqualified offenders
(f) Period of probation
(g) Arrest of probationer
(h) Termination of probation; exception
(i) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165)
(ii) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also
refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended) 184
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Exemption from criminal liability
(c) Juvenile justice and welfare system
6. Modification and extinction of criminal liability .......................................... 194
a) Prescription of crime; Prescription of Violations of Special Laws (Act. No.
3326) ................................................................................................. 198
b) Prescription of penalties ...................................................................... 199
c) Pardon by offended party .................................................................... 206
d) Pardon by the Chief Executive ............................................................ 206
e) Amnesty .............................................................................................. 206
B. Book II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and specifically included Special Laws
1. Crimes Against National Security (Arts. 114-123) .................................... 209
Include:
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) ............................ 211
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Hijacking Law (P.D. 6235) .......................................................... 214
(i) Punishable acts
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) .................................... 214
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
2. Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State (Articles 124-133) .... 214
Include:
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Period of detention
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9745)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable
3. Crimes Against Public Order (Articles 134-160) ....................................... 218
Include:
a) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294), as further
amended by the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act (R.A. No. 10591) .......................................................................... 240
b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) ..................................... 241
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Absorption principle in relation to complex crimes
4. Crimes Against Public Interest (Articles 161-187) .................................... 241
Include:
a) R.A. No. 9194 – Anti-Money Laundering Act ...................................... 245
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Covered Transactions
(iii) Suspicious Transactions
5. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs ............................... 247
a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) . 248
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability
(iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment
(v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
b) Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 .............. 248
6. Crimes Against Public Morals (Articles 200-202) ..................................... 253
Include:
a) P.D. 1602 – Anti-Gambling Act as amended by R.A. 9287 – Illegal
Numbers Game – which repealed Articles 195-199 of the RPC
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
7. Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Articles 203-245) ......................... 255
Include:
a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended) .. 274
(i) Coverage
(ii) Punishable acts
(iii) Exceptions
b) Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended) .................................. 284
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Ill-gotten wealth
(iii) Plunder
(iv) Series/Combination
(v) Pattern
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) .................................... 286
(i) Failure to deliver suspect to proper judicial authority
(ii) Infidelity in the custody of detained persons
(iii) False prosecution
8. Crimes Against Persons (Articles 246-266) .............................................. 286
Include:
a) Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9775)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Unlawful or punishable acts
c) Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049) ...................................................... 318
(i) Hazing
(a) Definition
(b) Allowed initiation rites
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Punishable acts
d) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as amended) ............................... 319
(i) Coverage
(ii) Child prostitution, punishable acts
(iii) Child trafficking, punishable acts
e) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344), as further
amended by the Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 10630). Read in relation with the Child and
Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(i) Punishable acts
f) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
9. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security (Articles 267-292) ............ 322
Include:
a) Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200) ............................................. 336
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Exceptions
b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) ..................................... 338
(i) Surveillance of suspects and interception and
recording of communications
(ii) Restriction on travel
(iii) Examination of bank deposits and documents
(a) Judicial Authorization
(b) Application
(iv) Unauthorized revelation of classified materials
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208) ..................... 338
(i) Punishable acts
10. Crimes Against Property (Articles 293-332) ............................................. 338
Include:
a) Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations......................................................................................... 376
(i) Fencing
Definition
Presumption of fencing
(ii) Exception
(a) With clearance or permit to sell
b) Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), plus Administrative Circular No.
12-2000 Re: Penalty for Violation of B.P. 22 and Administrative Circular
No. 13-2001 Re: Clarification of Admin. Circular No. 12-2000; and P.D.
No. 1689 (Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or
Estafa) ............................................................................................... 380
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
(iii) Preference of imposition of fine
c) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), as amended by R.A. No.
7659 .................................................................................................. 387
(i) Registration
(iii) Who are liable
(a) Duty of Collector of Customs
(b) Duty of importers, distributors and sellers
(c) Clearance and permit
(iv) Punishable acts
d) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) ..................................... 389
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
e) Anti-Arson Law (P.D. 1613) .............................................................. 389
(i) Punishable acts
11. Crimes Against Chastity (Articles 333-334, 336-346) ............................... 389
Include:
a) Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9995)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as
amended)
(i) Child prostitution and other acts of abuse
(a) Punishable acts
(b) Compare prosecution for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art.
366, RPC and R.A. No. 7610, as amended
(ii) Obscene publications and indecent shows
(a) Punishable acts
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
d) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262)
(i) Punishable acts
12. Crimes Against Civil Status (Articles 347-352) ......................................... 396
13. Crimes Against Honor (Articles 353-364) ................................................. 401
Include:
a) Administrative Circular 08-2008 Re: Guidelines in the
(a)
(b)
Observance of a Rule of Preference in the Imposition of
Penalties in Libel Cases
(i) Preference of imposition of fine
14. Criminal Negligence (Article 365) ............................................................. 412
EXCLUDE: a. Penalties for specific crimes
b. Special criminal laws not included in the above listing
I. Revised Penal Code (RPC) and related Special Laws
A. Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC) [Exclude the provisions on civil liability]
1. Fundamental principles
a) Definition of Criminal Law
Principles of public international law exempt certain individuals from the
Generality characteristic of criminal law. Who among the following are NOT
exempt from the Generality rule? (2011 BAR)
(A) Ministers Resident
(B) Commercial Attache of a foreign country
(C) Ambassador
(D) Chiefs of Mission
The maxim "Nullum crimen nula poena sine lege" means that (2011 BAR)
(A) the act is criminal at the time of its commission and recognized as such at the
time of its commission but the penalty therefor is prescribed in a subsequently
enacted law.
(B) the act is criminal and punished under and pursuant to common law.
(C) there is a crime for as long as the act is inherently evil.
(D) crime is a product of the law.
When a penal law is absolutely repealed such that the offense is decriminalized, a
pending case charging the accused of the repealed crime is to be (2011 BAR)
(A) prosecuted still since the charge was valid when filed.
(B) dismissed without any precondition.
(C) dismissed provided the accused is not a habitual delinquent.
(D) prosecuted still since the offended party has a vested interest in the repealed
law.
It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals will kill others or
commit serious offenses for no reason at all. For this reason, (2011 BAR)
(A) lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the accused's part
in it are shown.
(B) motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal intent.
(C) lack of motive precludes conviction.
(D) the motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial.
Motive is generally IMMATERIAL in determining criminal liability EXCEPT when
(2011 BAR)
(A) several offenders committed the crime but the court wants to ascertain which
of them acted as leader.
(B) the evidence of the crime consists of both direct and circumstantial evidence.
(C) ascertaining the degree of penalty that may be imposed on the offender.
Page 1 of 417
Criminal Law
(D) the evidence of guilt of the accused is circumstantial.
X inflicted serious injuries on Y. Because of delay in providing medical treatment
to Y, he died. Is X criminally liable for the death of Y? (2011 BAR)
(A) Yes because the delay did not break the causal connection between X's
felonious act and the injuries sustained by Y.
(B) Yes because any intervening cause between the infliction of injury and death
is immaterial.
(C) No because the infliction of injury was not the immediate cause of the death.
(D) No because the delay in the administration of the medical treatment was an
intervening cause.
X inflicted violent kicks on vital parts of E's body. E nevertheless was able to flee
for fear of his life. Refusing to undergo treatment for his injuries, E died 3 days
later. Is X liable for E’s death? (2011 BAR)
(A) No, since kicks on the body cannot cause death.
(B) No, since it took too long for death to occur.
(C) Yes, since E cannot be compelled to undergo medical treatment.
(D) Yes, since it was a natural result of the injuries X inflicted on E.
What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew murders the Filipino captain
on board a vessel of Russian registry while the vessel is anchored outside the
breakwaters of the Manila bay? (2011 BAR)
(A) The Indonesian court.
(B) The Russian court.
(C) The Philippine court.
(D) Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case.
Criminal law – Wrongful acts which are not per se considered as criminal offense
After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of
enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant
allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition.
May the military officers be criminally charged in court with enforced
disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is not per se a criminal offense
although it is wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does not
establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific overt acts
shown to have been committed by the respondent military officers and such acts are
crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be routinely filed just because the
petition for the writ was granted.
Page 2 of 417
Criminal Law
Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain.
(3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount to criminal
offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no law punishing an act or
omission as a crime.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Simultaneous prosecution of two
different offenses
May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the government
be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the AntiSubversion Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the
elements of the two offenses differ.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
reasonable doubt
Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir
when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious,
he scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of
the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with
the proper offense.
During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante
contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only
to the newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the
gate.
If you were the judge, what will be your ruling? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution convincingly show a
clear link between the accused and the cut logs piled outside the gate of the watershed,
I will hold the accused criminally liable not only for the newly cut logs in their possession
but also for those found outside the gate. Circumstantial evidence proving that the
accused and no other persons could have done the cutting of the logs, such as the
Page 3 of 417
Criminal Law
manner of cutting the logs, the area where they cut the logs they were carrying, and
other indications pointing to them as the culprits may be considered.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge I will rule in favor of Rene and Dante. The liability of Rene and Dante
is limited only to the newly cut logs found in their possession unless convincingly proved
that were the ones who brought out the logs found outside the gate.
It is fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that the guilt of the accused must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt in order to be convicted for the crime charged.
The facts of the case at bar does not show that Rene and Dante were the ones who
took and brought out the logs found outside the gate. Culpability not having been
sufficiently proved, they should not be held liable.
(i) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita
Choose from the list below the correct principle in considering "motive". (2013
BAR)
(A)
If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is essential.
(B)
Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the accused
if the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of
identification is convincing.
(C)
Motive is important to ascertain the truth between two antagonistic
theories.
(D)
Motive is relevant if the identity of the accused is uncertain.
(E)
All of the above are correct.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles - Mala in se and crimes mala prohibita
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implications, between crimes
mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In concept:
Crimes mala 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:
Page 4 of 417
Criminal Law
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 prohibita, criminal liability is generally
incurred 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.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita; motive; intent
Distinguish “mala in se” from “mala prohibita “motive” from “intent”. (3%) (1999
Bar Question)
When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be
established? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
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.
Page 5 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala in se; mala prohibita
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? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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, etaL, (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
perse 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.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles - mala in se and mala prohibita
A. Distinguish crime mala in se from crimes mala prohibita. (1988 Bar Question)
B. May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain. (1988 Bar
Question)
C. When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies? (1988
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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 prohibita, 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.
Page 6 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
When are light felonies punishable? (2012 BAR)
a) Light felonies are punishable in all stages of execution.
b) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated.
c) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
d) Light felonies are punishable only when committed against persons or
property.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles - Malum in se and Malum prohibitum
Distinguish malum in se from malum prohibitum (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malum in se is a crime where the act done is inherently bad, evil and wrong in
nature, such that it is generally condemned. The moral traits of the offender are taken
into account in punishing the crime.
Malum prohibitum is a crime where the act done is not inherently bad, evil or wrong
but prohibited by law for public good and welfare. Anyone who voluntarily commits the
prohibited act incurs the crime.
(ii) Construction of penal laws
Criminal law – Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of pro reo
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code? (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to
be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to and
consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
Page 7 of 417
Criminal Law
Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes
are complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e that prescribed for the most
serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the
accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser
perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal
resolutions. (People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48 shall be
applied only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the
penalties imposable for all the component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of
being complexed.
The acquittal of an accused shall bar the civil action arising from the crime where
the judgment of acquittal holds that __________. (2013 BAR)
(A)
the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
(B)
the liability of the accused is not criminal but civil in nature
(C)
the civil liability does not arise from or is not based on the criminal act for
which the accused has been acquitted
(D)
the accused did not commit the act imputed to him
Subsidiary liability may be imposed on the following, except __________. (2013
BAR)
(A)
innkeepers, in relation to the crime committed in their establishment
(B)
employers engaged in industry, for the crime committed by their
employees
(C)
parents of minors who act with discernment in committing crimes
(D)
hospital administrators or owners, for crimes committed by their hospital
nurses
Luis was sentenced to prision mayor and to pay a fine of P50,000.00, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Is the sentence correct?
(2013
BAR)
(A) Yes, because Luis has no property to pay for the fine, so he must suffer the
equivalent imprisonment provided by law in lieu of fine.
(B) No, because subsidiary imprisonment is applicable only when the penalty
imposed is prision correccional or below.
(C) Yes, because the sentence says so.
(D) No, because the subsidiary imprisonment is applicable only when the penalty
imposed is limited to a fine.
(E) None of the above.
The death of the accused extinguishes his criminal liability but civil liability is not
extinguished. (2013 BAR)
(A)
when the death of the accused occurred before conviction
(B)
when the death of the accused occurred after conviction and after he has
perfected his appeal from conviction
(C)
when the death of the accused occurred during the pendency of his
appeal
Page 8 of 417
Criminal Law
(D)
(E)
when the death of the accused occurred after final judgment
None of the above.
Criminal law – Civil liability -Restitution; reparation
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a
hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from
the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key
and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the
car was worth P800,000.00. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for restitution of the car to the
government, or if no longer possible, reparation of the damages caused by payment of
the replacement cost of the car minus allowance for depreciation, and to indemnify
consequential damages.
Criminal law – Civil liability – Subsidiary liability of the employer
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max,
bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries, which
required medical attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto
mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5.000 and to pay PI,000 as
attorney's fees.
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but
was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ
of execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on the ground that the
decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not
impleaded in the case.
How will you resolve the motion? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an
industry (transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly
liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no
mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself
mandates for such liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law
is never excused. And since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his
Page 9 of 417
Criminal Law
employee cannot pay, he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices
that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and
thus given the opportunity to be heard.
Criminal law –Civil liability - Indemnity
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and
killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was
exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the
victim. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in
Article 247, Revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the
light of the pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty.
Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no
criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro was committed, which is death
under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal law – Civil liability - Damages
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to
substantiate the heirs’ claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses
for the wake and burial.
What kind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much? 5%
(2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The damages that the trial court may award are:
Page 10 of 417
Criminal Law
a. civil indemnity for the loss of life of the victim which jurisprudence has set at
P50,000.00;
b. Moderate/temperate damages for the expenses incurred for the wake and
burial of the victim as the trial court may consider reasonable; and
c. Moral damages for the sufferings of the family of the victim emotionally and
mentally.
Criminal law – Acquittal in a criminal prosecution; Institution of civil action
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette
vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside
B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the
traffic light While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some
cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While
the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car
immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Qulapo, A clung to
the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did
not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was
charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced
with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable
doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal
of C? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal.
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act
or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence
(Art. 29, CC).
If A’s family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil
action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate
and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Arts. 31,
2176. 2177, CC).
Criminal law – Criminal liability; total and partial extinguishment – Acquittal in
relation to civil liability
a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? (1988 Bar Question)
Page 11 of 417
Criminal Law
b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? (1988 Bar Question)
c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment?
(1988 Bar Question)
Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total
extinction of criminal liability:
1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities,
liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.
b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of partial
extinction of criminal liability:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Condition pardon
Communication of sentence
Good conduct allowances during confinement
Parole
Probation
If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from
the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If there is an
express waiver of the liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate civil action
(Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs. Jalandoni).
Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability
Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar
central, while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck
resulting in injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of
homicide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the
deceased Ahad P12,000.00. The respondent judge issued an order granting a
motion for execution of the civil service liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but
the return of the Sheriff showed that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners,
heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for execution of the employers
subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent judge
denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having been notified
Page 12 of 417
Criminal Law
that his driver was facmg a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed.
Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed.
Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver
was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a
notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 103
of the Revised Penal Code (that there is employer-employee relationship, that the
employer is engaged in an industry and that the driver is insolvent).
Criminal law – Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability
For defrauding Loma, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case
was pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Loma who
was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that
with Loma's death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished.
Is Alma’s contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her
criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
a. Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of
the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed
against the State (People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil
liability of Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate
of Loma can continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her
criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised
Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be
instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasidelicts (People vs.
Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2, 1994).
b. Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil
liability, are:
Page 13 of 417
Criminal Law
1. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained
of as a felony;
2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity;
4. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil
obligation;
5. Where there was a proper reservation forthe filing of a separate civil action;
6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31,32,33 and 34 of the
New Civil Code;
7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which
the civil liability might arise did not exist (Saplera vs. CA. 314 SCRA370);
8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is acquitted (Saplera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370).
Note : Only two (2) exceptions are asked.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit
of desistance; effect thereof
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual
intercourse with him. Rachel’s mother immediately filed a complaint, supported
by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor’s Office, After the necessary
preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did
not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the
case. Resolve with reasons.
After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit
of desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer
interested in prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel.
What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil
aspects of the case? Explain fully. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People vs. Horde,
125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the
parents in the Fiscal’s Office.
The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but
not criminal liability hence the case should still proceed.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – effect of death of the accused on civil
liability
Page 14 of 417
Criminal Law
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the
total amount of P250,000.00. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme
Court, PM died. The defense counsel manifested that PM’s death extinguished
not only the criminal liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death
occurred before the final judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He
invoked
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “criminal liability is totally
extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as
to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before the final judgment*’
As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the
defense counsel’s argument? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense counsel that
the death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his criminal liability
but also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
the “pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurred before the final judgment”, refers to his liability to pay the fine.
(People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the
death of the offender because death is not a valid cause of the extinguishment of civil
obligation. (Tonijos vs. Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394).
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Civil action for recovery of property not
subject to confiscation; jurisdiction
Jose. Pedro and Juan, robbed ABC Bank of P200,000.00 and using a stolen
car, immediately proceeded to Quezon City. The police recovered the money and
the car. After the trial, during which the bank lawyer intervened as private
prosecutor, the court convicted Jose, Pedro and Juan of robbery and ordered
the forfeiture of the money (P200,000.00) and the car in favor of the government
as proceeds and instrument of the crime, respectively. The bank lawyer received
copy of the judgment, but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro and Juan did not
appeal the judgment, and began service of sentence. Two months later, realizing
that the court did not order the return of the money to the bank, the bank lawyer
filed a motion for modification of the judgment and prayed that the money be
ordered returned to the bank. Two months later, Armando, the owner of the
stolen car, learned of the judgment even much later. He comes to you seeking
your well considered opinion on whether it is still possible to recover his car.
Page 15 of 417
Criminal Law
A. As legal counsel, what will you tell him? Explain briefly. (1987 Bar Question)
B. Under the facts given, would the bank be entitled to the return of the money?
Why? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file a civil action for the recovery of his
car against its legal custodian. The car was stolen and therefore it belonged to
Armando, an innocent party, who has not participated in the commission of the robbery
by Jose, Pedro and Juan. The car, is therefore, not subject to confiscation.
B. The motion of the bank lawyer for the modification of the judgment with the prayer
that the money be ordered returned to the bank must be denied. The judgment is
already final and so the court has no more “jurisdiction” over the case (People vs. Velez
15 SCRA 26).
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Effect of death of accused on criminal
and civil liability
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart by the Regional
Trial Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life
imprisonment, to in-demnify Letty in the amount of P30.000.00 and to support
their offspring. Pending appeal in the Supreme Court. Rico died. His widow,
Bemie, moved for a dismissal of the case
A. What is the legal effect of Rico’s death on his criminal liability? Explain your
answer. (1990 Bar Question)
B. How about on his civil liability? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code which provides that: “ How criminal liability is extinguished - Criminal
liability is totally extiguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgement.
B. The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20, 1978, 74
O.G. 4371; People v. Tirol G.R. No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People v. Naboa, et,
al.,132 SCRA 410).
Page 16 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Fundamental principles - effect death of the accused pending
appeal on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities
Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties
provided by law - a fine of P6.000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
in-solvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government
in the amount of P6.000.00 and to pay the costs.
If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his
criminal and pecuniary liabilities? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 89. RPC and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose. 71 SCRA 273, People
vs. Alison. 44 SCRA 523; etc.) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his
criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine.
Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In Peiralba vs. Sandiganbayan. 200 SCRA 644, however, extinction of criminal
liability arising from the death of the accused pending appeal likewise extinguishes the
pecuniary liability such as fine, but not the civil liability, such as the indemnification of
P6.000.00 in the instant case. The same is a claim of the government against the estate
but ONLY IF THE OFFENSE CAN BE PROVED in the appellate court. In other words',
the latter should still decide the appeal as far as the civil liability of P6.000.00 is
concerned.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Criminal and civil liability; when
extinguished
A. AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The
trial court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay P150.000 as civil
indemnity and damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident.
He left a young widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if
any, of his death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is
pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the
crime and recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but
indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of
Page 17 of 417
Criminal Law
obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236SCRA 239 11994B.
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable
only if the accused had been convicted with finality before he died.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Proof of motive; when not required
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and
the liabilities of the perpetrators. What are the instances where proof of motive is
not essential or required to justify conviction of an accused? Give at least 3
instances. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Proof of motive is not required –
a. Where the offender is positively identified or
b. has admitted the commission of the crime (People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26 (1984]
citing People v. Realon, et. al., 94 SCRA 422 [1980]);
c. Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or
d. Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negligence.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti
A. Define “corpus delicti". (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. What are the elements of "corpus delicti"? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a
crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who
committed it. (People vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789).
B. Elements of corpus delicti:
The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a
compound fact made up of two things:
1. the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge;
and
2. the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result
The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti
Page 18 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Corpus delicti
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarrelling
with B and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his
house, after which he returned to the party and threatened to stab everybody. B
got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep
incline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear. B jumped
from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of their confrontation and
seeing that nobody was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife
reported to the police station that her husband had not yet come home. A search
was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or
his body could not be located and his disappearance continued for the next few
days. Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on
top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he
claimed that since B’s body has not been found, there was no evidence of
"corpus delicti' and therefore, he should be acquitted.
Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense of Ais not tenable. "Corpus delicti' does not refer to the body of the
purported victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported
victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of
a crime, the body of the crime or “corpus delicti' is established.
In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the
prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Special laws– RA 7613 and RA 3019 – Requirement of filing Statements of Assets
and Liabilities
Robert Sy, a well-known businessman and a founding member of the Makati
Business Club, aside from being a classmate of the newly-elected President of
the Philippines, had investments consisting of shares of stocks in the Urban
Bank, the PNB, the Rural Bank of Caloocan City and his privately-owned
corporation, the RS Builders Corporation and Trans-Pacific Air. After the
President had taken his oath and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as
Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam. Robert took his oath before the
President and after furnishing the Department of Foreign Affairs with his
appointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi Min City, where he organized his
staff, put up an office and stayed there for three months attending to trade
opportunities and relations with local businessman. On the fourth month, he
Page 19 of 417
Criminal Law
returned to the Philippines to make his report to the President. However, the AntiGraft League of the Philippines filed a complaint against Robert for (1) failing to
file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities within thirty (30) days from
assumption of office; (2) failing to resign from his businesses, and (3) failing to
divest his shares and investments in the banks and corporations owned by him,
as required by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.
Will the complaint prosper? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint will not prosper because the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. No. 6713), expressly exempts those who
serve the Government in an honorary capacity from filing Statements of Assets and
Liabilities, and from resigning and divesting themselves of interest from any private
enterprise (Secs. 8A and 9).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the complaint will prosper under Sec. 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended), which requires all public officers within 30 days
from assuming public office to file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and
liabilities. Violations of inis law are mala prohibita which admits of no excuses.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Absence of corpus delicti
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took
turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang
down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased
her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never
seen again.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The corpus delicti or fact of commission of the crime is clear. Even the death
of Lyn may be established from the acts of the culprits, without the need of the body of
Lyn being presented.
Page 20 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law –Fundamental principles – Theories; motive; criminal intent
A. What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and
describe each briefly. (1996 Bar Question)
B. To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong? (1996 Bar Question)
C. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (1996 Bar Question)
D. May crime be committed without criminal intent? (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. 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.
D. 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.
Criminal law- Concepts – Preventive imprisonment
1) When is there preventive imprisonment? (1994 Bar Question)
2) When is the accused credited with the full time of his preventive
imprisonment, and when is he credited with 4/5 thereof? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) There is preventive imprisonment when (a) an offender is detained while the
criminal case against him is being heard, either because the crime committed is a
Page 21 of 417
Criminal Law
capital offense and not bailable, or even if the crime committed was bailable, the
offender could not post the required bail for his provisional liberty.
2) An accused is credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment if he
voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed upon its
prisoners, provided that:
a. the penalty imposed on him for the crime committed consists of a deprivation of
liberty:
b. he is not disqualified from such credit for being a recidivist, or for having been
previously convicted for two or more times of any crime, or for having failed to
surrender voluntarily for the execution of the sentence upon being so summoned (Art.
29, RPC).
Where the accused however did not agree he would only be credited with 4/5 of
the time he had undergone preventive imprisonment.
The police officer in civilian clothes asked X where he can buy shabu. X
responded by asking the officer how much of the drug he needed. When he told
him, X left, returned after a few minutes with the shabu, gave it to the officer, and
took his money. X is (2011 BAR)
(A) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.
(B) not liable for selling since the police operation was an invalid entrapment.
(C) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid form of instigation.
(D) not liable since the police operation was an invalid instigation.
Criminal law – Concepts – warrantless arrest; entrapment; in relation to
prohibited drugs
Members of the Narcotics Command, upon learning from an informer that
Tee Moy, notorious drug lord was plying his trade and selling methamphetamine
hydrocholide (popularly known as shabu) in a motel at Bambang St, planned a
buy-bust operation to capture him. Camotes was to enter the lobby of the motel
where Tee Mqy hangs around and pose as buyer. The moment the drug vendor
hands the drug to him. Camotes would scratch his ear as a signal to his
companions deployed near the motel entrance.
So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near the registration desk, approached
the latter. When asked if he would like a “score”, he answered in the affirmative.
He was then handed a matchbox with the assurance that it contained the drug,
for which he gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the
NARCOM agents rushed inside and arrested Tee Moy.
In the course of time, Tee Moy was prosecuted for the crimes of
possession and sale of prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. During
the trial, his counsel interposed the following defenses:
Page 22 of 417
Criminal Law
a) The arrest, having been effected without a warrant of arrest, was
violative of Tee Moy’s constitutional rights.
b) Accused was the victim of a frame-up instigated by the law enforcement
officers, such that he was practically forced to sell his goods to a total
stranger which was abnormal and unrealistic for one in the kind of
business he is in.
c) The prosecution deliberately failed to present the informer as a witness
so that he could have been subjected to cross-examination by the
counsel for the accused.
d) Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession
and sale of prohibited drugs but of only one criminal offense.
e) Tee Moy was made to sign a Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM
headquarters which has been admitted as evidence against him, thus
violating his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
If you were the prosecutor, how would you traverse the above arguments of
counsel for the accused? Take up each number separately. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. There is no need for a warrant of arrest, as this falls under the instances of
warrantless airest sanctioned by law, where a public officer or private individual
may arrest a person if, in his personal presence, the person arrested is actually
committing, is about to commit, or has just committed a crime.
b. This is a pure case of entrapment as Tee Moy has already decided to commit a
crime and the agents of persons in authority merely devised ways and means to
entrap him. There was no inducement of Tee Moy as the latter precisely decided
to make a “score” or sale. No pressure or investigation was applied on him.
c. Failure to present the informer is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the
testimony of the latter will be merely corroborative to the testimony of the other
witnesses who were eye-witnesses to the commission of the crime. There are
sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
d. While as a general rule the offense of possession is integrated in selling
prohibited drugs, in this case, I will argue that, the quantity of the drugs
confiscated from Tee Moy was so large that it cannot be deemed absorbed in
the crime of “pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the matchbox with shabu
inside, was not the only evidence taken from the accused.
The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee Moy was merely presented as part of the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and such evidence is not material to the
conviction of the accused. Again, overwhelming evidence are presented that inevitably
supports conviction.
Criminal law – Concepts – Delito continuado and continuing offense
Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense. (1994 Bar Question)
Page 23 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of
division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and
violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a
particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence
of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and impelled by a
single criminal impulse (People vs, Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
On the other hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential Ingredients took
place in more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution
may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such
municipality or city.
The term “continued crime" or delito continuado mandates that only one
information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were
performed; the term “continuing crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the
venue where the criminal action may be instituted.
Criminal law – Concepts - Doctrine of aberratio ictus
At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting
Tiburcio instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine
of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal liability.
If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of
Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the
commission of two felonies, one grave (homicide) and the other less grave (attempted
homicide) thus falling squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the
more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to
20 years).
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an
exempting circumstance. Pedrito is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC. which
makes a person criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act.
Page 24 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter
intentionem
X, without intent to kill, aimed his gun at Z and fired it, hitting the latter who died
as a consequence. Under the circumstances (2011 BAR)
(A) X cannot plead praetor intentionem since the intent to kill is presumed from
the killing of the victim.
(B) X may plead praetor intentionem since he intended only to scare, not kill Z.
(C) X may plead aberratio ictus as he had no intention to hit Z.
(D) X may plead commission of only Discharge of Firearm as he had no intent to
kill Z when he fired his gun.
What do you understand by aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem are the three ways by
which a person may commit a felony although the wrongful act done is different from
that which he intended.
In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the blow meaning to say that the offender
intending to cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack
of precision, as far for example when A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the latter but
because of poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical
injury.
In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim, as for instance,
when A, intending to kill B, his enemy lay in ambush for the latter to pass along a dark
alley. Because of the darkness, A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking him to
be B. It turned out that the person shot was C, A's father.
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the
offender, the act exceeds the intent, as for instance, where A, without intent to kill,
strikes B with his fist at the back of the head, causing B to fall down with his head hitting
the asphalt pavement, resulting in the fracture of his head that caused his death.
The presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the accused.
Thus:
In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the offender, that which
he intended to commit and that which he actually committed. But if these two offenses
are both either grave or less grave, since they are produced by one single act, a
complex crime will result.
Page 25 of 417
Criminal Law
In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the crime actually
committed by him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty for the
crime actually committed or that for the crime intended to be committed. Which ever is
lower, but the same will be imposed in its maximum period.
In the case praeter intentionem, the offended, will incur criminal liability for the
felony actually committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating circumstance
of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed.
Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus and error in personae
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended
victim. Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was
directed at the person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio
ictus brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence. i.e the attempted felony on
the intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit.
A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in
personae only one crime is committed.
Criminal law – Concepts - Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter
intentionem
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
(1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended
victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty
for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is
only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.
Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the
victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake
in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in
Page 26 of 417
Criminal Law
which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed
shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49. RPC).
Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or
foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.
Criminal law – Concepts –Heinous crimes
a) What are heinous crimes? (1995 Bar Question)
b) Name ten (10) specific heinous crimes. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Heinous crimes are those which are punishable by death for being grievous,
odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest
wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to
the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and
ordered society.
(b) The ten specific heinous crimes are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Treason
Qualified Piracy
Qualified Bribery
Parricide
Murder
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Robbery with Homicide
Destructive Arson
Rape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with
homicide
10. Plunder
Criminal law – Concepts – “heinous crimes”
What do you understand by the so-called heinous crimes? (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by
reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity,
Page 27 of 417
Criminal Law
are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, RA 7659)
Criminal law – Concepts – Entrapment and instigation
Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug
pusher. Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell
marijuana worth P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods and
so was apprehended with the marked money. He is now prosecuted for violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Aldo’s defense is that he1 was the victim of an instigation of the police who
persuaded him to sell the goods to him. Decide the case with reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldo’s defense in untenable as what happened here was entrapment. With or without
the act of Policemen Taba, Aldo would have went on selling the marijuana to another
buyer. The finding, it must be noted, was that Aldo was continously engaged in the act
of pushing drugs. (People v. Tia, 51 O.G. 1863).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is a case of instigation because Aldo was persuaded by Policeman Taba, who
was posing as buyer, to sell marijuana.
Criminal law –Concepts – Entrapment and instigation; illustration of instigation
A. Distinguished entrapment from instigation. Discuss fully. (1995 Bar
Question)
B. Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SP02 Mercado, leader of the
Narcom team, gave Juan a P 100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana
cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SP02 Mercado, Juan went inside the
shopping mall while the officer waited at the comer of the mall. After fifteen
minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he
gave to SP02 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and
charged him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling
marijuana cigarettes.
Is Juan guilty of any ofense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
Page 28 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused into
commission of the offense and himself becomes co-principal. In entrapment,
ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan,
B. Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs
Act Although Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the
basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with which to buy marijuana
cigarettes, SP02 Mercado practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the
offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the facts instigation is a
valid defense available to Juan.
Criminal law – Concepts - entrapment and instigation
Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law. Exemplify each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In entrapment a. the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even
before entrapment;
b. the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose of capturing the
lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and
c. this circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
In instigation a. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and
developed in the mind of the law enforcers;
b. the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a
crime and would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and
c. this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante
Marcos, 185 SCRA154. [1990]).
Example of entrapment:
A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and
negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A
then issued marked money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A
signalled his anti-narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment
because the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him.
Example of instigation:
Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug pushers, A,
the team leader, money to be used in buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet
Page 29 of 417
Criminal Law
of shabu to B and the latter handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and
placed B and C under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his
participation in the transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law
enforcers.
Criminal law – Concepts - Intent and motive
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)
Between intent and motive in the commission of an offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve the desired result;
while motive is the moving power which impels a person to act for a definite result.
Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies; while
motive is not an element of a crime but only considered when the identity of the offender
is in doubt.
b) Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law
Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket
for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw
his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of
the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached
Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is
registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel
left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested
Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur
criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise
argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a
Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The argument of Ando that he did not incur
criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. Under
the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign characteristic of an offender
and offended party does not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v.
Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in
treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines shall have
force and effect within its territory. Here, since the killing took place within the Philippine
territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held criminally responsible despite
his being and Indonesian citizen.
Page 30 of 417
Criminal Law
Likewise, the contention of Ando that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the
vessel is a Malaysian- registered ship is without merit. Under the English Rule, which
our jurisdiction recognizes and follows, crimes committed aboard a vessel within the
territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country except when
crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when they only refer to the internal
management thereof. Here, since the crime was committed within the Philippine waters
and neither exception applies, Ando may be prosecuted in Manila.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
Under Section 27 of the Convention of the Law of The Sea, the criminal jurisdiction of
the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the
territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any
crime committed on board the ship during its passage except if the crime is of a kind to
disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea. The vessel is still
within the territorial waters of the Philippines when the crime was committed since the
killing happened a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Murder
committed by Ando disturbs the peace of the Philippines; hence, he could be
prosecuted in Manila.
Criminal law - Characteristics of criminal law
State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
cricumtances.
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:
“Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application”
Page 31 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Characteristics of Philippine criminal
law
What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine
Criminal Law? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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.
(i) Generality
(ii)Territoriality
Which of the following crimes is an exception to the Territoriality Rule in Criminal
law? (2011 BAR)
(A) Violation of the Trademark Law committed by an alien in the Philippines.
(B) Forgery of US bank notes committed in the Philippines.
(C) Crime committed by a Filipino in the disputed Spratly's Island.
(D) Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philippine public
officer.
When committed outside the Philippine territory, our courts DO NOT have
jurisdiction over the crime of (2011 BAR)
(A) treason.
(B) piracy.
(C) espionage.
(D) rebellion.
Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and
driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally.
The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce
correct? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines,
would be exempt from the general application of our criminal laws, as provided for
under laws or treaties of preferential application, more particularly under R.A. 75.
Page 32 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law -Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law Territoriality
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%) (2000 Bar Question)
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.
Criminal law – Application of Philippine Criminal law - Territoriality
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.
A. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar Question)
B. If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
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 appplied extraterritorially. The
general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
B.
Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art.
334 of the Revised Penal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. But
concubinage being a private crime requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the offended
spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Page 33 of 417
Criminal Law
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the information on the ground of
prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo,
the accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the
penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180. par. 4. RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3.
RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18. 1994, whereas the
principal criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18,
1994 is more than five (5) years.
Criminal law – Application of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality principle
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was
forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong,
took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger,
and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified
piracy before a Philippine court.
Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo
and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%)
(2008 Bar Question)
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the territoriality principle of criminal law applies. The crime
happened in Taiwan where the vessel was anchored. It was not committed in the high
seas or in Philippine waters.
Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified
piracy? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified piracy because committing
piracy was never in his mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy committed.
He merely took advantage of the situation in killing the passenger. He should be
charged with murder since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill.
A foreigner residing in Hong Kong counterfeits a twenty-peso bill issued by the
Philippine Government. May the foreigner be prosecuted before a civil court in
the Philippines? (2012 BAR)
Page 34 of 417
Criminal Law
a) No. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforceable only within the
Philippine Archipelago.
b) No. The Philippine Criminal Law is binding only on persons who reside or
sojourn in the Philippines.
c) No. Foreigners residing outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines are exempted
from the operation of the Philippine Criminal Law.
d) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforceable also outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should forge or counterfeit
currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines.
Criminal law – Crimes against National Security and Law of Nations – Piracy;
Qualified piracy
1. While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong
towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine
malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs
lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep.
While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from
Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the
ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and
loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At
daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port
Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
2. Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed
a member of the crew while sleeping.
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, Revised Penal Code, the
essence of which is robbery directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking of
the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from a vessel at sea, was effected by
force and undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel was
anchored when depredated so long as it was at sea.
2. The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code
because it was attended by a killing committed by the same culprits against a member
of the crew of the vessel.
Page 35 of 417
Criminal Law
(iii)Prospectivity
(a) Effects of repeal/amendment of penal law
c) Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was
committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from something done afterwards.” It could
also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than when it was
committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the law
governing the crime when committed. A bill of attainder is a law which inflicts
punishment on a named individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial.
Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder pertains to a named
individual or to members of a group.
Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal
offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines.
Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged
under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a
student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections
may he raise? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the power of
Congress to enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the accused. Under
the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto law. It should
be noted that when Congress decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637,
it obliterated the felony and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently charging him now
under the new law for his previous membership in the Communist Party would be
constitutionality impermissible.
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (2012 BAR)
Answer:
The constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws are the
following:
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive
effect.
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide punishment
without judicial process.
Page 36 of 417
Criminal Law
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment.
4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
Criminal law – Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal
laws
A. What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws?
(1988 Bar Question)
B. Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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.
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment.
However, other limitations may be considered like:
a. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress
shall punish an act and not the condition or status. (Robinson vs. California).
b. 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.”
B. There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no
crim if there is no law punishing it.
(i) Equal protection
(ii) Due process
Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to
file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants
to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law providing
for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maximum
security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those
who want long-term premium accommodations.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities at
rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he is
prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air conditioned singleoccupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels.
Page 37 of 417
Criminal Law
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law,
taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and considerations of
ethics and morality (3%)? (2013 BAR)
ANSWER:
I would advise Senator Salcedo not to file the said bill. First, the bill is unconstitutional
as it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It will create economic
inequality in our criminal justice system. Rich prisoners will enjoy better amenities and
privileges than those who are poor. Second, the bill will defeat the purpose of penalties
in criminal law, which is to secure justice, retribution, and reformation.
Criminal law – Due process – Proper allegation of the offense charged
A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act in an information that reads:
"That from 1 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the
Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in
the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there willfully
and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of
B’s claim for the payment of the price of his land which the government had
expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only
PI,000.00 of the approved claim ofP5,000.00and willfully and unlawfully
appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000.00, thus causing undue injury to B
and the Government."
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not
charge an offense. Is he correct? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue
lnjury to B and the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the
offense charged, i.e., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH, which
has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated,
and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no
allegation in the Information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the
amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely
based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the
Government has already appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for
himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4.000.00 for his services. No
Page 38 of 417
Criminal Law
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused
should be merely charged administratively
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e)
of Republic Act 3019 applies only to officers and employees of government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not
to DPWH, which is not a government corporation.
A is not correct. In the case of Mejorda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399,
which involves a substantially identical information as the information quoted in the
question, the Supreme Court held that the information was valid. While it is true that the
information quoted in the question, failed to allege evident bad faith, gross inexcusable
negligence or manifest partiality, said information is nevertheless adequate because it
averred the three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when it
stated
that the accused is a public officer at the time of the commission of the crime, being
employed in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the accused caused
undue injury to B and the Government, with the statement that B, the owner of the land,
received only P1.000.00 instead of the full value of P5.000.00; and (3) that in the
discharge of A's official administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and
unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and
unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need
not employ or use the very words or language of the statute.
It may also use words or language of similar import.
(iii) Non-imposition of cruel and unusual punishment or excessive
fines
(a) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 9346)
(iv) Bill of attainder
(v) Ex post facto law
2. Felonies
How are felonies committed? Explain each. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is
fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or
lack of skill (Article 3 of Revised Penal Code).
Page 39 of 417
Criminal Law
Aberratio Ictus; Error in Personae; Praeter Intentionem (Article 4, par. 1)
What is aberration ictus? (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow. Under the principle of aberration ictus, a person
is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent
victim is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. This principle is based on
the rule in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that criminal liability shall
be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he intended.
Criminal law – Felonies – Illustration thereof
Explain and illustrate the following: 1) aberratio ictus, 2) impossible crime, and 3)
subordination of perjury (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Aberratio ictus - A fired a gun at his father to kill him but hit instead a stranger.
2. Impossible crime - Killing a dead person.
3. Subordination of perjury - Procuring another to swear falsely and testify under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
a) Classifications of felonies
b) Elements of criminal liability
Felonies are classified according to manner or mode of execution into felonies
committed by means of deceit (dolo) and by means of fault (culpa). Which of the
following causes may not give rise to culpable felonies? (2012 BAR)
a) Imprudence;
b) Malice;
c) Negligence;
d) Lack of foresight.
The classification of felonies into grave, less grave, and light is important in
ascertaining (2011 BAR)
(A) if certain crimes committed on the same occasion can be complexed.
(B) the correct penalty for crimes committed through reckless imprudence.
(C) whether the offender is liable as an accomplice.
(D) what stage of the felony has been reached.
Criminal law – Criminal liability –when incurred
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey’s father, Robin, and brother,
Rustom, went to Scott’s house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from
Page 40 of 417
Criminal Law
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? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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. RPC:
People vs. Pugay, et aL, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
Criminal law – Criminal liabilities of persons in a street fight; stages of execution;
criminal liability; when incurred; justifying circumstances; when allowed
Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. Lino then suddenly
drew his balisong and lunged at Okito. In an effort to break up the fight. Tommy
tried to snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter had inflicted a
wound on Okito. As Lino withdrew the weapon and attempted to stab Okito a
second time. Tommy tried to grab the weapon again. In so doing, his left forearm
was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching away the balisong with his right arm,
it flew with such force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously injured.
Explain your answers fully.
What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to Okito, Tommy and Nereo?
(1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As far as Okito is concerned. Lino is liable for frustrated homicide, assuming that
the wound suffered by Okito is such that for reasons or causes independent of the will
of Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito would have died. If the injury is not
serious enough, the liability is only attempted homicide. Intent to kill is manifest because
of the use of a deadly weapon. For the injury on the arm of Tommy. Uno is liable only
for physical injuries (serious, less serious or slight, depending on the nature of the
injury). Apparently there is no intent to kill.
Page 41 of 417
Criminal Law
For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious physical injuries as the wounding of
Nereo was the natural and logical consequence of Lino’s felonious act.
In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the injury to Nereo as he was
performing a lawful act with due care and the injury was caused by mere accident (Art
12, par. 4), or that he was in lawful exercise of a right, (Art. 11, par.3), that is, defense of
a stranger.
Criminal law - Criminal liability – when incurred
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. (1996
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. (C7.S. os. Valdez. 41 Phil. 1497; People vs. Apra. 27 SCRA
1037.)
Criminal law – Criminal liability – when incurred
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? (1997 Bar Question)
Page 42 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED 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.
Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred
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 cellphone 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%) (2001 Bar Question)
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.
Page 43 of 417
Criminal Law
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 1037; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497)
Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the
same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade
from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet
and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his
head hit the pavement, causing his instant death.
Is XX liable for ZZs death? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and
announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ
is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the
jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate
sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the
jeepney (.People v. Arpat 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]).
Criminal law – Felonies – Criminal liability; when incurred
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their
relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to
commit suicide. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they
did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally
liable for the death of Joan? Explain. (5%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Francis is criminally liable for Joan's death. His act of shooting her, although
done pursuant to a solemn pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate cause of
Joan's death (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere act of giving assistance to a
suicide is a crime (Art. 253, RPC)
Criminal law – Elements of criminal liability – Lawful defense of property
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by
Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored
him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the
rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to
Page 44 of 417
Criminal Law
veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle
driver.
What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of
the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is
neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable
exercise of his right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
c) Impossible crime
Is the penalty for impossible crime applicable to one who attempts to commit a
light felony of impossible materialization? (2012 BAR)
a) No. The evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished.
b) No. An attempt to commit light felony constitutes an employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.
c) No. The penalty for consummated light felony is less than the penalty for
impossible crime.
d) No. In impossible crime, the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another offense.
DO, intending to kill EE, peppered the latter's bedroom with bullets, but since the
intended victim was not home at that time, no harm came to him. What crime is
committed? (2012 BAR)
a) DO committed the crime of attempted murder.
b) DO committed the crime of attempted homicide.
c) DO committed the crime of impossible crime. (* Intod vs. CA, GR 103119,
October 21,1992)
d) DD committed the crime of malicious mischief.
Can there be a frustrated impossible crime? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. When the crime is not produced by reason of the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment, it is a frustrated impossible crime.
b) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the means
employed to accomplish the crime is inadequate or ineffectual.
c) Yes. There can be a frustrated impossible crime when the act performed
would be an offense against persons.
d) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the offender
has already performed the acts for the execution of the crime.
Page 45 of 417
Criminal Law
Alternative Answer:
b) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the means
employed to accomplish the crime is inadequate or ineffectual.
Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti
fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian
(Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when
actually Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic
solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. (2014 BAR)
(A)
What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
(B)
Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula
got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?
ANSWER:
(A)
Puti committed the impossible crime of murder. All the elements of an
impossible crime are present. Puti’s act of mixing a solution with Pula’s food would have
been murder, a crime against persons. The act was done evil intent which is to kill Pula.
However, the crime was not accomplished because of the employment of ineffectual
means, i.e., the solution turned out to be non-toxic which would not kill Pula. And said
act would not fall under any other provision of the RPC.
(B)
No, my answer would not be the same. If as a result of the mixture, Pula
got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days, the crime committed by
Puti is Less Serious Physical Injuries. It is not an impossible crime because the last
element of an impossible requires that the act performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the RPC.
Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged
by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom
note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for
her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s
parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while
Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never
received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping” against Enrique.
Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave
coercion? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER:
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no “Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and
Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping is a
Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if the
ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267, RPC,
Page 46 of 417
Criminal Law
Kidnapping for Ransom is committed “when the kidnapping or detention is for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.” To consummate the
crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not necessary that the ransom
note be received or that ransom be paid.
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime
committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom.
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crimes
A. What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
C. A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits
the room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets.
Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room.
However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and
nobody was hit or injured during the incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for
any crime? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
D. Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her
parents to bring and fetch her to and from 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%) (2000 Bar Question)
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
Page 47 of 417
Criminal Law
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
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of theft
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five
years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his
friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key.
They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked.
Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and
Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas.
They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them.
Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that
Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom
with the box.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro
committed. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what
they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out
to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical
since there is no jewelry to steal inside the box.
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder
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
Page 48 of 417
Criminal Law
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? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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).
Criminal law - Felonies – Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical
injuries
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
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%J (1998 Bar
Question)
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%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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
Page 49 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their
bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a
substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the
substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO
after he drank the coffee.
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability
shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against
persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a
crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ
thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime
resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal
though objectively, no crime was committed.
Criminal law – Felonies – Impossible crime of murder
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously
courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for
some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog.
Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad.
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when
mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad.
Page 50 of 417
Criminal Law
[a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not?
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non-toxic
powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is
a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which,
unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC).
[b] Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the
powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for ten
(10) days? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less
serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was
done with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It
cannot constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the
means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must
be directly linked to the means employed, not to the intent. Liability for an impossible
crime can only arise from a consummated act.
d) Stages of execution
In an attempted felony, the offender’s preparatory act (2011 BAR)
(A) itself constitutes an offense.
(B) must seem connected to the intended crime.
(C) must not be connected to the intended crime.
(D) requires another act to result in a felony.
Criminal law – Stages of execution – Consummated theft
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of
bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was
arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the
act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or
attempted? (5%)
(1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete
after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of
Page 51 of 417
Criminal Law
the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is
complete and thus the crime is consummated.
Criminal law – Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated
Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever
Department Store and proceeded to the women’s wear section. The saleslady
was of the impression that she brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of
swimsuits of different colors. When she came out of the fitting room, she
returned only two (2) pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became
suspicious and alerted the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the
detective before she could leave the store and brought to the office of the store
manager. The detective and the manager searched her and found her wearing the
third swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit
consummated, frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete when the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal
property being taken; in this case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse
and pants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to gain the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that the
offender is in a position to dispose of the property.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store
when the offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She
does not have yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs.
Dino, CA 45 O.G. 3446). Moreover, in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated
or frustrated, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal responsibility.
Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated felony
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat
and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated
rape? Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated
rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could
produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but
the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender.
In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without
Page 52 of 417
Criminal Law
consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated
stage.
Criminal law – Stages of execution – Frustrated murder
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care
Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo
disguised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the
hospital bed with several life-saving tubes attached to the body. Delmo
disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident physician doing his rounds
entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected tubes, replaced them. The patient
survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged
from the hospital earlier.
Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident
premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety
of the charge. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder qualified by
treachery—not evident premeditation because the victim was different from the one
premeditated against. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce
the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the
death of the victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the crime, because the
means, manner and method of committing the intended killing were consciously
adopted to insure its execution without risk that may arise from the defense the victim
may make. Evident premeditation is absorbed in the treachery.
e) Conspiracy and proposal
Proposal to commit felony is punishable only in cases in which the law
specifically provides a penalty therefor. Under which of the following instances
are proponents NOT liable? (2012 BAR)
a) Proposal to commit coup d'etat.
b) Proposal to commit sedition.
c) Proposal to commit rebellion.
d) Proposal to commit treason.
A proposal to commit a felony is punishable only when the law specifically
provides a penalty for it as in the case of proposal to commit (2011 BAR)
(A) rebellion.
(B) sedition.
(C) espionage.
(D) highway robbery.
Page 53 of 417
Criminal Law
Conspiracy to commit felony is punishable only in cases in which the law
specifically provides a penalty therefor. Under which of the following instances
are the conspirators not liable? (2012 BAR)
a) Conspiracy to commit arson.
b) Conspiracy to commit terrorism.
c) Conspiracy to commit child pornography.
d) Conspiracy to commit trafficking in persons.
Define conspiracy. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a
manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
(2012 BAR)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government,
conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they
committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will
not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed
what they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as
a manner of incurring criminal responsibility.
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”,
conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit
homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” embraced “X”
and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide.
Conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered
as a manner of incurring liability.
Conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable only in cases where the law
specifically provides a penalty. Which of the following combinations contain
specific felonies under the Revised Penal Code? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion, conspiracy
to commit coup d'etat, conspiracy to commit misprision of treason.
(B)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion, conspiracy to commit coup d'etat,
conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit sedition.
(C)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection, conspiracy to commit
sedition, conspiracy to commit illegal assemblies, conspiracy to commit
treason.
Page 54 of 417
Criminal Law
(D)
(E)
Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit sedition, conspiracy
to commit terrorism.
None of the above.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy
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, Bien- venido, 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.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael. (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Simeon and Dulcisimo 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
aim 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.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; murder
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.
Page 55 of 417
Criminal Law
Would you sustain his claim? Why? (1993 Bar Question)
What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons
(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders,
taking advantage of their superiority in number, rendered the victim defenseless and
without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him.
Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders
caught up with the victim.
Criminal law – Felonies –Conspiracy to commit robbery
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.
What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. (1996
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)
Page 56 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Felonies – Proposal to commit kidnapping
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he
is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her
accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put
up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported.
Edgardo to the police.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no
overtact to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what
Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is
only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences
with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is
not a crime.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy
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.
Is there conspiracy in this case? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 themannerthe
offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby
demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Criminal law - Conspiracy – Who are liable
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 B, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B
Page 57 of 417
Criminal Law
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? (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED 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 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 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. Tamaro. 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.
Criminal law – Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) (1998 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission
of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any
Page 58 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
Criminal law – Felonies – “Implied conspiracy”
State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects. (2003
Bar Question)
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 coconspirators; 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 coconspirator.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy
In the course of funeral procession, a young mourner who was marching in
front of the funeral hearse, momentarily stooped down to tie her shoelaces
which had become untied. The driver of the hearse, who was driving at 5 miles
an hour, was then looking at the stores by the roadside and did not see her. He
continued to drive on and ran over the girl. When the people around shouted and
gestured, he backed up and ran over the girl a second time, killing her.
If you were the-parent of the girl-victim, what crime would you charge, if you
think a crime had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer
briefly.
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
Page 59 of 417
Criminal Law
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 without intervening in the killing in any way
nor shielding killer.
Is there conspiracy among them? Why? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or
homicide thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against those who shouted
and gestured.
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 not present.
Criminal law – Felonies - Conspiracy to commit sedition
A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in
Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big landowners, called A. B, C, D, and E to a
conference. Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit
their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
government by force of arms in order to prevent the enforcement or
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro
promised to finance the group and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former
soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers,
said that in the meanwhile he needed money to support his family. D suggested
that they rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan on the 15 th day of the
month. Unknown to all of them, as they were conferring with Jose and Pedro and
as they were planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within hearing
distance. On the pretext of buying cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to
the Police and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose
and Pedro, were arrested.
A. What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit? (1987 Bar Question)
B. What about Jose and Pedro? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition. What
Jose and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and
Page 60 of 417
Criminal Law
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force
of arms in order to prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Law in
Cotabato Province is to commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not
punished. But since the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition
resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on the very moment the
plotters agree (People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12 SCRA
402).
B. Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to commit sedition since they
are members of the conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the
soldiers did not agree to their proposal, they would not incur any criminal liability
because there is no pro-posal to commit sedition.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; act of one is the act of all
A. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, upon
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by
AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder.
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater
evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he
merely avoided a greater evil.
Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
No, AA’s defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy
among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all, shail govern. The act of ST, the victim’s son, appears to be a
legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the
unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father’s life, cannot be
regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC
achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy to commit robbery
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that
Jose won P5, 000,000.00 in the-lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned
himself about 30 meters away from Jose's house and acted as lookout. For his
part. Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was
then having his dinner. Henry found the P5,000,000.00 and took it. Henry then
took a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts.
Page 61 of 417
Criminal Law
Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house
by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00.
Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with
homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at
the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he
was guilty only of robber, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he
conspired with Hemy to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise,
moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted
robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not
aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not
aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed.
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. (7%)
(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as an accomplice
is without merit and therefore should be denied. There was conspiracy to commit the
robbery between him and Henry. There being a conspiracy to commit robbery, the act
of one is the act of all. Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should
be liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of robbery with
homicide.
Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim's house, could not have known what
Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose's) house, so much so that he was not in a
position to stop the same. Mario, therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for
what Henry did inside Jose's house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective
test to his participation as a co-conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s criminal liability
should be aggravated by nighttime but not by dwelling or arson.
Henry's motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise, without merit and should
be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with homicide. His contention that he is
only liable for attempted robbery with homicide is not correct because the unlawful
taking of the P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control of
the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a robbery,
becomes a component of the robbery, giving rise to the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone committed the killing of Jose a fact unknown
to Mario, Henry alone should be convicted for said crime. Dwelling, although not
aggravating in robbery with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is
aggravating in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of persons.
Page 62 of 417
Criminal Law
The burning of the house or arson accompanying the robbery is only a
component of the robbery under Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code. Such burning
does not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide.
Nighttime is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the house of Jose
was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the crime.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with homicide
because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery. As a conspirator in said
crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an accomplice only. His motion for
reconsideration claiming that he should be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his
contention that he should be liable as an accomplice only.
On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be denied for lack
of merit. His contention that his liability should only be for attempted robbery with
homicide because they did not benefit from the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the
crime is consummated the moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the
offender was not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.
The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the commission of
the crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or intimidation against person,
dwelling is aggravating to the offender who entered the dwelling of the offended party.
Nighttime is not aggravating because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning
of the victim’s house is not a separate crime of arson but only a component of the
robbery under Article 294, RPC.
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and
robbery; improper charge of offense
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with
considerable savings. Knowing him to be “loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel
and Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was
losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he
discovered that he was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he
decided to take revenge on the three cheats.
Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his
companions to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to death. Then he
remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his victims and got back
all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide
his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort.
Page 63 of 417
Criminal Law
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with
the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery.
Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three
(3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was
considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the
defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to cany out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings.
Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still
legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another
separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of
the two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the
blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there
is no such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reaching home,
his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed
by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi
with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died.
What crime was committed by Aldrich? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When
Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment
Page 64 of 417
Criminal Law
under Art. 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Carmi died because of the
felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in
relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the
process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich
committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single
act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art 48, RPC, i.e.
a complex crime [People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with
serious physical injuries
Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues and carrying unlicensed
firearms, barged into the residence of Amulfo 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 the master
bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the wife of Amulfo, 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 Amulfo who was seriously injured. Greggy and Hilarto 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. (1992 Bar Question)
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.
Page 65 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with
direct assault
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on
motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca,
for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On
the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants,
C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP
officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest.
Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP
motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with
direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder
Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Murder qualified by explosion for
the death of Z.
No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he
being a civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E,
otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of
all.
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide
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.
Page 66 of 417
Criminal Law
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie. (1995 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. BaeUo, 224 SCRA 218). Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft
could be assessed against the accused for pretending to be customers of Mang
Pandoy.
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of robbery with rape, when not
applicable
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to
smoke a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the
match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand
over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused
was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with
rape.
Was the court correct? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate
crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was
only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an
afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special
complex crime for which the court convicted the accused.
Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape
B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by
breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties
and as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was
Page 67 of 417
Criminal Law
molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing
to prevent XA from raping OD.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability
of each? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with
Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA
raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being
committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the
rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their coconspirator XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where
the rape accompanying the robbery is just a component.
Criminal law – Felonies - Robbery with homicide
A. An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed
that the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it
faster. The members of the band then fired at the bus, killing one
passenger who was hit in the head.
B. As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself
inside the ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from A’s wife
cash and pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors stood on a table and
fired his gun at the ceiling. After they had left A’s wife called for him and
receiving no answer, she went up the ceiling and found him already dead.
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
C. In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots
between the robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot
one of his own companions.
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances.—
Page 68 of 417
Criminal Law
When on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the
person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal
B. Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted and frustrated robbery committed
under certain circumstances.— When by reason...of an attempted or frustrated
robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal. .
C. The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of Article
297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “ ... when ... on the occasion
of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such
offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
Criminal law – Complex crimes - Robbery with Homicide
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.
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. (1996
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed
and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as
aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy and the
additional killing synonymous with cruelty. [People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA: People vs.
Plagcu 202 SCRA 531)
Criminal law – Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with homicide
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
Page 69 of 417
Criminal Law
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. (2003
Bar Question)
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 perse 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.
Criminal law – Conspiracy and proposal - Special complex crime of robbery with
homicide
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank.
Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from
the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They
contented themselves with the customers' cellphones and a total of P5,000 in
Page 70 of 417
Criminal Law
cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled
the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter's death.
What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain
your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because that was the
crime conspired upon and actually committed by them, assuming that the taking of the
cellphones and the cash from the bank's customers was effected with intimidation. They
will not incur liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do
with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian, aside from the
robbery, because he alone brought about such death. Although the death caused was
not intentional but accidental, it shall be a component of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide because it was committed in the course of the commission of the
robbery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide, because there
was conspiracy among them to commit the robbery and the death of the pedestrian was
caused on the occasion of the robbery. Even though the death was accidental, it is
enough that such death was caused by any of the robbers' felonious act and on the
occasion of the commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA. 539 [1984]).
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took
turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang
down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased
her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never
seen again.
What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
Page 71 of 417
Criminal Law
What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Because of obvious conspiracy, each of the culprits should be punished not only
for the rape he committed but also for the rape committed by the other; hence, for as
many counts of rape committed by him plus those committed by the other culprit
against each of the victims.
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the
accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of
the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given
retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents
and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each
count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal
Code will not follow because RA 9346, Sec. 2 does not so provide: it is the accessory
penalty for reclusion perpetua that shall now adhere to the principal penalty.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante
group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by
them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent.
After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later,
the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The
commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky
criminally liable? Explain. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not done any overt act that the
law punishes as a crime. He did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act
of pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his acquiescence to the
vigilante's conclusion that the others were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere
acquiescence to a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a coconspirator.
Criminal law – Felonies – Conspiracy and proposal
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring
along Roxas Blvd.
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek
help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him.
In the investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the
owner let's just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin
Page 72 of 417
Criminal Law
then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never
saw P01 Melvin again.
a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received part of the proceeds of the
pawned ring. The facts do not state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00
proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after turning over the bag to P01
Melvin, Eman never saw P01 Melvin again. The proposal Eman made to P01 Melvin is
not a crime as to bring about criminal liability.
f) Multiple offenders (differences, rules, effects)
(i) Recidivism
(ii) Habituality (Reiteracion)
(iii) Quasi-Recidivism
(iv) Habitual Delinquency
Who is a habitual delinquent? Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism
as to the crimes committed, the period of time the crimes are committed, the
number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty to be
imposed on a convict. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from
the date of his 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 said crimes a third
time or oftener (Art. 62, RPC).
The following are the differences between recidivism and habitual delinquency:
Nature
crime
Time
element
RECIDIVISM
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
First
crime
and
the First, second and third crimes must be
aggravated second crime a habitual delinquency crime, that is,
of
are embraced in the same serious or less serious physical
Title of the RPC.
injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or
falsification of document.
Accused was convicted of The accused was convicted of first
the first crime by final habitual delinquency crime; within ten
judgment at the time of the years after conviction or release, he
trial of the second crime.
was found guilty or habitualdelinquency crime for the second time;
within 10 years after conviction or
release, he was found guilty of
Page 73 of 417
Criminal Law
Number
crimes
habitual-delinquency crime for the third
time or oftener.
crimes At least three crimes committed
of At
least
two
committed
Ordinary
aggravating
circumstance the presence
Nature of the of any of which will trigger
aggravating
the application of the penalty
cirfor
the
second
crime
cumstance
committed in its maximum
period unless it is off-set by
a mitigating circumstance
Extraordinary or special aggravating
circumstance, the presence of which
will trigger the imposition of additional
penalty for the third or subsequent
crime.
This is not subject of the off-set rule.
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA
has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded
capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to
wit:
1. In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
2. In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
3. In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What
circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against
AA? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is
one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. Robbery, theft,
estafa are crimes against property embraced in Title Ten of the RPC. The judge may
also appreciate the aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion, because
there have been two or more crimes committed for which she has been published,
regardless of the degree of penalty.
Criminal law – Multiple offenders – Recidivism and reiteracion
Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and served an indeterminate
penalty, the maximum term of which did not exceed two (2) years, four (4)
months and one (1) day of prision correctional. A month after his release from
prison, he was charge with the crime of serious physical injuries. Later, Andres
was again charged with homicide punishable by re-clusion temporal. He entered
a plea of guilty in the homicide case. May the aggravating circumstances of
recidivism and/or habituality (reiteracion) be appreciated against Andres?
Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
Page 74 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be taken against Andres. For
this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that —
a.
b.
c.
d.
The offender is on trial for an offense;
He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and
The offender is convicted of the new offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC).
At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres was not previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Adultery, which is his only previous conviction by final judgment is a crime against
chastity, and therefore is not embraced in the same title of the Code as homicide, which
is a crime against person.
As for the charge of serious physical injuries, although serious physical is also a
crime against person, it appears that he had not as yet been conviced, much less by
final judgment, of the charge at the time that he was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habitually or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order that this circumstance can exist, it is necessary that he
was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order for this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that—
a. The accused is on trial for an offense;
b. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an
equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense;
c. He is convicted of the new offense.
In the case at bar, Andres had previously served sentence only for one offense that
of adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison correctional) is lighter than then penalty
for homicide (reclusion-temporal). Consequently, there is no aggravating circumstance
of habituality or reiteracion.
Criminal law – Multiple offenders- Recidivism and quasi-recidivism
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism -
Page 75 of 417
Criminal Law
a. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the
Revised Penal Code; and
b. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in quasi-recidivism a. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal
Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving
sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another
crime; and
b. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by
any mitigating circumstance.
Criminal law – Multiple offenders – recidivism; habitual delinquency
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment
for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the
trial judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual
delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the
trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are
correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of
habitual delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for
theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against
property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal
Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against
property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is
convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because
Juan had already three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again
convicted for Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual
delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
Page 76 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Multiple offenders - Recidivist
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the
President, and one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
True. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is
embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code under which Amado had been
previously convicted by final judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only
excused him from serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the
conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon.
Criminal law – Felonies – Quasi recidivism; when considered as aggravating
circumstance
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.
Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the aggravating
circumstances of quasi-recidivism be appreciated against him? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC occurs when the accused
commits a felony while serving or about to serve sentence (or if he escapes from
prison). A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist.
B was convicted by final judgment of theft. While serving sentence for such
offense, B was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm. Is B a quasirecidivist? (2012 BAR)
a) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence when found in
possession of an unlicensed firearm.
Page 77 of 417
Criminal Law
b) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the offense for which he was serving
sentence is different from the second offense.
c) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense is not a felony.
d) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense was committed
while still serving for the first offense.
Alternative Answer:
a) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence when found in
possession of an unlicensed firearm.
Criminal law – Felonies – Habitual delinquency
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence
consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had
sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with
different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental
ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second
confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that the accused is a
habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual
delinquent. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the
Information and proven during the trial. Besides there is no indication that A was
convicted within ten (10) years from last conviction or release, three times or oftener of
the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa, physical injuries or falsification.
g) Continuing crimes
Criminal law – Felonies – Continuing crimes
Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into
investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed
monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months
following the investment, the investors received their profits, but thereafter,
Angelo vanished.
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation
of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he
committed a continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one
count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22.
Page 78 of 417
Criminal Law
[a] What is delito continuado? (1%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt acts committed
by the offender in one place, at about the same time, and all such overt acts violate one
and the same provision of penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the
product of a single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts are considered as
one crime only.
[b] Is Angelo's contention tenable? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. His contention is not tenable. He committed as many counts of estafa
against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of BP 22, since each swindling is
achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different times or dates,
and in different amounts. Moreover, his drawing separate checks payable to each
payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of
different dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim
and had distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing each check. It cannot be
maintained that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution only.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Angelo committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP
22 because his acts were propelled by one and the same intent to defraud (Santiago v.
Garchitorena, 228 SCRA 214 [1993]).
h) Complex crimes and special complex crimes
A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana stick in a student’s pocket and
then arrested him for possession of marijuana cigarette. What crime can the
police officer be charged with? (2011 BAR)
(A) None, as it is a case of entrapment
(B) Unlawful arrest
(C) Incriminating an innocent person
(D) Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person with unlawful arrest
A special complex crime is a composite crime (2011 BAR)
(A) made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code.
(B) with its own definition and special penalty provided by the Penal Code.
(C) with its own definition and special penalty provided by a special penal law.
(D) made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code and special penal
laws.
Page 79 of 417
Criminal Law
X, intending to kill Y, a store owner, fired at Y from the street, but the shot killed
not only Y but also Z who was in the store. As a case of aberratio ictus, it is
punishable as a (2011 BAR)
(A) complex crime proper.
(B) special complex crime.
(C) continuing crime.
(D) compound crime.
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or
less grave felonies as a result of single act
Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when
it fell from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a
second neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors required
thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) days of medical attendance, respectively. The
investigating fiscal later filed an information for frustrated homicide and slight
physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge
correct? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge is not correct.
One single act of accidental shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is
intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide presupposes intent to kill. The
facts do not show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and
therefore only negligent.
Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crimes; when proper
Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons
Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter a check in the said
amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn against a closed account. Notwithstanding written
demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for
Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal,
one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another for
violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose,
claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of
Batas Pambansa Big. 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code because one precludes the other and because Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is
more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty. The investigating
fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the
complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and
violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of issuing the
Page 80 of 417
Criminal Law
bouncing check constitutes two offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code and another under Batas Pambansa Big. 22.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you
resolve it? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime of
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A
complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code.
Batas 22 which punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. The
contention of Atty. San Pascuai, counsel of Jose that his client should be liable only for
Batas 22 and for estafa under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the
other and because Batas 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter
penalty cannot also be sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides that liability under said
act is without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The
check issued by Jose in payment of roofing materials from PY and Sons was worthless.
Said bouncing check having been issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation
constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense punished under
Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an element of the offense
punished in Batas 22 whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala in
se in which requires intent as an element while the offense punished in Batas 22 is an
act mala prohibita where intent is not an element.
Criminal law – Felonies –Complex crimes
1. A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 submachine gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with
one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were
killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the submachine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial
court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the reason
that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his
gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial
judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the
decision of the trial judge correct? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
2. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a
complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an
automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only
Page 81 of 417
Criminal Law
press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a
distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it
is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing
the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them.
2. A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or
less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to
commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC).
At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or
less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a
necessary means for committing another.
The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum
period. (Art. 48, RPC)
Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of rape with homicide; theft
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink
and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with
force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to
Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains
inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging
to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he
sold it for P2.000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their
criminal liabilities. (10%](1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime
and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an
accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal
Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code,
being an adopted brother of the principal.
Page 82 of 417
Criminal Law
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed
by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under
Article 20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects
of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or
Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612)
since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from
King and sold it.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed two distinct crimes. Rape and Theft. The killing of Laura will only
be an aggravating circumstance raising the penalty to death. The theft is a separate
crime since it was committed after the rape.
Doming, although an accessory, is exempt from criminal liability for being an
adopted brother of the accused pursuant to Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Jose may be held liable for fencing under P.D. No. 1612, or as accessory to the
theft committed by King, notwithstanding that he is a brother of King because he
profited or assisted Jose to profit from the effect of the crime.
Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with rape
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of
value. They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A,
however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so,
raped her.
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B
watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape.
Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape
under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present
when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single
indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he
endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could
have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and
so he is also liable for robbery with rape.
Criminal law – Felonies - Composite crime of robbery with homicide
Page 83 of 417
Criminal Law
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%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate
cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable therefor 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
Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of robbery with homicide
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to
$10,000 from his daughter working in the United States. With the intention of
robbing B of those dollars, A entered B’s house at midnight, armed with a knife
which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves,
and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out
from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A
was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A turned over B’s pillow and found
the latter’s wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he
was looking for A took the bills and left the house.' What crime or crimes were
committed? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so
because A’s primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the
robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated,
thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary
criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery,
though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with
homicide as a single indivisible offense.
Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime; complex crime
of coup d’etat with rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition
Page 84 of 417
Criminal Law
A.
B.
C.
Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex
crime as to their concepts and as to the imposition of penalties. (2003
Bar Question)
Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion? (2003 Bar
Question)
Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition? (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) In conceptAn ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because
they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a
necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
Information so that only one penalty shall be imposed.
A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which
are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
As to penalties In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and
in its maximum period.
In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the
component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime
is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically
provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.
B. Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders committing the coup
d’etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would
be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup
d'etat may be any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or a
public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d’etat
may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up
arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially
different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the
application of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
C. Yes, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition
Page 85 of 417
Criminal Law
may not be directed against the Government or non-political in objective, whereas coup
d’etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the Government and led by
persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police.
Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the conditions therein provided.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of coup d’etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion
because both crimes are directed against the Government or for political purposes,
although the principal offenders are different. The essence may be the same and thus
constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two crimes are not distinct and therefore,
may not be proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.
Criminal law – Felonies - Compound and complex crimes
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)
Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Compound crimes result when the offender committed only a single felonious act
from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first
part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or
less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the
same single act.
Complex crimes result when the offender has to commit an offense as a
necessary means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed
and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document
(2) DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a
counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the
credit card used by DD was counterfeit.
What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) DD committed a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document. As a user of a false or fake credit card, a commercial document, DD is
presumed to have falsified the same; Hence he does not only commit the crime of
using a false document but also the crime of falsification. Since he used such false or
fake credit card to defraud the owner of the store from whom he purchased the
Page 86 of 417
Criminal Law
television set, the crime of swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru the falsification of
said commercial document. He, therefore, committed the complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document.
Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime; Special complex crime; Delito
continuado
Distinguish the following from each other:
1. Complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. Special complex crime; and
3. Delito continuado. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. a) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized under
separate and distinct Articles of the Revised Penal Code but are allowed to be
alleged in one Information as an exception to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, because they are committed under the circumstances
provided in Article 48 of same Code, i.e., two or more grave or less grave
felonies resulted from a single act, or one offense was a necessary means for
committing the other offense.
In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the component
crimes constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one crime
under one Article of the Revised Penal Code, such as robbery with homicide
under Art. 294 of the Code.
Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a series of
overt acts committed by the offender in one place a penal law, and therefore
regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolution; hence, punished
as one crime offense
Criminal law – Felonies – Complex crime of multiple murder
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
“protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate
would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should
Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days
later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate,
arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the
bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping.
All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
Page 87 of 417
Criminal Law
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-old daughter, the complex crime of
multiple murder was committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime syndicate.
Criminal law – Complex crimes - Frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage
to property
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by
Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored
him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the
rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to
veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle
driver.
b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of frustrated robbery, with homicide and
damage to property (tricycle) in trying to rob the car. This resulted in the shooting of the
car by Carlos and the subsequent collision destroying the tricycle and the death of the
driver.
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide; the special complex crime of serious illegal detention with homicide
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of
the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old
mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of PI,000.00 but
Martin refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin's son with
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the
box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5.000.00 as ransom for the
release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz
disappeared.
After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his
child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
Page 88 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed a special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
and the penalty shall be only one death penalty.
When any individual, in any manner, unlawfully deprives another of his liberty,
the crime is designated as kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267,
Revised Penal Code. The penalty shall be death where the crime was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom. It is not necessary that the ransom be obtained by the
offender: it is enough that the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention be
committed for the purpose of demanding ransom.
Under the same Article of the Code, the death penalty is also prescribed if the
victim of the kidnapping dies as a result of the detention. However, since Paz committed
only one felony, a special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide, she
should be sentenced to only one death penalty.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Paz committed the crime of serious illegal detention because the victim is a
minor and because the victim died as a consequence of the detention, the special
complex crime of serious illegal detention with homicide under the last paragraph of
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is committed.
Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of rape through sexual assault
with homicide
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an
orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet
panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later
because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime
committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex
crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Page 89 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of rape with homicide
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took
turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang
down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased
her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never
seen again.
What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy each committed two (2) counts of the special complex crime of rape
with homicide under Art. 266-B for the rapes respectively committed on Dang and on
Lyn. Their felonious acts of grabbing and pushing the victims inside their van and later
forcing them to dance naked may only be appreciated as part of the violence and lewd
desires attending the rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.
Although, there is no indication that the same culprits killed Lyn who was never seen
again, it is reasonable to assume from what the culprits did to Dang, and from the acts
of violence they employed on Lyn, that they are answerable also for the presumed
death of Lyn whom the culprits took with them by force and was never seen again.
Hence, the rape committed against her is attended by homicide giving rise to the
special complex crime of rape with homicide also. It would be different if Lyn was not
subjected to physical violence. (R.A. 7659)
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the
accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of
the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given
retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents
and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for
each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised
Penal Code will not follow because RA 9346
Page 90 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Felonies -Special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of
Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon,
they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they
will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond
caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from
the NBI. The trio then left in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s
family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over
the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially
when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers.
Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed
his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a
barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station.
Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario
as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide because their purpose was to kill Luke when they seized him.
Mario, the taxi driver, does not incur criminal liability for the acts of Jaime, Andy
and Jimmy because he had no participation therein.
Emil and Louie should be liable only for murder for killing Luke in a defenseless
position, but not for keeping Luke since it was not their intention to detain him.
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of attempted murder with homicide
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 tatter'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 tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the
super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to
Page 91 of 417
Criminal Law
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%) (2000
Bar Question)
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).
Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave
felony: both are punishable by afflictive penalties.
Criminal law – Felonies – Special complex crime of rape with homicide
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house,
occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was
asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with
force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust,
Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit? Explain. (4%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape
with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under
Art. 304, RPC. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and with
the use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of Loretta by reason or on
the occasion of the rape, gave rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide.
Since the taking of the jewelry was an afterthought as it was done only when he was
about to leave the room and when Loretta was already dead, the same constitutes theft.
His possession and use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is by itself punishable
under Art. 304, RPC.
Page 92 of 417
Criminal Law
[c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if, despite the serious stab
wounds she sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer will be different. In that case, the crimes committed would be four
separate crimes of (1) rape (2) frustrated homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4) unlawful
possession and use of picklocks under Art. 304, RPC. The special complex crime of
rape with homicide is constituted only when both the rape and the killing are
consummated; when one or both of them are not consummated, they are to be charged
and punished separately. In any event, the possession of the picklock "without lawful
cause", more so its use in an unlawful entry is punished as a crime by itself.
Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San
Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local
development programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was
purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project.
Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the
disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear
that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the
money.
Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification.
Discuss the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct because the
falsifications of several documents were not necessary means to obtain the money that
were malversed. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation
and therefore, should be separately treated from malversation. The given facts state
that Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents "in
order to make it appear" that qualified recipients received the money. Art. 48, RPC on
complex crimes is not applicable.
Criminal law – Complex crimes - Robbery with homicide; direct assault with
multiple attempted homicide
While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and 'Domingo were robbing a bank,
policemen arrived. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the
responding policemen, and one of the policemen was killed.
Page 93 of 417
Criminal Law
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed are Robbery with homicide (Art. 294(1], RPC), a single
indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex
crime (Art. 48, Art. 148 and Art. 249, RPC; People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 (1934]).
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding
policemen was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The
complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in
respect of the offender's firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of
person in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance.
(People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000)
[b] Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the responding policemen,
what charges can be filed against Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain. (2%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of which Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo can be charged is Robbery with
Homicide (Art.294[1], RPC) because the killing resulted by reason or on the occasion, of
the robbery. It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers. A killing by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate or accidental, will be a
component of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, a single indivisible offense, as long
as it is intimately connected to the robbery.
[c] Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the policemen arrived,
Braulio shot and killed Alfredo following a heated disagreement on who should
carry the money bags, what would be the criminal liability of Braulio, Ciriaco and
Domingo? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with homicide (Art. 294[1], RPC) for killing
Alfredo, since the killing was by reason of the robbery. Ciriaco and Domingo having
conspired only in the commission of the robbery, should incur liability only for the crime
conspired upon—the robbery, unless they were with Braulio during the killing and could
have prevented the same but they did not, in which case they shall also be liable for
Robbery with homicide.
It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers and he was killed
during the robbery (People v, Barot, 89 SCRA 16 [19791).
Page 94 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Felonies - Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out
of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the
police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came
from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C
and D? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the
prosecutor charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred
arguing that they (A, B and C were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the
charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%)
(1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide
because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said
offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby
causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite
crime of robbery with homicide.
The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide
was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery
with homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not
only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the
facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged,
which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery
with homicide, not two crimes.
Criminal law – Special complex crimes- Robbery with homicide
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect
themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One
night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint
and took the latter's earnings.
What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
Page 95 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are
liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating
circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken
as generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v.
Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003).
Criminal law – Felonies – Carnnaping; Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and
Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with
the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just
then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded
a taxi and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his
inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney
overturned and was wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other
passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged
to the tune of P20.000.00.
What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. (1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to
property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is
enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated
because there is inability to dispose freely the object.
3. Circumstances affecting criminal liability
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall NOT be considered between
(2011 BAR)
(A) mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.
(B) adopted son and legitimate natural daughter.
(C) aunt and nephew.
(D) stepfather and stepson.
As a modifying circumstance, insanity (2011 BAR)
(A) is in the nature of confession and avoidance.
(B) may be presumed from the offender’s previous behavior.
(C) may be mitigating if its presence becomes apparent subsequent to the
commission of the crime.
Page 96 of 417
Criminal Law
(D) exempts the offender from criminal liability whatever the circumstances.
A qualifying aggravating circumstance (2011 BAR)
(A) changes the description and the nature of the offense.
(B) increases the penalty to its next degree but absorbs all the other aggravating
circumstances.
(C) raises the penalty by two periods higher.
(D) is one which applies only in conjunction with another aggravating
circumstance.
What is the nature of the circumstance which is involved in the imposition of the
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence? (2012 BAR)
a) qualifying circumstance;
b) aggravating circumstance;
c) modifying circumstance;
d) analogous circumstance.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Intoxication; When
considered as mitigating or aggravating
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many,
A and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. Asa result, B suffered
serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
mitigating? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
Answer:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as
there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional
on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt
a) Justifying circumstances
Three men gave Arnold fist blows and kicks causing him to fall. As they
surrounded and continued hitting him, he grabbed a knife he had in his pocket
and stabbed one of the men straight to the heart. What crime did Arnold commit?
(2011 BAR)
(A) Homicide with incomplete self-defense, since he could have run from his
aggressors.
(B) Homicide, since he knew that stabbing a person in the heart is fatal.
(C) Homicide mitigated by incomplete self-defense, since stabbing a person to
the heart is excessive.
(D) No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing reasonable
means for doing so.
Page 97 of 417
Criminal Law
To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned on the road,
Jose swerved his car to the right towards the graveled shoulder, killing two
bystanders. Is he entitled to the justifying circumstance of state of necessity?
(2011 BAR)
(A) No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with the abandoned truck on
the road.
(B) No, because the injury done is greater than the evil to be avoided.
(C) Yes, since the instinct of self-preservation takes priority in an emergency.
(D) Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the shoulder of the road.
Criminal law – Circumstances
circumstances; self-defense
affecting
criminal
liability
–
Justifying
Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the letter's house and angrily
inquired why he let loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants. Pedro saw
that Jose was aimed 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 of the means employed — namely,
stabbing with a dagger — because Pedro’s gun had no bullets.
Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is entitled to self-defense.
Considering the circumstance of the case, unlawful aggression, the first element of
self-defense is present. Pedro loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants and he
then loose his carabaos whicn destroyed his plants and then immediately drew his
revolver which Jose instinctively grabbed from Pedro’s hand. In the struggle for the
possession for the revolver, it was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro jumped for
the gun, Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro who fell down. Jose ran
away. The intimidating attitude of Pedro when he drew his revolver constitutes
imminent unlawful aggression. Jose did not give any provocation to Pedro. Pedro was
Page 98 of 417
Criminal Law
in a violent mood and in the mind of Jose, was armed, with revolver, in hand, and what
Jose did in grabbing the gun was to prevent an aggression that is expected (People vs.
Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing Pedro with a dagger was the only available
means to prevent the expected aggression considering that Jose acted by following his
instinct of self-preservation. The flight of Jose after stabbing Pedro cannot be
considered as evidence of guilt because he did so as he was afraid the relatives of
Pedro might kill him.
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability
–
Justifying
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. (1990 Bar Question)
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. (1990 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED 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.”
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying and
mitigating circumstances
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.
Page 99 of 417
Criminal Law
A. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State your reasons.
(1990 Bar Question)
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. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Justifying
circumstances; Aggravating circumstance of treachery; when not considered
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo 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. Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang.
A. What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury
to Yabang? (1992 Bar Question)
B. Was there conspiracy and treachery? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Treachery cannot likewise be appreciated as there was no conscious
adoption of means, methods or fonn to facilitate the commission of the felony.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article
11, RPG, 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
Page 100 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
In turn, is yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio? (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 term of weapon). Sergio, being a suspected killer, is no jurisdiction to be
killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis).
Criminal law – Justifying circumstance of defense of honor – when not sustained
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%)
(2000 Bar Question)
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.
Page 101 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances - Defense of honor; when untenable
One night, Lina, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her
bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito,
who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her.
After the act, the man said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not
recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her
husband. Furious. Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with
homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim
tenable? 15% (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the
unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in
self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is
no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Self-defense
Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail and ordered the
latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a
bamboo spear. Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before he
could strike again, Pat. Negre shot and killed him.
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon ran away without
parting with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running so
fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon to stop.
Inasmuch as Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and killing
him.
Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre
criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, self-defense can be claimed as there is an imminent and great peril on the
life of Negre;
No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more peril on his life;
Yes, excessive force is used.
Page 102 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Defense of a stranger
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%) (2002 Bar Question)
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.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability - Justifying and
exempting circumstances
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)
Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting
circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and,
generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is
generally incurred although there is no criminal liability
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability
–
Justifying
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 he thought were footsteps of an
uninvited 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 brotherin-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? (2003 Bar Question)
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
Page 103 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
Under which of the following circumstances is an accused not liable for the result
not intended? (2012 BAR)
a) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake in the identity of the victim.
b) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake in the blow.
c) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when the
wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
d) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake of fact constituting an involuntary act.
Alternative Answer:
c) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when the
wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
(i) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004
(R.A. No.9262)
(a) Battered woman syndrome
Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had
been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" until the wee
hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of
their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would
beat Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact,
in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy
that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal
abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as
she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead
drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives
Page 104 of 417
Criminal Law
against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession
of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which
caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband
suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain.
(2014, 2010)
A: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. It appears that she
is suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262, “victim survivors who are
found by courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self defense under the RPC.”
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ms. A may validly put up the justifying circumstance of self-defense, all requisites
thereof being present, namely:
1. Unlawful aggression which is a condition sine qua non. Here, Mr. B arrived that night
dead drunk and he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives.
This is unlawful aggression that is sudden and imminent and places Ms. A’s life in
peril.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The sudden and
imminent armed attack by Mr. B gave no other option to Ms. A but to attempt to
disarm Mr. B of his knife and to use the same to protect and save herself.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The
circumstances obtaining is very clear on this regard, Mr. B “arrived one night dead
drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives. There is
absolutely no circumstances mentioned in the problem to indicate provocation on the
part of the person defending herself.
The husband has for a long time physically and mentally tortured his wife. After
one episode of beating, the wife took the husband’s gun and shot him dead.
Under the circumstances, her act constitutes (2011 BAR)
(A) mitigating vindication of grave offense.
(B) battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.
(C) incomplete self-defense.
(D) mitigating passion and obfuscation.
A battered woman claiming self-defense under the Anti-Violence against Women
and Children must prove that the final acute battering episode was preceded by
(2011 BAR)
(A) 3 battering episodes.
(B) 4 battering episodes.
(C) 5 battering episodes.
(D) 2 battering episodes.
Page 105 of 417
Criminal Law
Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had
been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" until the wee
hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of
their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would
beat Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact,
in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy
that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal
abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as
she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead
drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives
against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession
of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which
caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband
suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain.
(2014, 2010)
Answer:
Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. It appears that she is
suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262, “victim survivors who are
found by courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self defense under the RPC.”
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ms. A may validly put up the justifying circumstance of self-defense, all requisites
thereof being present, namely:
3. Unlawful aggression which is a condition sine qua non. Here, Mr. B arrived that night
dead drunk and he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives.
This is unlawful aggression that is sudden and imminent and places Ms. A’s life in
peril.
4. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The sudden and
imminent armed attack by Mr. B gave no other option to Ms. A but to attempt to
disarm Mr. B of his knife and to use the same to protect and save herself.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The
circumstances obtaining is very clear on this regard, Mr. B “arrived one night dead
drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives. There is
absolutely no circumstances mentioned in the problem to indicate provocation on the
part of the person defending herself.
Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job
a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One
night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning,
Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her that he
Page 106 of 417
Criminal Law
would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good
on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more
endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia
stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too
much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide. (2015 BAR)
a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself
from criminal liability? Explain.
Answer:
No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia resulting to
the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not sufficient to avail
of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The
defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital
relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the
infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional
distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be
“at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and
such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent
harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to
save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being
beaten up after a second time? Explain.
Answer:
Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from
criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical and emotional
distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim
survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite
the absence of the requisites of self-defense.
Criminal law – Justifying circumstances – Battered Woman Syndrome
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came
home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to
apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred - Jack came home drunk and
started hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back,
Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days
later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several
Page 107 of 417
Criminal Law
days, however, Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was found
dead.
Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman
syndrome."
A. Define "Battered Woman Syndrome? (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships
as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 31dj, Rep. Act No. 9262).
What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? (3%)
(2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome" are: (1) the tensionbuilding phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or nonviolent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements
for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are
found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
b) Exempting circumstances
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a private person who enters the dwelling of
another against the latter's will and by means of violence or intimidation for the
purpose of preventing some harm to himself? (2012 BAR)
a) The private person is criminally liable for qualified trespass to dwelling.
b) The private person is criminally liable for simple trespass to dwelling.
c) The private person incurs no criminal liability.
d) The private person is criminally liable for light threats.
Page 108 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting
circumstances; when not appreciated
criminal
liability
–
Exempting
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.
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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:
a.
b.
c.
d.
A person is performing a lawful act;
With due care;
He causes an injury to another by mere accident;
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.
Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against the first neighbor whose
injuries requires 35 days of medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against
the second neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, were committed by Rodolfo.
Although both of these offenses were the result of one single act, a complex crime is
not committed because it is only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies that a complex crime may be committed under the first clause of
article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less grave felonies
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances - Insanity
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
Page 109 of 417
Criminal Law
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 home for extended periods of
time. The prosecution on the other hand, presented an array of witnesses to
prove A that was lucid before and after the crime was committed and that he
acted with discernment. After trial, the court convicted the 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 sen-tence of “life imprisonment” a correct imposition of penalty? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the court is correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstance. While
there was testimony that A was suffering from a mental 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.
The sentence of “life imprisonment" is not a correct imposition of penalty for the
rape: it should be reclusion perpetua, the technical designation of the penalty for the
crime under the Revised PenalBCode. It is not correct to use the term “life
imprisonment” because the accessory penalties to reclusion perpetua does not follow
the penalty of “life imprisonment". Furthermore, in reclusion perpetua the duration is
stated to be for 30 years.
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insuperable cause
VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG
was recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held
and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father
Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government.
Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities.
Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed?
What is his criminal liability? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is
one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person
Page 110 of 417
Criminal Law
criminally liable under Art. 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of
treason. Father Abraham is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his
failure to report can be considered as due to “insuperable cause", as this involves the
sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators,
but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US
vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353).
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating and
aggravating circumstances
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. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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.
2. Aggravating circumstances:
a. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism under paragraph 9. Article 14
should be considered against C if alleged in the Information (People vs. Peter
Cadevida, et al, G.R. No. L-94528, March 1. 1993).
b. The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article
14 of the Code, all the accused having used a motorized tricyle;
c. Treachery should be aggravating against all of the accused including M who
acted as a lookout because all of them were present when X was shot (Article
62. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). X was sleeping when shot to
death.
Page 111 of 417
Criminal Law
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? Distinguish a privileged mitigating
circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty
and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate the criminal liability of the
accused by graduating the imposable penalty for the crime being modified to one or two
degrees lower. These circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. The
circumstance of incomplete justification or exemption (when majority of the conditions
are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted
with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstance.
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances are as
follows:
i. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (RPC, Art. 64), the
presence of a mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating
circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum
period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the
presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the
penalty one to two degrees lower;
ii. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by aggravating
circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the offset rule.
Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating circumstance? (2014 BAR)
(A) 17-year-old offender
(B) 14-year-old offender
(C) incomplete self-defense
(D) incomplete defense of a relative
Who among the following accused is entitled to a privileged mitigating
circumstance that would lower the imposable penalty by one degree? (2013 BAR)
(A)
A minor above 15 years old and below 18 years old who acted with
discernment.
(B)
One who, in fulfilment of his duty to carry out the warrant of arrest of a
fugitive, shot the fugitive to death without ascertaining his identity.
(C)
One who defended himself against an unlawful aggression but used
unreasonable means and gave provocation.
(D)
All of the above.
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was
convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of
Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the
imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law
Page 112 of 417
Criminal Law
provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor
offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a
minor offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. (2014 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated
considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is
malum prohibitum?
If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was
filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application
for probation?
If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence?
ANSWER:
(A)
Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is a minor, the
penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. Now that
it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying circumstances
therein may also be applied. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible
penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be
considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the
penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.
(B)
Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special penal laws.
Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in turn was
graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People
vs. Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011)
(C)
Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a notice of appeal.
Section 42, RA 9344 provides: “The court may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place
the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account
the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968, otherwise
known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.”
(D)
The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means that the child in
conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even
beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.
If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall serve his
sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with Section
51 of RA 9344 as amended.
Page 113 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Exempting; mitigating
circumstances
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 ballpen.
The top of the ballpen 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.
Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
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;
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. 8369otherwise known as
the “Family Courts Act of 1997";
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
Page 114 of 417
Criminal Law
The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
(i) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also
refer to
Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility
(c) Determination of age
(d) Exemption from criminal liability
(e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility
(f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 9344
(g) Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58 of R.A. No.
9344
A child over fifteen (15) years of age acted with discernment in the commission of
murder. What is the duty of the court if he is already over eighteen (18) years of
age at the time of the determination of his guilt for the offense charged? (2012
BAR)
a) The court shall pronounce the judgment of conviction.
b) The court shall place the child under suspended sentence for a specified
period or until he reaches twenty-one (21) years of age.
c) The court shall discharge the child for disposition measures.
d) The court shall place the child on probation.
What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility? (2012 BAR)
a) fifteen (15) years old or under;
b) nine (9) years old or under;
c) above nine (9) years old and under fifteen (15) who acted with discernment;
d) above fifteen ( 15) years old and under eighteen ( 18) who acted with
discernment.
A, B and C, all seventeen (17) years of age, waited for nighttime to avoid detection
and to facilitate the implementation of their plan to rob G. They entered the room
of G through a window. Upon instruction of A, G opened her vault while B was
poking a knife at her. Acting as lookout, C had already opened the main door of
the house when the helper was awakened by the pleading of G to A and B to just
take the money from the vault without harming her. When the helper shouted for
help upon seeing G with A and B inside the room, B stabbed G and ran towards
the door, leaving the house with C. A also left the house after taking the money of
G from the vault. G was brought to the hospital where she died as a result of the
wound inflicted by B. Under the given facts, are A, B and C exempt from criminal
liability? If not, what is the proper charge against them or any of them? (2012
BAR)
Page 115 of 417
Criminal Law
a) A, B and C, being under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense, are exempt from criminal liability and should be
merely subjected to intervention program for child in conflict with the law.
b) There being no indication of having acted with discernment, A, B and C are
exempt from criminal liability, subject to appropriate programs in consultation with
the person having custody over the child in conflict with the taw or the local social
welfare and development officer.
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A, B and C are not
exempt from criminal liability and should be charged with the complex crime of
robbery with homicide, subject to automatic suspension of sentence upon finding
of guilt.
d) Under the given facts, A, B and C are not exempt from criminal liability
because they conspired to commit robbery for which they should be collectively
charged as principals, and in addition, B should be separately charged with
homicide for the death of G, subject to diversion programs for children over 15
and under 18 who acted with discernment.
Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165
(illegal sale of prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and sentenced, he
was already 21 years old. The court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for probation but his
application was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his sentence
under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael
avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this law? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The suspension
of sentence lasts only until the law reaches the maximum age and thus, could no longer
be considered a child for purposes of applying R.A. 9344. However, he shall be entitled
to the right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to
give him the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the
community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural camp and other
training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No.
182239, March 16, 2011).
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances - Suspended sentence under The Child
and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable
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.
Page 116 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The Child
and Youth Welfare Code? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Rod is only 14years 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 crimi-nal 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. 68. RPC.
No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the
youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or
death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192. The complex crime of robbery with homicide
is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RPC (People vs. Galit,
230 SCRA 486).
Special law- Suspension of sentence – PD 603 in relation to RA 8369
(a) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted
and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension
of the sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be
entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. (2003 Bar Question)
(b) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of
sentence? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer
a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of
Page 117 of 417
Criminal Law
suspension of sentence, the offender’s age at the time of promulgation of the
sentence is the one considered, not his age when he committed the crime. So
although A was below 18 years old when he committed the crime, but he was
already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension
of the sentence.
b. Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of
the sentence. The law establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to
this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the
sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have
incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of
application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth
Welfare Code” (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the
conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict:
this has been displaced by RA 8369.
Special law – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344) – When
applicable
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so
enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in
love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September
2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor
friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked.
Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took
turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang
down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased
her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never
seen again.
Will Nonoy’s minority exculpate him? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under Rep. Act 9344, referred to as the
“Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, if he was 15 years old or less: otherwise
he will be criminally and civilly liable considering that he acted with discernment when
he also raped the victims. At most, his minority will be appreciated as privileged
mitigating circumstance.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Persons exempt from
criminal liability
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay
the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely
Page 118 of 417
Criminal Law
alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid
the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.
Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal
liability? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for falsification of a private document,
he cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal liability
because Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides exemption from criminal liability
in crimes against property only for theft, swindling or malicious mischief but not for
falsification of documents.
If he would be made criminally liable for swindling, he can invoke his relationship
with Dennis because this crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private
document. The charge could, therefore, stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will
obtain.
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – in comparison with justifying
circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below nine (9)
years old;
A. Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] (1998
Bar Question)
B. 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
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%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. In justifying circumstances:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.
Page 119 of 417
Criminal Law
Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
1. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act;
2. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without
voluntariness;
3. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is
regarded only as an instrument of the crime;
4. There being a wrong done but no criminal, there is civil liability but no
criminal liability.
B. 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).
Criminal law – Exempting circumstances – Insanity as defense
While he was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair
with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told
Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death
while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters.
He was brought to the National Center for Mental health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.
Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a
defense to the commission of a crime must have existed and proven to be
existing at the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The facts
of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with discernment.
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case (2%) (2010
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the
proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for treatment
until he could already understand the proceedings.
Page 120 of 417
Criminal Law
c) Mitigating circumstances
Passion or obfuscation may be appreciated ________. (2013 BAR)
(A)
if it arises from jealousy in an amorous relationship between a married
man and a single woman
(B)
if it arises from jealousy of a man who has been living-in with the woman
for the past 20 years
(C)
if it arises from jealousy with immoral, lustful and vindictive sentiments of
the offender against the victim
(D)
in none of the above situations
W allowed a man to have sex with her thinking that he was her husband. After
realizing that the man was not her husband, W stabbed him to death. Under the
circumstances, the mitigating circumstance in attendance constitutes (2011 BAR)
(A) defense of honor.
(B) immediate vindication of a grave offense.
(C) passion or obfuscation.
(D) self-defense.
After properly waiving his Miranda rights, the offender led the police to where he
buried the gun he used in shooting the victim. How does this affect his liability?
(2011 BAR)
(A) This serves as an analogous mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
(B) It has no effect at all since the law provides none.
(C) He is considered to have confessed to murder.
(D) This serves as aggravating circumstance of concealment of weapon.
Without meaning anything, Z happened to stare into the eye of one of four men
hanging out by a store which he passed. Taking offense, the four mauled and
robbed him of his wages. Z went home, took a knife, and stabbed one of his
attackers to death. Charged with murder, Z may raise the mitigating circumstance
of (2011 BAR)
(A) praeter intentionem.
(B) incomplete self-defense preceded by undue provocation.
(C) passion or obfuscation.
(D) complete self-defense.
The presence of a mitigating circumstance in a crime (2011 BAR)
(A) increases the penalty to its maximum period.
(B) changes the gravity of the offense.
(C) affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying circumstances.
(D) automatically reduces the penalty.
To mitigate his liability for inflicting physical injury to another, an accused with a
physical defect must prove that such defect restricted his freedom of action and
Page 121 of 417
Criminal Law
understanding. This proof is not required where the physical defect consists of
(2011 BAR)
(A) a severed right hand.
(B) complete blindness.
(C) being deaf mute and dumb.
(D) a severed leg.
An extenuating circumstance, which has the same effect as a mitigating
circumstance, is exemplified by (2011 BAR)
(A) the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.
(B) the accused committing theft out of extreme poverty.
(C) the accused raping his victim in extreme state of passion.
(D) the accused surrendering the weapon he used in his crime to the authorities.
Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance which operates to reduce the
penalty by a degree where the child is (2011 BAR)
(A) 15 years and below acting without discernment.
(B) above 15 years but below 18 acting without discernment.
(C) below 18 years acting with discernment.
(D) 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime acting with
discernment.
The crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is mitigated when
the offenders (2011 BAR)
(A) entered the house using false keys.
(B) although armed did not fire their weapons.
(C) entered through a window without breaking it.
(D) although armed took property valued at only P200.
The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot
be appreciated in a case where (2011 BAR)
(A) Following the killing of his adopted brother, P went to the place where it
happened and killed S whom he found there.
(B) X kills Y who attempted to rape X’s wife.
(C) P severely maltreats S, a septuagenarian, prompting the latter to kill him.
(D) M killed R who slandered his wife.
Deeply enraged by his wife’s infidelity, the husband shot and killed her lover. The
husband subsequently surrendered to the police. How will the court appreciate
the mitigating circumstances of (i) passion or obfuscation, (ii) vindication of a
grave offense, and (iii) voluntary surrender that the husband invoked and
proved? (2011 BAR)
(A) It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender as one
mitigating circumstance and vindication of a grave offense as another.
(B) It will appreciate all three mitigating circumstances separately.
(C) It will appreciate the three mitigating circumstances only as one.
Page 122 of 417
Criminal Law
(D) It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and vindication of a grave offense as
just one mitigating circumstance and voluntary surrender as another.
A killed M. After the killing, A went to the Barangay Chairman of the place of
incident to seek protection against the retaliation of M's relatives. May voluntary
surrender be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in favor of A? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. A surrendered to the Barangay Chairman who is a person in authority.
b) Yes. The surrender of A would save the authorities the trouble and expense
for his arrest.
c) No. A did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to
acknowledge his participation in the killing or to save the authorities the trouble
and expenses necessary for his search and capture. (* People vs. Del Castillo,
GR 169084, January 18, 2012)
d) No. The surrender to the Barangay Chairman is not a surrender to the proper
authorities.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Mitigating and
aggravating circumstances
(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. (1988 Bar Question)
(b) The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then threw the body of the baby
outside the window.
Can the aggravating circumstances of “cruelty” be considered in this case?
Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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.”
Page 123 of 417
Criminal Law
Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be considered. Benito
should be charged with frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstances of
passion.
(b) Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty requires deliberates prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the
baby was dead already so that there is no more prolongation to speak of.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender
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. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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)
Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances - Voluntary surrender and plea of guilty;
when not considered
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.
Page 124 of 417
Criminal Law
Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
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.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender; plea of guilty
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? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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 vs, Ablao, 183
SCRA658). 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).
Page 125 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Plea of guilty
A. In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be
complied with? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
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%) (1999 Bar Question)
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.
Criminal law - Mitigating circumstances –Voluntary surrender
When is surrender by an accused considered voluntarily, and constitutive
of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
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:
- spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for
convenience nor conditional;
- made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking
down the offender's whereabouts; and
- made to a person in authority or the letter's agents.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - No intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed; intoxication
Page 126 of 417
Criminal Law
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 tatter'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 tatter'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.If you
were Jonas' and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor
of your clients? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. Forttch, 281 SCRA 600 [1997]: Art
15, RFC).
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances –no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that which was committed
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
Page 127 of 417
Criminal Law
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%)
(2001 Bar Question)
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 letter'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 Cesar1'.
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.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Immediate vindication of a grave
offense to a descendant
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. Charged with homicide, A claimed
he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the
benefit of any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%) (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter’s honor in having killed B since
the rape was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was
no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of.
Page 128 of 417
Criminal Law
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances – Voluntary surrender
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal
negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to impose a
penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Criminal law – Mitigating circumstances - Lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the
police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street.
Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to
make it appear that he was about to run her over. He rewed the engine of his car
and drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was slippery at
that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death.
What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the felonious act which caused Belle’s
death, although the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to commit so
grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 (3), RPC). The act, having been deliberately
done with malice, is felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s death, brings
about criminal liability although the wrong done was different from what was intended
(Art. 4, [1], RPC).
d. Aggravating circumstances
(i) Generic
When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band? (2012 BAR)
Page 129 of 417
Criminal Law
a) When armed men, at least four (4) in number, take direct part in the execution
of the act constituting the crime.
b) When three (3) armed men act together in the commission of the crime.
c) When there are four ( 4) armed persons, one of whom is a principal by
inducement.
d) When there are four (4) malefactors, one of whom is armed.
Which of the following circumstances may be taken into account for the purpose
of increasing the penalty to be imposed upon the convict? (2012 BAR)
a) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law.
b) Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime to such a degree
that they must of necessity accompany the crime.
c) Aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender.
d) Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a crime.
Arthur, Ben, and Cesar quarreled with Glen while they were at the latter’s house.
Enraged, Arthur repeatedly stabbed Glen while Ben and Cesar pinned his arms.
What aggravating circumstance if any attended the killing of Glen? (2011 BAR)
(A) Evident premeditation.
(B) None.
(C) Abuse of superior strength.
(D) Treachery.
Ana visited her daughter Belen who worked as Caloy’s housemaid. Caloy was not
at home but Debbie, a casual visitor in the house, verbally maligned Belen in
Ana’s presence. Irked, Ana assaulted Debbie. Under the circumstances, dwelling
is NOT regarded as aggravating because (2011 BAR)
(A) Dwelling did nothing to provoke Ana into assaulting Debbie.
(B) Caloy, the owner of the house, was not present.
(C) Debbie is not a dweller of the house.
(D) Belen, whom Debbie maligned, also dwells in the house.
The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is aggravating in murder
committed (2011 BAR)
(A) on a banca far out at sea.
(B) in a house located in cul de sac.
(C) in a dark alley in Tondo.
(D) in a partly occupied condominium building.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances
In an information for Murder against A. B, and C, the prosecution alleges
Treachery as the qualifying circumstance and the following generic aggravating
Page 130 of 417
Criminal Law
circumstances: (1) noctumity, (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) employing
means to weaken the defense. At the trial, the prosecution, without objection
from the de ofvcio counsel for the accused, proved evident premeditation. It
likewise successfully proved the qualifying and the generic aggravating
circumstances alleged in the information.
For the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon
the accused, may the court take into account evident premeditation and the other
generic aggravating circumstances? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as far as evident premeditation is concerned, but only as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
Since treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superior strength and employing
means to weaken the defense, they can no longer be considered as additional
circumstances.
Supposing that treachery was not proved, may evident premeditation, which
was duly proved, be considered as the qualifying circumstances? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, since it was not alleged in the information; qualifying circumstances not alleged
if proved during trial will only be considered as generic.
If the prosecution failed to prove treachery and did not offer any evidence to
prove evident premeditation, does acquittal of the accused follow? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, but liability will only be for homicide, as there is no circumstances to qualify it to
murder.
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability
–Aggravating
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.
Page 131 of 417
Criminal Law
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
(1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because
there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to
facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime (People
vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than
three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are
considered deadly weapons.
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting
circumstances; cruelty; relationship
criminal
liability
–Aggravating
Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny,
forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with
a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her.
What aggravating circumstances are present in this case? (1994 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cruelty, for burning the victim’s face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately
augmenting the victim’s suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the
offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas, 181
SCRA 316).
Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender
and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability-
Aggravating
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
Page 132 of 417
Criminal Law
house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo
and his family.
Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be
appreciated against the four? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:
i) Band because all the four offenders are armed:
ii) Noctumity because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime;
iii) dwelling: and
iv) Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed
was “at a desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this
circumstance in committing the crime.
Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Evident premeditation, treachery,
nighttime and unlawful entry
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a
separate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of
having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his
wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to
bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation
between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he
resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered
the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the
victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several
wounds, which caused his death within a few hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful
entry? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he
resolved to kill the victim 'later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the
latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly
and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the
Page 133 of 417
Criminal Law
defense which the victim might have made (People us. Dequifto. 60 Phil. 279 People
vs. Miranda, et aL, 90 Phil. 91).
Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused
deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act The Intention
to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People vs. Pardo. 79
Phil. 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, Inasmuch
as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the
proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14, par. 18, Revised Penal Code. People
vs. Baruga. 61 Phil. 318).
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances
A. Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect
on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating
circumstance. (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can
be offset by mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the
maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot
be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the nature of the crime to a
graver one, or brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be
offset by mitigating circumstances;
4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially accompany the commission of
the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.
B. Generic aggravating circumstances:
1. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in
degree than that ordinarily prescribed.
2. Can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;
3. need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the
trial, the same shall be considered in imposing the sentence.
Qualifying circumstances:
1. must be alleged In the Information and proven during trial;
Page 134 of 417
Criminal Law
2. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than
that ordinarily prescribed.
Which of the following is not a qualifying aggravating circumstance? (2014 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
treachery
evident premeditation
dwelling
cruelty
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate
would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should
Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days
later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate,
arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the
bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping.
All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The treachery
attending the killing shall be separately appreciated as another aggravating
circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying circumstance.
Other aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated are:
1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the home of the victims who
had not given any provocation;
2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried out the killing at around 3:00
AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of the
crime;
3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned above, considering that
victims were all asleep when killed; and
4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23
R.A. 7659), amending for this purpose Art. 62(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Page 135 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Circumstances affecting criminal liability – Aggravating
circumstances
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house,
occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was
asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with
force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust,
Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry.
[b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of
dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim.
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the privacy of
Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that
"dwelling" includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party
where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode.
Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely
or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by
him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, nocturnity is aggravating
when taken advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus
facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an
aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself
where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of picklocks is
equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things.
(ii) Qualifying
Criminal law – Crimes affecting criminal liability – Aggravating circumstances;
guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was
alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and
her mother testified that she was only six years and ten months old, which her
aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the
accused was the victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
On automatic review before the Supreme Court, accused- appellant
contends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the
Page 136 of 417
Criminal Law
inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the
elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.
Is appellant’s contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The
age of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the
crime as qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in
appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by
authentic document, such as baptismal certificate and school records;
If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or
otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim’s
mother or any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age
or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of
the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following
circumstances: (a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and
what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the
victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age
under the circumstances above-stated, complainant’s sole testimony can
suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused
(People vs. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002D])
5.
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability
–
Qualifying
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one
occasion, Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask him
why he got his (Diego’s) plow without permission. One word led to another.
Diego, in a fit of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo’s
9-year old son, Mario, who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father.
Afraid that he might also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket
and hid in a comer of the house. To conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought
Pablo’s body inside the house and burned it. Mario was also burned to death.
What crime or crimes did Diego commit? (1989 Bar Question)
Page 137 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death of Pablo and (2) the special
complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
house and the death of Mario.
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not being attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel.
The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it
not for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have been arson. But inside the
house was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the
death resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death
results, the offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613,
which expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v.
Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1950).
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he set it on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire as the qualifying
circumstance.
Criminal law –
circumstances
Circumstances
affecting
criminal
liability
–
Qualifying
(b) When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a
crime? (2003 Bar Question)
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.
Page 138 of 417
Criminal Law
(a)
Decree
Codifying
the
Laws
on
Illegal/Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives (P.D.
1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294) as an aggravating
circumstance
Criminal law- Aggravating circumstances – Special aggravating circumstance of
the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a crime
A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town.
The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the
killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal
possession of firearms.
Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is
not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep.
Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if
no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in
its commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance,
provided that such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.
Criminal law – Aggravating circumstances - Use of an unlicensed firearm in
homicide or murder
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic
aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in
homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep. Act No.
8294. It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Art.14 of the Revised
Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011).
Page 139 of 417
Criminal Law
(b) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165)
(i) As a qualifying aggravating circumstance
(ii) Immunity from prosecution and punishment, coverage
(iii) Minor offenders
(iv) Application/Non- application of RPC provisions (Sec. 98,
R.A.
No. 9165) provisions (Sec. 98) cf. Art. 10, RPC
George, the 20-year old son of a rich politician, was arrested at the NAIA arrival
lounge and found positive for opium, a dangerous drug. When arrested, 15 grams
of cocaine were found in his backpack.
What offense would you charge George under R.A. No. 9160 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act)? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Use of dangerous drug.
(B)
Use and possession of dangerous drugs.
(C)
Possession of dangerous drugs.
(D)
Importation of dangerous drugs.
(E)
None of the above.
Special penal law - The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165) – Chain of custody
Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted
of violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the
admissibility of the evidence because the police officers who conducted the buybust operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence
confiscated and/or seized from him.
What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its
rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement? (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded,
authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from
the time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in
the forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and eventual
presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal violation, and for destruction.
(Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.1 Series of 2002)
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the
crime by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in the violation
Page 140 of 417
Criminal Law
has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is
a method of authenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable
doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims it to be.
Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence
questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
e) Alternative circumstances
f) Absolutory cause
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about
the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arresthim for lack of concrete
evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo and requested him
to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying
that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do
with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio
explained that only he could help capture Rado because he used to be his
customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying
shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked
money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and
upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team
members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with
violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of2002. (2015 BAR)
a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from criminal
liability? Explain.
Answer:
Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA 9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of
2002”. He may have violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of shabu but he is
immune from prosecution and punishment because of his role as the poseur-buyer in
the entrapment operation. There was virtually instigation. He is exempted from
prosecution or punishment because the information obtained from him by the PDEA
agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence of Rado’s drug-pushing activities, led
to the whereabouts, identity and arrest of Rado. So long as the information and
testimony given are pleaded and proven, Ernilo cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA
9165.
b) May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's defense? Explain.
Answer:
No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165. It
is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a
Page 141 of 417
Criminal Law
buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without
anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, the immunity does
not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165).
Lastly, he was the offender of the crime and apparently the most guilty of the offense.
Criminal law - Kidnapping and serious illegal detention; release of victim, not
absolutory
B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day,
DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At
the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal
liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and
before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.
Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the
offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which
such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the
crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D]
4. Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation
AA knowingly and wilfully induced BB to swear falsely. BB testified as told in a
formal hearing of an administrative case under circumstances rendering him
guilty of perjury. Is AA criminally liable? (2012 BAR)
a) AA is not criminally liable because his act constitutes subornation of perjury
which is not expressly penalized in the Revised Penal Code.
b) AA is not criminally liable because he was not the one who gave false
testimony in the administrative case.
c) AA is not criminally liable because the witness suborned testified in an
administrative case only.
d) AA is criminally liable for perjury as principal by inducement with BB as the
principal by direct participation.
He is an accomplice who (2011 BAR)
(A) agreed to serve as a lookout after his companions decided to murder the
victim.
(B) watched quietly as the murderer stabbed his victim.
(C) helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detection.
(D) provided no help, when he can, to save the victim from dying.
Page 142 of 417
Criminal Law
Zeno and Primo asked Bert to give them a sketch of the location of Andy’s house
since they wanted to kill him. Bert agreed and drew them the sketch. Zeno and
Primo drove to the place and killed Andy. What crime did Bert commit? (2011
BAR)
(A) Accomplice to murder, since his cooperation was minimal.
(B) Accessory to murder, since his map facilitated the escape of the two.
(C) None, since he took no step to take part in executing the crime.
(D) Principal to murder, since he acted in conspiracy with Zeno and Primo.
A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C
remained outside as lookout. After getting the cash, A and B decided to set the
house on fire to destroy any evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did
C commit? (2011 BAR)
(A) Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the robbery.
(B) Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.
(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
(D) Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.
A private person who assists the escape of a person who committed robbery
shall be liable (2011 BAR)
(A) as a principal to the crime of robbery.
(B) as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
(C) as a principal to the crime of obstruction of justice.
(D) as an accessory to the crime of obstruction of justice.
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr.
Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a
loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to
the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue
and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You
already know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill
Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (2014 BAR)
What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for
the death of Mr. Green?
Answer:
Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Green as principals by direct
participation. They were the ones who participated in the criminal resolution and who
carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly
tended to the same end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal by
inducement because his statement that Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr.
Green was not made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime. There is no showing that the words uttered by him may be considered as so
efficacious and powerful so as to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v.
Page 143 of 417
Criminal Law
Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, February 24, 1931). Neither is there evidence to show that
Mr. Red has an ascendancy or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue (People v. Abarri,
F.R. No. 90815, March 1, 1995).
What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for
the injuries of Ms. Yellow?
Answer:
Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by direct participation for the crime of
physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. Having no
participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, Mr. Red would have no criminal liability
therefor.
A was bitten by a dog owned by a neighbor. The following day, angered by the
incident, A took the dog without the knowledge of the owner, had it butchered
and cooked the meat. He then invited his friends to partake of the dish with his
friends who knew fully well that the dog was taken without the knowledge of the
owner. What are the friends of A liable for? (2014 BAR)
(A) Theft
(B) Malicious mischief
(C) Accessories
(D) Obstruction of Justice
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo
was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came
with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault
until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he
saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million.
He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that
included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what
to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon
after, the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted
that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's liability?
(2013 BAR)
Answer:
Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory under Art. 19,
such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term
“knowledge “under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the
crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an
accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto
under Art. 20, RPC.
Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012 BAR)
Page 144 of 417
Criminal Law
A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being the principal, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC).
Q: Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the
criminal design of the principal, their participation, the penalty to be imposed in
relation to the penalty for the principal, and the requisites/elements to be
established by the prosecution in order to hold them criminally responsible for
their respective roles in the commission of the crime. (2012 BAR)
A: The differences between an accomplice and conspirator are as follows:
Knowledge of
the
criminal
design of the
principal
Participation
ACCOMPLICE
CONSPIRATOR
They know and agree with the
criminal design. They come to
know it after the principals have
reached the decision and only then
do they agree to cooperate in its
execution.
Accomplices are mere instruments
who perform acts not essential to
the commission of the crime.
One degree lower than that of the
principal.
They know of and join in the
criminal design. They know the
criminal intention because they
themselves have decided upon
such course of action.
Penalty
Requisites
(1) community of criminal design;
that is, knowing the criminal design
of
the
principal
by
direct
participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose; (2) the
performance of the previous or
simultaneous acts that are not
indispensible to the commission of
the crime
Conspirators are the authors of
the crime.
Same as principal
NOTE: Conspiracy alone is not
punishable except in cases
where
the
law
specifically
prescribes a penalty.
(1) that two or more persons
come to an agreement;
(2) that the agreement concerned
the commission of a crime; and
(3) that the execution of the
felony was decided upon.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/degree of participation – Co-conspirator;
accomplice
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 wheri 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
Page 145 of 417
Criminal Law
shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss
the criminal liability of Arturo, if any. 15% (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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 SCRA1; People vs. 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.
SUGGESTED 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.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - Principal by
direct participation and co-principal by indispensable cooperation
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 tatter'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 tatter'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
Page 146 of 417
Criminal Law
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.
If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal
by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja
should be held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of
Jonas' criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in
that criminal design by providing the firearm.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by
inducement; Accessory
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was
earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo
from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was
prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This
distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with
their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo:
“Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and
died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital.
He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from
Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on
time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he
gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he
told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao.
What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your
answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by
circumstances affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of murder committed
by Rodolfo because he assisted him to escape to Manila. But he is not criminally liable
because of his relationship to Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an accessory to the crime
of homicide, because this crime is not included in treason, parricide, muraer, attempt
against the life of the Chief Executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime if the accessory is a private person. However, this is moot and
academic because of the relationship of Jose to Rodolfo.
Page 147 of 417
Criminal Law
Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out
of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends
Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the valuables in the house while
Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve as the
lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried
out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the house through the
backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were
locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and
immediately left using the getaway car. After driving for about one kilometer, Nel
realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed
Gorio to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was still
empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag
and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel took
a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept
hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who
called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the
criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are criminally liable as principals for the crime of Theft. They
conspired to take Elgar’s personal properties without his knowledge, with intent to gain,
and without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308,
RPC) Nel and Ben entered the house through an unlocked backdoor and took the
valuables from the rooms and drawers that wer likewise left unlocked. Nel and Ben are
liable as principals by direct participation while Ardo and Gorio are principals by
indispensable cooperation because they have concurred in the criminal resolution and
cooperated by performing another act as lookout and driver of a getaway car,
respectively, which were indispensable for the commission of the crime (Art. 17, RPC).
Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homicide for the death of Fermin.
The killing of Fermin was a separate act and was not a necessary means for committing
Theft (Art. 48, RPC) because the latter crime was already consummated. Nel killed
Fermin for a different reason perhaps because of his anger that Fermin was in
possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his smart phone to contact
the police.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
All the offenders are liable for the crime of Robbery with Homicide. They are in
conspiracy mwith each other, and after unlawfully taking the property of Elgar, killing
occurred. In People v. Disimban (G.R. No. L-1746, January 31, 1951), the Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Homicide although the robbery victim
was different from the homicide victim. In People v. Sandoval, the Supreme court ruled
that those who took part as principals in the Robbery will also be held guilty as
Page 148 of 417
Criminal Law
principals of Robbery with Homicide although they did not actually take part in the
Homicide.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by
inducement
Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the death of his brother, Jose, in
the hands of Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to Dalmacio, known tough guy,
to kill Pedro by promising him P50,000 to be paid after he had accomplished the
killing. Dalmacio agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court the following day at
9:00 a.m. at the city hall to attend the hearing involving the death of Jose, Mario
told Dalmacio to carry out the plan at that exact time in the court room, to which
Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the Police
Department and told him that Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the city
hall. He asked Captain Malonso to prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city
hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio had already killed Pedro. Is Mario
liable as co-principal with Dalmacio for the killing of Pedro? Give your reasons.
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio,
which is an agreement for a consideration for the purpose of avenging his brother's
death the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission
of the crime. Furthermore, the facts show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill
Pedro except the inducement, which is therefore the determining cause for the
commission of the crime by Dalmacio.
Mario's change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not, after all,
prevent the consummation of the crime, because it was too late, does not alter the
course of his criminal liability as a co-principal by inducement. Desistance from carrying
out a criminal design is no defense if such desistance has not actually and successfully
prevented the commission of the crime.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principal by
inducement
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised
B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised
to him but because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who
had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal
by inducement? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he
promised S is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
Page 149 of 417
Criminal Law
criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole
consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which
the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the
killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing
grudge.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – accomplice and
a conspirator
a.) Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The distinctions between an accomplice and a conspirator are:
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution
of the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts;
whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a coprincipal.
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act
alone of cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs
criminal liability not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime
but also for the acts of the other participants in the commission of the crime
collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime are
considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal
responsibility.
3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal
design or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the
adoption or making of the criminal design.
4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a
principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.
Criminal law - Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - principal by
indispensable cooperation; principal by inducement
To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his
cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC
Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to
be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her
P50,000.00, she consented.
She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and
Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's
signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy
and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also
gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and
Page 150 of 417
Criminal Law
provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to
escape.
What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent,
the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed in this case are as follows:
Chito committed the crimes of 1.
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working out the
escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent;
2.
Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212, RPC); and
3.
Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement
(Art. 172 [1], RPC).
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC)
as a principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal
plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to
such criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he
escaped pursuant to human instinct only.
Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the
crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during
the term of his imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in
consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of
jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said
Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito
by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the
judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
4. 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of
Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that
enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail,
committed the crimes of –
Page 151 of 417
Criminal Law
1.
Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or
consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by
him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC);
2.
Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for
leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to
escape (Art. 210, RPC);
The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that
he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that
would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of cooperation - Accomplice
Ponciano borrowed Ruben's gun, saying that he would use it to kill
Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told
Ponciano: "0, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano
killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want Freddie's neighbors to
hear the gunshot.
[a] What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in
Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben's gun. Neither may
Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decisionmaking of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal
plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the killing of Freddie because
his act of lending his gun to Ponciano did not have a relation between the acts done by
the latter to that attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun, Poncian.o
would have consummated the act of killing Freddie. In other words, Ruben's act in
lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable Ponciano to consummate the crime.
[b] Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a
relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben's gun? Explain. (3%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely
for the killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano's using Ruben's gun in
Page 152 of 417
Criminal Law
killing a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing
involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to
kill a particular person, but the offender used it to kill another person, the owner of the
gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. While there was
community of design to kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with
respect to the killing of Manuel.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The answer would be same because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano with
knowledge that it would be used in killing a person, thus with knowledge that the gun
would be used to commit a crime. It is of no moment who was killed, so long as Ruben
is aware when he lent the gun that it would be used to commit a crime.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation - Accessory
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case
pending in court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo
informed his lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to bum
the store because Sing Hua was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance
on the store. Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an
additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000.00 lire insurance once this was
collected from the insurance company. He further said that Sing Hna’s claim for
payment of the fire insurance was still pending and its approval depended on the
outcome of the arson case. This meant that the ABC Insurance Company would
pay the claim should Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case. Then he would also
get the 10% share of the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer Juanito that by
depending him in the arson case, the latter would be helping collect the 10%
which would amount of P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo’s story, Atty.
Juanito told him he could not further give him professional advice or services
and so Ricardo left That same day, Juanito went to the NBI and told the NBI what
Ricardo narrated him. The NBI alerted ABC Insurance Company, which
immediately denied the daim for payment of insurance and filed a complaint for
attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua and Ricardo.
A. Did Juanito commit any crime? (1987 Bar Question)
B. Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the
professional services of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already
paid Sing Hua the insurance and the latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10%
thereof? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not give him
professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the
Page 153 of 417
Criminal Law
department store hired him to bum the store because it was losing heavily and
wanted to get the insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000
with a promise of an additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000 fire
insurance once collected from the insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied
with his obligation as a lawyer to report to the authorities whatever knowledge he
has regarding the commission of a crime.
B. Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the
insurance proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or
assisted the principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of
the crime.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Principals;
accessory
Emilio and Andres were walking home from the farm at 8:00 o’clock in the
evening when they met Asiong whom Emilio suspected as the one who stole his
fighting cock two (2) days before; Emilio confronted Asiong and after a heated
discussion, a bolo fight between the two (2) ensued. Asiong sustained fatal
wounds and died. Emilio asked Andres to help him carry the body of Asiong and
bury it behind the bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked up the jute bag
Asiong was then holding and found inside P600 which Emilio and Andres divided
each getting P300. A week after the investigation by the police, a complaint was
filed in the Office of Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres for robbery with
homicide with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place.
If you were the fiscal, what information or informations will you file against Emilio
and Andres? What are their respective criminal liabilities? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate informations against Emilio and
Andres, one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as accessory, and
another for theft against both Emilio and Andres as principals. This is so because of the
following reasons:
1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any qualifying
circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the moment, in the course of a
bolo fight, as an aftermath of a heated discussion.
2. Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery. There was
no intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of
the killing. The taking of Asiong’s P600.00 was only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the
killing was already perpetrated. There is no causal or other connection between the act
of killing and the act of taking the money.
3. Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he had no
participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died solely
because of the wounds inflicted on him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal.
However, when Andres agreed to help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and bury it
Page 154 of 417
Criminal Law
behind the bushes, thus concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti)
to prevent its discovery, he became an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art. 19,
RPC).
With respect to the taking of the P600.00 which Emilio and Andres divided
between themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-principals. Theft because
with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons no force upon
things, they took personal property of another without the latter’s consent. They acted
with unity of purposes and intention, thus making them co-principals by direct
participation.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/Degree of participation-Accessory
B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned
the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB
raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an
accessory.
Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No, MCB’s defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of
an accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of
the crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the
crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation - Accessory
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge.
His mother told him to hide in the maid's quarters until she finds a better place for
him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt's house. A week later,
Jake was apprehended by the police. Can Jake's mother and aunt be made
criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her son's having committed a felony,
such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory.
But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express
provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake's aunt depends on her knowledge
of the felony committed by Jake. If she had knowledge of his commission of the felony,
Page 155 of 417
Criminal Law
her act of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as
accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake's commission of
the felony, she would not be liable.
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation – Accessory
Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise
confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo
shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing,
Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000
and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The
mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder criminal responsibility of an accomplice,
not of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could not be
liable as an accessory to Cece's murder. To incur criminal liability of an accessory for
helping or assisting in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of the crime
committed. Unless Domeng would be considered as a co-principal by indispensable
cooperation in the commission of the murder, the Mayor, by assisting him to escape,
would be an accessory to the felony.
a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of
Criminal
Offenders (P.D.1829)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal
liability)
Criminal law – Persons criminally liable/ Degree of participation; Special
penal law - Obstruction of justice
Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise
confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo
shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing,
Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000
and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The
mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)
Page 156 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an accessory to the killing of
Cece, he may be held liable for obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No.
1829 for assisting Domeng, who was involved in the commission of a crime, to escape
from Manila to Mindanao.
5. Penalties
The penalty of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for the exercise of
the right of suffrage does NOT deprive the offender of the right (2011 BAR)
(A) to be elected to a public office.
(B) to vote in any popular election for a public office.
(C) to vote in a plebiscite.
(D) to hold any public office.
Criminal law – Penalties – Classes of penalties under the Revised Penal Code
A. State the two classes of penalties under the revised Penal Code. Define
each. (1988 Bar Question)
B. May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not? (1988
Bar Question)
C. What offenses, if any, may be punished with the death penalty in our
jurisdiction at present? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as
follows:
Principal
Accessory
A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by
court expressly upon conviction.
An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalty.
B. Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal, because a censure is a
penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.)
C. At present, no offense may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the abolition
affects even those who has already been sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless
Page 157 of 417
Criminal Law
Congress enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death penalty at present.
But until today, Congress has not yet passed a law to this effect.
Criminal law – Penalties – Subsidiary penalty; penalty in lieu of the penalty
imposed in the sentence
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage to property through reckless
imprudence for bumping the car of Jose and the court of sentenced him to pay a
fine of P3,Q00. Pedro failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was insolvent.
Later, the court ordered the incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could serve
subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas
corpus alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will the petition prosper? Give
your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The petition for habeas corpus will prosper. Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
penalty which inheres to a principal penalty and may therefore be imposed even if it is
not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in
the sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or sentence expressly provides for
subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot be made to undergo the same (People vs.
Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639).
In this case, the court merely sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It was only
LATER that the Court ordered the incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary
imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine. Subsidiary
imprisonment cannot be imposed unless it is expressly provided in the sentence.
Criminal law – Penalties – Factors to consider to arrive at the correct penalty
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence
presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2)
accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the exact
penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must consider
to arrive at the correct penalty? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Determine the crime committed;
Stage of execution and degree of participation;
Determine the penalty;
Consider the modifying circumstances;
Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.
NOTE ON QUESTIONS VI, VII and VIII
Page 158 of 417
Criminal Law
In answering the three succeeding problems below, you may need to recall the
following ranges of penalty:
DEATH
Reclusion Perpetua
Reclusion Temporal: 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
Minimum
12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
8 months
Medium
14 years, 8 months and 1 day to 17
years and 4 months Maximum 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years
Prision Mayor:
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
6 years and 1 day to 12 years
6 years and 1 day to 8 years
8 years and 1 day to 10 years
10 years and 1 day to 12 years
Prision Correcional:
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
6 months and 1 day to 6 years
6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months
2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months
4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years
Arresto Mayor:
Minimum
Medium
Maximum
1 month and 1 day to 6 months
1 month and 1 day to 2 months
2 months and 1 day to 4 months
4 months and 1 day to 6 months
Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for
parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
Impose the proper principal penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised
Penal Code; People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador, 60 Phil. 593,
where the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of
illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating
circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua.
Page 159 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Penalties – Prision correctional as minimum, prision mayor
maximum as maximum
A was convicted of the complex crime of death through falsification of public
document. Since the amount involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty
prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods. The penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public document is
prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5.000.00.
Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor
maximum (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in
accordance with People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549. where it was ruled that for the
purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be
considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty
prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the
penalty actually applied because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty
next lower in degree therefor is prision correctional and it is within the range of this
penalty that the minimum should be taken.
Criminal law – Penalties – Arresto mayor as minimum, prision correctional in its
maximum as maximum
Assume In the preceding problem that there were two mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison
penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance, the proper prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of Its periods, le.
ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision
correctional in its maximum period four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six
(6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a
penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period In accordance with
Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree
should be Imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next
lower In degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty
provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied In its maximum or minimum
period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower In
Page 160 of 417
Criminal Law
degree to priskm correctional Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be
within the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision
correccional maltnits maximum period.
Criminal law – Penalty – Crime of homicide; one aggravating circumstance and
four mitigating circumstances
Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following
modifying circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the
mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so
grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for
homicide is reclusion temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to twenty (20) years.
Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be
imposed on the accused. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (noctumity), and four
mitigating circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied.
Hence there will be off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the
excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the
penalty to the minimum period.
The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four aggravating,
will not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of
said Article, as this is applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE present.
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion
temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be
the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The
MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor
in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years).
Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and
1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances
after the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM
sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
Page 161 of 417
Criminal Law
a) General principles
(i) Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines
(R.A. No. 9346)
Criminal law – Penalties – death penalty
What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it
should otherwise ordinarily be meted out? (1997 Bar Question)
Answer:
1. When the guilty party is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of
the crime or when the offender is more than 70 years of age.
2. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required majorityvoteisnot obtained for the imposition of the penalty, in which
case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
Criminal law – Penalties – Death penalty
A. When was the constitutional proscription against the imposition of the
death penalty lifted? (1995 Bar Question)
B. When is the execution of the death penalty suspended under the Revised
Penal Code? (1995 Bar Question)
C. When is the death penalty commuted under the same Code? (1995 Bar
Question)
Answer:
A. The constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty was lifted
with the enactment of RA 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes Law,
which took effect fifteen (15) days after publication on December
16,1993,thatisonDecember31,1993 {People vs. Martin Simon, 234 SCRA 555).
B. Death penalty shall not be executed (a) upon a woman within three years after date
of the sentence, (b) while she is pregnant, (c) upon a person over 70 years old (Art.
83 RPC), or (d) upon a convict who becomes insane after final sentence (Art. 79.
RPC).
C. When the convict reaches the age of 70 years the death sentence is commuted to
reclusion perpetua (Art. 83, RPC).
Criminal law – Penalties – Death penalty; when death penalty cannot be inflicted
The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following
circumstances:
1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
Page 162 of 417
Criminal Law
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the
required majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution
becomes insane.
5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year
after delivery.
Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Understanding the word “inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death penalty,
not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is no.
2: “when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age” (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code).
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.
In circumstance no. I when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the
offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime.
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme
Court in People vs. Etfren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an
intermediate review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by
the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes
insane before it could be executed and while he is insane.
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution
shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to the effect that the death
penalty may not be “INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such penalty is to be
suspended.
If “INFLICTED" is to be construed as “EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the choice.
Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment
A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to
London to work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and received
from them various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees
Page 163 of 417
Criminal Law
totalling P400.000. After their dates of departure were postponed several times,
the four prospects got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment
Authority). There they found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to
recruit workers for employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail.
Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment
constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life
imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00.
Economic sabotage is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended by Pres. Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is
carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or
more aggrieved parties, individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate
when three or more persons conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out the
illegal transaction, scheme or activity.
Criminal law - Penalties – Fine; imprisonment; subsidiary imprisonment
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or
imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay
the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.
a) Is the penalty proper? Explain.
b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty
imprisonment? Explain. (4%) (2005 Bar Question)
of
fine
or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 1. Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two convicted accused
is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person
accused of the crime. Any of the convicted accused who is insolvent and unable
to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment.
2.The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may
prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may
impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite,
otherwise the judgment cannot attain finality.
b. The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge
with the same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered
to pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the
Page 164 of 417
Criminal Law
accused questions the award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that
the victim is the same woman.
How would you rule on the contention of the accused? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of rape is a violation of
the person of the victim and thus gives rise to corresponding criminal and civil
liabilities. The trial court is correct in imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding
corresponding civil indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same
woman. Rape is not a continued crime.
Criminal law – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua; pecuniary penalties; pecuniary
liabilities
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
(RA) No. 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
(2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it has
been given a fixed duration by R.A. No. 7659 (an act to impose the Death Penalty on
certain Heinous crimes). In an en banc ruling of the Supreme Court in People v.
Conrado Lucas 240 SCRA 66 (1995), it was held that reclusion perpetua has
remained an indivisible penalty as there is no clear legislative intention to make the
penalty divisible.
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%) (2005
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may be required to pay in
money to the Government. These are:
- fine; and
- costs of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convicted offender is
required to pay in money to the offended party and to the Government. They are:
Page 165 of 417
Criminal Law
- reparation of the damage caused;
- indemnification of consequential damages;
- fine; and
- costs of the proceedings (Art. 38, RPC)
The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemnity to the private
parties offended by the crime; while the last two (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the
Government.
Criminal law – Penalties - Reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment
Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for
crimes defined in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws
which impose reclusion perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as amended
by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860; while life imprisonment is a penalty usually
provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of twenty (20) years and
one (1) day to forty (40) years under Republic Act 7659, while life imprisonment has no
duration; reclusion perpetua maybe reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion perpetua
has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties
(People vs. Baguio. 196 SCRA 459, People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
Criminal law – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment
After trial. Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia
guilty of Murder, the victim having sustained several bullet wounds In his body
so that he died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Maynlla
Because the weapon usfed by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was found to be present, Judge Laya rendered his
decision convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment".
Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be
imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally
different? State your reasons. (3%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life imprisonment are totally
different from each other and therefore, should not he used interchangeably.
Page 166 of 417
Criminal Law
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a
fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with
accessory penalties.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with
no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
Criminal law – Fundamental principles – Mala prohibita and mala in se
b) Briefly state what essentially distinguishes a crime mala prohibita from a
crime mala in se. (2%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala insets 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.
Criminal law – Penalties – Life imprisonment and Reclusion perpetua
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[a] Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to the convict than
reclusion perpetua.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict because the penalty is
without a fixed duration, unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has a fixed
duration of 40 years and the convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of
imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 (1992).
Page 167 of 417
Criminal Law
b) Purposes
c) Classification
d) Duration and Effect
e) Application
(i) Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as
amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence
(b) Coverage
(c) Conditions of parole
(ii) Three-fold rule
(iii) Subsidiary imprisonment
AA was convicted of proposal to commit treason. Under Article 115 of the
Revised Penal Code, proposal to commit treason shall be punished by prision
correcciona/ and a fine not exceeding P5,000.00. Is the Indeterminate Sentence
Law applicable to AA? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to AA because the
maximum of prision correccional exceeds one (1) year.
b) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to AA because there
is no showing that he is a habitual delinquent.
c) No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to AA considering
the penalty imposable for the offense of which he was convicted.
d) No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable considering the
offense of which he was convicted.
Chris Brown was convicted of a complex crime of direct assault with homicide
aggravated by the commission of the crime in a place where public authorities
are engaged in the discharge of their duties. The penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal. On the other hand, the penalty for direct assault is prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods. What is the correct indeterminate penalty?
(2012 BAR)
a) Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal as maximum. (*People vs. Recto, GR 129069,
October17, 2001)
b) Ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and
four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
c) Eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18) years and
four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
d) Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws,
including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? How is the Indeterminate Sentence
Law applied in imposing a sentence? (2012 BAR)
Page 168 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the principle of pro
reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the accused.” (Intestate
Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo, is
in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed
innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (People v.
Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008). If crime is punishable under the
RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum
term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstance, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be
within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.
If the offense is punishable under a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed
in the same (R.A. 4103, Sec. 1).
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his rooming
house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his death;
and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim
and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he
voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any
provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw
his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion
temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant
circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto mayor in
any of its period to prision correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was
entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the
presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and
plea of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC
respectively, which lowers the prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion
temporal to prision correccional.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders
A. Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not
applicable? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
Page 169 of 417
Criminal Law
B. A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson
sub-machine guns punishable under the old law (RA No.4) with
imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court sentenced the
accused to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment*
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the
Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been
sentenced by final judgment;
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.
The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct because it does
not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law
requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the Revised Penal Code,
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term
of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall
not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.
Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application thereof
State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty imposed is
more than one year and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is
not lower than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not
higher than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it
comes to statutory offenses it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law
and not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases
as provided by section 2 of Art. 4103:
1. life imprisonment
Page 170 of 417
Criminal Law
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
to those convicted of piracy
those who are habitual delinquents
to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
shall have violated the terms thereof
8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to
those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act,
except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – applicable to offenses punished by
special laws
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. In the
imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose
on Andres? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case. By express
provision of said law (section 1) it is applicable to offenses punished by special laws.
The indeter-minate sentence in such cases shall consist of a maximum term which
shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law and a minimum term which shall
not be less than the minimum term pescribed by the same.
If I were the judge trying the case, I would impose a penalty consisting of any
duration not less than 5 years as minimum term and any duration not more than 10
years as maximum term. It could be five years and 1 day to 7 years; 7 years, six
months and 1 day to 9 years; or any other sentence where the minimum term is not
less than 5 years and the maximum term not more than 10 years.
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 appre-ciated 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.
Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – determination of the proper penalty
to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence
Jose is charged with bigamy. The Revised Penal Code prescribes the
penalty of prision mayor for this offense. The information filed against Jose
Page 171 of 417
Criminal Law
alleged one aggravating cir-cumstance. Upon being arraigned, he entered the
plea of guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender which the trial fiscal admitted. If you were the judge trying the case,
from what range of the prescribed penalty would you determine the proper
penalty (to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence) to be
imposed on Jose? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would take the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence from the range of
prision mayor in its minimum period. This is so because while there are two ordinary
mitigating circumstances present, one of them is offset by an aggravating
circumstance. Consequently, it is as if the crime is attended by only one ordinary
circumstance and this will result in the imposition of the minimum period of the
penalty prescribed by law.
The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances will give rise to a
privileged mitigating circumstance only if there is no aggravating circumstance
present and the penalty prescribed by law is divisible. In this case, while the penalty
of prision mayor is divisible, and while there are two ordinary mitigating
circumstances present, there is an aggravating circumstance. This precludes the
reduction of the penalty by one degree lower inasmuch as the two ordinary mitigating
circumstances cannot be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance.
Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when applicable
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence
consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had
sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with
different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental
ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second
confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the
application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that the accused is a
habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify him from the
application of the ISL as Section 2 thereof contemplates having escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence. Confinement presupposes imprisonment by virtue of
a final judgment.
Page 172 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – when inapplicable
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
1. those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or lifeimprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. those convicted of piracy;
5. those who are habitual delinquents;
6. those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall
have violated the terms thereof;
8. those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and
10. those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like
distierro.
Who among the following convicts are not entitled to the benefits of the
lndeterminate Sentence Law? (2012 BAR)
a) Those who are recidivists.
b) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment exceeds one (1) year.
c) Those convicted of inciting to sedition.
d) Those convicted of misprision of treason.
Special law – Indeterminate Sentence Law – Disqualified offenders
Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. He
sought a reconsideration of the penalty on the ground that he should be entitled
to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide with reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because Section
2 of said law specifically disqualifies and disallows application thereof to persons
sentenced to life imprisonment.
Page 173 of 417
Criminal Law
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – When not applicable
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act
of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and
killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
While serving his sentence, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a
pot session with Ivy, (Joy's sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence
in case he is found guilty of use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer.
(2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
4103, as amended) for having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him on
destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those
who shall have "evaded sentence".
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous drug by a first offender is not
imprisonment but rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum period of six (6)
months (Sec. 15, R.A. 91651. The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when
the penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – application on the imposed sentence
Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty
prescribed is not less than six years but not more than twelve years. No
modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime.
If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (1994
Bar Question)
If so, how will you apply it? (1994 Bar Question)
Page 174 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
as the last sentence of Section I Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof
for violations of special laws.
Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum
provided therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the
maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalind Reyes, 186 SCRA
184)
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal
law where the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as
maximum.
State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following
penalties:
a. a straight penalty of 10 months;
b. 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum;
c. a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)
b)
c)
The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months imprisonment
because the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3
years, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty
imposed is imprisonment which does not exceed one year.
A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum may not
be imposed by the court because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply when the penalty imposed as maximum of the sentence is
imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year. Obviously the
Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where the sentence imposed
reflects a minimum and a maximum.
The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of two years because the
Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court to set a minimum and a
maximum of the sentence where the imprisonment to be imposed already
exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is disqualified from the benefits of
the said Law.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Yes, the trial Court may impose a straight penalty of ten months. The
Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to crimes punished either by the
Page 175 of 417
Criminal Law
Revised Penal Code or by special laws, where the maximum period of
imprisonment exceeds one year.
b) No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be applied where the
maximum period of imprisonment imposed, which is eleven months, does not
exceed one year.
c) No, because a straight penalty may be imposed only up to a maximum
imprisonment of one (1) year. Here, it is two years. Hence, there is a need to
impose an indeterminate sentence, the minimum term of which shall not be
less than 6 months while the maximum term shall not exceed 3 years.
(People v. Pena, 80 SCRA 589[1977]).
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence
as defined by special law
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 a plea of guilty. In the
imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose
on Andres? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum
imprisonment is more than one (I) year.
If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the
penalty within the said minimum and maximum.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence
[a] In a conviction for homicide, the trial court appreciated two (2)
mitigating circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion temporal, an
imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the appropriate penalty to
be imposed. Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence shall be
anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the
maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion Temporal
minimum i.e., not lower than 12 yrs. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 months.
Page 176 of 417
Criminal Law
[b] Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for illegal possession
of drugs under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed penalty
of which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. My answer will not be the same because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are
mala prohibita in which mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not appreciated.
Although in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can be
applied if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties provided under the
RPC, such pronouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penalties
for illegal possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not follow the technical nomenclature
of penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the existence
of mitigating and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated.
Special law – Penalties – Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103); Maximum and
the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate
sentence for offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined?
(3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code
after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according
to Art. 64 of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under
the said Code.
Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) – Penalty
imposable for the crime of homicide
An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a close, the judge found
A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision mayor.
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on the ground that the
proper penalty should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal.
Page 177 of 417
Criminal Law
The defense counsel chimed in, contending that application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty of
SIX (6) months and ONE (1) day of prision correccional only. Who of the three is
on the right track? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
4103, as amended) has not been followed.
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, which is penalized by
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. The said law requires that the sentence in this case should reflect a
minimum term for purposes of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the
imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
Criminal law – Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes
Because of the barbarity and the hideousness of the acts committed by the
suspects/ respondents in cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet-riddled vehicles and later on
burying these oil drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earthmoving machinery, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating team
recommended to the panel of public prosecutors that all respondents be charged
with violation of the Heinous Crimes Law. The prosecution panel agreed with the
CHR. As the chief prosecutor tasked with approving the filing of the information,
how will you pass upon the recommendation? Explain? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The CHR is correct in describing the crimes committed as “heinous crimes”, as
defined in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite the
passage of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.
However, the “Heinous Crimes Law” does not define crimes; it is only an
amendatory law increasing the penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous, to a
maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes committed shall be prosecuted under the
penal law they are respectively defined and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code
as the case may be. The circumstances making the crimes heinous may be alleged as
qualifying or generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be designated as defined
and punished under the penal law violated and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua
without the benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, as the
case maybe in lieu of the death penalty.
Page 178 of 417
Criminal Law
f) Execution and service
Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without prior notice,
Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned him
down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door unlocked. Roman attempted to
follow, but appeared to have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's
condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's arrival later that
evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand, forced her to
undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to
her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman was charged
with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not impose
the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced
Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-fold rule. Was the
judge correct? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with the service of the sentence
not in the imposition of the proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all
the crimes for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should not
make a computation in it decision and sentence the accused to not more than the threefold of the most severe of the penalties imposable. The computation under the threefold rule is for the prison authorities to make.
Santos was sentenced to suffer imprisonment in three separate judgments: 6
months and 1 day to 4 years for attempted homicide; 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
for frustrated homicide; and 6 years and 1 day to 20 years for homicide. After his
20th year in the National Penitentiary, Santos filed a petition for habeas corpus
claiming that he had fully served his sentence of 20 years and should therefore
be immediately released from imprisonment.
Was Santos correct?(2013 BAR)
(A)
Yes, because he served his sentences simultaneously so that his 20 years
of incarceration was sufficient.
(B)
No, because multiple sentences are served successively not
simultaneously. (Article 70, RPC)
(C)
No, only penalties other than imprisonment can be served simultaneously.
(D)
Yes, because after he has served the minimum of his penalties, he can
now be released.
Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the civil aspect of the decision.
Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of serious physical injuries and,
taking into account two (2) mitigating circumstances, was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of four (4) months and twenty (20) days, and to indemnify the
victim in the amount of P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. He
applied for probation, which was granted by the court; however, the order of
Page 179 of 417
Criminal Law
probation directed him to pay in installment, at the rate of P1,000.00 a month, the
damages awarded to the offended party. Jose was able to pay only three (3)
monthly installments. Because of such failure, the offended party filed a motion
for the execution of the civil aspect of the decision.
Is the order directing the payment of the damages in installment valid? Did
it not modify the decision after it had become final? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the order directing payment in installment is proper. It did not modify the
final decision but only in the manner of its execution. (Similarly situated in the case of
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals).
Should the motion for execution be granted? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Execution should be granted as the decision is final and executory, following the
dissenting opinion of Justice I. Cruz in said case.
Criminal law – Penalties – Simultaneous service of penalties
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro
and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right
to follow a profession or calling;
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707)
(a) Definition of terms
(b) Purpose
(c) Grant of probation, manner and conditions
(d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation
(e) Disqualified offenders
(f) Period of probation
(g) Arrest of probationer
(h) Termination of probation; exception
Page 180 of 417
Criminal Law
see also: The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165)
Under which of the following circumstances is probation not applicable? (2012
BAR)
a) Probation is not applicable when the accused is sentenced to serve a
maximum of six (6) years.
b) Probation is not applicable when the accused has been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of less than one (1) month
and/or fine of less than P200.00.
c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect assault.
d) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect bribery.
** No correct answer. In 2012 when this exam was given, the correct answer is
“c” because Indirect Assault is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of
the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to those
offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public
order.
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was approved
last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime against the
public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail of probation.
The period of probation of the offender sentenced to a term of one (1) year shall
not exceed: (2012 BAR)
a) two (2) years;
b) six (6) years;
c) one (1) year;
d) three (3) years.
Andres was convicted of frustrated homicide and was sentenced to 6 years and 1
day as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. Andres appealed his
conviction to the Court of Appeals, which convicted him of attempted homicide,
and sentenced him to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years of
prision correccional as maximum. Instead of appealing his conviction, Andres
filed an application for probation with the Regional Trial Court.
Is
Andres
qualified to avail of the benefits of the probation law? (2013 BAR)
(A)
No, because when he filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals,
he waived his right under the probation law.
(B)
Yes, because after his appeal, he qualified for probation as the sentence
imposed on him was less than 6 years. (Colinares vs. People, GR 182748,
December 13, 2011)
(C)
Yes, because the probation law is meant to favor the accused.
(D)
No, because his previous sentence of more than 6 years disqualified him
so that he can no longer avail of probation as an alternative remedy.
(E)
None of the above.
Page 181 of 417
Criminal Law
Juancho owns a small piggery in Malolos, Bulacan. One Saturday afternoon, he
discovered that all his pigs had died. Suspecting that one of his neighbours had
poisoned the pigs, Juancho went home, took his rifle, went around the
neighbourhood, and fired his rifle in the air while shouting, "makakatikim sa akin
ang naglason ng mga baboy ko." Barangay officials requested police assistance
and Juancho was apprehended. Juancho was charged with and convicted of the
crime of alarms and scandals. Juancho did not appeal his conviction.
Is Juancho qualified for probation? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Yes, because the penalty for alarms and scandals is less than six (6)
years.
(B)
Yes, because Juancho did not appeal his conviction.
(C)
No, because the crime of alarms and scandals carries with it a fine
ofP200.
(D)
No, because the crime of alarms and scandals affects public order.
(E)
None of the above.
** In 2013 when this exam was given, the correct answer was “D” because Alarms and
Scandal is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968
as amended, probation shall not extend to those offenders convicted of any crime
against the national security and the public order.
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which
was approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any
crime against the public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders
to avail of probation.
Special law – Probation law - Legal effect of application for probation on the
judgment of conviction
Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila. He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3
years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum and six years as maximum, both of
prision correccional and was ordered to imdemnify the offended party in the
amount of P3.000.00. He filed an application for probation upon the promulgation
of the judgment.
What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of
conviction? Does said application interrupt the running of the period of appeal?
(1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of
the accused to appeal; the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the
decision there is no period of appeal to speak of.
Page 182 of 417
Criminal Law
Special law – Probation law – Purpose of probation law
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the
charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision
was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum,
and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very
day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order
addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for
probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of
conviction became final and executory on
January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible
for probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The purposes of the Probation Law are:
1.
to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing
him with individualized treatment;
2.
to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which
might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and
3.
to prevent the commission of offenses.
Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant of probation
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16)
Informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer
in each case a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and
eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an
application for probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he
possibly qualify for probation? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held
that in case of one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison
terms should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of
the accused for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total
term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number
of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken individually
and separately, are within the probationable period.
Page 183 of 417
Criminal Law
Special law –Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); grant
of probation, manner and conditions
May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or
modifying the terms and conditions thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying
probation is not appealable.
Special law – Probation law – improper denial thereof
Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by a 17-year old
complainant. The accused made wedding arrangements with the girl, but her
parents insisted on the prosecution of the case. To avoid further embarrassment
of a court trial for him and the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. He then
filed a petition for probation before serving sentence, but the court denied the
petition on the ground that “it would be better for the accused to serve sentence
so that he would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the community that
would be caused by the grant of the petition."
The accused served sentence but he brought the matter to the Supreme
Court in a petition for certiorari.
Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition for probation? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta vs. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719, the Judge
precisely denied the petition for probation on the same excuse stated in the problem.
The Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any one of the
disqualifications stated in Section 9 of P.D. 960 in order to be denied probation.
Special law – Probation law – Criteria of placing an offender on probation
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine
of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which
the penalty imposed on him was thirty days only.
Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a
penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify
Page 184 of 417
Criminal Law
him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not
disqualify him either from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not
exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for probation
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the
charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision
was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum,
and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very
day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order
addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for
probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of
conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when “A”
commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for probation? b) What is the
purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is still eligible for probation since he filed his application for probation within 15 days
from the promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law; the accused may
apply for probation WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL which is 15
days from promulgation or notice thereof.
The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment Order on the same day of
promulgation. A commitment order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be
validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has expired with no appeal
being taken. The fact that in compliance with such-order, which is void, the accused
commenced to serve his sentence does not bar him from availing himself of the benefits
of the Probation Law.
It is true that under the new Rules on Criminal Procedure it is provided that a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an
appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the
accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120). But Section 9 of the same Rule
provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be construed as affecting any existing provision
in the law governing suspension of sentence, probation or parole.”
The probation law does not speak of filing an application for probation BEFORE
judgment has become final. It only speaks of filing the application WITHIN THE
PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the Probation Law that
bars an accused who has commenced to serve his sentence from filing an application
for probation provided he does so WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN
APPEAL.
Page 185 of 417
Criminal Law
What the Probation Law provides is that no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment or
conviction. It does not say that no application shall be entertained if the judgment has
become final because the convict has commenced to serve his sentence.
Special law – Probation law – Eligibility for probation
Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of
intervention or diversion.
[e] Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special
aggravating circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be
eligible for probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968, considering that the
death penalty is imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe
will not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was punishable by
death, the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua because
Rep. Act 9344 forbids the imposition of the capital punishment upon offenders
thereunder.
The murder being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two degree lower
than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when he
committed the crime, the penalty of prision mayor should be lowered further by one
degree because his minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, prision
correccional or imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is the
imposable.
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. And
instead of filing a motion for reconsideration he applies for probation. If you were
the judge, will you grant the same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will not grant the application for probation as it is clear in the Probation Law that the
benefits thereof shall not apply to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years. (P.D. 1990).
Page 186 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders
Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the
probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation
Law:
•
•
•
•
•
those sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years;
those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national
security of the public order;
those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an
offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and
one day and or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos;
those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this
decree; and
those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this decree applicable pursuant to Section 33 of P.D.
968.
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless
imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of in-solvency By the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later,
he filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for
probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and
considered the appeal withdrawn.
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court.
Roberto filed a “Motion for Probation" praying that execution of his sentence be
suspended, and that a probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation
and to submit a report on his probation.
The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential
Decree No. 1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction.
Is the denial of Roberto’s motion correct? (1994 Bar Question)
Page 187 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but
that at the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not
entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time
the application is filed in Court (Ber-nardo vs. Judge. etal, GRNo. L86561, Nov. 10,
1992; Edwtn de la Cruz vs. Judge CaUejo, et al, SP-19655, April 18, 1990, citing
Llamado vs. CA, et al., GR No. 84859, June 28. 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et
aL GR 86561, Nov. 10.1992
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the RTC of Manila and sentenced
to four (4) Years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as
minimum to eight (o) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum.
Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals which found him guilty only of
Theft and sentenced him to a straight penalty of one (1J Year. The decision of the
appellate court was promulgated in May, 1993.
1.
Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law which became
effective on Jan. 3, 1978? Why?
2.
Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC in the above example
is only two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years as maximum and Juanito did not
appeal. When he applied for probation, it was discovered that in March, 1960, a
Municipal Court has sentenced him to a six-month imprisonment for less serious
physical injuries which he fully served. May his application for probation be
granted? Reason out.(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law, as amended, requires
the filing of the application within the period for perfecting an appeal.
2. He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9 (c) provides that
probation shall not be extended to those "who have previously been
convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of
not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine of not more than
P200.00."
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise
habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day
and to pay a fine of P6.000.00 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus
Page 188 of 417
Criminal Law
costs. Vincent applied for
recommended his application.
probation.
The
probation
officer
favorably
If you were the judge, what action will you take on the application?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was
sentenced to a maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not
eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming
the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a
maximum of four (4) years and four (4) months taking into consideration certain
modifying circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation.
How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not
entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law. PD NO. 968, as amended,
specifically mentions that those who “are sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years" are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a
sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4. PD No. 968, as amended
by PD 1990; Bernardo vs. Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs.
Judge Callejo. CA case).
N.B to No. 2
This Is the second consecutive year that this question was asked. It is the
sincere belief of the Committee that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine.
Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for probation he is proscribed from
doing so as the maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the
maximum penalty was reduced to one which aUows probation it is but fair and j ust to
grant him that right because it is apparent that the trial judge committed an error and
for which the accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in this
jurisdiction are not only courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the
appellate court should be considered a new decision as the trial court’s decision was
vacated: hence, he could take advantage of the law when the decision is remanded to
the trial court for execution (Please see Dissenting opinion in Francisco us.
CA).
It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee answering in this tenor should be
credited with some points.
Page 189 of 417
Criminal Law
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to
issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and
sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC
to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for
probation? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the
judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968. as amended by
PD1990) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted
if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4. PD
968).
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed
both his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals.
The appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced his
sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could
Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction.
Criminal law – Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended);
Disqualified offenders
1.
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and
sentenced to six years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior
to his conviction, he had been found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for
ten (10) days of arresto menor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible
for probation? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page 190 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not eligible. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended)
does not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six years (Sec. 9a).
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten
(10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00.
Special law – Probation law – Period; termination
(1) Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22)
punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or
a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which
fine shall not exceed P200.000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime
and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check.
Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court
granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not
change her residence without the court’s prior approval.
1. What is the proper period of probation?
2. Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but
after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without
prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation and
order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of days of
subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of days as computed at
the rate established under the Revised Penal Code, which is one (1) day imprisonment
for every P8.00 fine but not to exceed six (6) months. (P.D. 968, Sec. 14[b]
(establishing a Probation System) in correlation with Art. 39, RPC)
2. Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the convicted
accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the condition of
her probation before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of
probation are not co-terminous with the period of probation; such conditions continue
even after the period of probation had ended and thus requires faithful compliance or
fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on probation has not issued
the Order of Discharge that would release her from probation. {Bala v. Martinez, 181
SCRA 459 [1990D
Page 191 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002)
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was
found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the
pendency of which he also filed a petition for probation.
The brothers' counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their
petitions for probation should be granted. How would you resolve the brothers'
petitions for probation? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The brothers' petition for probation should both be denied.
Matt's petition for probation shall be denied because he was convicted for drugtrafficking. Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)
expressly provides, "Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act,
regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by
the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended." On the other hand,
Jeff's application for probation cannot also be entertained or granted because he has
already appealed his conviction by the trial court (Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended).
(ii) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also
refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the law
(b) Exemption from criminal liability
(c) Juvenile justice and welfare system
A child in conflict with the law shall enjoy all the rights of a child until (2011 BAR)
(A) he is found to have acted with discernment.
(B) his minority is setoff by some aggravating circumstance.
(C) he is proved to be 18 years or older.
(D) he forfeits such rights by gross misconduct and immorality.
Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act - Processes of intervention and
diversion
Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of
intervention or diversion.
Page 192 of 417
Criminal Law
[a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion?
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two terms are different.
"Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues
that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized
treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other
activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social wellbeing. This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the commission of
the crime or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the
crime, the child acted without discernment.
"Diversion" refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining the
responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her
social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting to
formal court proceedings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but
below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment.
Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed
the crime of homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under RA 9344
[b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was
convicted two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge
apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already
21 years old. Suspension of sentence is availing under Rep. Act 9344 only until a child
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
Execution and service – Application for suspended sentence
There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the
accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a
suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Instances when sentence may be suspended are: (at least 7 instances)
Page 193 of 417
Criminal Law
1.
where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated
(Art. 79, RPC);
2.
where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application
for probation which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA
148119841);
3.
where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation center because
of drug-dependency although convicted of the crime charged;
4.
where the offender is a youthful offender under Art. 192, PD 603,
otherwise referred to as the Child and Youth Welfare Code; and
5.
where the, crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of
age and he is found guilty thereof in accordance with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise
known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006", but the trial court
subjects him to appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the Supreme
Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law.
6.
the death sentence shall be suspended upon a woman while she is
pregnant or within one year after delivery. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code)
7.
Section 66 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of
the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18)
years of age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated after
having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of a
suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions:
a.
He/she has not been previously convicted of
of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972,
Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws;
b.
He/she has not been previously committed
care of a DOH-accredited physician; and
c.
The, Board favorably recommends that
suspended xxx"
violating any provision
as amended; or of the
to a Center or to the
his/her sentence be
"SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. An accused
8.
When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspended or
postponed by the Supreme Court, through the issuance of a RO upon the ground
of supervening events (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [19991).
6. Modification and extinction of criminal liability
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision
correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and
ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Tiburcio
Page 194 of 417
Criminal Law
appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his conviction as well as the
penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued
an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three
days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed
before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that
Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been
extinguished by his demise. (2015 BAR)
a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.
Answer:
The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because the Court of Appeals, having
issued an Entry of Judgment, the decision has become final and executory. However,
the pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of
actual damages of P25,000 survives the death of Tiburcio.
b) Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred before the Court of Appeals
rendered its decision, will you give a different answer?
Answer:
Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against Tiburcio must
consequently be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which occurred before the Court of
Appeals rendered its decision causes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex
delicto, to be totally extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand
as the accused, the civil action is instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto
is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on criminal case.
Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon; effect
B. TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently he was
granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual
disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His
opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because
he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally.
Is TRY’S contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code
expressly provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification
and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of the sentence shall remain
as effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the
Page 195 of 417
Criminal Law
pardon. This is because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but
does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the
pardon.
Criminal law - Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and
Amnesty
A. Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
B. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential
Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty.
Name at least 5 of these crimes. 2.5%
C. Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about
columnist Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses
ascribed to them as published in almost all newspapers for the past several
months.) 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
D. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine
Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer
and a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they apply for amnesty?
2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The differences between pardon and amnesty are –
In pardon:
The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of
conviction remain unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence, for pardon to
be valid there must be a sentence already final and executory at the time the
same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of individual convicted offenders,
not to a class of convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of the grant may be
common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the Chief
Executive which does not require the concurrence of any other public officer or
office.
In amnesty;
The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is erased, as
though such act was innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the
conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of convicted
offenders, not to individual convicted offenders; and the crimes involved are
generally political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a public act that
requires the conformity or concurrence of the Philippine Senate.
B. Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty, under Presidential Proclamation No.
724: (at least 5)
a. Rebellion or insurrection
Page 196 of 417
Criminal Law
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
Coup d'etat
Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat
Disloyalty' of public officers or employs
Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
Sedition
Conspiracy to commit sedition
Inciting to sedition
Illegal assembly
Illegal association
Direct Assault
Indirect Assault
Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such
persons
Tumults and other disturbances of public order
Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances
Alarms and scandals
Illegal poSsession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in
furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and
insurrection
Violations of Articles of War:
r.1. Art. 59 (Desertion)
r.2. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave)
r.3. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition)
r.4. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition)
r.5. Art. 94 (Various Crimes)
r.6. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman)
r.7. Art. 97 (General Article)
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty are: (at least 5)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Illegal assembly;
Alarms and scandal;
Illegal association;
Disloyalty by public officers/employees;
Illegal possession of firearms.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for amnesty because the
crime respectively imputed to them are crimes against public order which are
among the crimes covered by amnesty.
Page 197 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and
Philippine Marines can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is explicitly
enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential Proclamation No 724 as one of the
crimes that are covered by the grant of amnesty.
AAA was convicted of theft by a Manila Court and sentenced to a straight penalty
of one (1) year of prision correccional. After serving two (2) months of the
sentence, he was granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive. One of the
conditions of the pardon was for him not to be found guilty of any crime
punishable by the laws of the country. He subsequently committed robbery in
Pasay City. Can the Manila Court require AAA to serve the unexpired portion of
the original sentence? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. The Manila Court has the authority to recommit AAA to serve the
unexpired portion of the original sentence in addition to the penalty for
violation of conditional pardon.
b) No. The penalty remitted by the conditional pardon is less than six (6)
years.
c) Yes. The penalty for violation of conditional pardon is the unexpired
portion of the punishment in the original sentence.
d) No. AAA must first be found guilty of the subsequent offense before he
can be prosecuted for violation of conditional pardon.
Alternative Answer:
d) No. AAA must first be found guilty of the subsequent offense before he
can be prosecuted for violation of conditional pardon.
a) Prescription of crime; Prescription of Violations of Special Laws (Act.
No. 3326)
Criminal law – Prescription for violation of special laws - Petition for forfeiture
under Republic Act No. 1379
Maloling is a public official who resigned from the service on February 1,
1984. On February 15, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a petition in court for the
forfeiture of the property of Maloling which was allegedly unlawfully acquired.
If you were the counsel of Maloling, what defense or defenses would you
interpose? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Besides property unlawfully acquired found to be in the name of Maloling,
what are the other properties not in his name which may nevertheless be
considered unlawfully acquired? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Page 198 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would interpose the defense of prescription as the right to file a petition for
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 Section 2 prescribes in four (4) years from the
date of resignation.
Property which may still be considered as unlawfully acquired, though not in the
name of Maloling at the time of filing of the petition for forfeiture, shall include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent but its ownership
concealed by being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent’s spouse,
ascendants, descendants, relatives or any other person; and
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to
another person/s. (R-A. 1379 Section 1(b)).
b) Prescription of penalties
Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The
decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and became final and
executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment,
prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use the
backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the
Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the
ground that the penalty imposed against him had already prescribed. (2015 BAR)
a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain.
Answer:
If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code
provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said
provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his
sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can
be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping
during the term of his sentence. Taylor never served a single minute of his sentence,
and thus, prescription never started to run in his favor. Clearly, one who has not been
committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom ( Del Castillo v.
Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002).
b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able to go to
another country with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, will
your answer be the same? Explain.
Page 199 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
Even if Taylor was able to go to another country which the Philippines had no
extradition treaty, I will deny the motion to quash. Going to a foreign country with which
this Government has no extradition treaty to interrupt the running of prescription is not
applicable nor even material because the period of prescription is not applicable nor
even material because the period of prescription had not commenced to run in the first
place; hence, there is nothing to interrupt.
Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Presciption of crime of estafa thru
falsification of public document
B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot, in special power of
attorney naming him (B) as the attorney- in-fact of A On February 13, 1964, B
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan
of P8.500.00. On the same day, both the special power of attorney and the
mortgage contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of B’s
failure to pay. The bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in
whose name a new title was issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the
property was already registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case
filed against him by X.
If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B?
Explain.(1993 Bar Question)
If you were the counsel of B. what would be your defense? Discuss.(1993
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document.
My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and
almost twenty nine years had already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification
and Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. It is to be noted that when it
comes to discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment
because the offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgery
after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office
of the Register of Deeds (Cabral vs. Pu.no, 70 SCRA 606).
Criminal law – Extinction of penalties – Prescription for the crime of plunder;
Recovery by the State of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers
Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent
schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former
mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is
grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and
Page 200 of 417
Criminal Law
connections and despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten wealth, he
was charged with the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat
in the last elections he participated in.
May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why? (1993 Bar Question)
Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the
bulk of which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out. .(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the
crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked
whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.
Can the State still recover? Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalty; Bigamy
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left
Marcy and settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June
1960. The second marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three
days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes
discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint
for bigamy against Joe.
The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe
raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having
elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy’s
complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil
registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the
celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy.
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss
fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the
crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The
principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes
should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when
Page 201 of 417
Criminal Law
Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglamentary
period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October 1975.
(Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties
A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but
after trial, the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He
filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of
simple slander would have prescribed in two months from commission, and
since the information against him was filed more than four months after the
alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed.
The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in
determining the prescriptive period, the nature of the offense charged in the
information should be considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that
the offense had already prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of A to
raise it in a motion to quash.
Resolve the motion for reconsideration. (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.
The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is
necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information,
because, the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was
filed (People vs. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538;
Magat vs. People, 201SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the
rule of prescription in light offenses by the simple expediment of filing a graver
offense which includes such light offense.
While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before
he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds
of a motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the
complaint or information; (2) lack of jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or
penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused in his
motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can be raised even
after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas)
Criminal law - Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the
back of their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their
neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s
Page 202 of 417
Criminal Law
stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive
away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina spread the news in the
neighborhood that Ara went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear
of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what
he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right after
his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The
crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for
the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20
& 1/2 years. Under Article 91. RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their
agents. In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, who
was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was
discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of
the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20years for homicide commenced to run
only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities.
Criminal law – Prescription of crimes - Concubinage
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987
was filed against Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for
purposes of preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3,
1998 when the Judge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of
jurisdiction since the crime was committed in Manila. The case was
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the
ground that the crime had already prescribed. The law provides that the crime of
concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscals dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The
filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary
investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the
jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information, not by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193)
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of crimes
A. OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM
stabbed CV treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body into a ravine. For 25
Page 203 of 417
Criminal Law
years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had
witnessed.
Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities
what he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago.
Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because
the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even
commenced to run.
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on
which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their
agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the killing but
never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the
authorities or their agents.
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of penalties
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960.
Dominador witnessed the entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the
authorities about it.
On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the
matter to the police. After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on
January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed had
already prescribed.
Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Baldo's contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet
prescribed. The prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after
it was reported to the police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely
committed on January 2, 1960. Under the discovery rule, which governs when a crime
is not publicly committed, the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only from
the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their
agents: in this case, from January 2, 1970 when it was made known to the police
authorities until January 6, 1980, when Baldo was arrested and charged. The killing
committed, whether it be homicide or murder, is punishable by an afflictive penalty
which prescribes in twenty (20) years, whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed
Page 204 of 417
Criminal Law
from January 2, 1970 (when the authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to
January 6, 1920 (when the accused was charged in court).
Criminal law – Extinction of criminal liability – Prescription of offenses
A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into
hiding in the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A's wife were discovered
by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in
an old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the
bones and reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the
country but returned three years later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
thereafter, he was charged with parricide but raised the defense of prescription.
A. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a
crime commence to run? (1%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generally, the period of prescription of a crime commences to run from the date it
was committed; but if the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of prescription
of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code commence to run from the day on which
the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art 91,
RPC).
B. When is it interrupted? (1%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted when "any kind
of investigative proceeding is instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately
lead to his prosecution" (Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25,
2008).
C. Is A's defense tenable? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The crime committed
is parricide which prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art 90, RPC). It was only when the
care-taker, Z, found the victim's bones and reported the matter to the police that the
crime is deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their agents and thus the
prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run.
When A left the country and returned only after three (3) years, the running of the
prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and suspended because prescription shall
not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
Page 205 of 417
Criminal Law
Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the commission of the crime and
the prescriptive period started running only after 5 years from such commission when
the crime was discovered, only 10 years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted
when the prescriptive period was interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3 years when
A was out of the Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after the prescription
starts running. Adding the 7 years of prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the
case was filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the prescriptive period had lapsed.
Hence the crime has not yet prescribed.
c) Pardon by offended party
d) Pardon by the Chief Executive
Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to
serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon.
The signed pardon states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority
vested upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto
Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon
whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you for
advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election. (2015
BAR)
a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain.
Answer:
If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him the advice that he cannot run in
the Senatorial race since the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored his right to
hold public office or remitted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification. Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work
the restoration of the right to hold public office unless such right be expressly restored
by terms of the pardon. Under Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry
with it perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though
pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly
remitted in the pardon (Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015).
b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion for which
he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he
received was amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same?
Explain.
Answer:
If Senator Adamos was convicted of rebellion and he received amnesty, I will give him
the advice that he can run in the Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes
Page 206 of 417
Criminal Law
the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua but also its effects such as the accessory penalty of
perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts
into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he
is charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as
though he had committed no offense (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278,
January 21, 1949).
Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability –Pardon by the
Chief Executive
Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court, was convicted of malversation
and was sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of P5.000.00 and to indemnify
the government in the same amount. Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, she
was extended an absolute pardon by the President. Thus, she applied for
reinstatement, payment of backwages, and absolution from payment of the One
and indemnify.
Decide the issue with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as there was no effective pardon by the
President. It is basic that pardon can only be granted after final conviction (Barrioquinto
v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642).
Criminal law - Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon by the
Chief Executive
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification
of public document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among
others, P5,000.00 representing the balance of the amount defrauded.
The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of
conviction. During the pendency of Linda’s motion for reconsideration in the said
Court, the President extended to her an absolute pardon which she accepted.
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting
that she be restored to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still
vacant.
The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former position
without the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City Treasurer to see
to it that the sum of P5.000.00 be satisfied.
Page 207 of 417
Criminal Law
Claiming that she should not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to
the Office of the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal,
not absolute pardon, is the only ground for reinstatement to one's former
position and that the absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment
of civil liability.
IS Linda entitled to reinstatement? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her
right thereto had been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The
absolute pardon merely extinguished her criminal liability, removed her disqualification,
and restored her eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to reapply for such
position and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Moreover, the
pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto vs.
Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art. 36. RPC)
e) Amnesty
Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty
Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving
sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of,
Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines
issued an amnesty proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for
and was granted the benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate
release from confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of
evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss
fully. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was evaded proceeded
from the crime of Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the
offender (Art. 89 [3], RPC).
Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act committed by the
offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as though innocent, the sentence
lost its legal basis. The purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v.
Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464[2000]).
Page 208 of 417
Criminal Law
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all the legal effects
thereof.
B. Book II (Articles 114-365, RPC) and specifically included Special
Laws
1. Crimes Against National Security (Arts. 114-123)
Insuperable cause is an exempting circumstance which may be applied to (2011
BAR)
(A) robbery.
(B) misprision of treason.
(C) homicide.
(D) rebellion.
Which of the following circumstances may be appreciated as aggravating in the
crime of treason? (2012 BAR)
a) cruelty and ignominy;
b) evident premeditation;
c) superior strength;
d) treachery.
What is the crime committed by a public officer who discloses to the
representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or information
of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine archipelago which
he has in his possession by reason of the public office he holds? (2012 BAR)
a) espionage;
b) disloyalty;
c) treason;
d) violation of neutrality.
Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino citizen? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. The offender in the crime of treason is a Filipino citizen only because the
first element is that the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the
Philippines.
b) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or a
foreigner married to a Filipino citizen, whether residing in the Philippines or
elsewhere, who adheres to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort.
c) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or an alien
residing in the Philippines because while permanent allegiance is owed by the
alien to his own country, he owes a temporary allegiance to the Philippines
where he resides.
d) Yes. It is not possible for an alien, whether residing in the Philippines or
elsewhere, to commit the crime of treason because he owes allegiance to his
own country.
Page 209 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against national security – Qualified piracy
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was
forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong,
took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger,
and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified
piracy before a Philippine court.
a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo
and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed when the offenders
seized the vessel by firing on or boarding the same. In the problem, they even went
further by divesting the passengers of their money and jewelry. The vessel was
anchored in the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of another country. The Supreme Court has
ruled that the high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code
includes the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 1911922]).
Moreover, piracy is an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a crime against
the Law of Nations.
Criminal law – Crimes against National Security – Misprision of treason
Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the
People's Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina
who lives with her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence
between him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of China.
On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date her boyfriend had
sent an e-mail to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital
information on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government
in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra
decided to report the matter to the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime?
Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under Art. 116 of the
Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make known "as soon as possible" to the
Page 210 of 417
Criminal Law
governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the
conspiracy between her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason
against the Philippine Government in time of war. She decided to report the matter to
the proper authorities only after two (2) weeks.
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Punishable acts
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants,
was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were
armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal
employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and
transportation of the entire van and its contents. (2012 BAR)
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who
hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532,
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti -Highway Robbery Law of 1974?
Explain your answer.
Answer:
No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery. The mere fact
that the offense charged was committed on a highway would not be the determinant for
the application of P.D. 532. If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway,
is forcibly taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the
location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not necessarily put the
offense within the ambit of P.D. 532. In this case, the crime committed is violation of the
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993).
Moreover, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the
purpose of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What was shown is one isolated
hijacking of a postal van. It was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously
attempted similar robberies by them to establish “indiscriminate” commission thereof
(Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1993).
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of
highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction?
Answer:
Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery is defined as “the seizure of any person
for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things or
other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway.” Hence, the
elements of highway robbery are:
Page 211 of 417
Criminal Law
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
intent to gain;
unlawful taking of the property of another;
violence against or intimidation of any person;
committed on a Philippine highway
indiscrimate victim;
To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove that the
accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. If the
purpose is only particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there
are at least four armed participants. (See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461,
February 23, 1996)
Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 – difference
with Robbery committed on a highway
a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
b) A, B, C, D and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a
drinking spree. At about 1 o’clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so
asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of
P2.Q00.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a
taxicab and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the
beerhouse. A, B, C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed
the first taxicab they encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings,
which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill.
So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver Y of his
hard-eamed money amounting to PI,000.00. On their way back to the beerhouse,
they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of
the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any,
did A, B, C, D and E commit? Explain fully. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery
committed on a highway in these respects:
In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately
against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the
potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the
robbery is committed only against predetermined victims;
It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one
who roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways
as venue, whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery
Page 212 of 417
Criminal Law
under the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public
highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and
In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of
the robbery in public highways and against persons travelling thereat;
whereas ordinary Robbery In public highways is only occasional against a
predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.
b) A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev.
Penal Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but
only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that
they were short of money to pay the same.
Special law – Anti-Piracy and Anti- Highway Robbery (PD 532) punishable acts
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of
the Western Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy
to and more or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the
movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier
area to the different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to
time, he gave valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group
interested in those shipments in said container vans. On several instances, using
the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of
the vans. Prior to their sale to “fences” in Banawe, Ouezon City and Bangkal,
Makati City, the gang informs Sgt. Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods,
makes his choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own
sources or “fences”. When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and
arrested, upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal
charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense,
claimed that he should not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory
after the fact under P.D. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Act of 1972.
Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express
provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or
protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the
movement of police officers or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who
directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbeiy/brigandage, shall be
considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with
the rules in the Revised Penal Code.
Page 213 of 417
Criminal Law
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged only as accessory after
the fact is not tenable because he was a principal participant in the commission of the
crime and in pursuing the criminal design.
An accessory after the fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after
the crime had already been consummated, not before. For his criminal participation in
the execution of the highjacking of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation.
b) Anti-Hijacking Law
6235)
(i) Punishable acts
(P.D.
Compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine Registry to change its destination
is __________. (2013 BAR)
(A)
grave coercion
(B)
a violation of the Anti-Hijacking Law or R.A. No. 6235
(C)
grave threats
(D)
a violation of the Human Security Act of 2007 or the Anti-Terrorism Law
(E)
All of the above.
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
2. Crimes Against the Fundamental Laws of the State (Articles 124-133)
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a mayor who, without being authorized by
law, compels prostitutes residing in his city to go to, and live in, another place
against their will? (2012 BAR)
a) The mayor is criminally liable for violation of domicile.
b) The mayor is criminally liable for expulsion.
c) The mayor is criminally liable for Grave coercion.
d) The mayor incurs no criminal liability because he merely wants to
protect the youth against the indecency of the prostitutes.
Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State - Violation of
domicile
Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking for a person named Virgilio whom
Carlos suspected of stealing his fighting cock. Alberto and Bernardo were
policemen, while Carlos was a caretaker of fighting cocks. Carlos requested
Alberto and Bernardo, then in uniform, to accompany him to Virgilio’s house to
look for the fighting cock. Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos went to Virgilio’s house.
Page 214 of 417
Criminal Law
When the policemen knocked on the door, Virgilio’s wife, Maria, opened it. The
policemen told Maria that they came to inquire about a lost fighting cock. Before
Maria could utter a word, the trio barged inside, the house. Once inside, the
policemen told Maria that Carlos was suspecting her husband, Virgilio, to have
stolen his fighting cock. Maria protested and immediately required the three to
leave. The policemen refused. Instead, they started searching the house for the
fighting cock over the objections of Maria who said that she would file a
complaint against them after her husband comes from work. As they did not see
any fighting cock, the three left. What crimes, if any, did Alberto, Bernardo and
Carlos commit? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen, committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are three ways by which a public officer or employee
may commit this crime, namely:
a. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner. The door having been
opened by Maria, although Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the
house before Maria could utter a word, they did not enter against Maria’s
will, there being no opposition or prohibition against entrance whether
express or implied. Without the consent is not against the will (People vs.
Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5, 113).
b. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous
consent of such owner. Maria had objected to the search for the fighting
cock inside her dwelling, but despite said objection, the policemen searched
the house. This makes them criminally liable for the second way of
committing the crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE.
c. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required to leave the same. Although the
policemen were ordered to leave the house, they did not enter it
surreptitiously, meaning clandestinely or secretly.
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being a public officer or employee, he cannot
commit the crime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to
dwelling, either because he did not enter the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the
owner, which is the essential element of Trespass.
Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State – Violation of
domicile
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
Page 215 of 417
Criminal Law
[e] A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over
the owner's opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of domicile
because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority to make searches
and seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority
(Art. 128, RPC).
Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State - Delay on the
Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities; in relation with
Slight disobedience which is a crime against public order
Amy was apprehended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for illegal parking.
She was detained at the police precint, underwent investigation, and released
only after hours.
1. Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
2. Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
criminally liable thereby? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.
Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
2.
She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised
Penal Code - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of
such person.
Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State; violation of domicile
– Crimes against personal liberty and security; trespass to dwelling
What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling?
(2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are:
The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority;
in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a
private capacity.
Page 216 of 417
Criminal Law
Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of
another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the
dwelling without the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises
which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.
Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of
another against the express or implied will of the latter.
Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State – Arbitrary
detention
What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
What are the legal grounds for detention? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful?
Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention are:
a. by detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause or ground
therefor purposely to restrain his liberty (RPC, Art. 124);
b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a person lawfully
arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125); and
c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has been ordered by
competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should be a public officer
acting under color of his authority.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal grounds for detention are;
1. commission of a crime;
2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in an
institution established for such purpose.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arrest by a peace officer or by a private person is lawful –
a. when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
Page 217 of 417
Criminal Law
b. when an offense has just been committed and he has probable, cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
c. when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
penal establishment or place where he is serving sentence or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5).
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Period of detention
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9745)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable
X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected drug pusher, and
watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat up and tortured W to get his confession.
X is liable as (2011 BAR)
(A) as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
(B) a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
(C) a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
(D) an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
3. Crimes Against Public Order (Articles 134-160)
What is the proper charge against public officers or employees who, being in
conspiracy with the rebels, failed to resist a rebellion by all means in their power,
or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the
rebels, or shall accept appointment to office under them? (2012 BAR)
a) disloyalty of public officers or employees;
b) rebellion;
c) conspiracy to commit rebellion;
d) dereliction of duty.
What is the proper charge against a person who, without taking arms or being in
open hostility against the Government, shall incite others to deprive Congress of
its legislative powers, by means of speeches or writings? (2012 BAR)
a) inciting to sedition;
b) inciting to rebellion or insurrection;
c) crime against legislative body;
d) unlawful use of means of publication or unlawful utterances.
Alternative Answer:
b) inciting to rebellion or insurrection
What is the crime committed when a group of persons entered the municipal
building rising publicly and taking up arms in pursuance of the movement to
Page 218 of 417
Criminal Law
prevent exercise of governmental authority with respect to the residents of the
municipality concerned for the purpose of effecting changes in the manner of
governance and removing such locality under their control from allegiance to the
laws of the Government? (2012 BAR)
a) sedition;
b) coup d'etat;
c) insurrection; (or rebellion, Art. 134, RPC)
d) public disorder.
When is a disturbance of public order deemed to be tumultuous? (2012 BAR)
a) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than three (3)
persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.
b) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when a person causes a serious
disturbance in a public place or disturbs public performance, function or
gathering.
c) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when more than three (3)
persons make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or shout
subversive or provocative words to obtain any of the objectives of rebellion or
sedition.
d) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when at least four (4) persons
participate in a free-for-all-fight assaulting each other in a confused and
tumultuous manner.
What is the proper charge against a group of four persons who, without public
uprising, employ force to prevent the holding of any popular election? (2012 BAR)
a) sedition;
b) disturbance of public order;
c) grave coercion;
d) direct assault.
A, B, and C organized a meeting in which the audience was incited to the
commission of the crime of sedition. Some of the persons present at the meeting
were carrying unlicensed firearms. What crime, if any, was committed by A, B,
and C, as well as those who were carrying unlicensed firearms and those who
were merely present at the meeting? (2012 BAR)
a) Inciting to sedition for A, B and C and illegal possession of firearms for those
carrying unlicensed firearms.
b) Inciting to sedition for A, B and C and those carrying unlicensed firearms.
c) Illegal assembly for A, B, C and all those present at the meeting.
d) Conspiracy to commit sedition for A, B, C and those present at the meeting.
Which of the following statements constitute Inciting to Sedition? (2011 BAR)
(A) Utterance of statements irritating or obnoxious to the ears of the police
officers.
(B) Speeches extolling communism and urging the people to hold a national
strike and paralyze commerce and trade.
Page 219 of 417
Criminal Law
(C) Leaders of jeepney and bus associations shouting "Bukas tuloy ang welga
hanggang sa magkagulo na!"
(D) Speeches calling for resignation of high government officials.
A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money handed over to him
commits (2011 BAR)
(A) no crime.
(B) attempted bribery.
(C) consummated bribery.
(D) frustrated bribery.
Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Daily Time Record (DTR)
from January to March 2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave application
for April because of evidence that he was actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus,
the medical Director caused the withholding of his salary for the periods in
question until he submitted his DTRs in May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the
medical director for causing him undue injury in violation of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act? (2011 BAR)
(A) Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident bad faith.
(B) No, since the medical director has full discretion in releasing the salary of
government doctors.
(C) Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior hearing.
(D) No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit the
required DTRs.
In malversation of public funds, the offender’s return of the amount malversed
has the following effect (2011 BAR)
(A) It is exculpatory.
(B) It is inculpatory, an admission of the commission of the crime.
(C) The imposable penalty will depend on what was not returned.
(D) It is mitigating.
Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. From which of the following
elements of direct bribery can moral turpitude be inferred? (2011 BAR)
(A) The offender receives a gift by himself or through another.
(B) The offender is a public officer.
(C) The offender takes a gift with a view to committing a crime in exchange.
(D) The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is
connected with his official duties.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Illegal association
What would have been the legal effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1835
(Codifying The Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and Increasing the Penalties
For Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D. No. 1975, if
RA. No. 1700 (An Act to Outlaw The Communist Party of the Philippines and
Page 220 of 417
Criminal Law
Similar Associations. Penalizing Membership Therein and For Other Purposes)
were not revived? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by RA 1735, is absolute, without reviving
RA. 1700, the original provision on illegal associations under Art. 147 of the Revised
Penal Code would be the pertinent provision to be taken into account. Hence, it must
be proved that the purpose of the organization is to commit any crime punishable by
the code or for some purpose contrary to public morals.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If Rep. Act No. 1700 were not revived by Executive Order No. 167, the repeal of
P.D. No. 1835 and P.D. No. 1975 would have created a vacuum in the sense that
membership in subversive organizations would no longer be punishable.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - forgery of a private document;
falsification of a private document
In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against him by A. B
interposed the defense of payment. In support thereof, he identified and offered
in evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A On rebuttal. A denied
having been paid by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a
handwriting expert who testified that the alleged signature of A on the receipt is
a forgery and that a comparison thereof with the specimen signatures of B
clearly shows that B himself forged the signature of A.
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified document in a judicial
proceeding (last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document, under the
last paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for forgery of a
private document under the second mode of falsification under Art. 172, Revised Penal
Code. Being the possessor and user of the falsified document he is presumed to be the
forger or falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified document is already absorbed
in the main offense of forgery or falsification.
If he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with? (1991 Bar
Question)
Page 221 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since the
document falsified is a private document and done with intent to cause damage.
Although there was an attempt on the part of B to defraud A thru the use of the false
document, such deceit cannot give rise to estafa because this crime cannot co-exist or
be complexed with the crime of falsification when the docu-ment falsified is a private
document.
Additional Answer:
If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should also be held liable
under Art. 182, which is false testimony in civil cases.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Forgery and falsification
A. How are “forging” and “falsification” committed? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
C. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He
could not explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could
he explain what he intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held
criminally liable for such possession? Decide. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
D. A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the
accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the
author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the
accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the
proposition that “the only person who could have made the erasures and
the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the
alterations thus made” and that “he alone could have the motive for
making such alterations”.
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was
premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%)
(1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine
document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.
Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
Page 222 of 417
Criminal Law
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact made by them
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which
changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy
a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book.
B. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not
punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter,
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
C. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that
the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
D. Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the
possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.
Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from
Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the
P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the
amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the
check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited
another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later
withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and
attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (2014 BAR)
(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there
was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White
did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on
the defense of Mr. Gray.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing
that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on
the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
ANSWER:
(A)
The first defense of Mr. Gray that there was no evidence showing that he was the
author of the forgery has no merit. The law presumes that the possessor and
user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise, his second
Page 223 of 417
Criminal Law
(B)
defense that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check
(attempted estafa) has no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not
considered in attempted estafa. It is considered only in consummated estafa.
Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged justifies the
entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second
check is also a forgery. Further, granting for the sake of argument that the
entrapment was illegal, such will not validate the withdrawal based on the
second check which is also forged. His criminal liability in forging the second
check is not affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment procedure.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Evasion of sentence; penalty of
destierro
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he
was not to enter the city.
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he
was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he
went to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of
destierro.
A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict
enters any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or
come within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it
is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny maybe prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested.
This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the
convict is a fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-28519, 17
Feb. 668)
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail
A. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical
treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him
away or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered
and that resistance would endanger the lives of other patients, decided to allow
the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by
A’s followers? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page 224 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A’s followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from
jail (Art 156, Revised Penal Code).
The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal
establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape of such
person outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or
any other means.
The guard was entrusted with the conveyance or custody of a detention prisoner
who escaped through his negligence. What is the criminal liability of the escaping
prisoner? (2012 BAR)
a) The escaping prisoner does not incur criminal liability.
b) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion through negligence.
c) The escaping prisoner is liable for conniving with or consenting to,
evasion.
d) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion of service of sentence.
Criminal law- Crimes against persons – Murder; complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority
A.
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded
by four men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed
him while the other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an
ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result
of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants.
What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
B.
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato,
a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice
thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual. One afternoon Pascual, and
his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile
rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual’s men tried to appease
Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual
resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death.
What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
Page 225 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which
absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and
the victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the
assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the
assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the fact
is that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no
direct assault.
B. Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art. 48. RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law
(Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his
official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed.
Art. 48, RPC. on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or
more grave or less grave felonies, a complex c.rime is committed. Here, the single act
of the offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is
grave and direct assault which is less grave.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Direct assault upon a person in
authority; direct assault with serious physical injuries
Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished by an RTC Judge of
Manila for contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. Upon
seeing the judge, Pablo hurriedly approached him, and without saying a word
struck him with his fist causing a slight contusion on the face of the Judge. Rex
came to the rescue of the Judge but because he was taller and bigger than Pablo,
the latter used a knife in attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault to the arms of
Rex inflicting lesions graves which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five (45)
days.
If you were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against
Pablo, with what crime or crimes would you charge him? Explain. (1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight
contusion on the face of the Judge.
Direct assault with serious physical injuries with respect to the assault on Rex.
Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial
jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited
Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco
Page 226 of 417
Criminal Law
everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the
inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he
was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and
destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What
crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under Article 148 for disarming the guards
with the use of pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties. Using a
pistol to disarm the guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its
representative at all hazard. [Note: Illegal possession of firearms may also be
considered]
Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through negligence under
Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was negligent in relaxing the inspection of the
Brusco’s belongings during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which
he subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the
syndicate to which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of indirect bribery under Article
211.
Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156, qualified by his bribery
of Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime. “Helping”
means furnishing the prisoner with the material means or tools which greatly facilitate
his escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape is delivery of
prisoner from jail.
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating
during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated
his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme
embarrassment.
In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any
warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on
Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his
ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or
crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013, 2002, 1993)
Answer:
Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault. First, when he slapped Miss Reyes,
who is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the RPC, who was in the
performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when
he repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when
he came to the aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes (Celig v. People, G.R. No.
173150, July 28, 2010).
Page 227 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault; Resistance and
Disobedience
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils,
because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right
ear. X went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back
of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and
Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running
and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who
followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon
seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who
administered a fist blow' on A, causing him to fail down. When Y was about to
kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father
being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to
lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement
at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the
school arrived, intervened and surrounded X,
Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before
leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected
by B.
A. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y and Z? (6%) (2001 Bar
Question)
B. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%) (2001
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A.
X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B,
the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct
assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case,
was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked.
T is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical
Injuries for the fistblow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For
purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a.teacher is
considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his
performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious
physical injuries completed.
Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the
complex crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her
participation should not be considered as that of a coprincipal, since her reactions were
only incited by her relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
Page 228 of 417
Criminal Law
B.
If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an
agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered
as having acted out of contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from
the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct
assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a person in authority in
defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.
Criminal law - Crimes against public order - Direct assault
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the
students, cheating. She called the student’s attention and confiscated his
examination booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the
class was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without any warning,
slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another
student, come to A’s rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned
his ire on C and ounched the latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit?
Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who
was then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the
violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the said professor.
By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal
Code, teachers and professors 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 are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the
crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of
said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be
deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of
the law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a student.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, captured
five officers and five members of the armed forces and held them in their
mountain lair for seventy-five days and then voluntarily released them in
consideration of the promise of medical treatment to be given to some of their
comrades who were under detention by the authorities.
What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)
Page 229 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the
government and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by
rebellion.
The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
in violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.— Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death...”
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
Ka Jacinto, who is an NPA commander, was apprehended with unlicensed
firearms and explosives. He was accordingly charged with illegal possession of
said firearms and explosives. He now questions the filing of the charges on the
ground that they are deemed absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion filed
against him. Decide the issue. (1990 Bar Question)
Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed firearms, shot and killed
his neighbor in an altercation. May the charge of murder and illegal possession
of firearms be deemed absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion filed
against him? Resolve the matter with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives is deemed absorbed
in the crime of rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for the
perpetration of the latter crime. [EUas v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659).
The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as it
is clear that the act of murder, coupled with the possession of an unlicensed firearm,
was not in furtherance of the rebellion.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on
board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and
Vicente shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito
and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army
and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander
Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor
Alegre because of his corrupt practices.
Page 230 of 417
Criminal Law
If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente?
[5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of
rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New
People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politicallymotivated. This was the ruling in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568, involving identical
facts which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against the
Government.
Alternative Answer:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of
murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his “corrupt practices”, which does
not appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would
promote or further the objective of the New Peoples Army. The killing is murder
because it was committed with treachery.
Alternative Answer:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that Art. 135 of the
Revised Penal Code has already been amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from
said Article, common crimes which used to be punished as part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion. The ruling in People us. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1994). that
rebellion may not be completed with common crimes committed in furtherance
thereof, was because the common crimes were then penalized in Art. 135 together
with the rebellion, with one penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be
applied. Art. 135 of said Code remained exactly the same when the case of Entile us.
Salazar. 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was resolved. Precisely for the reason that Art. 48
cannot apply because the common crimes were punished as part of rebellion in Ant.
135. that this Article was amended, deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the
common crimes were deleted from said Article, demonstrates a clear legislative
intention to treat the common crimes as distinct from rebellion and remove the legal
impediment to the application of Art. 48.
It is noteworthy that in Enrile vs. Salazar (supra) the Supreme Court said these:
"There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either
to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other
offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that if cannot be
conveniently utilized as the umbrellafor every sort of illegal activity
undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for it
can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed
lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for
Page 231 of 417
Criminal Law
promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely within its
province."
And significantly the said amendment to Art. 135 of the Rev. Penal Code was
made at around the time the ruling in Salazar was handled down, obviously to
neutralize the Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The amendment was sort of a rider
to the coup d'etat law, Rep. Act No. 6968.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d’etat
How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d’etat using an
unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%] (1998 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power,
carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to
the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or
participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art. 134-A, RPC).
The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein.
His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the hew firearms
law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new
law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another
crime.
How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? (2012 BAR)
a) By rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of
depriving the Chief Executive of any of his powers or prerogatives.
b) When a person holding public employment undertakes a swift attack,
accompanied by strategy or stealth, directed against public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power for the
purpose of diminishing state power.
c) When persons rise publicly and tumultuously in order to prevent by force the
National Government from freely exercising its function.
d) When persons circulate scurrilous libels against the Government which tend to
instigate others to meet together or to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities.
Page 232 of 417
Criminal Law
During a military uprising aimed at ousting the duly constituted authorities and
taking over the government, General Tejero and his men forcibly took over the
entire Rich Hotel which they used as their base. They used the rooms and other
facilities of the hotel, ate all the available food they found, and detained some
hotel guests.
What crime did General Tejero and his men commit? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Rebellion complexed with serious illegal detention and estafa.
(B)
Rebellion.
(C)
Coup d'etat.
(D)
Terrorism.
(E)
None of the above
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d'etat
A. If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military
installation for the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation,
what crime or crimes are they guilty of? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty
of the crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, because their attack was against vital military installations which are
essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their
purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations.
If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the
leader thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for
them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar
acts, on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135,
R.P.C.)
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d'etat and rebellion
In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command
(LOG COM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their
Operations Officer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bullets and, per prior
agreement, attacked, in separate teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the
Secretary of National Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the
Page 233 of 417
Criminal Law
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and other offices, held hostage the Chief of
Staff of LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3) pro-Govemment soldiers,
inverted the Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and
announced complete control of the camp. Because of the superiority of the proGovemment forces, Col. Amparo and his troops surrendered at 7:00 o’clock in the
morning of that day.
a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of coup d'etat (Article
134-A, Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be coup d’etat (Republic Act
No. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A).
However, since the law was not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the
effectivity thereof (Section 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24, 1990) and
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed
would be rebellion.
Comment:
If the answer given is coup d’etat substantial credit should be given as the tenor of
the question seems to indicate that coup d’etat as a felony was already existing.
b) Distinguish rebellion from coup d'etat (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat:
AS TO OVERT ACTS:
In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the
Government. In coup d'etat public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the
crime is a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Government, or any
military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or facilities
needed for the exercise and continued possession of government power;
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE:
In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the
Philippines, the whole or any part or the Philippines or any military or naval camps,
deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from performing their functions. In coup
d'etat the objective is to seize or diminish state powers.
Page 234 of 417
Criminal Law
PARTICIPATION
In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat any person belonging to the
military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian participation.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - rebellion and coup d’etat
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)
Between rebellion and coup d’etat based on their constitutive elements as
criminal offenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rebellion is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a
government of the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need not be
participated in by any member of the military, national police or any public officer.
Coup d’etat is committed when members of the military, Philippine National
Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack thru
strategy, stealth, threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of
the Republic of the Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks,
public facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d’etat may be carried out
singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders must be members of the military,
national police or public officer, with or without civilian support. The criminal objective
need not be to overthrow the existing government but only to destabilize the existing
government
Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Inciting to sedition
What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition are:
1.
2.
Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of
representation to commit acts which constitute sedition;
Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous libels against
the Government of the Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities,
which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of official functions, or
which tend to incite others to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes;
Page 235 of 417
Criminal Law
3.
4.
5.
Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies
or riots;
Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the peace and
public order of the community or of the Government; or
Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Rev.
Penal Code).
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON
IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A
PERSON in authority
Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by Florencio went ' to serve a warrant
of arrest on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the latter’s apartment. Upon seeing
Edgardo, Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell flat on the floor. As
Florencio tried to help Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed Florencio. The
injuries inflicted upon Edgardo and Florencio required medical attendance for
nine (9) days. What crime or crimes were committed by Emilio? Give your
reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a police officer who was going serve a
warrant of arrest on him, Emilio would be guilty only of slight physical injuries on two
counts, one against Edgardo and the second against Florencio.
If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and of the latter’s purpose to serve a
warrant of arrest on him, and that is why he boxed Edgardo, then he will be guilty of
either DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR
DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON in authority, depending on the degree
of force employed by him. A person who attacks, employs force makes a serious
intimidation or makes a serious resistance against a person in authority or his agent, if
at the time of the assault the latter is engaged in the actual performance of his official
duties, the offended party knowing that the person he is assaulting is a person in
authority or his agent, it liable for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A policeman is an
agent of a person in authority.
As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emilio against him would be indirect
Assault provided that Emilio has committed DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This is
so because any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person
coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of the
crime of DIRECT ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime of INDIRECT ASSAULT.
However, if Emilio is guilty only of RESISTANCE or disobedience as against Edgardo;
then his crime against Florencio would only be slight physical injuries.
Page 236 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of a Private Document
Oscar, a former welder and painter at the Caloocan Motor Works owned by
Arturo, went to the Downtown Hardware Store where Arturo gets materials on
credit, and presented to its manager a typewritten order for two (2) cans of
“Dietsler” car paint. The signature of Arturo on the order was falsified. After
receiving the paint, Oscar sold them and kept the proceeds therefrom. If you were
the investigating fiscal, what charge or charges will you file against Oscar?
Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper charge against Oscar is Falsification of a Private Document. This is so
for the following reasons:
By forging the signature of Arturo on the typewritten purchase order for two cans of
car paint, Oscar committed the crime of falsification. The document falsified by him,
how-ever, is a private document. A typewritten purchase order is neither a public,
official or commercial document. It is a private document. Falsification of a private
document, however, is not a crime unless there is' damage or intent to cause damage.
When Oscar used the falsified private document to obtain the two cans of paint from the
hardware store, the element of damage arose, thus consummating the crime of
FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT.
Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification of a
private document, Oscar cannot be convicted of the complex.crime of ESTAFA THRU
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of FALSIFICATION
OF PRIVTE DOCUMENT is committed here. The damage to another is caused by the
commission of said crime. The intent to defraud in using falsified private document is
part and parcel of said crime and cannot give rise to the crime of estafa, because
damage, which is also an essential element of estafa, is caused by, and becomes the
element of, the crime of falsification of private document. The crime of estafa is not
committed, as it cannot exist without its own element of damage.
If the private document in the case was falsified, not to induce the offended party to
part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation previously made,
then the crime committed would be ESTAFA. The falsification would be absorbed in
said offense, the element of damage in one being the same as that required in the
other.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Qualified Direct Assault with Serious
Physical Injuries
Jose was charged with slight physical injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge.
He listened attentively as the Judge read the sentence. When the Judge reached
the dispositive portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the latter was enraged, got
hold of an ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the eye. As his
Page 237 of 417
Criminal Law
defense lawyer Pedro attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked
him down. The judge became blind in one eye as a consequence.
What crime or crimes did Jose commit? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. The
throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is laying of hands on the
Judge who is a person in authority while in the performance of duties. Jose is also
liable for qualified direct assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him
down while in the act of restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a
person in authority if assaulted while in the performance of duties.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Complex crime of direct assault with
murder
A. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in
authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a
dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was
invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his
speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor
making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and
admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace
of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter
at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone
to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the
incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or
commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in
authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election
or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public
order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Art.. 152, RPC).
Page 238 of 417
Criminal Law
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of
their professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
B. The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay
Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to
maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to
keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of
heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of
authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A
And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself
nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such
stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of
direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Direct assault
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed
with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge
Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon
investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo
who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days.
[a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased
to be a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 yrs. old) from his position as a
person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded
as against a person in authority anymore.
[b] Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that
when Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted
Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your
answer. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence
was by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a
practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas
Page 239 of 417
Criminal Law
Pambansa Big. 873, which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in
authority. But the crime having been committed 10 years ago, may have already
prescribed because it is punishable by a correctional penalty.
a) Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives (P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294), as further
amended by the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act (R.A. No. 10591)
Special law -Crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition-Elements of
the crime
X, Y and Z agreed among themselves to attack and kill A, a police officer, but they
left their home-made guns in their vehicle before approaching him. What crime
have they committed? (2011 BAR)
(A) Conspiracy to commit indirect assault.
(B) Attempted direct assault.
(C) Conspiracy to commit direct assault.
(D) Illegal possession of firearms.
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed
by him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an
apartment where A was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A
was always armed. At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the
elder sister of A, opened the door and let the policemen in. Inside, the team found
A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag which, when
opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand grenade. After
verification, the authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38
caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that only
military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was
charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During
trial, A maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand
grenade belonged to A, his friend, and that he was not in actual possession
thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A’s allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential element of the crime
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely
possession, which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive
possession where the firearm and explosive are subject to one’s control and
management. [People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil, 105;
People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
Page 240 of 417
Criminal Law
b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Absorption principle in relation to complex crimes
4. Crimes Against Public Interest (Articles 161-187)
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a physician who issues a false medical
certificate in connection with the practice of his profession? (2012 BAR)
a) The physician is criminally liable for falsification of medical certificate.
b) The physician is criminally liable if the false medical certificate is used in court.
c) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical certificate is not
submitted to the court.
d) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical certificate does not
cause prejudice or damage.
The baptism of A was solemnized by B, an ecclesiastical minister, in the absence
of C, one of the godparents. Upon request of the mother of A, B caused the
inclusion of the name of C in the baptismal certificate of A as one of the
godparents and allowed a proxy for C during the baptismal ceremony. What is the
criminal liability, if any, of the ecclesiastical minister? (2012 BAR)
a) The ecclesiastical minister is criminally liable for falsification of baptismal
certificate by causing it to appear that C participated in the baptismal ceremony
when he did not in fact so participate.
b) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because the insertion of the
name of C in the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil status of A.
c) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he is not a public
officer, employee or notary.
d) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he did not take
advantage of his official position nor cause damage to a third party.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of private document
Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling
debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by
writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by
their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if
any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document
because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical,
possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is
qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not
Page 241 of 417
Criminal Law
committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or
conceal the unlawful taking.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of commercial
documents
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged
the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What
crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money
orders constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the
payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the
money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash.
The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of a private document
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay
the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely
alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid
the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.
a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the crime of falsification of a private
document (if damage or at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the crime
of swindling only. It could not be both falsification and swindling or a complex crime of
estafa through falsification since the document falsified is a private document. The two
crimes cannot go together.
Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their
marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the
day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea
inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the
Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the
Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just
sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage
and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the
Page 242 of 417
Criminal Law
marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor
Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article
171. Making an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public
document, that the marriage was solemnized by him, is an act of falsification. The crime
of illegal marriage is not committed because element that “the offender has performed
an illegal marriage ceremony” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2,
2014).
Donato committed the crime of usurpation of function under Article 177 of the Revised
Penal Code because he performed the act of solemnizing marriage, which pertained to
the mayor, a person in authority, without being lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of
illegal marriage is not committed, because the element that “the offender is authorized
to solemnize marriage” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014).
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of public documents
Andrea signed her deceased husband’s name in endorsing his three treasury
warrants which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew
that her husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the
expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. She knew that her husband
had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded
that value of the three treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no
damage. Andrea’s appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal intent and
of good faith.
Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of absence
of criminal intent and of good faith cannot be considered because she is presumed to
know that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in falsification does
not refer to pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.
Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - introducing a false document in a
judicial proceeding
M was forced by a policeman to sign a document entitled “Sinumpaang
Salaysay” in which M implicated X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank
where P500,000.00 were lost. The document was prepared by the policeman
Page 243 of 417
Criminal Law
upon advice of B, the bank’s lawyer, who was present when the policeman
asked M to sign the document. As M refused to sign it, the policeman held him
by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as he was afraid he might be
bodily harmed.
During the hearing of the robbery before the Fiscal’s Office, B submitted the
“Sinumpaang Salaysay” as evidence, on the basis of which X was included in
the information filed by the Fiscal in court.
When M testified in court, he repudiated the document and told the court
there was no truth to its contents as he was merely forced to sign it.
A. May M be held liable for perjury? (1987 Bar Question)
B. Did lawyer B commit any crime when he used the “Sinumpaang Salaysay”
as evidence? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign the document freely and voluntarily but
due to the force employed by the policeman. Peijury refers to deliberate distortion of
truth. The facts of the problem do not state that the documents was signed before
an officer authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore, doubtful that the facts would
constitute perjury.
B. The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code for the
offense of introducing a false document in a judicial proceeding, as he knew the
same to be false.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Mutilation of coins
Two Japanese were passing through immigration and customs
preparatory to their departure for Japan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
A bundle of P2,000 peso bills was discovered in one of them, and to prevent their
being delayed, his companion took the bundle of bills and then and there tore up
the bills.
As City Fiscal of Pasay, what crimes, if any, would you charge the two
Japanese? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two Japanese cannot be charged of any crime. They committed no crime.
Article 164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation of coins cannot be applied to the
Japanese because said article refers to coins and not to bills.
Page 244 of 417
Criminal Law
a) R.A. No. 9194 – Anti-Money Laundering Act
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Covered Transactions
(iii) Suspicious Transactions
Special penal law –How to establish liability under Anti-Money Laundering Act
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[e] For a person who transacts an instrument representing the proceeds of
a covered unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act
(R.A. 9160, as amended), it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identities
of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the
identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To establish
liability under RA 9160, it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are
transacted, making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
Special penal law – Anti-Money Laundering Act – Issuance of freeze order
There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a
bank are related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined
under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act) an
application for an order to allow inquiry into his deposit was filed with the
Regional Trial Court.
After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued
a freeze order.
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct, because
jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under Rep
Act 9194, amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Rep. Act No. 9160). The Regional
Trial Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order of the money involved.
Page 245 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law –Anti-Money Laundering Act – “Money laundering;” stages
Define Money laundering. What are the three (3) stages in money laundering? (3%)
(2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Money Laundering is the process by which a person conceals the existence of
unlawfully obtained money and makes it appear to have originated from lawful sources.
The intention behind such a transaction is to hide the beneficial owner of said funds and
allows criminal organizations or criminals to enjoy proceeds of such criminal activities.”
The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
1. Placement/ infusion or the physical disposal of criminal proceeds
2. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from their source by creating
layers of financial transactions to disguise such proceeds as legitimate and avoid
audit trail; and
3. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy to the criminal proceeds.
Special penal law - Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money
Laundering Act of 2001), as amended by Rep. Act 9194 – Punishable acts; money
proceeds from an unlawful activity are transacted as though coming from a
legitimate source; continued use of proceeds despite knowledge of unlawful
source thereof
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor.
He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various
amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor
withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics,
repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently
discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he
deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001),
as amended by Rep. Act 9194, since the money proceeds from an unlawful activity, i.e.,
jueteng are transacted as though coming from a legitimate source; (crime committed by
Don Gabito)
Page 246 of 417
Criminal Law
1) Money laundering under the same laws above- mentioned if after learning that
the money deposited in his account were proceeds of jueteng, he still continued using
said funds; (crime committed by the Mayor)
5. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – Possible
crimes which can be committed by an evidence custodian of the PNP Forensic
Chemistry Section
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih,
through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP
Forensic Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic
Chemistry Section, the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the
destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug.
State with reasons whether Patrick committed the following crimes:
Direct bribery;
Indirect bribery;
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act);
Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019),
and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of
P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were
evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a
consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his
official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift
or present by reason of his public office.
Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the
government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by
destroying evidence of a crime.
Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by
destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case.
Page 247 of 417
Criminal Law
a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability
(iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment
(v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
b) Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
Special law – RA 9165 – punishable acts and penalties thereof
Manny was apprehended in a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck
of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) was delivered by him to the
policeman posing as buyer and another deck of shabu was taken from his pocket
after his body was frisked before he was actually brought to the police precint.
Convicted of violating sections 15 (sale and distribution of regulated drugs) and
16 (possession or use of regulated drugs) of the Dangerous Drugs Law, he was
sentenced to thirty (30) years of life imprisonment and payment of a fine of
P20,000.00 (for violating sec. 15) and to imprisonment of eight (8) years and
payment of fine of P6,000.00 (for violating sec. 16). He then sought the reversal of
the decision, on the following grounds:
First, he could not be convicted of having violated sec. 15 because he has
not yet received the money from the buyer and the sale is not yet consummated;
Second, his conviction under sec. 16 is erroneous because his possession
of shabu is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery; and
Third, it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a sarisari store near the national road open to the public view and to a stranger.
If you were the Solicitor General, how would you rebut the arguments of
the accused? Discuss fully. .(1993 Bar Question)
Give your comment with regard to the penalties imposed.(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manny is liable. The law provides, “shall sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute".
Yes, he is also liable because the shabu taken from his possession or pocket is
different from the shabu he was to deliver to the seller.
Page 248 of 417
Criminal Law
As to the third reason, it is not unbelievable because although it is a public place,
this kind of sale can always be clandestinely be made. (People vs. Rey Bernardino, Jan.
28, 1991)
With respect to the penalty imposed, life imprisonment should not be limited to 30
years; and 8 years is wrong, it should be indeterminate. (People vs. Angeles, because
of Eliginio vs. Alvarez (1992)
Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep. Act
No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; plea-bargaining in
prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer allowed
MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pre-trial, he offered to
plead guilty to the lesser offense concerning use of dangerous drugs.
Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea to the lesser offense? Explain briefly. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Judge should not allow MNO’s plea to a lesser offense, because pleabargaining in prosecutions of drug-related cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No.
9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable
penalty.
Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – RA 9165
Superintendent Al Santiago. Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police
District, received information that a certain Lee Lay of No. 8 Tindalo Street.
Tondo. Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and marijuana. SPO1
Lorenzo and SP03 Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and buy-bust
operations against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was
arranged at T. Pinpin Restaurant at 2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993.
SPOl Lorenzo and SP03 Peralta, acting as poseur- buyers, purchased from Lay
10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay agreed to sell to them one kilo of
dried marijuana fruiting tops which he gave them at his residence.
The policemen arrested Lay and a search was conducted. Found were 356
grams of marijuana seeds. 932 grams of marijuana fruiting tops and 50 sticks of
marijuana cigarettes.
What offense or offenses did Lay commit? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
Page 249 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs which should be made subject of separate
informations.
The crime of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the 10
sticks of marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops,
which should be subject of two (2) separate informations because the acts were
committed at different times and in different places.
The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the
marijuana seeds, marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana cigarettes which are not the
subject of the sale. Another information shall be filed for this.
Special law – Crimes related to opium and other prohibited drugs - Sale of a
prohibited drug
Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a suspected
drug pusher, and offered to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came
back five minutes later and handed Pat. Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing
the shabu . However, before Pat. Buensuceso was able to deliver the marked
money to Ronnie, the latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie
knew to be connected with the Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing
the latter, Ronnie ran away but was arrested thirty minutes later by other
policemen who pursued him.
Under the circumstances, would you consider the crime of sale of a
prohibited drug already consummated? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The sale of prohibited drug is already consummated although the marked
money was not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the
shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their agreed sale, the crime was consummated.
Payment of the consideration is not an clement of requisite of the crime. If ever, the
marked money is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the prosecution.
Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs –RA
9165; Punishable acts; mere possession of illegal drugs; non-availability of pleabargaining
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount
of methamphetamlne hydrochloride or “shabu". An entrapment operation was
conducted by police officers, resulting in his arrest following the discovery of
100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was subjected to a
Page 250 of 417
Criminal Law
drug test and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous
drug. He was subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of “shabu" and violation of Section 15,
Article II of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana.
A. Are the charges proper? Explain.
B. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a
lesser offense. Can he do so? Why? (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the mere possession of such
drug is punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is not proper as Section
15 of Rep. Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly
excludes penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs when the person tested is also
found to have in possession such quantity of any dangerous drug" provided for
in Section 11 of such Act.
B. No, because Section 23 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides that "Any person
charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall
not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. ” For this reason,
Obie Juan cannot be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
Special law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs –
Misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized dangerous
drugs; the illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous
drugs
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug
smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel
Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the
group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the
Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin
weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded
him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame
and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03
Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and
got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left
with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him
to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of
agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested
Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed
Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
Page 251 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of Sec. 27, R.A. 9165 of
the same law for misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized
dangerous drugs.
On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the illegal importation or
bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. (Article 11, Sec. 4, RA 9165)
Special penal law – Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs – R.A.
No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002”; “Protector/Coddler”
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug
smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel
Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the
group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the
Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin
weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded
him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame
and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03
Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and
got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left
with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him
to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of
agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested
Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed
Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and P03 Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under
Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. They acted as “protector/coddler” to the unlawful
bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. A “protector/ coddler” refers to any
person who uses his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of any person
whom he knows or believes, has violated the Dangerous Drugs Law, in order to prevent
the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
Special penal law - Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs - Sec. 7
of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002; Who are liable
as offenders
Page 252 of 417
Criminal Law
Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that
it was for a mahjong session Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio's house,
Anastacic discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time,
the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested.
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer.
(2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Anastacio may not be charged of any crime.
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002
punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are
used in any form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite that
he "is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same."
These requisites are absent in the facts given.
6. Crimes Against Public Morals (Articles 200-202)
Amelia, a famous actress, bought the penthouse unit of a posh condominium
building in Taguig City. Every night, Amelia would swim naked in the private, but
open air, pool of her penthouse unit. It must have been obvious to Amelia that
she could be seen from nearby buildings. In fact, some residents occupying the
higher floors of the nearby residential buildings did indeed entertain themselves
and their friends by watching her swim in the nude from their windows.
What crime did Amelia commit? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Alarms and scandals because her act of swimmmg naked disturbs the
public tranquility.
(B)
Grave scandal because she committed highly scandalous acts that are
offensive to decency or good customs.
(C)
Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent
shows under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, because her act of
swimming naked is akin to an indecent live show.
(D)
Amelia did not commit any crime because the swimming pool is located in
her private home.
Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Sending of indecent booklet to an
individual
Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy developed between them.
One day, Juan sent to Petra a booklet contained in a pay envelope which was
securely sealed. The booklet is unquestionably indecent and highly offensive to
morals. Juan was thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by P.D. 969, which provides that the penalty of prision mayor
or a fine from P6.000to P12,000, or both such imprisonment and fine shall be
Page 253 of 417
Criminal Law
imposed upon those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings,
sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. Is Juan guilty of the crime
charged? Reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the law (Art. 201, RPC)
covers only the protection of public moral and not only the moral of an individual.
Criminal law – Crimes against public morals – Grave scandal
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City
sunbathed naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that
the business executives holding oifice at the adjoining tall buildings reported to
office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on
gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of
the town.
A. What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
B. What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pia did not commit a crime. The felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is
Grave scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
offensive against decency and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a
public place and within public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered
by the executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public and full
view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts
of lasciviousness (as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of
the town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business
executives, and besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
a) P.D. 1602 – Anti-Gambling Act as amended by R.A. 9287 – Illegal
Numbers Game – which repealed Articles 195-199 of the RPC
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country Adoption Act for
the purpose of prostitution, what is the proper charge against the offender who is
a public officer in relation to the exploitative purpose? (2012 BAR)
Page 254 of 417
Criminal Law
a) acts that promote trafficking in persons;
b) trafficking in persons;
c) qualified trafficking in persons;
d) use of trafficked person.
7. Crimes Committed by Public Officers (Articles 203-245)
What crime is committed by a public officer who, having control of public funds
or property by reason of the duties of his office and for which he is accountable,
permits any other person through abandonment to take such public funds or
property? (2012 BAR)
a) The public officer commits malversation.
b) The public officer commits technical malversation.
c) The public officer commits the crime of failure of accountable or
responsible officer to render accounts.
d) The public officer commits the crime of failure to make delivery of public
funds or property.
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a police officer who, while Congress was in
session, arrested a member thereof for committing a crime punishable by a
penalty higher than prision mayor? (2012 BAR)
a) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parliamentary
immunity because a member of Congress is privileged from arrest while
Congress is in session.
b) The police officer is criminally liable for disturbance of proceedings
because the arrest was made while Congress was in session.
c) The police officer incurs no criminal liability because the member of
Congress has committed a crime punishable by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
d) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parliamentary
immunity because parliamentary immunity guarantees a member of
Congress complete freedom of expression without fear of being arrested
while in regular or special session.
AA was appointed for a two-year term to serve the unexpired portion of a
resigned public official. Despite being disqualified after the lapse of the two-year
term, AA continued to exercise the duties and powers of the public office to
which appointed. What is the criminal liability of AA? (2012 BAR)
a) AA is criminally liable for malfeasance in office.
b) AA is criminally liable for prolonging performance of duties and powers.
c) AA is criminally liable for disobeying request for disqualification.
d) AA incurs no criminal liability because there is no indication that he
caused prejudice to anyone.
Page 255 of 417
Criminal Law
What crime is committed when a person assumes the performance of duties and
powers of a public office or employment without first being sworn in? (2012 BAR)
a) anticipation of duties of a public office;
b) usurpation of authority;
c) prohibited transaction;
d) unlawful appointment.
What crime is committed by a public officer who, before the acceptance of his
resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service in
order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or
punishing the crime of treason? (2012 BAR)
a) abandonment of office or position;
b) qualified abandonment of office;
c) misprision of treason;
d) negligence in the prosecution of offense.
A jailer inflicted injury on the prisoner because of his personal grudge against the
latter. The injury caused illness of the prisoner for more than thirty (30) days.
What is the proper charge against the jailer? (2012 BAR)
a) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner and serious
physical injuries.
b) The jailer should be charged with serious physical injuries only.
c) The jailer should be charged with complex crime of maltreatment of
prisoner with serious physical injuries.
d) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner only.
Alternative Answer:
b) The jailer should be charged with serious physical injuries only.
What is the proper charge against a lawyer who reveals the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity? (2012 BAR)
a) The lawyer should be charged with revelation of secrets of private
individual.
b) The lawyer should be charged with betrayal of trust.
c) The lawyer should be charged with unauthorized revelation of classified
materials.
d) The proper charge against the lawyer should be revealing secrets with
abuse of office.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Dereliction of duty
After SP02 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs.
Cortes and made this proposition: “Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the
D.O.M. is probably well-known in his community, he will not want his reputation
tarnished. I'll tell him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to file
criminal charges against him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us
Page 256 of 417
Criminal Law
P50,300.00, you may be persuaded not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he
gives that amount, which he surely will, I shall visit him regularly for more. We
shall then divide equally the money we shall get from him.
Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief
with incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his
superiors to penalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have
received from his victim? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Likewise. Cellado can be held liable under Art. 208, RPC, he being a public
officer who maliciously refrained from instituting prosecution against violators of the law.
An agent of a person in authority charged with the apprehension and investigation of a
crime is an integral part of the prosecution of offenses.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Crime of falsification of a
public document; invalid defenses
L, a Municipal Mayor, issued an appointment in favor of his legitimate son,
S, as meat inspector in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer. He also issued a
certification that S is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity.
The Civil Service Commission approved the appointment.
L, was charged and found guilty of falsification of public document. In his
appeal, he argued that his conviction is erroneous because he had no legal
obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee and that
he was in good faith as he later on revoked the appointment.
Resolve his plea, supporting your resolution with reasons. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction is correct. L had the legal obligation to issue a certification to the
effect that the appointee is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity
(Laino vs. Sandiganbayan). The revocation of the appointment did not extinguish the
incipient criminal liability of L, the crime having been already consummated. Besides,
good faith may not be invoked in the crime of falsification of a public document as
criminal intent and the will to commit the crime are presumed to exist unless the
contrary appears (Manuel Siquuian vs People, 171 SCRA 223).
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation of public
funds or property
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (Ml6) and a
Smith and Wesson Revolver, Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an
Page 257 of 417
Criminal Law
inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning,
did not show up during the inspection. He went on absence without leave
(AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to
him. He was charged with malversation of government property before the
Sandiganbayan.
Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and
the revolver for his own use, that the delay in accounting for them does not
constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were stolen by his friend,
Chiting.
Decide the case. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the
firearms they issued to him in his official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the
firearms upon demand created the presumption that he converted them for his own use.
Even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, his failure to account for the
government property is enough factual basis for a finding of malversation. Indeed, even
his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually
stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to the authorities. (People vs.
Baguiran, 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda vs. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality.
Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby
construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the
beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the
beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they
needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the
situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X
Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the
beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds
pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program
were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. (2015 BAR)
a) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain.
Answer:
Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of public funds or property
punishable under Article 220 of the RPC. This offense is also known as Technical
Malversation. The crime has 3 elements: a.) that the offender is an accountable public
officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some
public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is
different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or
Page 258 of 417
Criminal Law
ordinance. The funds for the feeding program are not specifically appropriated for the
beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program in X Municipality’s annual budget. Mayor
Maawain ought to use the boxes of food earmarked particularly for the feeding program,
which would cater only to the malnourished among his constituents who needed the
resources for proper nourishment.
b) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no
evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the
feeding program to the shelter assistance program? Explain.
Answer:
No. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke good faith when he approved the transfer of
the boxes of food from the feeding program to the Shelter Assistance program.
“Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the
act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular
purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that
the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense
because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public
policy, order and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the
law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
irrelevant”. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012).
Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an
order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After
receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of
release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center.
At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas
out.
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER:
Filthy is liable of:
(2) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the
removal of Takas, a detention prisoner, from jail.
(3) Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00 to
the clerk of court, under circumstances in which said public officer would be liable
of direct bribery.
(4) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by
inducement because he gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce him to
forge the signature of the judge in the order of release.
Loko is liable of:
Page 259 of 417
Criminal Law
(1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he accepted P500,000.00 in
consideration of the execution of an act which constitutes a crime, i.e., forging the
signature of the judge in the order of release that would enable Takas to get out of
jail, in connection with the performance of his duty as a clerk of court.
(2) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took advantage of
his position as a clerk of court in forging the signature of the judge in the order of
relase.
(3) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the
removal of Takas from jail by forging the signature of the judge in the in the
falsified order of release.
The guard is liable of:
(1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he agreed to open the gate and let
Takas out in consideration of P10,000.00.
(2) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because he, as the
custodian of Takas, connived or consented to his escape by opening the gate.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation thru
falsification of official documents; Frauds against the public treasury and similar
offenses
(a) A public official charged with purchasing rice stocks under government
subsidy falsely reported that his stocks of rice worth P1 7 million on board two
barges sank off a neighboring island on their way to their destination and were
completely lost. Menwhile, the rice was surreptitiously sold to rice warehouses in
the provinces.
What is the criminal liability of this government official? Explain. (1988 Bar
Question)
(b) A city official ordered one million pesos (P1M) worth of T-shirts at public
expense for the underprivileged residents of his city. After full payment with city
funds was made, it was discovered that only a fourth of the T-shirts had been
delivered and that the rest of the deliveries were so- called “ghost deliveries.”
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The government official being an accountable officer can be charged with
malversation thru falsification of official documents.
(b) (1) The city official is liable for violation of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that:
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses.—The penalty
of prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period,
Page 260 of 417
Criminal Law
or a fine ranging from P200 to P10,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer
who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing
supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property of funds, shall enter into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud
the government;
2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other impost,
shall be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from
or larger than those authorized by law.
b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially.
c. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a different nature from that provided by
law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or
the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be
applied; and violation of:
(2) Act 3019 sec. 3 (g) which provides that:
Corrupt practices of public officers “IN ADDITION” to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt
practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.”
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation
Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received from the Provincial Treasurer of the
Province five (5) brand new typewriters for use in the municipal treasurer’s
office.
Each typewriter is valued at PI0,000.00. Since Pedro needed money for the
hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four (4) of the typewriters to his friend,
Rodolfo, a general merchant in San Isidro for P2 000.00 each or a total of
P8,000.00. Rodolfo as a general merchant knew that one typewriter could
easily be between P6,000.00 to PI0,000.00, and for this reason he readily
agreed to buy the four typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at
P6,000.00 thus making a profit of PI6,000.00. Two months after the
transaction, Pedro was audited and the investigation as to his
accountabilities led to the discovery that Rodolfo bought the four (4)
typewriters from Pedro.
What crime did Pedro commit? (1987 Bar Question)
Page 261 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro committed malversation. The five (5) brand new typewriters received by him
from the Provincial Treasurer for use in the Municipal Treasurer’s Office were under his
custody for which he was accountable as Municipal Treasurer. Selling four (4) of the
typewriters to Rodolfo, a general merchant, because he needed the money for the
hospitalization of his son constitutes misappropriation as he applied the same for his
personal benefit.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public funds
and illegal use of public funds
Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10,
1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public Works
and Highways, the amount of P 100,000.00 known as the fund for construction,
rehabilitation, betterment, and improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of
Barangay Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on
proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was already exhausted
while the concreting of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a
representative of the Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth
who failed to account for the P 100.000.00 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, who was
charged with malversation of public funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan
of that charge but was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for
illegal use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her conviction was
erroneous as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public purpose without
violating any law or ordinance appro-priating the said amount for any specific
purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established.
Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Elizabeth’s contention that her conviction for illegal use of public funds (technical
malversation) was erroneous, is legally tenable because she was charged for
malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but was
convicted for illegal use of public funds which is defined and punished under Art. 220 of
said Code. A public officer charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of
illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because the latter crime is not
necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation. The
Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court and order the filing of the proper Information. [Panmgao vs.
Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the facts, there is no showing that there is a law
or ordinance appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a matter of fact,
the problem categorically states that
Page 262 of 417
Criminal Law
“The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established." So, procedurally and
substantially, the Sandiganbayan’s decision suffers from serious infirmity.
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation of public
funds; when not present; prohibited transactions
Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town, was also the treasurer of
a charity ball of the church. Because he was short of payroll funds for the
municipal employees, he used part of the church funds to replenish the payroll
funds with the intention of returning the same when the public funds came.
A. Is Dencio guilty of malversation under the revised Penal Code? State your
reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
B. Assuming that he failed to replenish the church funds, may he be held
criminally liable thereby? Explain. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No. The church funds used by Dencio do not constitute public funds which are
the proper subject of malversation. Neither does said funds constitute the socalled private funds, which could be the proper subject of malversation under
Article 222, Revised Penal Code which pertain to private property placed in the
custody of public officers by reason of their office.
B. Yes, momentary use of funds, since there is defraudation, is tantamount to
estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code. This is because he received
the funds in his fiduciary capacity as treasurer and there was temporary damage
caused. Personal benefit is not an element of the crime of estafa.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public funds
or property; restitution
A. What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property? (2%)
(1999 Bar Question)
B. How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
C. A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed
with public funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks
bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in the drawee bank. The
Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds, violated
regulations of his office.
Notwithstanding restitution of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal
Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit?
Explain. (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 263 of 417
Criminal Law
A. Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any public officer who,
by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property,
shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property,
wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property. (Art. 217, RPC)
B. Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an
accountable public officer involving public funds or property under his custody
and accountability; while estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or
private individual involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to
the government.
C. Tes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the check, the Municipal
Treasurer will be criminally liable as restitution does not negate criminal liability
although it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or analogous
to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil 98). He will be criminally
liable for malversation. However, if the restitution was made immediately, under
vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and without leaving the
office, he may not be criminally liable.
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public
property
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on
the personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant
to a writ of execution duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon
and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple KIC
Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs
and several lampshades. Upon the defendant’s paying off the judgment creditor,
he tried to claim his properties but found out that several items were missing,
such as the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent
sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing items were
found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he only borrowed
them temporarily.
If you were the fiscal/prosecutor, what would be the nature of the
information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an Information for Malversation against
Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff,
levied upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer. Said properties being
under levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the character of public
property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of malversation although said
properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
Page 264 of 417
Criminal Law
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied
them to his own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such
properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed
the same. The fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the police
detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were found in the house of
Santos, negates his pretension.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An Information for Theft may be filed, considering that the sheriff had already
deposited the properties levied upon in the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and
may have already been relieved of his accountability therefor.
If Juan Santos was no longer the public officer who should be accountable for the
properties levied upon and found In his house, his taking of such properties would no
longer constitute Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with intent to gain, of
personal property of another without the consent of the latter.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public
property
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the
Rustan Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and
properties of the owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute
“ill-gotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos
were appointed as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they were given
custody and possession of the sequestered building and its contents, including
various vehicles used in the firm's operations. After a few months, an inventory
was conducted and it was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing.
After demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give any
satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the
PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the
trial, the two accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if
any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code.
What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your answer.
(5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of public property, not estafa,
considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as fiscal
agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody and possession" of the
sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which later they could not account
for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of properties deposited by
Page 265 of 417
Criminal Law
public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are accountable
for such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government
through the PCGG, are in custodia Iegis and therefore impressed with the character of
public property, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222,
RPC).
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans
were missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation by
abandonment or negligence
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a
hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from
the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key
and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the
car was worth P800,000.00.
A. What is the crime committed by Allan? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan committed the crime of malversation by abandonment or negligence
in leaving the government car assigned to him for his official use and for
which he was accountable, with the ignition key in the car unlocked.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation; defenses;
prescription; suspension from office
1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking
institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he
resigned and was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the
PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules
and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts
involving trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation. he was
charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a
motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of
the PDIC.
Is dela Renta's contention tenable? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension
pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be
suspended as he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC.
Page 266 of 417
Criminal Law
Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable for these reasons:
1. His contention that he is no longer an employee of PNB but of PDIC
has no merit since both PNB and FDIC are government institutions and the funds
thereof belong to the same Government who suffers from the malversation; (Sec.
4, PD 1606, as amended).
2. Resignation or separation from office is not a ground for extinguishing
criminal liability under Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code, for any crime
committed while the offender was connected with the office; and
3. The crime of malversation was discovered only in 1995 and so, the
prescriptive period of the crime only commenced to run from then. Obviously, the
amount misappropriated exceeds P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is
within the range of prision mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision mayor
prescribes in 15 years. From 1995 to the present is only around 11 years. Hence
the crime can still be prosecuted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The accused may be validly suspended from office in PDIC because PDIC is a
government-owned and controlled corporation; hence a public office. When the
Information charges the accused with acts of fraud involving Government funds, the
suspension of the accused pendente lite assumes a mandatory character and the court
may order the suspension of the accused regardless of whether the prosecution files a
motion for the preventive suspension of the accused, or the motion is filed by the
counsel of the government agency concerned, with or without the conformity of the
public prosecutor (Robles et al., v. Layosa et al., 436 SCRA 337 12 Aug 04).
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation
Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of
Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a
government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However,
the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo,
the winning bidder, purchased the property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo.
Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial
Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay
the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on
Page 267 of 417
Criminal Law
her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said
amount.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (4%) (2008
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation since he is a public officer who received
the amount in his official capacity; thus he is accountable for it.
Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a
private corporation? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would still be malversation even if ABC Corporation, in whose favor the
judgment was rendered, were a private corporation. This is because the P100,000.00
came from the sale of property levied upon or seized upon execution ordered by the
court. The property was in custodia legis. Although not strictly public property, it has
become impressed with the character of public property when Eliseo, in his official
capacity, conducted the execution sale and received it proceeds. As long as Eliseo has
not accounted for and turned over the proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official
accountability.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect
bribery; Special law - RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
A. Melda, who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits Naya, was persuaded by
a litigant, Jumbo, to have his case calendared as early as possible for a
consideration of P500.00. May she be held criminally liable for this
accommodation? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
B. What will be the criminal liability of Melda if she volunteered to persuade
Judge Tolits Naya to rule in Jumbo’s favor without asking any
consideration? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The answer would depend/be qualified by the implication of the phrase “to have
his case calendared as early as possible".
If the phrase is interrupted as an unjust act and in violation of the rule to give
priority to the older cases, then she would be liable under direct bribery for an act
which does not constitute a crime but is unjust He may also be held liable under
Section 3(e) of RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended:
“x x x giving any private party any unwarranted benefits".
Page 268 of 417
Criminal Law
If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the rules and regulations
then he can only be held liable for direct bribery.
B. Melda is not criminally liable because the act of volunteering to persuade is not a
criminal act It is the act of persuading that is considered a criminal act. The act
does not fall under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on Direct Bribery nor
does it fall under Article 211 of the RPC on Indirect Bribery. Neither does it fall
under the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) of RA. 3019 refers
to acts of persuading another public official to violate rules and regulations.
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect
bribery; corruption of Public Officials
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of
Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan.
The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer’s office where
he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses
for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in
consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer.
The writ was successfully enforced.
a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) (2001 Bar Question)
b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and If so, what
crime? (2%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of
Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in
consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official
duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that even without the P2,000.00, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry
out the writ of execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of
the P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift
received by reason of his office and not as a "consideration" for the performance of an
official duty; hence, only Indirect Bribery would be committed by said sheriff.
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.
Page 269 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Consenting or conniving to
evasion
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner
serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal Jail, would not escape, allowed said
prisoner to sleep at the latter’s house because the municipal jail was so
congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went
home to sleep every night but returned to jail early each morning, until the tenday sentence had been fully served.
Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving
to evasion, the elements of which are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or
custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c) that the prisoner
escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty
ineffectual; although the convict may not have fled (US us. Bandlno, 9 Phil. 459) it is
still violative of the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the
prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal jail, to sleep in his house
and eat there (People vs. Revilla)
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Maliciously refraining from
instituting prosecution for punishment of violators of the law; removing and
cancelling public document entrusted to his custody.
A, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, was assigned to conduct the
preliminary investigations of two criminal cases: (1) for rape against X. and (2)
for estafa against Y. Unknown to the complainants, both respondents were
schoolmates of A in their high school years in Lanao del Norte. Despite the
overwhelming evidence against X. A dismissed the rape case. Despite the
overwhelming evidence against Y. A did not file the information for estafa
because according to him. the folder of the case to which were attached the
dishonored checks and other documents offered in evidence by the complainant
was stolen. Contrary to such claim, the folder was kept in a safe in his house.
What offense or offenses under the Title on Crimes Committed By Public
Officers of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code may A be charged with? (1991
Bar Question)
Page 270 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 208 is violated, that is maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution for
punishment of violators of the law. Likewise, the prosecutor is liable under Art. 226 for
removing and cancelling public document entrusted to his custody.
Criminal law –Crimes committed by public officers - EVASION THRU
NEGLIGENCE; in relation with crimes against public order - DELIVERING
PRISONERS FROM JAILS; EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post a bail bond for his provisional
liberty pending trial of his case, he was detained in the city jail. On the date of the
hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, escorted
Ernani to the city hall for the trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside the courtroom. As Daniel was
talking to a lawyer inside the courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette
vendor, Meynardo, who used his cigarette container as cover, surreptitiously
moved out of the room and escaped. Ernani and Meynardo went to the comfort
room for a while, then went down the stairs and lost themselves in the crowd.
What crime or crimes were committed by Ernani, Daniel and Meynardo? Give
your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one of
the forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224), the essential elements of
which offense are:
That the offender is a public officer.
That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or
prisoners by final judgement.
That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru his negligence.
All of these elements are present, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, is a
public officer.
As the escort for Ernani in the latter’s trial, he had custody of charge of a detention
prisoner. Ernani’s escape was thru his negligence because after removing Eraani’s
handcuffs and allowing him to sit in one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he should
have taken the necessary precautions to prevent Ernani’s escape by keeping an eye on
him. Instead, he provided the opportunity for the escape by talking with a lawyer and
not keeping watch over his prisoner.
Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty of the crime of DELIVERING
PRISONERS FROM JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any person who either
removes from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein, or WHO
Page 271 of 417
Criminal Law
HELPS the escape of such person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of
OTHER MEANS. The act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette container is
helping in the latter’s escape by OTHER MEANS.
Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally liable for any offense. The
detention prisoner who escapes from detention does not commit any crime. If he were a
convict by final judgment who is serving a sentence which consists of deprivation of
liberty and he escapes during term of his sentence, he would be liable for EVASION OF
SERVICE OF SENTENCE (Art. 157).
What is the criminal liability, if any, of AAA who substitutes for a prisoner serving
sentence for homicide by taking his place in jail or penal establishment? (2012
BAR)
a) AAA is criminally liable for delivering prisoner from jail and for using
fictitious name.
b) AAA is criminally liable as an accessory of the crime of homicide by
assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime.
c) AAA is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
d) AAA is criminally liable for misrepresentation or concealing his true
name.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and
his compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from
10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m.
Was there any crime committed by A? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a
detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the
municipal jail at 8:30 p.m.
A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office,
and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he
consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of his liberty which
can be considered real and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised
Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino, 29 Phil 459).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity
in the performance of his duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista
(CA) 38 O.G. 158).
Page 272 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Crimes Committed by Public Officers - Direct Bribery; Infidelity in
the Custody of Prisoners; Evasion of Service of Sentence; Delivery of Prisoners
from Jail; Falsification of Public Document
To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his
cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC
Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to
be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her
P50,000.00, she consented.
She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and
Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's
signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy
and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also
gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and
provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to
escape.
What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by the Branch Clerk of
court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed in this case are as follows:
The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in
consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said
Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by
indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's
signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of
Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled
Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the
crimes of –
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or
consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and
provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving
the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210,
RPC);
Page 273 of 417
Criminal Law
The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was
aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would
amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Qualified bribery
What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer who is entrusted with
law enforcement and who, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains
from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/ or death (art. 211-A, RPC)
May a judge be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about a
public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official duty as a
public officer is not law enforcement but the determination of cases already filed in
court.
On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted for this crime in
respect of the bribery committed, aside from dereliction of duty committed in violation of
Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should be refrain from prosecuting an offender who
has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and / or death in consideration
of any offer, promise, gift or present.
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the
same consideration above stated, may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public
officer entrusted with law enforcement.
a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as
amended)
(i) Coverage
(ii) Punishable acts
(iii) Exceptions
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case
pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money,
through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal,
proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (2014 BAR)
Page 274 of 417
Criminal Law
a.
Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019,
which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public
officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later
charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims
he can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act
under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?
Answer:
No. One may be charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in addition to a felony under the
RPC for the same delictual act, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with
a felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019. Also, R.A. 3019 is
a special law, the elements of the crime is not the same as those punished under the
RPC.
b. Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented
that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?
Answer:
Yes, estafa is committed by any person who shall ask for money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government employee when in truth the offender intended
to convert the money to his own personal use and benefit (Art. 315(2)(c), RPC).
Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) –
Preventive suspension
A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h)
of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the
Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend
Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court
granted the motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days.
Accused assailed the constitutional validity of the suspension order on the
ground that it partakes of a penalty before judgment of conviction is reached and
is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also
claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to
electiye officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. (5%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of
Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused
public officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending
Page 275 of 417
Criminal Law
in court (Sec. 13, R.A. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the
accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs.
Sandiganbayan, 279SCRA 581J1997): Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332 [19931).
Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente
lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all
public officials indicted upon a valid information under R. A. No. 3019, whether they be
appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to
the career or non-career service (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998]).
Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is
not punishable, but the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code
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 Entiy and
Internal Revenue Declaration covering
Moonglow’s shipment Mr. Gabisi and Mr. 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 Bandldo,
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 RA. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for
public officers to cause any undue injuiy 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
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%) (2000 Bar
Question)
B. Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is
not punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense
Page 276 of 417
Criminal Law
punished by the Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain.
(3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is
correct. R.A. 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. They tried to defraud the Government with the use
of false commercial and public documents. Damage is not necessary.
Criminal law – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San
Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local
development programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was
purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project.
Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the
disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear
that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the
money.
Roger and Jessie are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019
for causing undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the charge
filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 for the
breach of public trust and undue injury caused to the Government. The violation is a
crime malum prohibitum.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery; in relation
with special law (RA 6713)
Arevalo, a judge who heard a civil case, received gifts from Maricel, the plaintiff
therein, but rendered judgment in favor of Julie, the defendant therein. Who are
criminally liable, and for what crime or crimes? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arevalo, the Judge, is liable for indirect bribery (Art. 210 RPC) and for violation of the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard (Sec. 7 (d) RA 6713 and also PD 46).
Maricel is liable for corruption of public officer (Art. 212, RPC and PD 46).
Page 277 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery
A, who is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a
Regional Trial Court judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big
basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines, easily worth
P10.000.00. The judge accepted the gift knowing it came from A.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The judge committed the crime of indirect bribery under Art. 211 of the Revised
Penal Code. The gift was offered to the judge by reason of his office. In addition, the
judge will be liable for the violation ofP.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts by
pubic officials and employees on occasions like Christmas
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Indirect bribery;
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor.
He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various
amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor
withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics,
repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently
discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he
deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having
given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s
name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime
committed by Don Gabito)
2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them
when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a
Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page 278 of 417
Criminal Law
3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by
the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Special law - RA No. 3019, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act - Suspension
pendente lite
A. Who are public officers? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. A public officer was accused before the Sandiganbayan of a violation of
Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Just after arraignment and even before evidence was presented, the
Sandiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The
accused questioned the said Order contending that it is violative of the
constitutional provision against an ex post facto law. Will you sustain the
objection of the accused? Why? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
C. What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before
preventive suspension may be ordered? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of the Philippines, or performs in said Government or in
any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of
any rank or class (Art. 203, RPC)
B. No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused. Suspension of the accused
pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto law.
Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime before it is made
punishable.
C. The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a suspension may be
ordered are: (1) there must be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at
a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered suspended from office
pursuant to RA 3019, as amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a valid
information against the accused that warrants his suspension.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery; Special
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019- directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or
transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to
intervene under the law
Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case
pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide
Page 279 of 417
Criminal Law
the case in plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina
P20,000.00.
Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No.
3019, prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract
or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to
intervene under the law.
While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information
against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina
demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A.
3019.
Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019
and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) arose from the same act, the
elements of the violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the
felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160
SCRA 457 [1988]). Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each
other, with different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion
to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery; Special
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019
May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019
[“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage
or benefit, for himself of for any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the government and any other party, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law”] also be
simultaneously or successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) may also be charged simultaneously or successively for the
crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes
are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas
violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the
Code is a malum in se.
Page 280 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officer - Republic Act No. 3019 (AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act)
The Central Bank (Bangko Sentralna Pilipinas), by a resolution of the
monetary board, hires Thereof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as
a consultant. Thereof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under
investigation by the Central Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under Republic Act
No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain.
(2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Thereof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted
for violation of Pres. Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is
punished.
Although Thereof is a “public officer” within the application of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be
included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019), yet his act of receiving such
gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act not to
intervene in his official capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the gift.
Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Thereof is
administratively liable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Thereof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a “public
officer' within the purview of said law, and Thereof received the valuable gift from a bank
which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a “public
officer.
Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a transaction
with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the
government office to which the public officer is connected.
Special law - RA No. 3019 – “corrupt practices” in relation to the requirement of
“undue injury”
A, the Director of the Southern Islands Hospital in Cebu City, a government
training hospital, instructed the withholding of the salaries of Y, one of the
Medical Specialists of the hospital, for the months of January, February and
March 1989 due to Y’s failure to submit his daily time records, and his salary for
the period 1 to 15 April 1989 which was the period covered by his application for
sick leave which A disapproved when he found out that Y was not actually sick.
A likewise ordered the removal of Y’s name from the plantilla because of the
Page 281 of 417
Criminal Law
former’s dissatisfaction with the services of the latter who continued teaching,
even during office hours, in a medical college in Cebu City. Nevertheless, after Y
submitted his daily time records in May 1989, his salaries were released. Also,
his name was later re-included in the final plantilla.
A was charged before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Cebu City for violation
of Section 3, paragraph (c) of RA No. 3019, as amended, which considers as
among the corrupt practices of any public officer and declares unlawful the
following: “causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions
through partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, x x x”
If you were the investigating prosecutor, how would you resolve the case?
(1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Liable, I will file the information as one of the corrupt practices is causing undue
injury to any party, including the government due to evident bad faith, Sec. 3(e), RA No.
3019.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Director is not liable under Sec.3(e), RA 3019, because there was no “undue
injury” suffered by Y.
Special penal law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as
amended) – act considered as corrupt practice
Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the
release of salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers
with the agreement that they would reimburse her for her expenses.
Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which
considers as corrupt practice, the act of:
“(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law. “
Page 282 of 417
Criminal Law
Being the assistant public high school principal, it is her duty to intervene in the
release of salary differentials and per diem of classroom teachers under her. Her act of
doing so, made a request for a share or benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt
practice under Sec 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or
punished under this law are mala prohibita, and thus punishable thereunder, whether
done with criminal intent or not.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In the case of Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 56170, January 31, 1984),
which has identical set of facts as the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that there
is no law which invests an assistant principal with the power to intervene in the payment
of the salary differentials of classroom teachers or anyone for that matter.” Accordingly,
since in his official capacity as the assistant principal he is not required by law to
intervene in the payment of the salary differentials, the assistant principal cannot be
said to have violated Sec 3 (b) of Reo. Act No. 3019 although he exerted efforts to
facilitate the payment of the salary differentials.
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor.
He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various
amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor
withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics,
repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently
discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he
deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in
the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the
Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito)
2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using
them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public
position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)
3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be
affected by the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page 283 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law– Violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting donations of gifts
Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote
solicitation letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corporations requesting
donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the Bureau's official
stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that
Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets,
freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes
containing cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon.
Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What
laws or decrees did she violate? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of
Rep. Act 6713 otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees”. Sec. 7(d) mandates that public officials and employees
shall not solicit or accept directly or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment, loan or
anything of monetary value from any person in the course of£ her official duties or any
transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The solicitation for her office Christmas Party violates Pres. Decree 46 which
makes it punishable for any public official or employee to receive, directly or indirectly,
any gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas when
such gift or present is given by reason of her official position.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety and violated Art. 211 of the
Revised Penal Code on indirect bribery. She accepted gifts by reason of her office.
b) Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Ill-gotten wealth
(iii) Plunder
(iv) Series/Combination
(v) Pattern
City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an
Page 284 of 417
Criminal Law
ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road
leading to the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the
road leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in
the amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually
lost in the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million could not
be accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr. A’s
authorized drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were funds
under City Engr. A’s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be
missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was
instrumentalin awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building
costing P10 million to a close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million.
Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50
million, which was way beyond his legitimate income. (2014 BAR)
a. If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City
Engr. A?
Answer:
If I am the Ombudsman, I would file a case of Plunder under R.A. 7080 agasint City
Engr. A. It is very clear from the facts given that all the elements of plunder are present,
namely:
A. The offender is a public officer holding a public office in the Government of the
Republic of the Phlippines;
B. The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a
combination of overt or criminal acts of misuse, misaapropriation, conversion or
malversation of public funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in connection with
a government contract or project by reason of his office or position and illegally or
fraudulently conveying or disposing of assets belonging to the national
government or any of its subdivisions; and
C. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill gotten wealth amassed,
accumulated, or acquired is at least P50M.
b. Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50 million, will
your answer still be the same?
Answer:
Yes, the answer will be the same since in plunder the basis is the combination of
criminal acts or series of acts, which constitutes the accumulation of more than P50M.
The predicate crimes are already absorbed in the crime of plunder. City Engr. A’s net
worth being less than P50M is not determinative of his liability, as long as the wealth
amassed/ accumulated is more than P50M.
Page 285 of 417
Criminal Law
c) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Failure to deliver suspect to proper judicial authority
(ii) Infidelity in the custody of detained persons
(iii) False prosecution
8. Crimes Against Persons (Articles 246-266)
What crime is committed by a person who kills a three-day old baby? (2012 BAR)
a) infanticide;
b) homicide;
c) murder;
d) parricide.
What crime is committed by a person who kills his legitimate brother on the
occasion of a public calamity? (2012 BAR)
a) parricide;
b) homicide;
c) murder;
d) death caused in a tumultuous affray.
The key element in a crime of parricide other than the fact of killing is the
relationship of the offender to the victim. Which one of the following
circumstances constitutes parricide? (2012 BAR)
a) Offender killing the illegitimate daughter of his legitimate son.
b) Offender killing his illegitimate grandson.
c) Offender killing his common-law wife.
d) Offender killing his illegitimate mother.
What crime is committed when a mother kills the three-day old child of her
husband with their daughter? (2012 BAR)
a) parricide;
b) infanticide;
c) murder;
d) homicide.
With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were staying. F and D
died as a consequence. What is the proper charge against GGG? (2012 BAR)
a) GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder.
b) GGG should be charged with arson.
c) GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with double murder.
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
At a wake, there were people watching a game of dice. With treachery and use of
unlicensed firearms, AA fired successively several gunshots at their direction.
During the shooting, four (4) persons were killed and fourteen (14) others were
Page 286 of 417
Criminal Law
injured and brought to the hospital for the treatment of gunshot wounds. What
should be the proper charge against AA? (2012 BAR)
a) AA should be charged with multiple murder and attempted murder.
b) AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder and fourteen (14) counts
of attempted murder.
c) AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder, fourteen (14) counts of
serious physical injuries and illegal possession of firearms.
d) AA should be charged with complex crime of murder and attempted murder
with illegal possession of firearms.
What crime is committed when a person ill-treats another by deed without
causing any injury? (2012 BAR)
a) The offender commits maltreatment.
b) The offender commits slander by deed.
c) The offender commits assault.
d) The offender commits coercion.
For treachery to qualify killing to murder, the evidence must show: (2012 BAR)
a) The time when the accused decided to employ treachery, the overt act
manifestly indicating that he clung to such determination, and a sufficient lapse of
time between the decision and the execution, allowing him to reflect upon the
consequence of his act.
b) Unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel
the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim.
c) That the accused employed such means, methods or manner to ensure his
safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, and the mode of attack
was consciously adopted.
d) Actual sudden physical assault or threat to inflict real imminent injury to an
unsuspecting victim.
FF and his two (2) sons positioned themselves outside the house of the victim.
The two (2) sons stood by the stairs in front of the house, while the father waited
at the back. The victim jumped out of the window and was met by FF who
instantly hacked him. The two (2) sons joined hacking the victim to death. They
voluntarily surrendered to the police. How will the attendant circumstances be
properly appreciated? (2012 BAR)
a) Treachery and abuse of superior strength qualify the killing to murder.
b) Only treachery qualifies the killing to murder because abuse of superior
strength is absorbed by treachery.
c) Treachery is the qualifying aggravating circumstance, while abuse of superior
strength is treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
d) The qualifying circumstance of treachery or abuse of superior strength can be
offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Page 287 of 417
Criminal Law
X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon surprising her having
sex with another man in a motel room. What is the criminal liability of X? (2011
BAR)
(A) None since he killed her under exceptional circumstances.
(B) None since he acted under a mistake of fact.
(C) Parricide.
(D) Homicide.
Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by setting
Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami commit? (2011 BAR)
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime
The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the
master’s bedroom. Outraged, the accused got his gun and killed both. Can the
accused claim that he killed the two under exceptional circumstances? (2011
BAR)
(A) No, since the accused had time to reflect when he got his gun.
(B) No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse.
(C) Yes, since the wife and their driver desecrated the marital bed.
(D) Yes, since the scene shows that they had an intimate relationship.
On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in pain and begging
to die, Mona shut off the oxygen that was sustaining the patient, resulting in his
death. What crime if any did Mona commit? (2011 BAR)
(A) Homicide.
(B) Murder if she deliberated on her action.
(C) Giving Assistance to Suicide.
(D) Euthanasia.
A criminal action for rape is extinguished when the offender is forgiven by (2011
BAR)
(A) the offender’s wife who herself is the rape victim.
(B) his wife for having raped another woman.
(C) the rape victim’s husband.
(D) the rape victim herself.
Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of homicide, taking into
account the nature of the offense, the essential element of each of the stages of
execution and the manner of committing such intentional felony as distinguished
from felony committed through reckless imprudence. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
Page 288 of 417
Criminal Law
Elements of the crime – Homicide as an intentional felony has three stages, attempted,
frustrated and consummated. In whatever stages homicide is committed, intent to kill
must be established for being an indispensible element thereof. However, if the victim
died as a consequence of wounds caused by an act committed with malice, intent to kill
is conclusively presumed and the crime committed is consummated homicide. Because
of this conclusive presumption, lack of intent to kill is not a defense in consummated
homicide. (NOTE: In consummated homicide, the accused may prove lack of intent to
kill for purpose of appreciating the mitigating circumstance of praeter intentionem). But if
the victim did not die as a consequence of wounds caused by an act committed with
malice, intent to kill must be established beyond reasonable doubt. If intent to kill is
proven, the crime committed is frustrated or attempted homicide. If intent to kill is not
proven, the crime committed is physical injuries. Thus, lack of intent to kill is a defense
in attempted or frustrated homicide.
Nature of the crime – If the offender with intent to kill attempted to inflict or inflicted nonmortal wounds upon the victim, he already directly commenced an overt act to commit
homicide. Hence, the crime committed is attempted homicide if he failed to inflict moral
wounds upon the victim by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. If the offender with intent to kill inflicted mortal wounds upon
the victim, he already performed all acts of execution which would produce the homicide
as a consequence. If death is not produced despite the mortal character of the wounds
due to causes independent of the will of the offender, the crime committed is frustrated
homicide. If death is produced, the crime committed is consummated homicide. In this
situation, all the elements necessary for execution and accomplishment of homicide are
present if the victim dies due to the wounds inflicted by the offender with the intent to
kill.
Intentional felony and culpable felony – Homicide regardless of stages must be
committed with malice (general intent) and intent to kill (specific intent). Even if there is
no intent to kill and evil intent, the offender is liable for culpable felony if the victim dies
or was injured as a result of the recklessness of the former. If there is no intent to kill,
evil intent and recklessness on the part of the accused, he is not liable for his intentional
act, which caused the death of or injury upon the victim because of the exempting
circumstance of accident.
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was
a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that
Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument
ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda
got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and
got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from
continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar
with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the
latter’s death.
What was the crime committed? (2014 BAR)
Page 289 of 417
Criminal Law
ANSWER:
Macho committed the crime of Homicide. Since death resulted from Macho’s act of
accidentally pulling the trigger of the gun, homicide is committed. Here, intent to kill is a
general criminal intent which is presumed by law because the victim died.
Out of spite and simply intending to put Gina to shame for breaking off with him,
Ritchie emptied a gallon of motor oil on the school's stairway where Gina usually
passed. Gina, unaware of what Ritchie did, used the slippery stairway and
slipped, hitting her head on the stairs. Gina died from brain hemorrhage. What
crime did Ritchie commit?
(2013 BAR)
(A)
Murder.
(B)
Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
(C)
Homicide.
(D)
Impossible crime of homicide.
(E)
None.
A, in a public place, fired his gun at B with the intention of killing B, but the gun
did not fire because the bullet is a dud. The crime is: (2014 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
attempted homicide
grave threat
impossible crime
alarm and scandal
Criminal law - Crimes against persons - Death caused in a tumultuous affray
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a
result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab
wounds. He died a day after. B. C. D and E were proven to be participants in the
"rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who
among them, inflicted the mortal injury.
Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for what? (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven
to have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are
criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who
among them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or
tumultuous affray, B, C, D. and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a
tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Page 290 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; murder; homicide
A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C, her
husband, to whom she was lawfully married. A and B bought pancit and mixed it
with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but before C could eat it, D, her
illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son arrived. C, D and E shared the food
In the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died because
of having partaken of the poisoned food.
What crime or crimes did A and B commit? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C. her lawful husband,
D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide
under Article246of the Revised Penal Code because of her relationship with the
victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C
because the killing was carried out by means of poison (Art 248, par. 3, Revised Penal
Code). But for feloniously causing the death of D and E. B committed two counts of
homicide. The plan was only to kill C.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; homicide
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son,
Ricky, who was then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place
in a bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and
Ricky and his friends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each
other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later,
when his mother arrived from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he
killed was his own father.
A. What crime did Ricky commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
B. Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he
nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his
mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the
law punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be
“knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and found guilty of parricide,
the penalty to be imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the
crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum period.
Page 291 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide not parricide because the
relationship which qualified the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of
twenty years already, such that Ricky could not possibly be aware that his adversary
was his father. In other words, the moral basis for imposing the higher penalty for
parricide is absent
B. The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro
is his father, because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His
having acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by his father may be
considered mitigating.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide; homicide; murder; infanticide
A. Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their
child who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted
son.
What crime or crimes did A commit? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or his ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide. (Art. 246, RPC)
B. A committed the following crimes:
a. Homicide or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law
wife who is not legally considered a “spouse”
b. Infanticide for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3)
days old. (Art. 255, RPC) However, the penalty corresponding to parricide
shall be imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined
in the crime of parricide.
c. Parricide for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
as long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.
d. Murder for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A
and the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise.
After a heated argument over his philandering, Higino punched on the head his
wife Aika, who was six and a half months pregnant. Because of the impact, Aika
lost her balance, fell on the floor with her head hitting a hard object. Aika died
and the child was expelled prematurely. After thirty-six hours, the child died.
(2015 BAR)
a) What crime(s) did Higino commit? Explain.
Page 292 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
With respect to the killing of the wife, parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed because of the qualifying circumstance of relationship. With respect
to the killing of the child, Higino is liable for infanticide under Article 255 of the Revised
Penal Code because his child was born alive and was already viable or capable of
independent existence and the child’s age is less than three (3) days for the latter died
after thirty-six hours from expulsion. Higino shall incur criminal liability for parricide and
infanticide although these crimes committed are different from his criminal intention of
maltreating his wife (Article 4, RPC). Inasmuch as the single act of Higino produced two
grave felonies, it falls under Art. 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime.
b) Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika was only six months
pregnant, and when she died, the fetus inside her womb also died, will your
answer be different? Explain.
Answer:
If the child died inside the womb of Aika, who was only six months, the crime committed
is complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. Killing the unborn child as a
result of the violence employed against the mother without intent to abort is
unintentional abortion. Since the child died inside the womb of the mother, unintentional
abortion is committed regardless of viability of the victim. Because the same violence
that killed the mother also caused unintentional abortion, the crime committed is a
complex crime (People v. Pacayna, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People v.
Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March
01, 1995; People v. Salufrania, G.R. No. L- 50884, March 30, 1988).
Honesto and Wilma were married but had been living separately due to
irreconcilable differences. Honesto later met Celia and fell in love with her.
Thinking that he could marry Celia if Wilma were to die, Honesto decided to kill
Wilma. He secretly followed Wilma for weeks to learn her daily routine. He
decided to kill her at night on her way home. On the night he was to kill Wilma,
Honesto wore dark clothes so that he would not be easily seen. He waited in the
dark alley for Wilma to pass by. He saw someone whom he thought looked like
Wilma and shot her with a revolver. The bullet passed through the person's head
and grazed another passerby's arm. Some bystanders who heard the shot were
able to stop Honesto. It turned out that Wilma did not report for work on that day,
and the one who was shot in the head was Melba, who died. The passerby whose
arm was grazed by the bullet required medical attendance for two days. (2015
BAR)
a) What crime(s) did Honesto commit? Explain.
Page 293 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
Honesto is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery for killing Melba
due to error in personae or mistake of identity and slight physical injuries for the wound
sustained by the passerby due to aberratio ictus or mistake of blow. Although his
intention to commit parricide, he is liable for murder and slight physical injuries since
they are the direct, natural and logical consequence of act committed with intent to kill
his wife.
b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that the other passerby was hit in
the left eye which caused his/her blindness? Explain.
Answer:
If the passerby was hit in the left eye causing blindness, the crime committed by
Honesto is serious physical injuries. Unlike slight physical injuries, serious physical
injuries can be made a component of a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code. Since a single act of shooting the victim constitutes murder and serious
physical injuries, they can be merged together to form a complex crime. Thus, my
answer would be different since the crime would be Murder with Serious physical
injuries.
Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had enough, Lito got
the key to the safe where his father kept his licensed pistol and took the weapon.
Knowing that Brutus usually hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class,
Lito went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced that
Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun in
one of the empty containers. At the time of the shooting, Lito was fifteen years
and one month old. What is Lito's criminal liability? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer: Lito is criminally liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery, or
evident premeditation, as well as illegal possession of firearms. Minority is not an
exempting under Section 7 of RA No. 9644 since his age is above fifteen years but
below eighteen years and he acted with discernment. Circumstance will show that he
discerned the consequences of his criminal acts as shown from the fact he employed
means to make a surprise attack and he even hid the murder weapon in an empty
container. It was also clear that he planned the killing. However, minority will be
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance, which will require the graduation of
the penalty prescribed by law to one degree lower (Article 68).
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Frustrated homicide; less serious
physical injuries
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto.
Jay, Mamerto’s son, saw Dante and accosted him. Dante pulled a knife and
stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his
Page 294 of 417
Criminal Law
room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries
which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused his
death. Mamerto sustained injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days.
What crime or crimes did Dante commit? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the
stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with
frustrated homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a
more serious offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the
former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of dwelling [People us. Abedoza, 53
Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had
already performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the intended
felony of homicide were it not for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the
intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of committting the crime and the
part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the wounds
sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no intent to kill because Dante merely
assaulted Mamerto without using the knife.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons –Homicide; incomplete self-defense
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. (1996 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 duly 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 us. 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,
Page 295 of 417
Criminal Law
the second element (reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence,
he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; slight physical injuries
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 aim 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? Explain your
answers. (1990 Bar Question)
B. Assuming conspiracy is established, will your answer in problem (a) be the
same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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).
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Homicide
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. (1996 Bar Question)
Page 296 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED 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.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Murder
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused
to marry their sister Loma, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of
surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was
walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales
where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice
field. Two days later, they killed Joige and dumped his body into the river.
What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art. 248, RPC. the killing
being qualified by evident premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge
entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim’s refusal to marry their sister
after impregnating her.
In People vs. Alfeche, 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative
of the crime committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly
taken to another place and later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that the
offenders intended to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is
kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is kidnapping with
homicide under Art. 267, RPC.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder
A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to the hospital in a coma with slight
cerebral hemorrhage. An endotracheal tube was inserted in her mouth to
facilitate her breathing. B, a hospital janitor, who had no business in the
emergency room, for reasons known only to himself, removed the plaster holding
the tube in place. A doctor saw him and told him to get out of the room. The
plaster was replaced. But when the doctor was gone, B came back and removed
the tube. The victim started to convulse and bleed in the mouth. Only the timely
Page 297 of 417
Criminal Law
arrival of the nurse prevented the patient’s death. The patient was then
transferred to another hospital where she died the next day of cardiorespiratory
arrest. Is B criminally liable? If you believe so, what crime was committed by B, if
any? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is criminally liable for Murder (qualified by treachery) because the death of A
appears to be the proximate cause of the overt acts of B.
A died of cardio-respiratory arrest which evidently was brought about by the
convulsion and bleeding in the mouth of the victim due to the removal by B of the
endoctracheal tube twice. The two acts of B can be considered as the result of one
criminal design.
In People vs. Umaging, 107 SCRA 166, the Supreme Court ruled that removal of
the endothracheal tube is attempted murder, qualified by treachery, because the patient
did not die.
Criminal law –Crimes against persons –Murder; homicide
A. Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? (3%) (1999 Bar
Question)
B. The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim
while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim
only on the leg. The victim, however, died because of loss of blood. Can
the accused be liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery
was clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer.
(3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only
homicide, had it not been attended by any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity;
In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship,
or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity;
Page 298 of 417
Criminal Law
With evident premeditation;
With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was unlawfully killed; (2) that
such a killing was attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3)
that the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed
the victim.
B. The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed
and fired at the latter's leg, “not intending to kill the victim", considering that the
gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is
liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act
although different from what he intended.
However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for said death is only
homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting
the victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person
performing a felonious act is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences
of such act although different from what he intended. And since such death was
attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused should 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(3), RPC)
Special law - Anti-Rape Law of 1997 – Rape as crime against person;
extinguishment of criminal liability by subsequent marriage
A. What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
amending the Revised Penal Code? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1.
having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority;
2.
having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of
the circumstances required in rape be present; and
3.
committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person’s penis into the
victim’s mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another person.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private
offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the
Page 299 of 417
Criminal Law
offender and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed? Explain. (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a
crime against chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
Choose the
(2013 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
correct circumstance when a woman may be held liable for rape:
With the use of force or intimidation.
When the rape is committed by two or more persons.
When the offender uses an instrument and inserts it into the mouth of the
victim.
(D)
When she befriends and puts a sleeping pill in the victim's drink to enable
her husband to have intercourse with the victim.
If Rod killed Irene, his illegitimate daughter, after taking her diamond earrings and
forcing her to have sex with him, what crime/s should Rod be charged with?
(2013 BAR)
(A)
Robbery and rape with parricide.
(B)
Robbery, rape and parricide.
(C)
Rape with homicide and theft.
(D)
Rape with homicide.
(E)
None of the above.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape; Crimes against chastity - Acts of
Lasciviousness
Mrs. Lydia Cortes presented herself to Special Police Officer 2 (SPO 2)
Cirio Cellado at the Northern Police Headquarters with her niece Nani, age 17, and
the latter’s friend, Chabeng. age 16, asking for help in filing a criminal case. It
appears that while working as househelp in the home of Col. Rolando Donido
(retired), the latter would call them al-ternately, lock them up with him in a room
and force his lustful desires upon them. Sobbing violently, Nani narrated how
finally her employer succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her because he
kept on threatening to kill her if she refused to submit to him or if she told Mrs.
Donido about what was happening. On the other hand, Chabeng described how
their employer took liberties with her body, destroying her virginity. If they so
much as re-sisted, they were subjected to a lot of verbal abuse and harassment.
Unable to bear it any longer, both of them ran away. Nani got married immediately
to a former boyfriend to save herself from the humiliation of appearing in their
hometown, pregnant but still single. She ended her story saying that no housegirl
ever stayed long in that household “kasi walang patawad iyang D.O.M. (Dirty Old
Man ) na iyan".
Page 300 of 417
Criminal Law
What crime has Col. Donido committed against Nani? What crime has he
committed against Chabeng? Explain fully. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Against Nani, the crime committed by Col. Donido is rape, because he had sexual
intercourse with her with the attendant circumstance of force and intimidation. (Art. 335,
par. 1). As far as Chabeng is concerned, since Col. Donido only took liberties on her
body, short of sexual intercourse, he is liable of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art. 336,
RPC which is committed by any person who commit acts of lasciviousness upon other
persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances in Rape.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had
a good-looking 25-year old retarded daughter with the mental age of an 11-year
old giri. One day when the couple were out, Perlita, the retarded daughter,
entered AJ’s room, came near him and started kissing him. He tried to avoid her.
But she persisted. They had sexual intercourse. This was repeated every time
Perlita’s parents were out until Perlita got pregnant. Mr and Mrs. M riled a
complaint of rape against AJ who claimed that it was Perlita who seduced him;
that Perlita was intelligent, clearly understood what she was doing; and that
since Perlita was already 25 years old did not herself file the complaint, her
parents had no personality to file tne complaint for rape.
How would you resolve the case? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. Sexual intercourse with Perlita, who is
a mental retardate, although 25 years old but with a mental age of 11-year old girl is
rape. She is the same class as a woman deprived of reason or others wise
unconscious. (People vs. Sunga L-45683 June 24, 1985). Since she is suffering from
an incapacity, being incompetent on account of her mental age, the parents have the
right to file the complaint for rape.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in
Antipolo chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena
who was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down
and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the
policemen despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sex with her
in advance celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found no
semen nor any bleeding on Rowena’s hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal
Page 301 of 417
Criminal Law
opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external force had been
employed on her.
Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The
gravamen of the offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years
of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn’t consider the
consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and
cannot have a will of her own. In People vs. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held
that sexual intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape.
Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation
as the important consideration is not the emission but the penetration of the
female body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs.
Carandang, 52 SCRA 259).
Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Information alleged that
AAA was 14 years old at the time the crime was committed and that Charlie was
AAA's stepfather. The presentation of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly
established the following: (1) that AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the
rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the late CCC. BBB and
Charlie only became live-in partners after CCC's death. The RTC found Charlie
guilty of qualified rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of
simple rape. Charlie appealed before the Supreme Court. How will you rule and
why? (2015 BAR)
Answer:
The CA ruling is correct. The crime committed by Charlie is simple rape. To be held
liable for qualified rape, a qualifying circumstance should be alleged in the information
and proven by evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Although minority and steprelationship as a qualifying circumstance are alleged in the information, what is proven
by the evidence is the qualifying circumstance of minority and common-law relationship
with the mother of the victim. The concept of step- relationship is different from that of
common-law relationship because in the former the mother of the victim and the
offender are legally married while in the latter they are not. To appreciate this qualifying
circumstance of minority and common-law relationship will offend the constitutional right
of the accused to be informed of the nature of the crime charged against him.
Page 302 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes againt persons – Rape; serious physical injuries
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently
threw her on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a
result Alma suffered serious physical injuries.
A. Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
B. Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain. (1995
Bar Question)
C. Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident
Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the
matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation,
and the law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the
offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837).
B. Yes. He may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially
mentioned in Art. 263 (4), paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the
crime of physical injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed
against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide).
C. No. my answer will not be the same.
If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino
could be held liable for rape.
A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board [U.S. vs.
Johnson 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RPC, p. 853, 1981 edition).
In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries
suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape.
The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in determining the
proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot
be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual
capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial
how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied “Masarap, it gave me
much pleasure."
With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the
sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you
Page 303 of 417
Criminal Law
convict the accused of rape if you were the Judge trying the case? Explain. (1996
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with
an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of
giving a valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to
a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years
of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or intimidation is not
essential to constitute rape. (People vs. Ttimor, G.R. 106541-42,31 Mar 95) As a matter
of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335,
RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented.”
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape; effect of pardon by the offended
party
A complaint for rape was filed by the victim against her father. When the
victim was about to finish her testimony, she and her aunt (her closest relative)
executed separate affidavits of desistance wherein they stated that they are
forgiving the accused. The judge dismissed the case. Is the dismissal proper?
(1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the dismissal of the case is not proper. While the affidavit of desistance
executed by the victim amounts to a pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal
liability. In the crime of rape and other private crimes, pardon by the offended party only
bars prosecution if given before the institution of the criminal action. After the criminal
action had been instituted, such pardon only waives the civil liability but not the criminal
liability of the offender.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Rape
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven
by Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in
front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly.
Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon
City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for
two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger
be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention?
Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious
illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a
Page 304 of 417
Criminal Law
distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention
was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious
illegal detention, since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days
she was held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking
Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter’s will and with lewd designs. The forcible
abduction should be complexed with one ofthe multiple rapes committed, and the other
rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged
and proved.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape through sexual assault
A. A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and
intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is
A’s criminal liability? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B,
by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter.
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 268-Aof
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, “when the offender’s penis is inserted into his
mouth or anal orifice.”
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Parricide
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, 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? (2003 Bar Question)
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).
Page 305 of 417
Criminal Law
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).
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Attempted homicide; Slight physical
injury
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club
became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put
the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died.
Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a
slight wound that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially contribute to
it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended
that his liability should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you
agree? Why? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability should be limited to
slight physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he
inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is
inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals. 187 SCRA 123
[1990])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A’s contention that his criminal liability should be for slight
physical injury only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the
night club and therefore, without intent to kill. B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on
the deceased may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a
free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their respective act.
Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier
than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To
his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman
Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died.
(2015 BAR)
a) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the
case? Explain.
Page 306 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
The crime committed by Procopio is parricide qualified by the circumstance of
relationship. Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another woman is death under exceptional circumstance under Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in this case this is not death under
exceptional circumstance because Bionci was having homosexual intercourse with
another woman and not sexual intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not
within the contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” in Article 247. However, the
crime of parricide is attended by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful
sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of infidelity with another
woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc).
b) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your
answer be the same? Explain.
Answer:
No, the answer is not the same. The crime committed is Homicide if Procopio and
Bionci were common law spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by spouse who are
legally married.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Death under exceptional circumstances
At 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 November 1990, upon his arrival from Cebu
City, Marco surprised his wife, Rosette, and her former boyfriend, Raul, both
naked and in the act of illicit copulation. Raul got his revolver and, upon seing the
revolver, Marco ran toward the street, took a pedicab and proceeded to the house
of his brother, a policeman, from whom he borrowed a revolver. With the weapon,
he returned to his residence. Unable to find Raul and Rosette, Marco proceeded
to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raul. It was already 11:00 o’clock that
evening when he arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2) male
companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of the tables, Marco fired two (2) shots
at Raul, who was hit on his forehead with one of the bullets; the other bullet hit A,
injuring him on his stomach. As a consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died
instantaneously. Due to the timely medical attention given to him, A survived; he
was, however, hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was prosecuted for Murder for the
death of Raul and for frustrated murder in the case of A. The informations in both
cases allege the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery
and the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
You are Marco’s lawyer. What would be your defense(s)? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247, People vs. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735). Although the killing
Page 307 of 417
Criminal Law
happened one hour after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within the
context of “immediately thereafter”.
With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense of lawful exercise of a
right is a justifying circumstance. Under Article 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time
accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act and therefore could not have
been criminality liable under Art. 4. RPC.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death inflicted under exceptional
circumstances
Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend,
completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and
shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete
contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be
acquitted of the crime.
The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00.
A. Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.
B. Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty?
Explain.
C. Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration
under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a)
b)
c)
The defense of Pete lacks merit. He could not have acted in defense of
honor, because there was no unlawful aggression against him. At most,
what Benjie did could be regarded only as sufficient provocation to Pete.
The Court correctly ruled that Benjie’s killing was done under the
exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Destierro is one of the principal penalties under Article 25 of the Revised
Penal Code, but under the exceptional circumstances provided for in
Article 247 of the Code, destierro is not intended as a penalty but a
means to remove the accused from the vicinity, for his protection against
possible reprisal from the family or relatives of the other spouse or those
of the paramour or mistress. (People v. Coricort 79 Phil 672 [1947]).
Yes, the court correctly ordered Pete to pay indemnity, because the legal
consequence of the exceptional circumstance in Article 247 of the Code
Page 308 of 417
Criminal Law
is that of an exempting circumstance where generally there is civil liability
although there may be no criminal liability.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
c) Pete may not be made to pay indemnity because this is part of civil liability which
arises only when there is criminal liability. He is not civilly liable, because he is not
criminally liable.
Criminal law – Crimes against person - Homicide
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and
a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized
vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and
fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of
shock caused by hemorrhage.
What crime or crimes did Jet Matulis commit? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the death of Sherly,
assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the following question) since the
sexual assault was committed without any of the circumstances mentioned in of Article
266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code as rape. It appears that the offender and the
offended party went to the hotel for mutual sexual gratification.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; serious physical injuries
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten- year old grandson
along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue
but both were hit by a speeding CKV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the
pavement, a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo stopped his car after
hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose’s
prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson
suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures
and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged
with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through
Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson.
Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the charges are correct.
Page 309 of 417
Criminal Law
For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him
and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said
driveris deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the
latteris body twice, by up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was
helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson,
as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the
result of reckless imprudence which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of
the Revised Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious
Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should
be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he
could have given to the victims.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; Special penal law - Child
abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an
orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet
panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later
because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime
committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex
crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Murder
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was
earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo
from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was
prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This
distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with
their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo:
“Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and
died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital.
Page 310 of 417
Criminal Law
He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from
Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on
time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he
gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he
told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao.
What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your
answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances
affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from
behind. The killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The mode
of attack deprived Pedro of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo is also
liable for homicide regarding the killing of Calling, Pedro’s son as that is the result of a
right, both of them being aimed with bolos.
Although Pedro died five days later, since the blood purchased which would have
saved him did not arrive on time, Rodolfo is still liable for the death of Pedro as that is
the direct, natural and logical result of the wound inflicted by him.
Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted to Rodolfo “Kill
them both, they are our enemies,” when Rodolfo and Carling were fighting, was not the
only reason why Carling was killed; and hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement.
The doctrine is to be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be the only
reason why the crime is committed. (People vs. Kiichi et. al. 61 Phil. 609)
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; homicide
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 shoud 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. (1989
Bar Question)
Page 311 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED 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:
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.
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.
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.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Murder; homicide
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The
innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and
was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu" at the time he committed the
stabbing.
What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%) (2005
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery because the
suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless.
Being under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance
Page 312 of 417
Criminal Law
in the commission of a crime (Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug
Act of 2002); hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in the maximum.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Candido should be charged with homicide only because the incident which
gave rise to the stabbing- occurred accidentally. There is no conscious and deliberate
adoption of the means, method and manner of attack. However, the penalty for
homicide shall be imposed in the maximum period because Candido was under the
influence of dangerous drugs when he committed the crime, which is a qualifying
circumstance under Section 25 of Rep. Act 9165.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; when justified; when
aggravated
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The
following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor. 22-year old JunJun, 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 JunJun 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%)
a) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member
of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide
before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution
was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in
consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge,
with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
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
Page 313 of 417
Criminal Law
the duty (People us. Oanis, etaL, 74PhiL 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.
b) Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating
circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the
information.
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and
cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic
aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the Information to
qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as
such.
Criminal law - Crimes against persons - Homicide
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother
Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil
spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to
drive the "spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted
resulted in the boy's death.
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were
charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate
court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your
answer.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, because none of the circumstances qualifying the killing to murder in Art. 248
attended the crime. The faithhealer and his co-accused should only be liable for
homicide, because they are not authorized by law to practice medicine and were
therefore acting illegally although the wrongful act done was different from what they
intended.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons - Death inflicted under exceptional
circumstances; serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances
Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit
relations while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar
Page 314 of 417
Criminal Law
Examinations and his wife was left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July
15, 1984, the accused went to the bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de
Oro City to fetch his daughter, but after he failed to catch the first trip in the
morning, and because the 2:00 o’clock bus had engine trouble and could not
leave, the accused, afer passing the residence of his father, went home and
arrive at his residence at around six o’clock in the afternoon. Upon reaching his
home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in the act of sexual
intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the accused, the wife pushed
her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has then peeping above
the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran away. He went to the
house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his (soldier’s) M-16 rifle and
immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to his house. Not finding his
wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter playing
mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him and
two bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and
abdomen. The two bystanders were seriously injured but survived.
A. Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal?
Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
B. What offense did Juan Santos commit with regard to the two bystanders?
Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Juan Santos cannot be held guilty' of homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal. Instead,
Juan is liable for violation of Article 247 “Death inflicted under exceptional
circumstances because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarca).
B. With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serious
physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247 Revised Penal
Code; People vs. Abarca).
Criminal law - Crimes against persons- Exceptional circumstances
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at
Landmark, his shift being from 11 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and
cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight after getting permission
from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that
the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open.
Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside
the bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw
his wife B having sexual intercourse with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and
grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the
window. A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a furious
struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A then rushed back to his
bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A
Page 315 of 417
Criminal Law
hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police arrived after
being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested
and charged for the death of C and serious physical injuries of B.
A. Is A liable for C’s death? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
B. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247
governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse with
C, and the killing of C was "immediately thereafter" as the discovery, escape,
pursuit arid killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
B. Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but
under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code, for the same reasons.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Abortion; infanticide
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in
love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him
about her condition and instead, went to Cebu to conceal her shame.
However, her parents drove her away. So, she returned to Manila and stayed
with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an
advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she
refused. Because of their constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs
and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of
work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to
conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it
into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help
of others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident
was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were
convicted of the crime charged.
Was the conviction correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction was incorrect because:
1. Under Art. 46, Civil Code, a newborn with an intra uterine life of less than
7 months must live for at least 24 hours before it may be considered bom and
hence, before it may acquire personality of its own;
Page 316 of 417
Criminal Law
2. The new bom, therefore was still a foetus when killed and was not yet a
person. Hence, the crime in law is abortion. It is legally a foetus who was killed, not
a person/child because legally it has no personality yet;
3. Infanticide and parricide involves a killing where the victim is already a
person.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction for parricide was correct if the infant was already three (3) days old
or more when killed because Ana and Oniok are the parents of the child. But if the child
was less than 3 days old when killed, the crime of both Ana and Oniok is infanticide and
they should be convicted for infanticide, not parricide.
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman who tried to commit
suicide by poison, but she did not die and the fetus in her womb was expelled
instead? (2012 BAR)
a) The woman who tried to commit suicide is not criminally liable because
the suicide intended was not consummated.
b) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally liable for
unintentional abortion which is punishable when caused by violence.
c) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally liable for abortion
that resulted due to the poison that she had taken to commit suicide.
d) The woman who tried to commit suicide incurs no criminal liability for
the result not intended.
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death caused in a tumultuous affray
A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside
restaurant, they were attacked by X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A
rumble ensued in which the above-named members of the two fraternities
assaulted each other in confused and tumultuous manner resulting in the death
of A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the two
fraternities who took part in the rumble were charged for death caused in a
tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper. In death
caused by tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code, it is essential
that the persons involved did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally.
In this case, there is no tumultuous affray since the participants in the rumble
belong to organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of SFC Fraternity could not
be any other but member of the rival fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among
the attackers from the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability
Page 317 of 417
Criminal Law
of the attackers should be collective for the crime of homicide or murder as the case
may be.
a) Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9775)
(i) Definition of terms
(ii) Unlawful or punishable acts
c) Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049)
(i) Hazing
(a) Definition
(b) Allowed initiation rites
(ii) Who are liable
(iii) Punishable acts
Mr. P owns a boarding house where he knowingly allowed children to be
videotaped while simulating explicit sexual activities. What is Mr. P's criminal
liability, if any? (2011 BAR)
(A) Corruption of minors under the Penal Code
(B) Violation of the Child Pornography Act
(C) Violation of the Child Abuse Law
(D) None
Special law - Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) – Hazing; initiation rites
A. What is hazing as defined by law? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit,
neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing
him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him
to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
A. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%)
(2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or
initiation rites may be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of
organizations shall be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites. The
Page 318 of 417
Criminal Law
written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the initiation activities, not exceeding three
(3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an
undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such
initiation rites.
d) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as amended)
(i) Coverage
(ii) Child prostitution, punishable acts
(iii) Child trafficking, punishable acts
Special law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an
orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and
oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet
panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later
because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation,
discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is
not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime
committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex
crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act – RA 7610; “Child trafficking”
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C,
an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This
was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What
are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “child trafficking”, a violation of Article IV,
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling
of a child.
Page 319 of 417
Criminal Law
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all involved in the
simulation of birth of the newborn child, violate Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute
child trafficking which are penalized under Article IV of said law.
Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (RA 7610 – “Child abuse,” punishable acts
S. A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and
there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance
because she was infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged
to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by
A? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse” under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child
abuse” includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen
(18) years.
Special penal law – RA 7610 - Child abuse or exploitation, punishable acts
Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first
year of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had
in his company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt.
Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for
herself in the streets in Manila. They were alone in one room in a beach resort
and stayed there for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between
them. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl PI,000.00 for her
services. She gladly accepted it. What crime may the retired colonel be charged
with, if any? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question) What possible defenses can he
interpose? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act
7610, a law providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and
discrimination.
One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA
7610 is that of keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than
the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or
Page 320 of 417
Criminal Law
massage parlor, beach resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt Col. Agaton is a
retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child he kept company within a
private room in the beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must be an age difference
of more than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col.
Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and
thereafter he gave her PI,000.00 “for her services", constitutes the very evil punished,
among other acts, in said law.
The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are that the child is related
to him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized
in law, or local customs and traditions, or that he was only acting in pursuance of a
moral, social, or legal duty (Sec. 10(b), Art. VI. RA 7610).
Special law –Republic Act No. 7610 – Child abuse; maltreatment, punishable acts
A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she
failed to give immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child,
BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries
and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to
the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on
time from school Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she
sometimes sent him to bed without supper.
She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she
maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused
by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or
carelessness, but only mildly.
Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's
maltreatment of a child be “habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts
penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the
child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law.
Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.
e) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344), as further
amended by the Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the
Philippines (R.A. No. 10630). Read in relation with the Child and
Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended)
(i) Punishable acts
f) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
Page 321 of 417
Criminal Law
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
(ii) Who are liable
9. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security (Articles 267-292)
What is the crime committed by any person who, without reasonable ground,
arrests or detains another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities? (2012 BAR)
a) unlawful arrest;
b) illegal detention;
c) arbitrary detention;
d) grave coercion.
Which among the following circumstances do NOT qualify the crime of
kidnapping? (2011 BAR)
(A) The victim is killed as a consequence of the detention.
(B) The offender is a public officer.
(C) Ransom is demanded.
(D) The victim is raped.
The three accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the latter succeeded
in freeing himself from their grip. What crime did the three accused commit?
(2011 BAR)
(A) forcible abduction.
(B) frustrated kidnapping.
(C) attempted kidnapping.
(D) grave coercion.
A entered the house of B. Once inside the house of B, A took and seized personal
property by compulsion from B with the use of violence and force upon things,
believing himself to be the owner of the personal property so seized. What is the
criminal liability of A? (2012 BAR)
a) A is criminally liable for robbery with violence because he employed violence
in the taking of the personal property from B, robbery characterized by violence
being graver than ordinary robbery committed with force upon things.
b) A is criminally liable for robbery with force upon things in an inhabited house
because the act was committed in a house constituting the dwelling of one or
more persons.
c) A is criminally liable for grave coercion because the presumption of intent to
gain is rebutted.
d) A is criminally liable for qualified trespass to dwelling because he employed
violence.
Page 322 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave threats
a) Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the foothills which he planted
to lanzones. On his last visit there he was shocked to discover that his land had
been taken over by a group of 15 families whose members had forcibly driven
away his caretaker, had appropriated the fruits for themselves, and were now
threatening to kill him should he try to eject them.
What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? Explain. (1988 Bar
Question)
(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. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes namely:
1. Violation of Article 282 which provides 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...” and
2. Violation of Article 312 which provides that: “Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.— Any person who, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or
shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the
penalty incurred for violence executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from
P50.00...
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 frdm 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.. ”
Criminal law –Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave coercion;
elements
“A”, by using force, grabbed the bicycle of “B” and ran away. The following
day, “B” asked “C” to get back his bicycle from “A” and promised to pay him
P100 if successful. “C” agreed “C” went to “A’s” house but it was locked from
inside. Since “A” refused to let “C” in, “C” kicked the door open, confronted “A”
and with a dagger in hand, told “A” to give “B’s” bicycle. Intimidated, “A” gave
Page 323 of 417
Criminal Law
the bicycle to “C” who, in turn, gave it to “B” “B” paid “C” P100 for his efforts.
What crime or crimes did “A”, “B” and “C” commit, if any?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, by grabbing the bicycle of B and running away with it committed the crime of
THEFT, there being no showing that there was violence against or intimidation of B to
accomplish the snatching of the bicycle away from him. In a case where the accused
snatched from behind the bag the offended party was then carrying, it was held that
there being no violence against the offended party immediately before, after or at the
time the bag was snatched from her, the accused was not liable for robbery, but only
for theft (People vs. Villar, CA-GR No. 14289, July 29, 1955: People vs. Jose, CA 62
O.G. 4604). In this case, all the elements of theft are present: intent to gain, taking of
personal property of another without the latter’s consent, and absence of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. There is intent to gain which is
presumed from the unlawful taking of the bicycle.
B is not liable for any crime. Although he promised to pay C P100 if the latter would
get back his bicycle from A, he did not induce C to commit any crime. He had no
participation in any plan to take back the bicycle by unlawful means. C’s act of kicking
open “As” door and intimidating “A” to return the bicycle is C’s act alone for which he
will individually be liable. There is even no showing that B approved of C’s act. While A
paid C the P100.00 he promised upon the return of his bicycle, it does not appear that
he knew the manner and method by which C recovered the bicycle from A.
C committed grave coercion, attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
when he forced his way into A’s house and recovered the bicycle from A at daggerpoint. This is so because he compelled A by means of intimidation to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong, namely to give the bicycle to him. Since his
purpose is to return the bicycle to its rightful owner, there is no intent to gain that would
make the crime robbery. The elements of the crime of grave coercion are:
1.
That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
that he compelled him to do something against his will be it right or wrong;
2.
That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material
force or such a display of force as would produce intimidation and control the will of the
offended paty; and
3.
That the offender did not act with authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful
right.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave coercion
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the
said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to
him, but
Page 324 of 417
Criminal Law
Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, “If you will not give back
the necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy
gave the necklace to Isagani.
What offense did Isagani commit? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy,
by means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will,
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence
constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case
because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of
robbery, is absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.
Criminal law – Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security Unjust vexation; in comparison with acts of lasciviousness
When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl’s breast considered only unjust
vexation instead of acts of lasciviousness? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive
and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design
constitutes merely unjust vexation (People vs. Ignacio. CAr-G.RNo. 5119-R. September
30, 1950). However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching of the breast of a
woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts of lasciviousness (People
vs. Perdval G1lo, 10 SCRA 753).
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Unjust vexation;
Grave coercion
Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky
refused to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the
sides of the market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed this portion of
the door. Do not open it or else something may happen to you."
What crime/ s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer? (2007 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 325 of 417
Criminal Law
The crime committed by Giovanni is light coercion under Art. 287 of the Rev.
Penal Code, commonly referred to as unjust vexation. Although what was done by
Giovanni could reasonably be assumed as a retaliation to the lessee's refusal to pay
rent, absent any clear violence in the premises, such would not bring about a case of
grave coercion. The situation should be interpreted liberally in favor of the offender. The
rule of pro reo precludes any finding for grave coercion, because it would be against the
offender.
The written warning which states "or else something may happen to you" is so
equivocal that it may not be interpreted as felonious. A crime is never presumed; it is
the contrary that is presumed.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Giovanni is unjust vexation because barricading one of
the sides of the market stall was an act of violence deliberately done. It is not only an
act of unjust vexation or light coercion but of grave coercion.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Unjust vexation
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at
the age of 70 gave him the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime voyeurism. If not using his high-powered binoculars to peep at his neighbor’s
homes and domestic activities, his second choice was to follow sweet young
girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.
While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment
of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently massaged it. She
screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with acts of
lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the designation of the crime charged is not correct because the overt act
committed by Eduardo still falls short of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The nature
of the act done does not manifest sexual desire. It is more appropriate to consider such
overt act as mere annoyance or vexation, constituting a crime of light coercion,
commonly referred to as unjust vexation. The Revised Penal Code favors a milder
criminal responsibility.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Considering Eduardo’s voyeurism and propensity for lewdness, he may be charged
for acts of lasciviousness as his criminal intent in doing the act is characterized by lewd
desire.
Page 326 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The designation of the crime of acts of lasciviousness is not correct. The crime
committed is Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm, unjustly annoys, irritate,
vex, torment or distress the mind of an innocent person. Eduardo has indeed
committed the crime of unjust vexation when he placed his hand on the hip of a
teenage girl and gently massaged it.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Coercion; illegal
detention
A. Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and
maltreated by agents of the law in order to compel him to confess a crime
imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to draw from him a confession
which was their intention to obtain through the employment of such
means.
What crime was committed by the agents of the law? Explain your answer.
(3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the
basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing
something not prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong; while in illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual
restraint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority
of law. If there was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime
of illegal detention is not committed.
(b) Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a
suspect and may have been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked
and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was
subjected to torture to extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty, in
addition to the offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted.
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit
the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later
released because the agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave
coercion because of the violence employed to compel such confession without the
offended party being confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
Page 327 of 417
Criminal Law
It is noted that the offended party was merely “brought” to the police headquarters
and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed
would be maltreatment of prisoners.
Maltreatment of Prisoners
AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary
confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of defection. During the
period of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him
physically discomfort. What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the
solitary confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (2012
BAR)
Answer:
The crime of torture and maltreatment of prisoner is committed. Food deprivation and
confinement in solitary cell are considered as physical and psychological torture under
Sec. 4(2) of the Anti-Torture Act of 2009 or R.A. 9745. “Torture” refers to an act by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a
confession; punishing him/her for an act which he/she or a third person has committed
or is suspected of having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third
person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent of acquiescence of a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority (R.A. 9745, Sec. 3).
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - kidnapping and
serious illegal detention
A and B, conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo
then called up C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would
release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000.00, and that,
if she were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had just recovered
from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die if not treated at once by a
doctor, A and B released C during the early morning of the third day of
detention.
Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article
267, RPC, A and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since they had
voluntarily released C within three days from commencement of the detention,
without having been paid any amount of the ransom demanded and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime committed was only
slight illegal detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC.
After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and
therefore denied the petition for bail.
Page 328 of 417
Criminal Law
On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and
serious detention or slight illegal detention? (1997 Bar Question)
Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
because they made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did
not pay the same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight
illegal detention only.
The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days
from the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a
crime where the penalty prescribed is death (Asis to vs. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673).
They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of
guilt in the information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention is strong.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security - Kidnapping or
serious illegal detention
A charged B with the crime of rape. While the case was pending in court, B,
together with his mother and brother, overpowered A while riding a tricycle,
dragged her inside a carinderia owned by them and detained her for two (2) days.
They demanded that she sign an affidavit of desistance and reimburse B the sum
of P5,000.00 which he paid to his lawyer in the case. She was released only after
she signed the affidavit asking for the dismissal of the case and delivered to B
P1,000.00. She promised to deliver the balance of P4.000.00 thirty (30) days later.
What crime or crimes was/were committed by B, his mother, and brother? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is kidnapping with Ransom which is kidnapping or illegal detention
committed by a private person for the purpose of extorting ransom. Since the victim is a
woman, it is serious.
Criminal law - Crimes against personal liberty and security - Kidnapping and
serious illegal detention
B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day,
DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At
the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal
Page 329 of 417
Criminal Law
liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and
before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.
Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the
offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which
such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the
crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D].
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Kidnapping for
ransom; serious illegal detention
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of
Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon,
they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they
will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond
caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from
the NBI. The trio then left in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s
family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over
the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially
when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers.
Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed
his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a
barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station.
Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario
as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged.
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The six (6) suspects committed the following crimes:
1. Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom having
seized Luke and causing his detention by Emil and Louie in the latter’s place.
Although the agreement among Jaime, Andy and Jimmy was to kill Luke, the
agreement appears to have been abandoned when they left Luke to Emil and
Louie to be kept and detained by the latter, while they called up Luke’s family and
demanded ransom.
Page 330 of 417
Criminal Law
2. Mario, the taxi driver, only cooperated as an accomplice by taking Luke to the
fishpond after having learned of the unlawful purpose disclosed to him by Jaime,
Andy and Jimmy. There was no indication, however, that Mario knew of the
demand for ransom. Hence, he may only be held liable as an accomplice to the
crime of slight illegal detention under Art. 268 of the Code.
3. Emil and Louie should be liable for serious illegal detention with homicide (Art.
267 last par., RPC) since the detention was attended by a killing. Their crime
would have been slight illegal detention only under Art. 268 of the Code were it
not for the killing of the victim.
Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms,
attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty
turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not
handle rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home.
Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an
abandoned warehouse where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later,
the two took turns in raping her.After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi
dropped her off at her house. (2014 BAR)
a. What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?
Answer:
The crimes committed by Guapo and Pogi are forcible abduction with rape. There is no
doubt at all that the forcible abduction of Pretty as she walked home was a necessary if
not indispensible means which enabled them to commit the successive acts of rape
upon her person. It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was
being performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated, so
that the second rape cannot legally be considered as still connected with the abduction
– in other words, the second rape would be detached from, and considered
independently of, that of forcible abduction and, therefore, the former can no longer be
complexed with the latter (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971; People
v. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, February 28, 2002). Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and
Pogi are responsible not only for the rape each personally committed but also for the
rape committed by his co-conspirator (People v. Villa, G.R. No. L-59, June 30, 1948)
b. Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one
hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death?
Explain.
Answer:
Guapo and Pogi cannot be held liable for the death of Pretty due to suicide committed
by reason of the rapes. Suicide is an intervening cause that breaks the connection
between the rapes and death. The death resulting from suicide cannot be considered as
the direct, natural and logical consequence of the rapes committed by Guapo and Pogi.
Page 331 of 417
Criminal Law
In People v. Napudo (G.R. No. 168448, October 8, 2008), the victim committed suicide
due to rape. However, the accused was only charged with and convicted of rape.
Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was already
tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the
situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he raped her for a period of
two (2) weeks. What crime did Pogi commit? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
The crime committed by Pogi is kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with rape.
Since Sexy was raped for two weeks, there was a clear deprivation of liberty, which
constitutes the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention. The crime is
committed when one kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives her of
his liberty and the kidnapping or detention has lasted more than three days or the victim
is a female. Since as a consequence of the detention, the victim is raped, the crime
committed is special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only
one kidnapping with rape. This is because the composite acts are regarded as a single
indivisible offense as in fact R.A. 7659 punishes these acts with only a single penalty
(People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011).
While walking alone on her way home from a party, Mildred was seized at gun
point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.
Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove the tricycle. At the house,
Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Mildred
against her will and under the threat of Felipe's gun. Lucio was not around when
the sexual assaults took place as he left after bringing his colleagues and Mildred
to their destination, but he returned everyday to bring food and the news in town
about Mildred's disappearance. For five days, Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept
Mildred in the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the 6th day,
Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest police
station and narrated her ordeal. What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio
commit and what was their degree of participation? (2013 BAR)
Answer: Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape. It was sufficiently proved that the four
kidnapped Madrid and held her in detention for five days and carnally abused her.
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes have been committed in the special
complex crime of kinapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with
rape. The composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense with only one
penalty. The offense is not forcible abduction with rape since it was obvious that the
intent is to detain the victim.
As to the degree of their participation, all of them are principally liable because of
implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single criminal design or purpose (People v.
Miranda, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011). Albeit, Lucio was not around when the
Page 332 of 417
Criminal Law
sexual assault took place, his complicity is evident as he was the one who drove the
tricycle and returned every day to bring food and news to his cohorts.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Grave threats
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the
payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate
would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should
Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days
later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate,
arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the
bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping.
All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as
the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
By demanding "protection money" under threat and intimidation that the
businessman (Antonio) would be killed or his establishment destroyed if he would
refuse to pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is committed by Roger,
the leader of the crime syndicate.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Unjust vexation
At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately dancing a
very seductive dance number. While gyrating with their bodies, Leoncio dipped
his private parts in Evelyn's buttocks. Incensed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio
continued and tightly embraced her.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Leoncio commit? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Leoncio committed the crime of unjust vexation only because the act was done in
the course of dancing. The act of dipping his private parts in Evelyn's buttocks during a
very seductive dance, although offensive to Evelyn, may be viewed as part of a dirty
dancing. Lewd intent cannot simply be presumed from the act of dirty dancing. The fact
that the act was perpetrated in a public place and with an audience, negates lewd
designs or lascivious intent, which is essential in the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Page 333 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Crimes against personal liberty and security – Serious illegal
detention; slight illegal detention; grave coercion
Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a major thoroughfare in
Manila, pointed the gun at the driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!"
Terrified, the driver, Juanita, stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to board.
Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and
Daday, the child's nanny. Virgilio told Juanita to drive to a deserted place, and
there, ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanita was allowed to go, Virgilio
instructed him to tell Jeremias' parents that unless they give a ransom of P10million within two (2) days, Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was told to
remain in the van and take care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then
drove the van to his safehouse
What crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain. (5%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6 year-old child, is Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention under Art 267 (4), RPC. The evident criminal intent of the
offender, Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand ransom. Whether or not the ransom
was eventually obtained will not affect the crime committed because the demand for
ransom is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies the penalty to death but the
imposition of this penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act. No. 9346
As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van and take
care of the child until the ransom is paid, the crime committed is Serious Illegal
Detention because the offended party deprived of liberty is a female (Art. 267, par. 4,
RPC).
As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was seriously intimidated with a gun
pointed at him and directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to board the same,
and thereafter to drive to a deserted place, the crime committed by Virgilio is Grave
Coercion (Art. 286, RPC) and Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for holding the
driver before he was allowed to go.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Exploitation of child
labor; services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son,
asking for P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final
exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her
compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two
Page 334 of 417
Criminal Law
months lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told
Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest
10-year old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at
PI,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria’s objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his
house to work as a maid.
A. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house
as maid lor the purpose of repaying her mother's loan? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
B. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid in Mang Juan’s
household to pay her loan, did he commit a crime? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, Mang Juan violated of Rep. Act No. 7610 on child abuse and exploitation,
as amended by Rep. Act 7658 prohibiting employment of children below 15 years
of age, in relation to the crime of Exploitation of Child Labor under Art. 273,
Revised Penal Code. Annie is only 10 years old and under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt owed by Annie’s mother, Mang Juan took Annie to
his house to work as a maid despite her mother's objection. Annie could not have
given consent to the exploitation since she was only ten (10) year’s old and thus
could not give any valid consent.
B. If it was against her will that Aling Maria was made to work as a housemaid in
Mang Juan’s household to pay her debt to him, the latter would be committing
a crime under Art. 274 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes any
person who shall compel a debtor to work for him as a household servant
against her will just to enforce payment of a debt.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Exploitation of child
labor
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[b] The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child under the pretext of
reimbursing himself for the debt incurred by the child's father commits the crime
of slavery.
Page 335 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. The proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Art. 273, RPC).
Exploitation of child labor is committed by a person, who under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
with the custody of a minor, shall against the minor's will, retain him in his services.
Criminal law – Crimes against personal liberty and security – Light coercions
A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto felt that he had license to
engage in voyeurism. If not peeping into his neighbors’ rooms through his
powerful single-cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely damsels along
the hallways of shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he stayed a step
behind a mini-skirted one, and in a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left
hip and massaged it. The damsel screamed and hollered for help. Canuto was
apprehended and brought up on inquest. What charge/s if any, may he be held
responsible for? Explain (5%). (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Canuto may be held liable only for the milder crime of “unjust vexation” which is a
form of light coercion under Art 287 of the Revised Penal Code, instead of the crime of
acts of lasciviousness although the offender is known for his voyeurism.
Our Revised Penal Code inclines towards milder criminal responsibility,
consistent with the presumption of innocence under our fundamental law and the rule of
pro reo permeating our system of applying penal laws. Holding the hip of a person is not
per se lascivious but undoubtedly annoys, irritates and vexed the young offended party.
The attitude to prosecute the offender for the milder crime of unjust vexation may be
proper considering his age and civil status.
A was caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door while a young
16-year-old lady was taking a bath. A is liable for: (2014 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Violation of R.A. 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Children
Violation of R.A. 7610 – Child Abuse Law
Light coercion
Acts of lasciviousness
a) Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Exceptions
From an extension line, Ricardo overheard a telephone conversation between
Julito and Atty. Hipolito. The latter (Atty. Hipolito) was asking money from Julito
Page 336 of 417
Criminal Law
in exchange for dropping the extortion charge filed against Julito. Ricardo was
charged of violating the Anti-Wire Tapping Act or R.A. 4200.
Under these facts, was there a violation as charged? (2013 BAR)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Yes, because the conversation was private in nature.
Yes, because the conversation was overheard without the consent of the
parties, Julito and Atty. Hipolito.
No, because what is punishable is intentional listening to a conversation
through a wire.
No, because a telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement
contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot be
considered as wire tapping.
None of the above.
Special penal law – (RA No. 4200) – Exception to punishable acts
C told his lawyer, Atty. T, to settle the criminal case he filed against L, and
so Atty. T called up through telephone L, and informed him that C is willing to
have the case dismissed provided that L pays P8,000.00 and The following day
when Atty. T called up L, the latter requested his lawyer Atty. X, who was in his
(L’s) office at that time, to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a
telephone extension.
When the P8.000.00 agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. T
at the appointed place and time, he (Atty. T) was arrested by the police for
Robbery/Extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his lawyer, Atty.
X. Atty. X executed an affidavit stating that he heard Atty. T demanding P8,000.00
for the withdrawal of the criminal complaint through a telephone extension. On
the basis of this affidavit. Atty. T filed a criminal complaint against Atty. X and L
for violation of sec. 1 of RA No. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping
Act, which says:
“It shall be unlawful for any person not being authorized by all the parties
to any private conversation or spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using
any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record such
communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as
dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone, walkie talkie or tape recorder, or
however otherwise described."
If you were the Judge, would you convict or acquit his lawyer, Atty. X? Support
your decision with reasons. .(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 337 of 417
Criminal Law
No, because it is a telephone extension and those enumerated by law means an
extension with permanent recording of which a telephone extension is not. (Gaanan vs.
IAC, 145 SCRA 112)
b) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i)
Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of
communications
(ii) Restriction on travel
(iii) Examination of bank deposits and documents
(a) Judicial Authorization
(b) Application
(iv) Unauthorized revelation of classified materials
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No.
9208)
(i) Punishable acts
10. Crimes Against Property (Articles 293-332)
Which of the following acts does not constitute estafa or other forms of
swindling? (2012 BAR)
a) When a person mortgages a real property by pretending to be the owner
thereof.
b) When a person disposes of the real property knowing it to be encumbered.
c) When a person wrongfully takes real property from its lawful possessor to the
prejudice of the latter.
d) When a person mortgages real property while being a surety given in a civil
action without express authority from the court.
Alternative Answer:
b) When a person disposes of the real property knowing it to be encumbered.
What crime is committed by a person who, having found a ring, fails to deliver the
same to the owner or to the local authorities? (2012 BAR)
a) The finder commits theft.
b) The finder commits concealment.
c) The finder commits qualified theft.
d) The finder commits usurpation of property.
Who among the following is liable for estafa? (2012 BAR)
a) The seller of a laptop computer who failed to inform the buyer that the laptop
had a defect. (* Estafa under Art. 318, Other Deceits, RPC – Guinhawa vs.
People, GR 162822, August 25, 2005)
b) The person who ran away with a cell phone which was handed to him upon his
pretense that he had to make an emergency call.
c) The person who assured he will pay interest on the amount but failed to do so
as promised.
Page 338 of 417
Criminal Law
d) The son who induced his father to buy from him a land which the son is no
longer the owner.
Alternative Answer:
b) The person who ran away with a cell phone which was handed to him upon his
pretense that he had to make an emergency call.
What crime is committed by one who, having received money, goods or any other
personal property in trust or on commission, or for administration, defrauds the
offended party by denying receipt of such money, goods or other property? (2012
BAR)
a) He commits violation of the Trust Receipt Law.
b) He commits estafa through fraudulent means.
c) He commits estafa by false pretenses.
d) He commits estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.
RR convinced WW to take a job in Taiwan, assuring her of a good salary and
entitlement to a yearly vacation. WW paid to RR the processing fee for passport
and visa, but no receipt was issued for the payment. WW was made to use the
alien certificate of registration of another person with a Chinese name and
instructed on how to use the Chinese name. The application of WW was rejected
by the Taiwanese authorities. Cases were filed against RR for illegal recruitment
and estafa. The case of illegal recruitment was dismissed. Is RR liable for estafa?
(2012 BAR)
a) RR is liable for estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.
b) RR is liable for estafa by means of false pretenses.
c) RR is not liable for estafa because WW participated in the illegal travel
documents.
d) RR can no longer be held liable for estafa because with the dismissal of the
case against him for illegal recruitment, double jeopardy has already set in.
With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the two storey
residential house of his employer, mostly made of wooden materials. The blaze
spread and gutted down seven neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire,
six (6) persons sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA? (2012 BAR)
a) AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple homicide.
b) AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c) AAA committed simple arson.
d) AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
What crime is committed by a utility worker in government who destroys office
files as an act of revenge against his supervisor? (2012 BAR)
a) The utility worker commits infidelity in the custody of papers.
b) The utility worker commits malicious mischief.
Page 339 of 417
Criminal Law
c) The utility worker commits estafa by removing, concealing or destroying office
files.
d) The utility worker commits crime involving destruction.
Is the crime of theft committed by a person who, with intent to gain, takes a
worthless check belonging to another without the latter's consent? (2012 BAR)
a) Yes. All the elements of the crime of theft are present: that there be taking of
personal property; that the property belongs to another; and that the taking be
done with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner.
b) No. The taking of the worthless check, which has no value, would not amount
to the crime of theft because of the legal impossibility to commit the intended
crime. (* Jacinto vs. People, GR 162540, July 13, 2009)
c) Yes. Theft is committed even if the worthless check would be subsequently
dishonored because the taker had intent to gain from the check at the time of the
taking.
d) Yes. Theft is committed because the factual impossibility to gain from the
check was not known to the taker or beyond his control at the time of taking.
Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing items of jewelry in
it. She found, however, that the jewelry were in a locked chest. Unable to open it,
she took the chest out of the shop. What crime did she commit? (2011 BAR)
(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
(B) Theft
(C) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.
(D) Qualified theft
There is violation of Art. 316, RPC (Other forms of Swindling) where (2011 BAR)
(A) the owner of property sells a property and subsequently rescinds the sale.
(B) the real property subject of the sale does not exist.
(C) the property was mortgaged for a usurious contract of loan.
(D) the owner disposes of his encumbered real property as if it is free from
encumbrances
Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the
local authorities or to its owner is liable for (2011 BAR)
(A) occupation or usurpation of personal property.
(B) civil damages only.
(C) theft.
(D) other deceits.
X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he would merely
show the check to his creditor to gain more time to pay his account. The check
bounced upon presentation by the creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be
prosecuted for estafa based on the dishonored check? (2011 BAR)
(A) Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement
(B) X as the drawer of the check
Page 340 of 417
Criminal Law
(C) Both X and Y based on conspiracy
(D) None
Removing, concealing or destroying documents to defraud another constitutes
the crime of estafa if committed by (2011 BAR)
(A) any public officer.
(B) a public officer officially entrusted with the document.
(C) private individuals who executed the same.
(D) private individuals.
Which of the following circumstances of dishonor of a check can be a basis for
prosecution under the bouncing checks law? (2011 BAR)
(A) The check was returned unpaid with stamp "stop payment," although the
drawer’s deposit was sufficient.
(B) The check, drawn and issued in the Philippines, was dishonored by the
drawee bank in a foreign country.
(C) The check was presented to the bank for payment 6 months after the date of
issue.
(D) The drawer of the dishonored check paid its value within 5 days from notice
of dishonor.
X and his step-father have a long-standing enmity. One day, irked by an argument
with his step-father, X smashed the windshield of his step-father’s brand new
Audi sports car. X is liable for (2011 BAR)
(A) malicious mischief.
(B) malicious mischief with the alternative mitigating circumstance of relationship.
(C) malicious mischief with the alternative aggravating circumstance of
relationship.
(D) RIGHT ANSWER the civil damage he caused.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Qualified Theft of Large Cattle; Estafa
Special law - Anti-Fencing Law
At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto
joined some neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and two
horses to higher ground. Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the
confusion, got one of the horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him to
Angeles City where he sold the same to an acquaintance Peping. Searching for
his horse, Aniceto found it, with identifying brand intact, in the possession of
Peping who refused to surrender the same saying that he had paid good money
for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the police who promised to
accompany him to the Prosecutor’s office.
May Miguel and Doro be charged criminally for any offense? If you were the
counsel for both, what defense could you possibly set up for them? (1992 Bar
Question)
Page 341 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Miguel should be charged of Qualified Theft of Large Cattle, a horse being classified as
such under Art. 310, RPC.
Doro, on the other hand, should be charged as accessory if he is aware that the horse
was stolen as he assisted the principal, Miguel, in profiting from the crime.
If I were the defense counsel, I will put up the defense of consent of the owner; hence,
there is only civil liability.
Suppose, before the eruption, Miguel had borrowed the horse for a couple of
days from. Aniceto. When the eruption occurred and after evacuating his family,
Aniceto asked Miguel to return the horse to him. Miguel answered that the horse
had run away and he could not locate it. Aniceto. however, found the beast in the
possession of Peping who told him that it was sold to him (Peping) by Miguel.
What criminal offense has Miguel committed, if any? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Miguel having borrowed the horse, he has obligation to return the same. His failure to
return the same upon demand will make him criminally liable for Estafa under Art. 315.
par. 1(b). RPC.
May Peping be indicted under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Peping should be held liable for violation of the Anti- Fencing Law. P.D. No. 1612. He
brought the horse which he should have known to have been derived from robbery or
theft. The horse was duly branded; this should have forwarned Peping. Besides, he
should have demanded a certificate of ownership from Miguel.
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 o’clock in the evening, with C
as the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving the
house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who would enter the house to get the
valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and
B entered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the master’s
bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could see, while B entered
another room. While inside the room, B saw a male person and immediately B
brought out his gun but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through
the window, hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by
the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen arrived. A and
B panicked and got hold of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were
Page 342 of 417
Criminal Law
already outside of the house that they would harm the boy if the policemen did
not disperse. A and B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to
bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they would release
the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the meantime, C was arrested by the
policemen while he was about to flee, while A and B, after releasing the young
boy, were arrested. What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit, and what modifying
circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
A, B and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294(1) of the RPC.
It is immaterial that the death of the person occurred by mere accident, as long as
homicide is produced by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime is robbery with
homicide as it is only the result, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances,
causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be
taken into consideration they are not liable for the detention of the boy as illegal
detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery. The modifying circumstance of dwelling
attended the commission of the crime. The settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in
robbery with homicide.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
Posing as a detective in the Manila Police and flashing a police badge,
Jose, jobless and without any known address and occupation, told Manding and
Liling, who were then sitting in a dark corner in the Luneta Park,‘that he was
placing them under arrest for vagrancy and taking them to the police station for
booking. Manding and Liling protested, saying that they were merely enjoying the
evening alone, as they were sweethearts and. both gainfully employed. Jose told
them that they can give their explanations at the Police Station. Not wanting to be
bothered and embarrassed, Manding offered Jose P200.00 to let them go. Jose
agreed, got the money, and left.Explain whether under the facts given Jose
committed any crime. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is liable for robbery. By posing as a detective with a police badge, telling
Manding and Liling, who were sitting in a dark comer in Luneta Park that they would be
placed under arrest for vagrancy and brought to the police station for booking and by
not listening to the explanation of Manding and Liling that they were sweethearts and
gainfully employed which Jose said they could explain in the Police Station, created fear
in the mind of the couple or a sense of mental distress in view of the risk or evil or
embarrassment that is impending. This fear continued in the mind of the offended
parties when they offered the P200 to Jose which he accepted and then received the
money.
Page 343 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
A, B, C D, and E were members of a gang operating in Mindanao with Gorio
as over-all leader, Gorio assigned A B, and C to get money from Pedro, a
businessman from Agusan. As instructed, A, B. and C, armed with guns, went to
see Pedro and demanded PI00,000.00. When Pedro refused, A pointed his gun at
him while B hit him with the butt of his gun. Pedro gave the amount demanded.
After the three (3) left, Pedro went to the PC Command to tel! them what
happened. On the way, he met Orlando, also a businessman. Orlando told him
that D and E, week earlier, wrote him a letter asking P50.000.00 and threatening
to kill his son and wife should he fail to give the amount. Afraid that the two
would make good their threat, he gave the money when D called him that day.
Orlando was also on his way to the PC to report what happened.
A. What crime did A, B, and C commit? (1987 Bar Question)
B. What crime did D and E commit? (1987 Bar Question)
C. If the crimes committed by A B and C on one hand and D and E on the
other hand are different. Explain why they are different when the purpose is
the same, i.e. to extort money. Did Gorio commit any crime? (1987 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A, B, and C committed robbery. They were able to make Pedro give them the
PI00,000 that they demanded when A pointed his gun at Pedro because he
refused at first to accede to their demand and B hit him with the butt of his gun.
They employed violence and intimidation in the taking of the money with intent to
gain.
B. D and E committed Grave Threats. The reason is the intimidation employed
refers to the killings of the wife and son of Orlando should he failed to give the
amount of P50,000 demanded in the latter which D and E sent him. The
distinction between robbery and grave threats when the purpose is the same,
that is, to extort money, is that in robbery, the intimidation is actual and
immediate whereas on grave threats, the intimidation is future and conditional.
C. Gorio, being the over-all leader of the group, is a principal by inducement in the
robbery committed against Pedro. He has no liability regarding the grave threats
committed by D and E against Orlando because the facts of the problem do not
specifically mention his intervention in the activities of D and E.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery
After SP02 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs.
Cortes and made this proposition: “Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the
D.O.M. is probably well-known in his community, he will not want his reputation
Page 344 of 417
Criminal Law
tarnished. I'll tell him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to file
criminal charges against him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us
P50,300.00, you may be persuaded not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he
gives that amount, which he surely will, I shall visit him regularly for more. We
shall then divide equally the money we shall get from him.
Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief
with incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his
superiors to penalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have
received from his victim? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cellado should be charged of robbery because he took personal property from,
Donido, with intent to gain, with intimidation on the person of the latter. The money
passed into the hands of Cellado involuntarily because of fear (intimidation) on the part
of the offended party, Donido.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – When crime is considered as squatting
and not usurpation of real property
“A” and “B”, both farmers, entered the land owned by “X” and planted
palay thereon. When “X” came to know about it, he confronted "A” and “B” and
inquired why the latter occupied his land and planted palay thereon. “A”, with a
bolo in hand, replied that the land belongs to the family of “S”, and not to "X” and
at the same time said, “If you touch this land and my palay, blood will flow on
this ground.” Because of said remark, “X” went to the Chief of Police and
complained. The Chief of Police filed a complex crime of Usurpation of Real
Property with Grave Threats. What crime or crimes were committed? (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is squatting under PD 772 and not usurpation of
Real Property because in the latter crime, there must be violence against or intimidation
of persons employed in taking possession of any real property or in usurping any real
rights in property belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC). In this case, it appears that A
and B entered X’s land without the owner’s consent or against his will but without any
violence against or intimidation of persons.
The crime of squatting is committed by any person who, with the use of force,
intimidation or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner,
succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the latter against his will for
residential, commercial or any other purposes.
Page 345 of 417
Criminal Law
The threat uttered by A not having been used IN THE TAKING OF POSSESSION
of the land, it is not absorbed in the crime of SQUATTING. When A threatened X that
blood will flow if X touches the land and his palay, he committed the crime of grave
threats by threatening another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime. Only
A is crimin-ally liable for the crime of grave threats.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Usurpation of real right in property
Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan which she planted to
rice and corn. Upon her arrival from a three-month vacation in the United States,
she was surprised to discover that her land had been taken over by Manuel and
Teofilo who forcibly evicted her tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill
the latter if she would resist their taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and
Teofilo plowed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest for themselves to the
exclusion of Teresita.
A. What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain. (1996 Bar
Question)
B. Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter refused to
surrender possession of the land, what crime or crimes did the two
commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real rights under Art.
312 of the Revised Penal Code for employing violence against or intimidation of
persons. The threats to kill employed by them in forcibly entering the land is the
means of committing the crime and therefore absorbed in the felony, unless the
intimidation resulted in a more serious felony.
B. The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, even if the
said offenders killed the caretaker because the killing is the “violence against
persons" which is the means for committing the crime and as such, determinative
only. However, this gives way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein
is “in addition to the penalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicide)
executed by them. The crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is committed
by reason thereof, giving rise only to one indivisible offense (People vs. Judge
Alfeche), plus the fine mentioned therein.
Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check payable to
cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y.
Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X credited the amount to the
account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. Seven (7)
days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her that the
amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged
Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her accountand to turn over
Page 346 of 417
Criminal Law
the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was
gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the
amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. (2014
BAR)
Answer:
Madam X shall be liable as principal in the crime of qualified theft committed with grave
abuse of confidence defined and punishable under Art. 310 of the RPC. Being a bank
teller, she had only the physical possession not juridical possession of the money
received by her. Consequently, her subsequent misappropriation of the same shall
constitute the crime of theft, qualified with grave absue of confidence.
Madam W is not criminally liable. She had no knowledge of the crime and withdrew the
money from her account and turned over the same to Madam X because of the
misrepresentaition of the latter that the P1M was wrongfully deposited to her account.
Her participation is not based on conspiracy or community of design, without which she
cannot be held liable as principal by direct particiapation, principal by indispensable
cooperation or accomplice. Receiving an expensive Hermes bag from Madam X will not
make Madam W liable as an accessory since the latter has no actual knowledge of the
commission of the crime of theft by the former and the bag cannot be considered as the
effects of the crime since there is no showing that the money withdrawn was used in
buying it.
Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the smaller
purses without paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave her
own purse in place of the one she took. Her act was discovered and Clepto was
charged with theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store suffered no
injury or prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one she took.
Comment on her defense. (2014 BAR)
Answer:
Her defense is untenable. Theft was already consummated from the taking of personal
property of another with intent to gain without the consent of the latter. The presence of
injury or damage is not an element of theft. Her leaving behind her own purse will not
alter the fact that she took a purse from the high-end shop without the consent of the
owner.
Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage? Explain
your answer in relation to what produces the crime of theft in its consummated
stage and by way of illustration of the subjective and objective phases of the
felony. (2012 BAR)
Page 347 of 417
Criminal Law
Answer:
No. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful
taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is the element which
produces the felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful
taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. Thus,
the theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated
(Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007).
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Theft
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working
place in Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner
engraved on the inside. Remembering his parents’admonition that he should not
take anything which does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1
Jesus Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner
and return it to him. POl Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and misappropriated
the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the fact that the bracelet was
dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from
where Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last possessor as
POl Reyes. Charged with theft, POl Reyes reasoned out that he had not
committed any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and,
moreover, it turned out to have been stolen.
Resolve the case with reasons. (10%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft, POl Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has not
committed any crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned
out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to
another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to
gain.
The act of POl Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and
which he only held to be delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to
gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the
owner, the person to whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same,
assumes the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if he
would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Page 348 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa
A entrusted her car to B for repainting at the agreed cost of P7,800.00. When
the painting job was finished, A wanted to get the car but B refused to deliver
until payment is made. When A came back the next day, the shop was already
closed, and B and the car were nowhere to be found. When finally B was located,
he told A that he sold the car and applied the amount to the repainting cost and
labor.
A sued B for estafa. The information related the above facts, indicating the
car as the subject of the felony. The Regional Trial Court convicted B for the
crime charged. Under the facts, is the conviction proper? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conviction was correct. Estafa was really committed as B had both physical and
juridical possession of the car. Having painted the car, he acquired a lien thereto, and
therefore could exercises that right against the whole world, including the owner.
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing
materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr.
Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in
the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of
three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the
assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for
payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to
the house of Mr. Ed. The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender
another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete
the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be honored upon
presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were
dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor
were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of
dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed
before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no
demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from
Mr. Edas partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the
complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr.
Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is
merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted
the partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (2014 BAR)
Answer:
Mr. Ed is liable for one count of estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) for the issuance of the first
three checks because he issued them simultaneous with the transaction in order to
Page 349 of 417
Criminal Law
defraud another. However, the two other checks are deemed to have been issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation, hence the same act could not have been the
efficient cause of defraudation required in estafa under the RPC. He is liable for two
counts if violation of B.P. 22 for the issuance of the five checks which were dishonoured
for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of a worthless or
unfunded check. Deceit is not material to B.P. 22.
Mr. Ed’s defense of partial payments constituting novation and absence of demand
letter will not exculpate dim from the criminal liability incurred. The partial payments
made would only affect his civil liability while his claim of absence of demand letter
negated by his receipt of notices of dishonour.
William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real property.
In 1994, William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the preparation of a
Special Power of Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of
land registered in the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA
was forged and, through this forged SPA and without the consent and knowledge
of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2) parcels for Php 2,000,000.
He pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Mercedes eventually discovered William's
misdeeds and filed a criminal complaint. William was subsequently charged with
estafa through falsification of public document. Was the criminal charge proper?
(2013 BAR)
Answer:
The criminal charge of estafa through falsification is correct. William forged the
signature of his mother-in-law in the Special Power of Attorney, which is a public
document, as a necessary means to sell her properties to third parties without delivering
the proceeds thereof. Although the relationship of affinity created between William and
his mother-in-law survived the death of either party to the marriage, the coverage of the
absolutory cause under Art. 332 (1) of the RPC cannot be applied to him. It is strictly
limited to the simple crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief. It does not apply
where any of the crimes mentioned is complex with another crime. This is because
when estafa is committed through falsification of a public document, the matter acquires
a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of
family member among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that
breaches the public interest in the integrity of public documents as a mean to violate the
property rights of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the
absolutory cause under Article 332 (Intestate Estate of Carungcong v. People, G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010).
The wife of AAA predeceased his mother-in-law. AAA was accused of defrauding
his mother-in-law under a criminal information for estafa, but the actual recital of
facts of the offense charged therein, if proven, would constitute not only the
crime of estafa, but also falsification of public document as a necessary means
Page 350 of 417
Criminal Law
for committing estafa. AAA invokes the absolutory cause of relationship by
affinity. Which statement is most accurate? (2012 BAR)
a) The relationship by affinity created between AAA and the blood relatives
of his wife is dissolved by the death of his wife and the absolutory cause of
relationship by affinity is therefore no longer available to AAA.
b) The death of spouse does not severe the relationship by affinity which is
an absolutory cause available to AAA for estafa through falsification of
public document.
c) If AAA commits in a public document the act of falsification as a
necessary means to commit estafa, the relationship by affinity still subsists
as an absolutory cause for estafa which should be considered separately
from the liability for falsification of public document because there is no
specific penalty prescribed for the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document.
d) Considering that under the given situation, the two (2) crimes of estafa
and falsification of public document are not separate crimes but
component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of
public document, the absolutory cause of relationship by affinity is not
available to AAA. (* Intestate estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. De
Carungcong vs. People, February 11, 2010)
Anthony drew a promissory note and asked his terminally-ill and dying business
partner Ben to sign it. The promissory note bound Ben to pay Anthony One
Million Pesos (P1,000,000) plus 12% interest, on or before June 30, 2011.
If Ben died before the promissory note's due date and Anthony still collected
P1,000,000 with interest from Ben's estate, what crime/s did Anthony commit?
(2013 BAR)
(A)
Falsification of a public document.
(B)
Falsification of a private document and estafa.
(C)
Estafa.
(D)
Estafa thru falsification of a private document.
(E)
None of the above.
On June 1, 2011, Efren bought a used top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz for P7.5
Million from Switik Trading. On the same day, he paid P2,500,000 in cash and
issued Switik Trading a check for P5,000,000 dated July 31, 2011. He then brought
the car to a friend's house and hid it in an underground garage. The check Efren
issued was dishonored for insufficiency of funds when presented for payment on
due date. Efren was asked to honor and pay the check or to return the car, but he
refused.
What crime/s did Efren commit? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Carnapping.
(B)
Estafa and carnapping.
(C)
A violation of BP Blg. 22.
(D)
Estafa and a violation of BP Blg. 22.
Page 351 of 417
Criminal Law
(E)
None of the above.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa; violation of a trust receipt
agreement
Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to import auto tires
from Japan. To secure payment of his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust
receipt in favor of the bank. Upon arrival of the tires, Julio sold them but did not
deliver the proceeds to the bank.
Julio was charged with estafa under P.D. No. 115 which makes the violation
of a trust receipt agreement punishable as estafa under Art. 315, par. (1), subpar.
(b). of the Revised Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was
unconstitutional because it violated the Bill of Rights provision against
imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
Rule on the contention of Julio. Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't involve merely a
simple loan transaction but includes likewise a security feature where the creditor bank
extends financial assistance to the debtor-importer in return for the collateral or security
title as to the goods or merchandise being purchased or imported. The title of the bank
to the security is the one sought to be protected and not the loan which is a separate
and distinct agreement. What is being penalized under P.D. No. 115 is the misuse or
misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realized from the sale of the goods,
documents or instruments which are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In other
words, the law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of
money or goods to the prejudice of the other, and hence there is no violation of the right
against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. [People vs. Nitafan. 207 SCRA 725)
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Falsification of a Public Document
Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen bom in Macao, having applied with a
recruitment agency to work in Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a
Community Tax Certificate, formerly called Residence Certificate. He stated
therein that his name is Leo Tiampuy, A Filipino citizen bom in Binan, Laguna. As
he paid for the Community Tax Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an employee in the
office recognized him and reported to her boss that the information written in the
Community Tax Certificate were all lies.
Treat each of the above contentions separately.
Page 352 of 417
Criminal Law
Shortly thereafter, an information was filed against Dee Kiam alias
Tiampuy. What crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why? (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification of a Public Document
committed by a private individual under Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Art. 171 thereof. A residence certificate is a public or official document
within the context of said provisions and ju-risprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an
untruthful statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171, par. 4), and he being a private
individual, he is culpable thereunder.
The accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it did not allege
that he had the obligation to disclose the truth in the Community Tax Certificate;
that the same is a useless scrap of paper which one can buy even in the Quiapo
underpass and that he had no intent of deceiving anybody, much less the
government. If you were the trial judge, would you grant the motion to quash the
information on the basis of Dee Kiam’s allegations? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and 172, RPC, does not require that
the document is required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a residence
certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a "mere scrap of paper". Intent to cause
damage, or actual damage, is not an indispensable requisite for falsification of public
document.
Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State – Arbitrary
detention
Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago community in a police car with
SP03 Caloy Itliong, blew his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly
entered a one-way street.
After demanding from Linda Lo Hua, the driver, her driver’s license, Menor
asked her to follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave
instructions to Itliong to guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms and not to let her out
of sight until he returns; then got the car key from Lo Hua. In the meantime, the
latter was not allowed to make any phone calls but was given food and access to
a bathroom.
When Menor showed up after two days, he brought Lo Hua to a private house
and told her that he would only release her and return the car if she made
arrangements for the delivery of P500,000.00 in a doctor’s bag at a certain place
within the next twenty-four hours. When Menor went to the designated spot to
Page 353 of 417
Criminal Law
pick up the bag of money, he suddenly found himself surrounded by several
armed civilians who introduced themselves as NBI agents.
What criminal offense has Menor committed? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention) he being a public officer
who detained, a person without legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance by
entering a one-way street is not a valid reason to arrest and detain the driver. Such only
merits the issuance of a traffic violation ticket. Hence, when Lo Hua was ordered to
follow the police officers to the precinct (confiscating her license to compel her to do
so), and confining her in a room for two days and prohibiting her to make phone calls, is
a clear case of deprivation of personal liberty. Giving her food and access to the
bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the criminal liability.
Menor is further liable for robbery, because money or personal properly was taken,
with intent to gain, and with intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically
forced her to submit to the monetary demands of the major.
May Itliong be held likewise criminally liable? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Itliong is equally liable with Menor the felony of arbitrary detention, either by conspiracy
or indispensable cooperation. He cannot successfully put up the defense of obedience
to a superior order, as the same was done for a lawful purpose.
Criminal law -Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of
commercial documents
The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial deposit of
P2.000.00. A few days later, he deposited in the savings account a Bank B check
for PI0,000.00 drawn and endorsed purportedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew
P 10,000.00 from his savings account. C complained to Bank B when the check
was deducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused deposited
another Bank B check of P 10,000.00 signed and endorsed allegedly by C. A
week later, the accused went to Bank A to withdraw P 10,000.00. While
withdrawing the amount, he was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa both
through falsification of commercial documents, he set up the defenses that,
except for the showing that the signature of C had been forged, no further
evidence was presented to establish (a) that he was the forger of the signature of
C nor (b), that as to the second charge, C suffered any damage.
Page 354 of 417
Criminal Law
Rule on the defense (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified document is presumed
to be the author of the falsification [People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120; KohTlek vs.
People, et aL. Dec. 21, 19901; (b) In estafa. a mere disturbance of property rights, even
if temporary, would be sufficient to cause damage. Moreover, in a crime of falsification
of a commercial document, damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary
because the principal thing punished is the violation of the public faith and the
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly proclaimed.
Criminal law - Crimes against property – Estafa through misappropriation or
conversion
On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corporation received from Maricar the
sum of P500.000.00 as money market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) per
cent interest, and the President of said Corporation issued a check covering the
amount including the interest due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the
maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing Corporation failed to deliver back
Maricar's money placement with the corresponding interest earned,
notwithstanding repeated demands upon said Corporation to comply with its
commitment.
Did the President of Orpheus Financing Corporation incur any criminal
liability for estafa for reason of the nonpayment of the money market placement?
Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the President of the financing corporation does not incur criminal liability for
estafa because a money market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that
nonpayment thereof would not give rise to estafa through misappropriation or
conversion. In money market placement, there is transfer of ownership of the money to
be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil in nature [Perez vs. Court of
Appeals. 127 SCRA636; Sebreno vs. Court of Appeals et aL, G.R. 84096, 26 Jan 95).
Special law - Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) Crimes against property – Estafa
Exidor issued a check in payment of goods delivered to him by Virginia.
Unfortunately the check bounced for lack of sufficient funds.
A. What is the criminal liability of Exidor? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
B. Suppose the bouncing check was postdated, will your answer be the
same? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
Page 355 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Exidor is liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) and for estafa under
Article 315, par. 2(d), Revised Penal Code.
B. He will only be liable under the Bouncing Checks Law. (B.P. 22).
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a
post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two
days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and
requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited
the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric
filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The
Bouncing Checks Law). Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (2013
BAR)
Answer:
Yes, the charge brought against Frank is correct. Violation of B.P. 22 is malum
prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a
defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose for
which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of Frank to
defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate against his
prosecution for B.P. 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged. Moreover, if what is
charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held
criminally liable under Art. 332, RPC.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Estafa through abuse of confidence
Alfredo is the corporate treasurer of Multimillion Insurance Company. As
corporate treasurer, he would have in his possession an average of P5,000,000 at
any given time. In 1984, when the money market rate of interest ranged from 35%
to 50%, Alfredo place P1 ,000,000 of the corporate funds in the money market in
his name without the knowledge of any other corporate official of the company.
Upon maturity of the money market placement, Alfredo returned the amount of
P1 ,000,000 to the corporation, but kept to himself the interest income of
P250,000. At the end of 1984, when audit examinations of his accounts were
undertaken, the auditors found no shortage in his accountabilities. Did Alfredo
commit any crime? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alfredo committed the crime of estafa thru abuse of confidence, even if he
had no intention to permanently misappropriate the corporate funds for himself. The
law on estafa is clear and does not make any distinctions between permanent and
Page 356 of 417
Criminal Law
temporary misappropriations, for as long as damage is suffered by the offended party.
Damage was suffered by the corporation in this case because if the PI million pesos
had not been withdrawn from the corporate coffers it would have earned interest for
the benefit of the company.
Estafa, and not qualified theft, is committed because as corporate treasurer.
Alfredo has juridical possession of the P5 million pesos in his custody. This was in
the nature of a trust fund entrusted to him for corporate purposes. While it is a
general principle that misappropriation of trust funds for short periods does not
always amount to estafa, it has been held that his principle cannot extend to cases
where officers of corporations converted corporate funds to their own use, (U.S. vs.
Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190). Fraudulent intent is not even necessary in such cases because
the breach of confidence involved in the misappropriation or conversion of trust
funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Exemption from criminal liability
“A” is married to the sister of “B”, and the three (3) live together in a house
located a Caloocan City. On several occasions, “B’s” dog would bark at “A”
everytime he arrives at past midnight. One time, after arriving in the house at
around 2 o’clock in the morning, “B’s” dog barked continuously at “A.” In a fit
of anger, “A” entered the house, took a bolo and killed the dog. What crime
was committed and what is liability of “A?” Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A is malicious mischief. The elements of this are:
a. the offender caused damages to the property of other
b. the damage caused did not constitute arson or any other crime involving
destruction and
c. the damage was caused by the offender (Caballes vs. DAR, GR 78214,5 Dec.
88).
A’s act of killing the dog is characterized by malice, it being a product of anger
and resentment.
However, A is exempt from criminal liability for the crime committed by him
because he is the brother-in-law of the offended party and they are both living
together under the same roof. Under Art. 332 of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil,
liability shall result from the commission of the crime of THEFT, SWINDLING or
MALICIOUS MIS-CHIEF committed or caused mutually by among others, brothers
and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Page 357 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property- Estafa; when committed
A. Is there such a crime as estafa through negligence? Explain. (2%) (1999 Bar
Question)
B. Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry who does
business in Timog, Quezon City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed
to sell a diamond ring and bracelet to Victoria on a commission basis,
on condition that, if these items can not be sold, they may be returned
to Victoria forthwith.
Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia in
Cebu City with the understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items
to Victoria in Timog. Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the bracelet to
Victoria but sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and
issued a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for estafa
under Article 315, R.P.C., Victoria insisting that delivery to a third person of
the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa.
Is Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances? Explain. (4%)
(1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain
must be obtained by the accused personally, through his own acts, and his mere
negligence in allowing another to take advantage of or benefit from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v. Nepomuceno, CA, 460G 6135
B. No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she received the
jewelry from Victoria under an obligation to return the same or deliver the proceeds
thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she gave them to Aurelia specifically
to be returned to Victoria. The misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent
the showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for Aurelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above, Rosa's
negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate the jewelry does not
make her criminally liable for estafa.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; estafa through abuse of
confidence or unfaithfulness
Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling
debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by
writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by
their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if
any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
Page 358 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the "talaan" or ledger which Fe made to show a falsehood was a private
document, the only crime that Fe committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or
unfaithfulness. Criminal liability for falsification of a private document does not arise
without damage or at least proof of intent to cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the
crime of estafa which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of intent to
cause damage. Since the "talaan" was falsified to cover-up or conceal the
misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever damage or intent to cause damage
attends the falsification, it will be the same damage or intent to cause damage that will
attend the estafa.
If such " talaan" or ledger was' a commercial document, damage or proof of
intent to cause damage is not necessary. The falsification alone if done with intent to
pervert the truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of a commercial
document. Damage or intent to cause damage, would sustain the estafa independently
of the falsification of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate crimes are
committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the commercial document. The
falsification should not be complexed with the estafa since it was not committed as a
necessary means to commit the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide the
misappropriation of the amount she pocketed.
Criminal law – Crimes against property- Trespass to dwelling; Exceptions
Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or
other establishments without being liable for trespass to dwelling? 2.5% (2006
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. A private person may enter a dwelling, residence, or other establishment without
being liable for trespass to dwelling in the following situations:
a. where a person so enters to avoid some serious harm to himself; or
b. he did so to save or help an occupant thereof or some other person from
serious harm;
c. where a person so enters to render service to humanity or to the cause of
justice; and
d. where a person enters establishments which cater to public service while still
open for such patronage (RPC, Art. 280 last par.)
e. if a public officer or person authorized is conducting a valid arrest or valid
search and seizure (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113).
Page 359 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa or swindling
Divina is the owner of a 500-square meter residential lot in Makati City
covered by TCT No. 1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad, Divina
mortgaged her lot to her neighbor Dino for PI,000,000. Later Divina sold the same
lot to Angel for P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly stated that the
property is free from any lien or encumbrance.
What crime, if any, did Divina commit? (5%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art. 316, par. 2 of the Revised Penal
Code because, knowing that the real property being sold is encumbered, she still made
a misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the same is free from any lien or
encumbrance. There is thus a deceit or fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot.
What crime is committed by one who defrauds another by taking undue
advantage of the signature of the offended party in a blank check and by writing
the payee and amount of the check to the prejudice of the offended party? (2012
BAR)
a) estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
b) estafa by false pretense;
c) estafa through fraudulent means;
d) estafa by other deceits.
Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They
agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items
to Dora within sixty days. The period expired without Elen remitting the proceeds
of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by phone that Elen
turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen
promised to do so the following day. El en still failed to make good on her
promise but instead issued post-dated checks. Thereafter, Dora made several
more demands, the last of which was in writing, but they were all unheeded.
When the checks were deposited in Dora's bank account, the checks were
returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with estafa and violation
of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper? Explain. (2015
BAR)
Answer:
Art. 315 par.1(b) of the RPC punishes Estafa through Misappropriation. To prove the
foregoing crime, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the
offender’s receipt of money, goods, or other personal property in trust, or on
commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to
deliver, or to return the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the
Page 360 of 417
Criminal Law
money or property received, or denial of receipt of the money or property; (3) the
misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by
the offended party that the offender return the money or property received.
In the case at hand, the pieces of jewelry were received by Elen from Dora, an act
which transferred the juridical possession of the former. To have juridical possession
means possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee
may set up against the owner.
Generally, demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust is necessary before an
accused is convicted of Estafa. However, if there is an agreed period for the return of
the thing received in trust and the accused failed to return it within the agreed period,
demand is unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within the agreed period
consummates the crime of Estafa, i.e., the misappropriation of the thing received in
trust. In this case, Dora and Elen agreed on a period, within 60 days, for the delivery of
the proceeds of the sale and return of the unsold items to Dora. Elen’s failure to return
within 60 days is a presumption of misappropriation of the jewelry. Thus, there would be
no more need to present any act of misappropriation.
Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising Nita that she would take care of
the processing of the neccessary documents. Dela collected P120,000.00 from
Nita purportedly for the processing of her papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita
was made to accomplish certain forms and was told that she would be deployed
to Taiwan within one month. After one month, Nita followed up on her application.
Dela made some excuses and told Nita that the deployment would be delayed.
Another month passed and Dela made other excuses which made Nita
suspicious. Nita later discovered that Dela was not licensed to recruit. Nita
confronted Dela and demanded the return of her money. Dela promised to return
the same in a week's time. (2015 BAR)
a) A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. What crime(s) did Dela
commit? Explain.
Answer:
Dela defrauded Nita by leading her to believe that she has the capacity to send her to
Taiwan for work, even though she does not have a license or authority for the purpose.
Such misrepresentation came before Nita gave Dela P120,000 for the processing of her
papers. Clearly, Nita would have not parted with her money were it not for such
enticement by Dela. As a consequence of Dela’s false pretenses, Nita suffered
damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she
paid was never recovered. Thus, the crime of estafa through falsification of public
documents is committed. Since Dela has no license to recruit, the crime of illegal
recruitment is also committed. (People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13,
2012).
Page 361 of 417
Criminal Law
b) Will your answer still be the same, assuming that the promise to deploy for
employment abroad was made by Dela to Celia, Digna and Emma, in
addition to Nita, and from whom Dela also collected the same amount of
processing fee?
Answer:
Yes, Dela shall be liable for both Estafa under Par.2 (a) of Art. 315 of the RPC and
Illegal Recruitment, but in large-scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. Since there
are at least 3 victims in this case, Cela, Digna, Emma, and Nita, Dela shall be liable for
large scale illegal recruitment under the earlier cited provisions (People v. Tolentino,
G.R. No. 208686, July 1, 2015).
AA misrepresented to the complainant that he had the power, influence, authority
and business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of placement fee. AA
duly collected the placement fee from complainant. As per certification of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, AA did not possess any
authority or license for overseas employment. Is it proper to file two (2) separate
Informations for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and for estafa by means
of deceit? (2012 BAR)
a) No. The filing of two (2) separate Informations for illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code and for estafa by means of deceit for the same act is
violative of the principle against double jeopardy.
b) No. One Information for a complex crime of illegal recruitment with
estafa by means of deceit should be filed, instead of two (2) separate
Informations.
c) No. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may
not, for the same act, be separately convicted of estafa by means of deceit.
d) Yes. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code
may, for the same act, be separately convicted of estafa by means of
deceit.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa
DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a counterfeit
credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the credit card
used by DD was counterfeit.
What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DD committed estafa, and a violated of Rep. Act No. 8484 referred to as
Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.
Page 362 of 417
Criminal Law
Estafa under Article 315 [2] (a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed
because he defrauded the owner of the establishment by falsely pretending to possess
credit with the credit card company when he used a fake credit card.
DD also violated Section 9(a) of Rep. Act No. 8484 which punishes, among
others, the act of using a counterfeit access device.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Theft; Estafa
DD was engaged in the warehouse business. Sometime in November he was
in dire need of money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his warehouse to
VR for P500.000.00. DD was charged with theft, as principal, while VR as
accessory. The court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the ground that
he purchased the merchandise in good faith. However, the court ordered VR to
return the merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD to refund the
P500.000.00 to VR.
DD moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should be
acquitted of theft because being the depositary, he had juridical possession of
the merchandise. VR also moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting
that since he was acquitted of the crime charged, and that he purchased the
merchandise in good faith, he is not obligated to return the merchandise to its
owner.
Rule on the motions with reasons. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration of DD is DENIED.
In this case, there being no proof that title to the goods was transferred to DD, only
physical possession is presumed transferred to and obtained by DD. (U.S. v. De Vera,
43 Phil. 1001 [1921]).
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the thing is taken
while in estafa the accused received the property and converts it to his own use or
benefit. However, there maybe theft even if the accused has possession of the property,
if he was entrusted only with the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of
the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical
possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or
estafa. (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990]).
The motion for reconsideration of VR is DENIED. While VR is acquitted of theft,
such acquittal does not of itself negate civil liability of VR to return the property stolen by
DD. Civil liability on the part of VR exists despite his acquittal, since his acquittal is
premised on the finding that his liability is only civil in nature. (De Guzman Alva, 510.G.
Page 363 of 417
Criminal Law
1311 [1955]). DD was unlawfully deprived of his personal property and as owner or
possessor he may recover such movables.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - theft
Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not belong to
him, he approached policeman P and delivered the watch with instruction to
return the same to whoever may be found to be the owner.
P failed to return the watch to the owner and, instead, sold it and
appropriated for himself the proceeds of the sale.
Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it
was not he who found the watch and, moreover, the watch turned out to be
stolen property.
Is P's defense valid? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the personal
property subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant
whether the person deprived of the possession of the watch has or has no right to the
watch. Theft is committed by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of
another without the consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when the
offender receives property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the
same.
Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the sum of Pl 0,000.00 which would
become due in one week. He was starting to worry because he still had not raised
the amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he had prayed for divine intervention.
One night, while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the back
seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly Pl 0,000.00 cash, the
amount of his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, and that his
prayers were answered, he took the money and used it to pay his debt. (2015
BAR)
a) What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain.
Answer:
Bruno committed the crime of theft. The owner is known to Bruno because there are IDs
found in the wallet. Failure to deliver to the local authorities or to its owner the lost
property which he found constitutes theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
Page 364 of 417
Criminal Law
b) Assuming that instead of using the money, Bruno turned over the wallet
and its contents to the nearby police station, and it was the chief of police
of that station who appropriated the money for his own benefit, what crime
was committed by the chief of police?
Answer:
The chief of police is liable for theft. Although he is not the one who found the property,
he is considered as finder in fact since the property was surrendered to him by the
actual finder. He acquired the position occupied by the actual finder and assumed by
voluntary substitution the obligation to surrender the property to the lawful owner.
Appropriating the property is of the same character of that made by one who originally
found the same (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March 31, 1923). The liability of the
finder in fact is the same liability of the finder in law. Thus, what the Chief of Police
committed is Theft.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Theft
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring
along Roxas Blvd.
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek
help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him.
In the investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the
owner let's just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin
then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never
saw P01 Melvin again.
b) What is the criminal liability of P01 Melvin, if any? Explain. (3%) (2008
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) POI Melvin is criminally liable for theft for having pawned the ring, which he
does not own, and appropriating the proceeds thereof without the consent of the owner
thus demonstrating intent to gain.
P01 Melvin is simply substituted to the possession Eman had when the latter,
found the bag containing the ring. He was under a legal obligation to deliver it to its
owner and his failure to do so amounts to a "taking" which would constitute theft when
shown to be motivated by intent to gain (Art. 308, par. 1, RPC; People v. Avila, 44 Phil.
720, 727 [1923]).
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among
the first to arrive at the scene of the accident was A, who found one of the
Page 365 of 417
Criminal Law
victims already dead and the others unconscious. Before rescuers could come,
A, taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victims, took their wallets
and jewelry. However, the police, who responded to the report of the accident,
caught A. What crime or crimes did A commit? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry of the
victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident wherein
he took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of
qualified theft was committed although there were more than one victim divested of their
valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were made on one and the same
occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir
when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious,
he scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of
the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with
the proper offense.
What is that offense? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offense committed is qualified theft, pursuant to Sec 1 of Pres. Decree No. 330,
and Sec. 68 of Pres. Decree No. 705 defining the offense committed by any person
who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes or smuggles timber or other forest
products in violation of existing laws, rules and regulations, from any public forest
reserves, and other kinds of public forest or even privately owned forest lands.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a
thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To
prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear
wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out
of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paolo is criminally liable for qualified theft because the object taken is a motor vehicle
(Art. 310, RPC) and the taking was simply without the consent of Carlos, the owner of
the motor vehicle.
Page 366 of 417
Criminal Law
Since the death of the tricycle driver was brought about by Paolo's felonious
taking of Carlos' car, Paolo is liable for homicide because his act was the proximate
cause thereof.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Situation when there is no
misappropriation
A sold a washing machine to 6 on credit, with the understanding that B could
return the appliance within two weeks if, after testing the same, B decided not to
buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B returning the appliance. A found out that B
had sold the washing machine to a third party. Is B liable for estafa? Why? (5%)
(2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an entrustee of the washing machine
which he sold; he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing machine to
him. The sale being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the
washing machine; his obligation is only a civil obligation. There is no felonious
misappropriation that could constitute estafa.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by different
families located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block
fence.
How many robberies did the five commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they
entered the compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families
inside said compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high
hollow-block fence. The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about
the same time constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery
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.
Page 367 of 417
Criminal Law
A. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut
shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of
their home. (Art 299 (b) (2). RPC).
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.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Robbery
A entered the house of another without employing force or violence upon things.
He was seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing so
because A threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other valuables and
left, Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to the
taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of simply theft The non-employment
of force upon things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by
employing force upon things but also by employing violence against or intimidation of
persons.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the confusion,
entered the store and carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if any,
did he commit? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the goods on the occasion of
and taking advantage of the fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion
of a calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under
Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Page 368 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mail carrier's act of opening the letter containing the 17 money orders and
encashing them constitutes a continued crime of qualified theft, because the object
taken is mail matter and the taking was with evident intent to gain (Art. 310, RPC).
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Simple theft; Qualified theft; possession
of picklocks or similar tools
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five
years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his
friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key.
They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked.
Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and
Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas.
They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them.
Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that
Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom
with the box.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro
committed. (7%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas committed qualified theft. Pedro commit simple theft only. There was
taking of personal propel the jewelry box, belonging to another (Julia), with intent to gain
and without the consent of the owner but with violence, intimidation of persons or force
upon thin The use of a false key is legally considered as a force upon things, if used to
gain entry to the house or building not when used enter a locked room inside such
house building. Thus, the taking only constitutes theft.
The crime is qualified theft as to Lucas only, although there is evident conspiracy
between him and Pedro, but the circumstance qualifying the theft is personal only Lucas
but not to Pedro.
The theft is already consummated because offenders had already taken out of
the cabinet Julia’s jewelry box, which she intended to remain in the cable. The
asportation was completed when they succeeded taking out Julia's jewelry box from the
cabinet.
Page 369 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Paolo would also be liable for possession of picklocks or similar tools
under Art. 304, in relation to Art. 305 of the Penal Code.
Criminal law – Crimes against property - Estafa through falsification of
commercial documents
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders
constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the
payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the
money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash.
The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial
documents.
Criminal law - Crimes against property – Robbery with homicide
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
A person who, on the occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident
is liable for two separate crimes: robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Only one crime of robbery with homicide is constituted because the
Revised Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one indivisible offense when a killing,
whether intentional or accidental, was committed by reason or on occasion of a robbery
(Art. 294[1], RPC; People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 [1938]).
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Simple theft
On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow chow puppy behind a
bush. Since the puppy did not have a collar, she brought it home so she could
have it as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva Marie to keep the puppy. The
following day, Eva Marie bought a collar for the puppy and brought it to a
veterinarian for treatment.
Page 370 of 417
Criminal Law
A. Did Eva Marie incur criminal liability in bringing the puppy home as a
pet? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for the crime of simple theft. The puppy
is personal property which, is susceptible of taking and has pecuniary value. Obviously,
she took it with intent to own it; hence, with intent to gain.
Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the owner of the puppy would incur a loss due to
non-restitution or return thereof to the owner. Finding any property of value, legally
regarded as lost property, would constitute theft if the finder failed to deliver the same to
the local authorities or to its owner (Art 308, par. 1). Once Eva Marie is found guilty of
theft, she will incur civil liability, which consists of restitution or reparation for damage
caused and indemnification for consequential damages, Art. 100 RPC). The general
rule is: a person who is criminally liable is also civilly liable.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Qualified theft
Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in a condominium in Makati. For more
than a year, he has been secretly saving money in an envelope under their bed to
buy her an engagement ring. One day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she
found the envelope, took the money and left Paul. As prosecutor, what crime, if
any would you charge Joan? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Joan may be charged with qualified theft because she took away personal property
belonging to Paul without the latter’s consent, so obviously with intent to gain and with
grave abuse of confidence.
But Joan may invoke as a defense Art.332 of the Revised Penal Code, under
with no criminal liability but only civil liability shall result from the crime of theft, swindling
or malicious mischief committed by spouses, among others.
The reference to theft under Article embraces both simple theft and qualified
theft, and the reference to spouses includes common-law or live-in relationship (People
v Constantino, 60 O.G. 3603 [1963]}.
Page 371 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against property -Robbery
A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a barangay
Kagawad and known to be a bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his
industry and economic savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in leaps and
bounds, including registered and unregistered lands in several barangays.
Resenting B’s riches and relying on his political influence, A decided to harass
and intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands, considering that the
latter was single and living alone. One night. A broke into B's house, forced him
to bring out some titles and after picking out a title covering 200 square meters in
their barangay, compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to
him for PI.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik
caliber .45 in full view of B, who signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried
to register the deed, B summoned enough courage and had A arrested and
charged in court after preliminary investigation.
What charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised Penal Code should be
filed against A. Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to defraud
another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute and
deliver any public instrument or document shall be held guilty of robbery.
The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended to intimidate B
and thus, used in the commission of the robbery. If it could be established that A had no
license or permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special
aggravating circumstance to the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to sign, had not
attained the character of a "public" instrument or document, A should be charged for
the crime of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal
Code for having intruded into Bis house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under
Article 286 of same Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.
Criminal law – Crimes against property – Robbery by band
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect
themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One
night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint
and took the latter's earnings.
Page 372 of 417
Criminal Law
What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the elements of the crime.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery by a band since there were four (4) offenders
acting in concert in committing the robbery and all the four were armed.
The elements of this crime are:
1. unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another (the earnings of
the taxi-driver);
2. intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings which belong to the taxi-driver);
3. violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things was
employed in the taking; and
4. there were more than three armed malefactors taking part in the
commission of the robbery (Art. 296 in relation to Art. 294, Revised Penal
Code)
Who are brigands? Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band as to elements,
purpose of the offender and agreement among the offenders. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
When more than three armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of
committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or
to obtain ransom, for any other purpose to be attained by means of force and violence,
they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306, RPC).
The following distinctions between brigandage and robbery by band:
BRIGANDAGE
1. There are at least four persons; 2.
They form a band of robbers;
Elements
3. The purpose is any of the following:
(see below)
1. To commit robbery in high way;
2. Kidnap or extort or get ransom;
Purpose
3. Any other purpose to be achieved by
means of force or violence
The agreement among more than three
Agreement armed men is to commit robbery in the
highway.
ROBBERY IN A BAND
More
than
three
armed
malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery
Commit
robbery,
but
necessarily in a highway.
not
The agreement is to commit only
a particular robbery.
What is the criminal liability of a person who knowingly and in any manner aids or
protects highway robbers/brigands by giving them information about the
movement of the police? (2012 BAR)
Page 373 of 417
Criminal Law
a) He is criminally liable as principal by indispensable cooperation in the
commission of highway robbery or brigandage. (2012 BAR)
b) He is criminally liable as an accessory of the principal offenders.
c) He is criminally liable as an accomplice of the principal offenders.
d) He is criminally liable as principal for aiding and abetting a band of brigands.
Alternative Answer:
c) He is criminally liable as an accomplice of the principal offenders.
Include:
Special penal law – Anti – Arson law (PD 1613) – punishable acts
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez.
Later that evening, at about 11 o’clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario
carrying a plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario
who was inside the house watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the
house started blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario
poured water on the burning portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to
help put the fire under control before any great damage could be inflicted and
before the flames have extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was
burned. Discuss Eddie’s liability.
(3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive arson
because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited
house or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house was in fact already
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises be totally
burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises suffer
destruction by burning.
Special penal law – Anti – Arson law (PD 1613) – punishable acts
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in his
college courses. In his fuiy, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it
together with all its contents.
1. What crime was committed by CD?
2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
Page 374 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.
The crime committed by CD is arson under Pres. DecreeNo. 1613 (the
new Arson Law) which punishes any person who bums or sets fire to the property of
another (Section 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1613).
2.
CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose property
he burnt, because such relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the crime
of arson but only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article
332 Revised Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the effect that burning
property of small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been
repealed by Pres. Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider burning
property of small value as malicious mischief.
Senio planned to burn Bal's house. One evening, during a drinking spree at his
house, Senio told his friends what he intended to do and even showed them the
gasoline in cans that he would use for the purpose. Carlo, a common friend of
Senio and Bal, was present at the drinking spree. He was still sober when Senio
told them his plans. Before going home, Carlo warned Bal that Senio would burn
his house and had already bought gasoline that would be used for the purpose.
Bal reported the matter to the police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s
house and proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it was
at that point when he was caught by the police. What crime did Senio commit, if
any? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Senio is liable for attempted arson. He manifested before his intention to burn the house
of Bal to his friends. He then performed the act of pouring gasoline around the walls of
the house to execute his criminal design to commit arson. This is not just a preparatory
act, because it already ceased to be equivocal and revealed a clear intention to burn the
house. In sum, he already commenced the commission of the crime of arson directly by
overt acts but he did not perform all acts to execute his criminal design to commit arson
by setting the house on fire due to a cause other than his spontaneous desistance, and
that is, having been caught by the police.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime could only be malicious mischief as the problem does not mention that he is
carrying a match or a lighter. It was not shown that SEnio was about to light a match or
ignite a lighter to set the house on fire.
Page 375 of 417
Criminal Law
a) Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations
(i) Fencing
(a) Definition
(b) Presumption of fencing
(ii) Exception
(a) With clearance or permit to sell
Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There, Manolo noticed
a nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was stolen
from him some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but
Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately
from a friend. Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed the
stolen painting. (2014 BAR)
a) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
Answer:
Tonio may be charged with the crime of fencing. Under Sec. 5 of P.D. 1612, mere
possession of a stolen article or object or anything of value which has been the subject
of robbery or thievery is prima facie evidence of fencing. Since Tonio is in possession of
a stolen property, it is presumed that he committed the crime of fencing.
b) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke into
Tonio’s house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any,
would be the liability of Manolo?
Answer:
Manalo is liable for the crime of trespass to dwelling qualified by use of force since he
entered the house of Tonio against the latter’s will. There is no robbery because the
owner of the property taken cannot commit robbery.
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While driving his
newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his
vehicle's Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the
plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the
Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different
from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale
of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers
as Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the
Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to
correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped. Roberto claimed that
he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know that
Page 376 of 417
Criminal Law
he was buying a carnapped vehicle. If you were the prosecutor, would you or
would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. In this case, someone
carnapped the vehicle, sold it to Roberto who did not take part in the crime. Roberto
should have known also that the car was stolen because it was not properly
documented as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct
numbers of the vehicle’s engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check
the papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto’s defense of good faith is flawed
because P.D. 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation is regarded as malum
prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, G.R. No. 181184,
January 25, 2012).
Special penal law – Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) – defenses available to the
accused
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
In a prosecution for fencing under R D. 1612, it is a complete defense for
the accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found
in his possession had been the subject of robbery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Fencing is committed if the accused "should have known" that the goods
or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. 1612, Sec. 2[a]). Mere
possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.
Special penal law – Anti-Fencing Law – Elements; in comparison with theft
A. What are the elements of fencing? (1995 Bar Question)
B. What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery?
Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
C. Is there any similarity between them? (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The elements of fencing are:
a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed:
b. accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or
Page 377 of 417
Criminal Law
in any manner deals in any article, item , object or anything of value, which
has been derived from the proceeds of said crime;
c. the accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft; and
d. there is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for
another.
B. One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the
penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the
penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised
Penal Code is punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought
or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine
highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the
penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove
criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
C. Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory
to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In
fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such
under the Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (DizonPamintuan vs. People. 234 SCRA 63)
Special law - Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) – “Fencing”- how committed
Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as
“ukay-ukay”. Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio
City were brand – new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with fencing. Will the charge prosper? Why or why
not? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a charge of fencing will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a person, with
intent to gain for himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value
which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from proceeds of theft
or robbery (Sec. 2. PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be
established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been
committed – a fact which is wanting in this case.
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments,
which are in the nature of personal property. In civil law, possession of personal or
movable property carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The
Page 378 of 417
Criminal Law
presumption of ‘fencing’ arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a
robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612).
Special law - Anti- Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612) – punishable acts
Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry shop. Pilar sold to him for PI,000.00 a
five (5) carat diamond ring which she stole.
A. May Oscar be held criminally liable under the Anti- Fencing Law (P.D. No.
1612)? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
B. How can Oscar acquire immunity from criminal prosecution for purchasing
the diamond ring from Pilar and thus enable him to sell the same to the
general public for a profit? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes. He is liable for fencing. The price is unconscionable. This shows that he
would have known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Section 2 of P.D. 1612.,the
Anti-Fencing Law of 1979, provides that: a. “Fencing” is the act of any person
who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive x x x, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article x x x
of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft”.
B. Oscar should secure a clearance/permit to sell the second-hand ring from the
proper INP station commander pursuant to Section 6, P.D. 1612. The said
section states that any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit, upon
conviction. Shall be punished as a fence.
Criminal law - Anti-Fencing Law – Presumption of fencing; invalid defense
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jeweliy, was prosecuted for
the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having
been found to be in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P 100,000.00
at her jeweliy shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during
the trial that she merely bought the same from one named Cecilino and even
produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her
jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial
court for violatlon of the Anti- Fencing Law, she argued for her acquittal on
appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should
have known that the jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime
of robbery or theft.
Is her defense well-taken? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 379 of 417
Criminal Law
No, Flora’s defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing
(P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the Jewelry
legitimately. Her defense of having bought the jewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her
(Pamintuan vs People. G.R. 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the
buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know
that it is the proceeds from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the
authorities in case the dealer is unlicenced, in order to escape liability.
Special penal law – Anti- Fencing Law; Presumption of fencing
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key
and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the
car was worth P800,000.00.
What is the crime committed by Danny? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Danny committed the crime of fencing for having bought the car which was the
proceeds of carnapping, a crime in the nature of theft or robbery of motor vehicle. The
presumption of fencing applies to him for he paid a price so inadequate for the value of
the car suggestive that the car was not legitimately acquired by his brother.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Danny should be liable as an accessory, not as a fence, if the crime charged to Jules is
qualified theft because there is no accessory under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972.
(Rep Act No. 6359)
b) Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), plus Administrative Circular No.
12-2000
Re: Penalty for Violation of B.P. 22 and Administrative Circular No. 132001
Re: Clarification of Admin. Circular No. 12-2000; and P.D. No. 1689
(Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa)
(i) Punishable acts
(ii) Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
(iii) Preference of imposition of fine
Page 380 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law – BP 22; Estafa
A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a post-dated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them
knew that the check would not be honored because B’s account had just been
closed. The two then approached trader C whom they asked to change the check
with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the
assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of
the check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account has
already been closed.
What action /s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account
for the loss of her P85,000.00? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A criminal action for violation of BP22 may be filed against B who drew the
postdated check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with
knowledge at the time he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed.
A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B’s
check to C who exchanged the check with cash. BP22 does not apply to endorser of
checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of
a worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a
credit transaction for pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not
arise when a check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
Special penal law– PD No 1689 (Increasing the penalty for certain forms of
swindling or estafa)
The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with
syndicated estafa under the following Information: That on or about the 1st week
of January 2010 or subsequent thereto in Cebu City and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together and all, of them mutually helping and aiding one another in a syndicated
manner, through a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), with intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud and
deceit, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna,
Lana, Deborah and several other persons by falsely or fraudulently transactions,
which they made with complainants and the public in general, to the effect that
they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or
simultaneously operating under the name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF
Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing
Page 381 of 417
Criminal Law
complainants and several other persons to give and deliver to said accused the
amount of at least P20,000,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and
representations, the accused knowing fully well that the above-named
corporations registered with the SEC are not licensed nor authorized to engage in
foreign exchange trading and that such manifestations and representations to
transact in foreign exchange were false and fraudulent, that these resulted to the
damage and prejudice of the complainants and other persons, and that the
defraudation pertains to funds solicited from the public in general by such
corporations/ associations.
Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syndicate for such crime
under Pres. Decree 1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more persons committing the
estafa or other forms of swindling defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal
Code; whereas the case given involved only three (3) accused who are alleged to have
conspired in the commission of the swindling. But because the amount defrauded
exceeds P100,000.00, the case is still under the same P.D. 1689 with a lower penalty
than syndicated estafa.
Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – punishable acts
Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on
commission basis for P20,000.00. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar
consigned the paintings to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month, Amar retrieved
one painting and tried to return in to Raul who refused to receive it without the
other painting. The other painting was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which
Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00
promising in writing to pay the P3,500.00 balanceless his commission.
Is Amar liable for estafa? Why? (1988 Bar Question)
How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22. There is only civil liability
because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be novated.
In this case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.
Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – in relation with estafa
which is a crime against property
Page 382 of 417
Criminal Law
Pedro Pobre sought financial assistance from his millionaire friend Joey
Manriquez who accomodated him by issuing in his favor a postdated check in the
amount of P 10,000.00. Both of them knew that said check was not duly funded in
the bank. The two then approached Marie Vic Bautista and asked her to change
the check with cash, adding that even P9,500.00 will do, on the assurance that it
shall be funded on the due date. When Bautista presented the check to the bank
for encashment on its due date, it was dishonored as the account was closed.
What action may Bautista bring against Pobre and Manriquez to hold them
criminally liable to recover the P9,500.00 she gave them? Explain. (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Both Pobre and Manriquez can be successfully charged of estafa under Art. 315, RPC,
and violation of BP No. 22.
Estafa, because Manriquez (in conspiracy with Pobre) issued a post-dated check in
payment of a simultaneous obligation, that is the cash of P9,500.00, and when the
check was presented for payment the same bounced. Manriquez cannot even hide
behind the alibi that he issued the check as an accommodation or as a guarantee for
the obligation of Pobre. Jurisprudence are extant that extends the sanction of bouncing
checks even under those circumstances.
BP No. 22 was likewise transgressed because the postdated check was made and
issued “on account or for value”. Prosecution can be resorted to under both statutes, as
the elements in the two offenses vary, and besides Estafa is a crime against property
whereas violation of the special law is an offense against public interest.
Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (BP BLG 22) – punishable acts
A. What is a memorandum check ? (1995 Bar Question)
B. Is a person who issues a memorandum check without sufficient funds
necessarily guilty of violating B.P. Big. 22? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
C. Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been
borrowing money from Jane by rediscounting his personal checks to pay
his loans. In March 1989, he borrowed PI00,000.00 from Jane and issued to
her a check for the same amount. The check was dishonored by the drawee
bankfor having been drawn against a closed account. When Edmund was
notified of the dishonor of his check he promised to raise the amount
within five days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation
of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Big. 22). The defense of Edmund was
that he gave the check to Jane to serve as a memorandum of his
indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed.
Page 383 of 417
Criminal Law
Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word “Memorandum”,
“Memo", or “Mem" written across the face, signifying that the maker or drawer
engages to pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory
note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section
185 of the Negotiable Instru-ments Law. (People vs. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79)
B. Yes, a person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty
of violating B.P. Big. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence
of indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation, or as deposit or
guarantee. (People vs. Nitafan)
C. The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check upon presentment
is generally accepted by the bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the
nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness. What the law punishes
is the mere issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was
issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a
worthless check is a malum prohibitum The understanding that the check will not
be presented at the bank but will be redeemed by the maker when the loan falls
due is a mere private arrangement which may not prevail to exempt it from the
penal sanction of B.P. Big. 22. (People vs. Nttafah)
Special law – Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Big. 22) – punishable acts
1) The accused was convicted under B.P. Big. 22 for having issued several
checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date because
the accused closed her account after the issuance of checks. On appeal, she
argued that she could not be convicted under B.P. Big. 22 by reason of the
closing of her account because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by
reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued the checks
concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that she may
be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code, she cannot
however be found guilty of having violated B.P. Big. 22.
Is her contention correct? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the checks issued were
issued to apply on account or for value, and was dishonored upon presentation for
payment to the drawee bankfor lack of insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls
within the ambit of B.P. Big. 22. Said law expressly punishes any person who may have
insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues the check, but fails to keep
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when presented to the drawee
bank within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
Page 384 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (BP Blg. 22)
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B’s financial problems. On
his way, one of A’s car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, he
asked B to lend him (A) money to buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily
exhausted his bank deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a
replenishment of his account soon, B issued A a postdated check with which A
negotiated for a new tire. When presented, the check bounced for lack of funds.
The tire company filed a criminal case against A and B. What would be the
criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for his car may only be
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the check has
no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22
for having issued the check, knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the
bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be
prosecuted for estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to
defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued the postdated
check only to help A: criminal intent or dolo is absent.
Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – memorandum check;
bouncing thereof
What is a memorandum check?(1994 Bar Question)
Is the “bouncing" thereof within the purview of BP Big. 22? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A “Memorandum Check" is an ordinary check, with the word “Memorandum", “Memo"
or “Mem" written across its face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to pay its
holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank
and is a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law (People vs. Judge David Nitafan. G.R. No. 75954, October 22. 1992).
Yes, a memorandum check is covered by Batas Pambansa No. 22 because the law
covers any check whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment of a preexisting obligation or as a deposit or guarantee (People versus Nitafan).
Page 385 of 417
Criminal Law
Special penal law – Bouncing Checks Law (Bp Blg 22) – Presumption of
knowledge
As security for a loan of P50.000.00 he obtained from his friend, Joseph David,
payable not later than 17 April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to
Joseph a check for P50,000.00 dated 17 April 1990. Upon its presentment on due
date, the check was dishonored on the ground of insufficiency of funds. On the
basis of the complaint of Joseph, and after appropriate preliminaiy investigation,
the City Prosecutor filed against Roger an Information for violation of B.P. Big.
No. 22 alleging therein, inter alia, that Roger “with intent to defraud, by means of
deceit, knowing fully well that he had no funds and/or sufficient funds in the
bank, for value received, did then and there, willfully and feloniously, issue the
aforesaid check” but “when the said check was presented for encashment, said
check was dishonored and returned” on the ground of insufficiency of funds.
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled that Roger cannot be
convicted of the offense charged because the information failed to allege that he
knew, when he issued the check, that he would have sufficient funds for its
payment in full upon its presentment to the drawee bank.
Is the Judge correct? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Judge is not correct in dismissing the case. The allegation satisfies the legal
definition of the offense. The maker's knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is legally
presumed from the dishonor of the check for lack of funds. (People vs. Lagui, 171
SCRA 305).
Special penal law – BP Blg 22; punishable acts; presumption of knowledge;
A, a businessman, borrowed P500.000.00 from B, a friend. To pay the loan, A
issued a postdated check to be presented for payment 30 days after the
transaction. Two days before the maturity date of the check, A called up B and
told him not to deposit the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A had
not deposited in the drawee bank the amount needed to cover the check.
Nevertheless, B deposited the check in question and the same was dishonored of
insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount with B in spite of the latter’s
demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Big. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing
Checks Law? Explain. (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A is liable for violation of B.P. Big. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). Although
knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of funds at the time of the issuance of
the check is an essential element of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such
Page 386 of 417
Criminal Law
knowledge, unless within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or non-payment,
the drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes arrangements for
payment in full by the drawee of such checks
A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of the check will
not defeat the presumption of knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the purpose
and spirit of B.P. 22 will be rendered useless.
c) Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), as amended by R.A. No.
7659
(i) Registration
(iii) Who are liable
(a) Duty of Collector of Customs
(b) Duty of importers, distributors and sellers
(c) Clearance and permit
(iv) Punishable acts
What should be the proper charge against an offender who unlawfully took and
carried away a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent,
killing the driver in the process? (2012 BAR)
a) The proper charge against the offender should be murder with the use of
motor vehicle.
b) The proper charge against the offender should be qualified carnapping
or carnapping in an aggravated form.
c) The proper charge against the offender should be carnapping and
homicide.
d) The proper charge against the offender should be robbery with
homicide.
Special penal law -Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), as amended by
R.A. No. 7659
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a
thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To
prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear
wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out
of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under Rep. Act No. 6539 for driving away
the motor vehicle of Carlos against the latter's will and obviously with intent to gain and
(2) for homicide for the death of the tricycle driver which resulted from the criminal act
deliberately being committed by Paolo (which is the carnapping), The homicide was the
Page 387 of 417
Criminal Law
result of praeter intentionem and not a component of the crime of carnapping or a result
of reckless imprudence or of simple negligence.
Special penal law – Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539– Taking of
motorcycle
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a
sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and
instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted
from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was
dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him.
What crime or crimes did Raul commit? (5%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of
Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing “in the course of” or “on the
occasion or a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al, 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is
included in the definition of a “motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the ‘AntiCamapping Act of 1972*. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver
but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed
brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No.
6539. The killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating
circumstance.
Special penal law - Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539 - Unlawful taking
of a motor vehicle
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the
government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key
and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the
car was worth P800,000.00.
What is the crime committed by Jules? Explain. (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jules committed the crime of carnapping for the unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of
the government's motor vehicle. Unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is now governed by
Page 388 of 417
Criminal Law
the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, Rep. Act 6539, not by the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on theft or robbery.
d) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
(i) Punishable acts of terrorism
e) Anti-Arson Law (P.D. 1613)
(i) Punishable acts
11. Crimes Against Chastity (Articles 333-334, 336-346)
Using his charms because of his movie star looks, Phil, in a movie date with Lyn,
a 19-year old colegiala, kissed her on the cheek and stroked her pubic hair. Lyn
shouted for help and Phil was arrested.
Phil is liable for ______ . (2013 BAR)
(A)
rape by sexual assault for using his fingers
(B)
violation of the Anti-Child Abuse Law for lascivious conduct
(C)
unjust vexation
(D)
acts of lasciviousness
(E)
None of the above
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness
Mick, a gay foreigner, fondled and played with the private part of Egay, an 11
year-old boy, who enjoyed it and gladly received the P100.00 given him by the
foreigner.
A. What crime, if any, was committed by the foreigner? Explain. (1993 Bar
Question)
B. If the act was committed on Citry, an 11 year-old girl; would your answer be
the same? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstances of rape (Art 336, RPC and RA.
7610)
B. Yes, acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex. (Art. 336, RPC)
Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Qualified seduction
What are the three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction?
Give an example of each. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
Page 389 of 417
Criminal Law
1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, such as a priest who acts as
spiritual adviser of the victim, or a teacher in the school where the victim is enrolled;
2. A brother or ascendant by consanguinity of the victim, such as her uncle; and
3. Those who are regarded as "domestic" in relation to the victim, enjoying the
confidence and intimacy shared by members of the same household, such as
household helpers and boarders living under the same roof and with same household
as the victim.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian,
teacher or a person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of
the woman seduced.
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house servant,
domestics.
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister;
ascendant who seduced his descendant. (Article 337, Revised Penal Code)
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Consented abduction
A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there
had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she
was infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why?
(2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age,
carried out with her consent and with lewd designs. Although the problem did not
indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material sense,
as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of the crime is
not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family (Valdepeflas vs.
People, 16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
Page 390 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness; Penalty imposed
when committed by a public officer
Judge Red Reyes was appointed by Former President Fidel Ramos as Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas for a term of 7 years commencing on July 5, 1995.
Six months thereafter, a lady stenographer filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a complaint for acts of lasciviousness and with the Supreme Court
a petition for disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions to
dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment,
claiming lack of jurisdiction over his person and office.
Are both motions meritorious? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motions filed by Judge Reyes are both without merit. Being only a Deputy
Ombudsman, he is not included among the government officials who may be
removed only by impeachment from office under the Constitution {Office of the
Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 715 [2005]). Hence, he may be
charged criminally and administratively for the acts of lasciviousness complained of
before the Office of the Ombudsman, and for disbarment in a petition with the
Supreme Court.
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Acts of lasciviousness
At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately dancing a very
seductive dance number. While gyrating with their bodies, Leoncio dipped his
private parts in Evelyn's buttocks. Incensed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio
continued and tightly embraced her.
Would your answer be the same if, even after the music had stopped, Leoncio
continued to dance dirty, rubbing his private parts on Evelyn's buttocks? Explain.
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would then be acts of lasciviousness. That the music for dancing had already
stopped, puts an end to any pretense of dancing by Leoncio. His continued dirty acts
absent the dancing as there was no music anymore is patently lewd and lascivious.
More so, Evelyn already protested Leoncio's lewd acts in the course of dancing. So
where the dance ended, Leoncio's continued dirty acts cannot be veiled as still part of
dancing.
Page 391 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery
Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations
while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his
wife was left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused
went to the bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his
daughter, but after he failed to catch the first trip in the morning, and because the
2:00 o’clock bus had engine trouble and could not leave, the accused, afer
passing the residence of his father, went home and arrive at his residence at
around six o’clock in the afternoon.
Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in
the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the
accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who
has then peeping above the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran
away. He went to the house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his
(soldier’s) M-16 rifle and immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to
his house. Not finding his wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and
found the latter playing mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times
with his rifle, hit him and two bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds
in the head, trunk, and abdomen. The two bystanders were seriously injured but
survived
What offense, did the wife of Juan Santos commit, if any why? (1988 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The wife of Juan Santos committed the crime of adultery. Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that “Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.”
Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married in New York, and have been
living happily in Manila for the last three years. Hector was removing junk from
his basement when he came across an unlabeled recordable ed. He put it in his
computer's DVD drive to check its contents. To his surprise, he saw a video of
Wendy and another man Ariel, in the act of sexual intercourse in the master's
bedroom of his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a complaint for adultery
against Wendy and Ariel. During the course of the trial, and again to the surprise
of Hector, it was proved that Wendy was born male and underwent sex
reassignment later in life. (2015 BAR)
a) May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy and Ariel prosper? Explain.
Answer:
Page 392 of 417
Criminal Law
Yes, Hector’s charge of Adultery will prosper. Adultery has the following elements: (1)
the woman is married; (2) she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; (3)
as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married.
In the case at hand, the discovery by Hector of the video of Wendy having sexual
intercourse with another man, Ariel, is sufficient to charge his wife with Adultery. The
fact that Wendy was later discovered by Hector to be born male who simply underwent
sexual re-assignment later in life, is immaterial to the charge of Adultery considering
that the marriage between the same sex is considered valid in the USA where they
were married.
b) What is an impossible crime? Can there be an impossible crime of
adultery?
Answer:
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. There is no impossible crime of
adultery since this is a crime against chastity, and not against person or property.
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery
In 1980, Socorro Wagas, a Filipino citizen and a resident of Cebu City, and Loven
Adenauer, a West German citizen, were married at the Sto. Rosario Catholic
Church in Cebu City. In 1983, Loven returned to West Germany where he initiated
a divorce proceeding against Socorro before a local court which, in due time,
promulgated in July 1985 a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage.
In September 1985, Loven returned to the Philippines only to find out that
Socorro had filed a case of legal separation against him. In December 1985,
Loven, who learned of the cohabitation of Socorro and Efren Reyes, her
childhood sweetheart, when he (Loven) was in Germany, filed a sworn complaint
for adultery against Socorro and Efren with the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu.
Socorro’s counsel moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that under
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted
except upon a sworn complaint filed by the offended spouse, and Loven, having
obtained a divorce in Germany, had ceased to be her offended spouse.
Resolve the motion. (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In adultery or concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the
offended spouse and nobody else. Adenauer being no longer the husband because of
the divorce he initiated, he has no legal standing anymore. (PilapiL vs. Somera , 174
SCRA 653)
Page 393 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Adultery and Concubinage
A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was not her
husband. The man did not know she was married. What crime, if any, did each of
them commit? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who had carnal knowledge of her, not
knowing her fo be married, shall not be liable for adultery.
A is married. He has a paramour with whom he has sexual relations on a more or
less regular basis. They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and other
places where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any crime? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife.
Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in hotels, motels and other
places may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends public conscience,
giving rise to criticism and general protest, such acts being imprudent and wanton and
setting a bad example (People vs. Santos, 86 SCRA 705 [1978]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur the crime of
concubinage by merely having a paramour, unless under scandalous circumstances, or
he keeps her in the conjugal dwelling as a mistress, or cohabits with her in any other
place. His weekly meetings with his paramour does not per se constitute scandalous
circumstance.
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity - Concubinage
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaioc, Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during
his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni
Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila,
Page 394 of 417
Criminal Law
with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua
withdrew his petition for naturalization.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Concubinage (Art. 334, RPC).
The withdrawal of the petition did not have the effect of negating the crime committed.
At the time when the petition was filed, Al Chua was already living with his mistress
Babes Toh in the conjugal dwelling in Manila, thus committing concubinage.
Criminal law – Crimes against chastity – Concubinage
Suspecting that her husband of twenty years was having an affair, Leilanie hired
a private investigator to spy on him. After two weeks, the private investigator
showed Leilanie a video of her husband having sexual intercourse with another
woman in a room of a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on the video,
Leilanie accused her husband of concubinage. Will the case of concubinage
prosper? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a case for concubinage will not prosper because said crime may be committed only
by a husband in three (3) ways, viz:
1.) By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
2) By having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under scandalous
circumstances; or
3) By cohabiting with a woman not his wife in any other place (Art. 334, RPC).
The facts of the case given do not constitute any of the situations above-stated.
a)
Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (R.A. No.
9995)
(i) Punishable acts
b) Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (R.A. No. 7610, as
amended)
(i) Child prostitution and other acts of
abuse
(a) Punishable acts
Page 395 of 417
Criminal Law
(b) Compare prosecution for Acts of Lasciviousness under Art.
366, RPC
and R.A. No. 7610, as amended
(ii) Obscene publications and indecent shows
(a) Punishable acts
c) Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)
(i) Punishable acts
d) Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (R.A. No.
9262)
(i) Punishable acts
Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a
TV advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Loko
offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an
address which turned out to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most
featured attraction.
What is Loko’s liability, if any? What effect would Ganda’s minority have on
Loko’s liability? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER:
Loko is liable of the crime of Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208. He recruited, offered
and hired Ganda by means of fraud or deception for the purpose of exploitation or
prostitution. By means of deceit, i.e., in the guise of making her a commercial model,
Loko recruited Ganda for the purpose of prostitution.
Ganda’s minority is a qualifying circumstance. Under Section 6, RA 9208, when the
trafficked person is a child, the crime committed is Qualified Trafficking in Persons,
penalized by life imprisonment.
12. Crimes Against Civil Status (Articles 347-352)
The prescriptive period for bigamy is 15 years counted from the date of the (2011
BAR)
(A) discovery of the second marriage by the offended spouse.
(B) registration of the second marriage in the Local Civil Registry.
(C) celebration or solemnization of the second marriage.
(D) discovery of the second marriage by the authorities.
Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons – Simulation of births
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C,
an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This
Page 396 of 417
Criminal Law
was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What
are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of
making it appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons named therein are
the parents of the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child
constitutes the crime of simulation of birth.
Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons - Marriage contracted
against the provisions of the marriage law
Tong and Theresa got married before a judge. Theresa is below 18 years old.
Their marriage was effected because Theresa and her mother, Petra, at the
instigation of Tong, assured the judge who solemnized the marriage ceremony,
that Theresa was 19 years old and that her fatherwas already dead. Upon Tong’s
prodding too, Petra gave her consent. The father of Theresa, who was actually
not dead, heard of what took place. Not being content in only instituting an action
for annulment of their marriage, he desired to prosecute Tong.
The father consulted you for the purpose of filing a criminal action against Tong.
With what crime would you charge Tong? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Violation of Art. 350, RPC. Marriage contracted against the provisions of the marriage
law.
Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons – Premature marriages
At the time Josefa’s husband, Pedro Coipuz, died, she was eight months
pregnant. As she was afraid she could not support her child with Pedro, Josefa
accepted Pablo’s proposal for marriage. One week after the marriage, Josefa
gave birth to a boy whom they named, Pedro Coipuz, Jr. Prosecuted for
contracting premature marriage under Act. 351 of the Revised Penal Code. She
has engaged your services as a lawyer.
How would you argue for her acquittal? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would argue for the acquittal of Josefa. She is not liable for contracting premature
marriage under Article 351 of the Revised Penal Code. This article does not apply as
Page 397 of 417
Criminal Law
Josefa knew she was pregnant (eight months) when Pedro Coipuz, her husband, died.
When she married Pablo, and as a matter of fact, one week after the marriage, she
gave birth to a boy the paternity of the child was not in doubt Article 351 punishes
premature marriage in order to prevent doubtful paternity (People vs. Rosal 49 Phil.
539).
Criminal law – Crimes against the civil status of persons – Illegal marriages
CBP is legally married to OBM. Without obtaining a marriage license, CBP
contracted a second marriage to RST.
Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
Illegal Marriages (Articles 349-352)
What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? If you were the judge in a bigamy
case where the defense was able to prove that the first marriage was null and
void or a nullity, would you render a judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain
your answer. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
The following are the elements of bigamy:
1. the offender has been legally married;
2. the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case of absence, the
absent spouse vould not yet be presumed dead according to NCC;
3. he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
4. the subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity (Mercado
v. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, 2000)
If I were the judge, I will render judgment of conviction. Proof that the first marriage is
null and void is not a defense in bigamy. As long as the previous marriage was not
lawfully dissolved or judicially declared as null and void, contracting a new marriage
constitutes bigamy (People v. Manuel, G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005).
Assuming the existence of the first marriage when accused contracted the
second marriage and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, would you render a
judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
I will render a judgment of conviction. A declaration of the nullity of the second marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity is absolutely of no moment insofar as the
State’s penal laws are concerned. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence
of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se
Page 398 of 417
Criminal Law
an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Although the judicial
declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to
the date of the celebration of marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is
concerned, it is significant to note that the said marriage is not without legal effects.
Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold
otherwise would render the State’s penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and
allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some
manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while
beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment
(Tenebro v. CA, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general rule,
marriages solemnized without license are null and void ab initio, there are marriages
exempted from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family Code, such
as in Article 27 which is a marriage in articulo mortis. If the second marriage was valid
even without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for bigamy.
Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the
Revised Penal Code, specifically designated as “Marriage contracted against provisions
of laws."
Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy
Issa and Bobby, who were first cousins, were married in 1975. In 1993, Bobby was
told that his marriage to Issa was incestous under the law then in force and
therefore void ab initio. He married Caring.
Charged with bigamy, Bobby raised the defense that his first marriage is void ab
initio and therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of.
Will you sustain Bobby's defense? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not sustain Bobby’s defense. Bobby remarried in 1993, or after the Family
Code took effect on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry in 1993 shall be
governed by said Code. In Art. 40 of the Family Code, it is mandated that the absolute
nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. In short, there is a
need of a judicial declaration of such nullity before Bobby may validly remarry (Dorothy
Terre vs. Jordan Terre. 211 SCRA6).
Page 399 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy
Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995, only to learn later on that Ramona was
previously married to David, from whom Ramona had been separated for more
than ten years. Believing that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity,
Joselito contracted a subsequent marriage with Ana- belle.
Can Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent marriage with Anabelle
even though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity.
Despite the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed a case of dissolution
of such marriage under Art. 40, Family Code, before contracting a second marriage
with Anabelle.
Criminal law – Crimes against civil status of persons - Bigamy
Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last
five years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she
was married. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license
which they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa
declared, in the application, that she is single. The marriage license was issued.
In due time, the couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first
sexual intercourse later in the evening.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. (7%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raissa committed the crime of bigamy for contracting a second marriage while her
marriage to Martin is still subsisting. There was neither judicial declaration of dissolution
or nullity of the first marriage with Martin nor a judicial declaration of legal absence of
Martin. The falsehood she stated in the application for the license which she swore to,
although felonious, should be considered absorbed in the crime of bigamy since they
are routine incidents in contracting any marriage, including a bigamous marriage. It is
absorbed in the crime of bigamy.
Raissa also committed adultery by having sexual intercourse with Juan, who is not her
husband. She is still legally married to Martin. The intercourse cannot be absorbed in
the bigamous marriage because the crime of bigamy was already consummated when
adultery was committed. It should not be overlooked, however, that adultery is a private
Page 400 of 417
Criminal Law
crime. It requires a complaint solely from the offended spouse. A complaint from Martin
is indispensable to prosecute Raissa's adultery.
Criminal law - Crimes against the civil status of persons - Bigamy
Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies
in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and
finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage
and secured a copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of
bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines.
Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a case for bigamy filed in the Philippines will not prosper because the
bigamous marriage appears to have been committed in New York, U.S.A., not in the
Philippines. The governing rule of procedure as to the place where the criminal action is
to be instituted directs that the criminal action should be instituted and tried in the court
of the municipality or territory where the offense was committed, or where any of its
essential ingredients occurred if it were a continuing crime. In criminal cases, the venue
where the action should be instituted is jurisdictional; if this is not complied with, it would
render the prosecution invalid or void.
If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your
answer be? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The answer would be the same even if the wife by the first marriage, which is
subsisting, gave her consent to the second marriage. Bigamy is a public crime and not
subject to agreement between the victim and the accused. Moreover, the legal obstacle
to the institution of a case for bigamy in the Philippines is jurisdictional and cannot be
excused or waived by the parties affected.
13. Crimes Against Honor (Articles 353-364)
A, B, C and D are members of the police department of a municipality. Conspiring
with one another, they arrested E, without reasonable ground, for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authorities by imputing to E the crime of bribery.
While E was being investigated by A, B, C and D, one of them placed a marked
five hundred peso bill, together with the money taken from E, to make it appear
that E, an employee of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar, agreed to perform
an act not constituting a crime in connection with the performance of E's duties,
which was to expedite the issuance of a birth certificate. What is the crime
committed by A, B, C and D? (2012 BAR)
Page 401 of 417
Criminal Law
a) A, B, C and D committed incriminatory machination through unlawful arrest.
b) A, B, C and D committed intriguing against honor with unlawful arrest.
c) A, B, C and D committed slight illegal detention.
d) A, B, C and D committed corruption of public official.
Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y, employing
fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed a criminal action for libel
against X for maliciously imputing fraud on him. Will the action prosper if it turns
out that the civil complaint for damages was baseless? (2011 BAR)
(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.
(B) No, since malice is not evident.
(C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of fraud was baseless.
(D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.
X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid,
corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source from Y's own
office who fed him the information. Did X commit libel? (2011 BAR)
(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and
reasonable care.
(B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest.
(C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged communication.
(D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.
The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling women in the
presence of a crowd of people constitute (2011 BAR)
(A) one count of grave slander against the woman who uttered the more insulting
expressions.
(B) grave slander against the woman who started it and light slander against the
other woman.
(C) two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.
(D) two separate counts of grave slander, one against each of them.
X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court
employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift from one of the parties in a
pending case. Because of this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the
element of malice in the case? (2011 BAR)
(A) No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.
(B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge
who has a duty to act on what it states.
(C) No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations.
(D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.
Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves obscene
magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with libel, can Sam present
proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene magazines and keeps these in his
desk? (2011 BAR)
Page 402 of 417
Criminal Law
(A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon.
(C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon.
(D) Yes, since truth can be a valid defense in libel.
In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi wrote an unflattering article about
Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation from his wife. The article
portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband and caused him to lose lucrative
endorsement contracts. Pablo charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi
countered that she did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of
a public figure so that even his personal life has become a legitimate subject of
public interest and comment. Is Gigi correct? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
No, Gigi is nor correct. Although wider latitude is given to defamatory utterances against
public figures in relation to matters of public interest involving them, such defamatory
utterances do not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech.
If the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a public figure’s work, the same
may give rise to criminal liblity (Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008).
Any attack upon the private character of the public figure on matters which are not
related to their works may constitute liber under Art. 355 (Sazon v. CA, G.R. No.
120715, March 29, 1996). Here, Gigi was attacking the personal life of Pablo as a
husband and not his public life as a famous singer.
In his Answer to a complaint, Atty. Jose (counsel for the defendant) stated that
Atty. Agrada (counsel for the plaintiff) is "bobo, inutile, good for nothing, stupid,
and a menace to clients." Can Atty. Jose be held criminally liable for libel? (2013
BAR)
a. No, because an Answer to a complaint is a court pleading where
communications made are privileged; the writer cannot be held liable for
libel.
b. Yes, because the statement casts aspersion on the character, integrity
and reputation of Atty. Agrada as a lawyer and exposed him to public
ridicule.
c. Yes, although a court pleading is a privileged communication, malicious
statements that are irrelevant and impertinent to the issue in the pleading
may be libelous.
d. Yes, there was a malicious intent to ridicule Atty. Agrada as a lawyer.
e. No, because the statement is in a pleading, but Atty. Jose can be charged
administratively for misconduct before the Supreme Court.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - libel by theatrical exhibition
In the course of proceeding during a so-called “public hearing held before a
crowd in a place open to the public, the leaders of the meeting “tried” certain
Page 403 of 417
Criminal Law
public officials and thereafter “sentenced” them to “death by assassination or
ambuscades.”
Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leaders are criminally liable for the crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article 355
of the Revised Penal Code provides: “libel by means of writing or similar means.— A
libel committed by means of writing, printing lithography, engraving, radio,
phornographs, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision correctional
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander or slight defamation
A. Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas
for libel for the public publication of his picture with the notice that: “This
is to inform the public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears above
has ceased to be connected with the Sincere Insurance Company as
underwriter as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction entered into by him
after said date will not be honored.”
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)
B. For some time, bad blood had existed beween the two families of Maria
Razon and Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there w&s a
boundary dispute between them which was still pending in court. Maria’s
mother also filed an administrative complaint against the judge which was
however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the position and
alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the
practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into
the Razon’s premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge
Gadioma “land grabber'*, “shameless”, and “hypocrite."
What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The publication is not defamatory because the element of intent to defame is
absent. This is a mere announcement and does not carry any implication.
B. Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was
under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and
land grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes.
Page 404 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - slander by deed
Maria called Lydia names and slapped her at the dance floor in the presence of
many people because she suspected that Lydia was flirting with her boyfriend.
The following day, Lydia filed with the Fiscal’s Office a complaint for slander by
deed against Maria. After preliminary investigation, the Fiscal forgot all about the
case until the 179th day, which was a Saturday, from the commission of the
crime. Since the following day was a Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in
court on Monday, the 181st day from the commission of the crime. After trial, the
Judge convicted Maria. She engaged another lawyer who on appeal asserted that
the crime of slander by deed had prescribed because it was filed in court one day
after the six-month period of prescription under Art. 90 of the Revised Penal
Code. The Fiscal argued that since the 180th day fell on a Sunday, he could file
the information the following Monday. He also said that, in any event, Maria
waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it during the trial of
case.
Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of slander by deed has already prescribed as it was tiled one day after the six
month period of prescription. The rule is if the last day of the period of prescription of a
crime falls on a Sunday, as in the problem, the information cannot be filed on the next
working day, which is Monday as that will lengthen the period of prescription, which will
not be favorable to the accused. (Japdiangco vs. Bartolome 122 SCRA 713) The
contention of the Fiscal that Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did
not raise it during the trial of die case is untenable. It has already been settled that
prescription, although not raised in the trial may be invoked on appeal. (People vs.
Balagtas 105 Phil. 1362; People vs. Castro 95 Phil 462).
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - grave oral defamation; light slander
Lando and Marco are candidates in the local elections. In his speeches
Lando attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he is the son of Nanding, a
robber and a thief who amassed his wealth through shady deals. May Marco file a
case against Lando for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)
Suppose Marco also delivered a speech stating therein that he had
charged Lando of estafa through falsification in the Tanodbayan so much so that
since his (Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not be elected. May Marco also
be held liable for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
Page 405 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marco cannot file a case for grave oral defamation. If at all, he may file a case for
light slander. In the case of People v. Laroga (40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation
in a political meeting, when feelings are running high and people could not think clearly,
only amount to light slander.
No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave oral defamation considering that Lando
was merely stating what appears in a public record, referring to the exercise of a legal
right to file suit. Moreover, his statement against Marco pertains to a person who is
running for public office wherein a wider latitude is given.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Oral defamation or slander
Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2) belligerent labor unions had a
confrontation in a picket line during which the President and the Secretary of one
union shouted to the members and officers of the rival union composed of men
and women, the following:
“Mga supot, mga walang bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga tuta, mga segunda
mano."
Are the President and the
defamation/slander? Explain.
Secretary
of
said
union
liable
for
oral
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable for oral defamation or
slander because there is no identity of the offended party. The individual defamed or
slandered was not singled out (People vs. Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).
Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel; publication in the newspapers;
broadcast over the radio
A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the
government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination,
a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page
statement objecting to A's appointment. They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that
he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors
from parties transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for
the position to which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the
nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The official sued
the concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and damages on account of his
non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page 406 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers Involved, from the crime of
libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and
thus there is absence of malice.
Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department
Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position
becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such
concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice.
If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by
broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast,
Inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Slander by deed; as distinguished from
maltreatment
Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Slander by deed is a crime committed when a person publicly subjects another to an
act intended or calculated to cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the latter. Absent
the intent to cast dishonor, discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party, the crime
is only maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3, where, by deed, an offender ill-treats
another without causing injury.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Slander
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question)
Between oral defamation and criminal conversation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Oral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission,
condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime
against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
Page 407 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal conversation. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual
intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite
concept as a crime
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – False testimony; when incurred;
when prescribed
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during
their heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila
burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the
records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This
time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was
abroad when the crime took place.
The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false
testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case.
A. Will the case against Andrew prosper? (1994 Bar Question)
B. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10. 1987. On
June 18. 1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As
his lawyer, what legal step will you take? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181. RPC, it is not necessary that the
criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the
prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove
the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People
vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report. 2nd series, p. 808).
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Perjury; when not considered
A, who was the client of B (a lawyer), signed a retainer agreement for the
payment of attorney’s fees. After B rendered satisfactory service, A refused to
pay the attorney’s fees. B sued. In her verified answer, A alleged that she did not
owe money to plaintiff B nor did she engage his legal services. These statements
under oath were false.
B filed a criminal complaint for perjury against A, and an information was filed in
court. If you are the lawyer for accused A, what is your defense, if any? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will move for the dismissal of the complaint for perjury. The falsity of sworn statement
must be required or authorized by law (Flordeliz v. Himalalaon, 84 SCRA 277).
Page 408 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law - Crimes against public interest - Perjury
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two
installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its
president. Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with
their warranties attendant to the sale., Sisenando withheld payment of the second
installment due on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead,
subject to release once said stockholders comply with their warranties. The
stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in question and removed
Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Corporation. Sisenando then filed
a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as
president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the
stockholders concerned, after petitioning the Securities and Exchange
Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for
perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he
stated under oath in the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the
President of the Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been removed
as such.
Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
(1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because it cannot be reasonably
maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the Corporation. Obviously, he made
the allegation on the premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid and that
is precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that
Sisenando has been the President of the corporation and it is from that position that the
stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint
questioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
which is a requisite of perjury.
Criminal law - Crimes against public interest - Perjury
A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for
having an affair with B, a co-employee in the same office who believed him to be
single. To exculpate himself. A testified that he was single and was willing to
marry B. He induced C to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth,
however, was that A had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C.
Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination of perjury? (1997 Bar
Question)
Page 409 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not
material to the charge of immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of
immorality against him as a government employee could proceed or prosper. In other
words, A's civil status is not a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a material
matter that could influence the charge.
There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury
with the one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by
direct participation {People us. PodoL 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held
liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot therefore be
held responsible as a principal by inducement when he induced C to testify on his
status. Consequently. C is not liable as principal by direct participation in perjury having
testified on matters not material to an administrative case.
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Perjury
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni
Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaioc, Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during
his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni
Chua was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila,
with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua
withdrew his petition for naturalization.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Al Chua committed (1) Perjury (Art. 183, RPC). The crime of perjury is committed by Al
Chua when he stated under oath that he was living with Leni Chua in Sampaloc when
in fact he was living with his mistress, and Leni Chua was already living in Cebu at the
time of the filing of the petition. It is a false allegation under oath, on a material matter
required by law in naturalization cases.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel or slander
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau
of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of
his lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said
agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole
group of employees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as
complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the group
Page 410 of 417
Criminal Law
claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to
quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime
were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? (2003
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute
an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or
slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be
identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed.
Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he
was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being
inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory.
Criminal law – Crimes against honor - Libel
In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against
Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman.
What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made in a television program is penalized as libel
under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Televison falls under “similar means" in the
enumeration as “radio phonograph, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means" in said Article. [People v. Casten, et al.t CJL G.R. No. 07924 - CR.,
Dec. 13, 1974)
Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Proof of truth in the crime of libel
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible in
libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with
respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and moreover must have
been published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense,
on its own, is not enough.
Page 411 of 417
Criminal Law
Criminal law – Crimes against honor – Libel by means of writings or similar
means
Angeline maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the
posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a
comment that the red Birkin bag shown in Angelina’s website is fake and that
Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against
Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because the
imputations made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a defect, status, or
condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly tends to discredit, dishonor or place in
contempt or ridicule a particular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by
law to be malicious and thus penalized as libel under Art 355 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement against the goods
sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition (Rep. Act
No. 8291.)
a) Administrative Circular 08-2008 Re: Guidelines in the Observance of a
Rule of Preference in the Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases
(i) Preference of imposition of fine
14. Criminal Negligence (Article 365)
AB was driving a van along a highway. Because of her recklessness, the van hit a
car which had already entered the intersection. As a result, CD who was driving
the car suffered physical injuries, while damage to his car amounted to P8,500.00.
What is the proper charge against AB? (2012 BAR)
a) AB should be charged with complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property with slight physical injuries.
b) AB should be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. **
c) AB should be charged with complex crime of slight physical injuries with
damage to property.
d) AB should be charged with slight physical injuries and reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property.
**Note: The SC in Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro (GR#172716, 11/172010) rules
that: “Reckless Imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other crimes, hence, conviction or acquittal of
such quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
Page 412 of 417
Criminal Law
regardless of its various consequences. xxx xxx xxx The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. xxx xxx xxx And as the careless
act is single , whether the injurious result should affect one person or several
persons, the offense criminal negligence remains one and the same, and cannot
be split into different crimes and prosecutions. xxx xxx xxx”)
After drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels, Jonjon drove his BMW sports car at high
speed, rammed into a group of crossing pedestrians, and hit a traffic light post.
The incident caused the death of one (1) pedestrian, serious injuries to three (3)
others, and the destruction of the traffic light post.
If you were the prosecutor, what would you charge Jonjon? (2013 BAR)
(A)
Homicide with serious physical injuries through simple negligence.
(B)
Damage to property, serious physical injuries and homicide through
reckless negligence.
(C)
Simple negligence resulting in damage to property, serious physical
injuries and homicide.
(D)
Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, serious physical injuries and
damage to property.
A crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack
of skill is called (2011 BAR)
(A) dolo.
(B) culpa.
(C) tortious crimes.
(D) quasi delict.
Culpa can either be a crime by itself or a mode of committing a crime. Culpa is a
crime by itself in (2011 BAR)
(A) reckless imprudence resulting in murder.
(B) medical malpractice.
(C) serious physical Injuries thru reckless imprudence.
(D) complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries.
Criminal law – Criminal negligence - Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries; Simple Imprudence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries;
Reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries
During a concert of Gary V., and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the
stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people.
When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare
them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and
then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the
latter's confinement in a hospital for twelve days.
What crime/ s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer (2007 Bar Question)
Page 413 of 417
Criminal Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on duty when he discharged the
firearm. The discharge of the firearm was not calculated to cause alarm or danger but
simply to ward off the unruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby
challenging the duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore,
should neither constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 of the Revised
Penal Code nor may such discharge amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms
under Art. 254 of the Code since it was not directed towards a particular person when
the firearm was discharged.
However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge of the firearm betrays a lack
of precaution in a situation where the danger to the discharge of the firearm is not
clearly manifest, thus considered as simple imprudence only. The crime committed is
Simple Imprudence Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since the physical
injuries required only twelve (12) days of medical attention.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime is reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries, because the
discharge of the firearm was not necessary under the circumstances and therefore,
Rafael should be aware of the possibility of injuries that could result from such
discharge of the firearm.
Criminal law – Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He
was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie
thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit"
from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the
boy's death.
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged
with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court
Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the conviction for murder should not be sustained, because there is no indication
that the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the
accused acted to "treat" the victim in a way of driving the evil spirit which was believed
to have "possessed" him. Considering that proximate cause of the victim's death was
the healing ritual done by the accused which is, not recognized in law as legitimate, the
accused are criminally liable for the victim's death. As they may have overdone the
"healing ritual" they conducted on the victim's body, causing the latter's death, although
Page 414 of 417
Criminal Law
the intent to kill was absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
Criminal law – Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed
paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the
pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One
hour later, he had a seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had
taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist
was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be?
Explain. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The pharmacist committed a serious mistake. But the mistake could not characterize
the death as murder because the specific intent to kill the victim was absent. The
pharmacist could not be liable for murder.
The pharmacist should be charged instead with reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide (Art. 365, RPC) because Olimpio's death was the result of the pharmacist's
serious negligence or imprudence as there is no specific intent to kill and no requisite
qualifying circumstance.
Special law – RA 6805; Instances of legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3
instances. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an alias may be legally used a. as a pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field;
b. as a pen name in literary composition or work;
c.
as a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (Ursua v. CA, 256
SCRA 147 11986); RA 6085, Secs. 1 & 2;
Special Law – PD 704 – punishable acts
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the
Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were
selling were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors
were criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes
it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish
which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that
Page 415 of 417
Criminal Law
they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The
prosecution however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held
liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish
illegally caught.
On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the
three fish vendors? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of
such fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of
explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D.
704. Although the act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law
punishes the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when “knowingly" done
that the fish were caught with the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential.
The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which
they “duly identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the
prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that explosives were used in
catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.
Special law - Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives;
punishable acts
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat
with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for
dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the
way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D.
and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP
officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest.
Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP
motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing) as
amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is
punishable under said Decree.
Special law – Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated
Page 416 of 417
Criminal Law
Upon complaint of Baby, NBI agent Cesar invited estafador to the NBI
headquarters where Cesar showed to Estafador the sworn complaint of Baby for
estafa. He thereafter began questioning Estafador who told him that he
(Estafador) is willing to submit to an Investigation since he has nothing to hide.
Thereupon, Cesar got a typewriter and took down the statement of Estafador
without informing the latter that he has a right to remain silent and to secure the
services of a lawyer. After the statement was signed by Estafador, his fiancee,
Fadora, came and asked Cesar to allow her to confer with Estafador but Cesar
refused saying that after all. Fadora is not a lawyer, and that Estafador voluntarily
gave his statement.
If you were the lawyer of Estafador, with what crime would you charge the NBI
agent? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Violation of RA 7438, defining rights of persons arrested.
1. Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent (Sec. 4, par.
1); and
2. Prevent an immediate member of his family which includes fiancee, to confer
with Estafador (Sec. 4(b)
Page 417 of 417
Criminal Law