CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
2023 UP LAW BOC LMTs
CRIMINAL LAW
I. BOOK I
A. General Principles
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in se
and mala prohibita
Answer: Generally, Crimes mala in se are
defined as those which are inherently immoral,
such as murder, arson, or rape. This could
include crimes which, although they are
punished in special laws, are inherently
immoral. Meanwhile, Crimes mala prohibita
are those considered crimes because they are
prohibited by statute, although the act in itself
is not inherently immoral (Garcia v. CA, G.R.
No. 157171, Mar. 14, 2006).
As to intent as an element, criminal intent is
necessary in crimes mala in se. Thus good
faith is a valid defense. However, criminal
intent is not an element for crimes mala
prohibita and good faith cannot be considered
valid defense (Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 157171,
Mar. 14, 2006).
Further, degree of accomplishment and
degree of participation are taken into account
for crimes mala in se but not in crimes mala
prohibita, where the act is punishable only
when they are consummated, and all who
participated in the act are punished to the
same extent. Mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are taken into account in
crimes mala in se, while they are not applicable
for crimes mala prohibita, unless provided by
the special law.
B. Felonies
1. Distinguish between Aberratio ictus,
error in personae, and praeter intentionem.
Answer: Under Art. 4, par. 1 of the RPC,
criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony (delito) although
the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended. Thus, a person committing
a felony is still criminally liable even if: a) there
is a mistake in the identity of the victim or error
in personae; b) there is a mistake in the blow
or aberratio ictus (See People v. Sabalones,
294 SCRA 751 (1998)); and c) the injurious
result is greater than that intended or praeter
intentionem.
2. While attending an Enhanced Community
Quarantine
barangay
checkpoint,
a
barangay tanod confronted a resident for
non-essential travel. Infuriated by the
barangay tanod's tone, the resident
punched the tanod's head. The barangay
tanod fell, sustained brain hemorrhage, and
died as a result. Charged with Homicide,
the resident denies liability, arguing that
there can be no conviction if there is no
intent to cause the barangay tanod's death.
Is the resident's defense tenable? Explain
briefly.
Answer: No, the resident’s defense is not
tenable. Under Art. 4(1) of the RPC, criminal
liability shall be incurred although the wrongful
act done be different from that which was
intended. In this case, while the resident did
not intend to commit a felony, he is still liable
since his act of punching the barangay tanod’s
head was the proximate cause of the latter’s
death. At most, the resident’s criminal liability
may be subjected to the mitigating
circumstance of praeter intentionem under Art.
13 of the RPC.
3. Jenny obtained a fire insurance policy
from YG Insurance Co. (YG). In payment of
the policy, she issued a postdated check
payable to cash in the amount of Php
15,000.00 which was handed to Lisa, YG’s
Page 1 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
sales agent. Lisa did not remit the check to
YG. Instead, Lisa deposited it in her
husband’s bank account, but the check was
dishonored for having been drawn from a
closed account. What crime, if any, was
committed by Lisa and, if there was any,
what is its prescribed penalty? Explain
briefly.
Answer: There is no crime committed. When
the check was deposited, it bounced, hence it
is an impossible crime. An impossible crime is
committed when the following are existent: (i)
the act be a crime against persons or property;
(ii) the act was done with evil intent; and (iii) its
accomplishment was inherently impossible, or
the means employed was either inadequate or
ineffectual (Jacinto v. People, G.R. No.
162540, Jul. 13, 2009). In this case, all three
requisites are present. It is clearly a crime
against property, the evil intent is shown in
taking the check for themselves, and the
impossibility is because of the lack of funds.
Since this is an impossible crime, Article 59 of
the Revised Penal Code shall apply,
prescribing the penalty of arresto mayor.
4. A police officer responded to a
disturbance call at around 1:30 p.m. in an
apartment in Quezon City. Upon his arrival,
the police officer encountered Sisa
stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen
knife. The police officer grabbed Sisa and
the latter threw the knife on the floor. Sisa
was immediately taken into custody.
Despite suffering multiple stab wounds on
her back, the child survived. During the
trial, Sisa insisted that she can only be held
liable for Attempted Parricide because she
voluntarily desisted when she threw down
the knife. Is Sisa’s contention tenable?
Explain briefly.
Answer: Sisa’s contention is not tenable as
she is not deemed to have voluntarily and
spontaneously desisted, since her desistance
was due to her arrest by the police officer who
saw her performing the overt act. However, the
crime is indeed Attempted Parricide.
In order to determine whether the crime
committed is attempted or frustrated parricide,
murder or homicide, or only lesiones (physical
injuries), the crucial points to consider are: a)
whether the injury sustained by the victim was
fatal, and b) whether there was intent to kill on
the part of the accused (Eden Etino v People,
G.R. No. 206632, Feb. 14, 2018). In this case,
as nothing shows beyond doubt that the
wounds inflicted on the child were mortal
wounds, the crime is merely attempted
parricide. As for the requirement of intent to
kill, the same can be inferred from the fact that
the stabbed, the victim, was a helpless baby.
5. X and Y took 8 boxes of “Vibe” detergent
without paying for their price and loaded
them on a pushcart. They were
apprehended by the security guard hauling
the pushcart at the parking lot and loading
the boxes in a taxi. X and Y were convicted
of consummated theft. On appeal, they
argued that they should only be held liable
for frustrated theft since when they were
apprehended, they were never placed in a
position to freely dispose of the articles
stolen. Is their contention correct?
Answer: Their contention is wrong because
there is no crime of frustrated theft. The ability
of the offender to freely dispose of the property
stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime
of theft. Unlawful taking, in theft, is deemed
complete from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if he has no
opportunity to dispose of the same. In the
present case, X and Y had acquired physical
possession of the boxes for so long that they
were able to bring them to the parking lot, for
Page 2 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
loading into a taxi. This is sufficient for theft to
be consummated (Valenzuela v. People, G.R.
No. 160188, Jun. 21, 2007).
6. What is delito continuado?
Answer: Delito continuado, or also known as
a continuous crime, is a crime consisting of a
series of acts arising from a single criminal
resolution or intent not susceptible of division.
In other words, two or more violations of the
same penal provision are united in one and the
same intent leading to the perpetration of the
same criminal purpose or aim (Gamboa v. CA,
G.R. No. L-41054, Nov. 28, 1975).
7. Distinguish between an ordinary complex
crime and a special complex crime as to
their concepts and as to the imposition of
penalties.
Answer: As to their concept, the ordinary
complex crime refers to either a single act
constituted by 2 or more grave or less grave
offenses or where there are at least two
offenses such that one or more must be
necessary to commit the other (Gamboa v. CA,
G.R. No. L-41054, Nov. 28, 1975). Meanwhile,
special complex crimes refer to more than one
crime but, in the eyes of the law, there is only
one (People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926,
Apr. 11, 2012).
As to their penalties, offenders who commit
ordinary complex crimes are punished by the
penalty for the most serious crime in its
maximum period. In special complex crime,
the penalty is specifically imposed by law
(People v. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, Apr. 11,
2012).
8. When X, Y, and several others saw the
yellow car of Mayor Z approaching a
waiting shed, they opened fire on the car
with automatic rifles. Two of the Mayor’s
escorts died, while 5 others were injured.
What crime, if any, was committed.
Answer: The accused are criminally liable for
2 counts of murder and 5 counts of attempted
murder. Unlike a situation wherein there is a
single discharge of firearms leading to several
deaths – a complex crime, where several
crimes are committed but only one penalty is
imposed – no complex crime was committed
here. In this case, there were several gunmen
which opened fire on the yellow car. The
accused, thus, did not just perform a single
act, but several individual and distinct acts in
the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for
it speaks only of a "single act." (People v.
Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, Sept. 11, 2012).
9. Jose purchased roofing materials worth
P20,000 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. Jose
failed to make good the said check despite
written demands. Atty. Saavedra, counsel
for Pedro, filed two complaints against
Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal,
one for estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC and
another for violation of BP Blg. 22. Atty. San
Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed that if
his client was at all liable, he could only be
liable for violation of BP 22 and not for
estate under Art. 315 of the RPC because
one precludes the other and because BP 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 Art. 315 and another
under BP 22. Is the resolution of the
investigating fiscal correct?
Page 3 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
Answer: No, the fiscal is wrong. There is no
complex crime of estafa and the violation of
BP 22. There is no complex crime when one of
the offenses is punished by a special law. A
complex crime refers only to those offenses
punished in the RPC (People v. Araneta, 48
Phil. 650, 654).
1.
Circumstances
Criminal Liability
Affecting
a. Justifying Circumstances
1. When is the means employed in the act
of self-defense considered reasonable?
Answer: Whether or not the means of selfdefense is reasonable depends upon the
nature or quality of the weapon; the physical
condition, the character, the size and other
circumstances of the aggressor; as well as
those of the person who invokes self-defense,
and also the place and the occasion of the
assault. Perfect balance between the weapon
used by the one defending himself and that of
the aggressor is not required, because the
person assaulted loses sufficient tranquility of
mind to think, to calculate or to choose which
weapon to use (Remegio vs. People, G.R. No.
196945, Sept. 27, 2017). What the law requires
is
rational
equivalence
and
the
proportionateness thereof does not depend
upon the harm done, but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury (People v.
Encomienda, G.R. No. L-26750, August 18,
1972).
2. Police officer John ran after Randy who
had just killed Willy in John’s presence.
John fired at Randy in an attempt to stop
him in his tracks. In response, Randy fired
back at John, hitting him. John was
seriously wounded but survived due to
timely medical assistance. Randy was then
charged with Frustrated Homicide. During
the trial, Randy claimed self-defense. Is
Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable?
Explain briefly.
Answer: The claim of self-defense is not
tenable. Unlawful aggression, which is a
condition sine qua non for purposes of availing
of the defense, is not present here.
Considering Randy’s act of killing Willy
happened in John’s presence, the latter was
within his duty to conduct a lawful warrantless
arrest. Unlike in self-defense where unlawful
aggression is an element, in performance of
duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is
not a requisite (Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005).
b. Exempting Circumstances
3. While they were standing in line awaiting
their vaccination at the school clinic,
Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of
Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13
days old classmate in Grade 5 at the
Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,
Katreena turned around and swung at
Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball
pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled
profusely. Realizing what she had caused,
Katreena immediately helped Pomping.
When investigated, she freely admitted to
the school principal that she was
responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye.
After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to
the injury, Pomping lost his right eye. Is
Katreena criminally liable? Why?
Answer: NO. Katreena is not criminally liable
although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less
than 15 years old, she is exempt from criminal
Page 4 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
liability. She may, however, be subject to an
intervention program (R.A. 9344, Sec. 6).
penalty and offsetting against aggravating
circumstance/s.
4. While his wife 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.
Answer: Privileged mitigating circumstances
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 circumstances. The circumstance
of incomplete justification or exemption (when
the 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 circumstances.
a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain.
Answer: No. Romeo’s defense will not
prosper.
To
invoke
the
exempting
circumstance of insanity, it must have existed
at the precise moment that the crime was
being committed. In this case, Romeo had
discernment at the time of commission of the
crime. He was diagnosed as mentally unstable
only after the commission of the crime.
b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the
NCMH on the case?
Answer: The diagnosis of the NCMH could
temporarily suspend the case against Romeo
until he can understand the case against him.
c. Mitigating Circumstances
5. What is a privileged mitigating
circumstance? Distinguish a privileged
mitigating circumstance from an ordinary
mitigating circumstance as to reduction of
As regards offsetting, the distinctions between
ordinary
and
privileged
mitigating
circumstances are as follows:
a. 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;
b. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be
off-set by aggravating circumstances.
Privileged mitigating circumstances are not
subject to the off-set rule.
d. Aggravating Circumstances
6. 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
Page 5 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the
appeal meritorious? Explain.
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 of Robbery with
Homicide, which are both crimes against
property, embraced under the same Title (Title
Ten, Book Two) of the RPC. 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.
within a few hours. Would you say that the
killing was attended by the qualifying or
aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation and/or treachery?
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 defense
which the victim might have made (People v.
Dequiña, G.R. No. 41040, 09 Aug. 1934;
People v. Miranda, et al., G.R. No. L-3284, 28
Sept. 1951).
2. Persons Liable and Degree of
Participation
1. In an act of rage while playing golf, a
7. The accused and the victim occupied
high-ranking public official hit a caddy with
adjacent apartments, each being a
a golf club at hole number 9 of a golf
separate dwelling unit of one big house.
course. The caddy fell and died
The accused suspected his wife of having
immediately. The public official called a
an illicit relation with the victim. One
loyal security guard who did not witness the
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife
incident. The security guard was instructed
together on board a vehicle. In the evening
to put the caddy's lifeless body in the golf
of that day, the accused went to bed early
cart and dump it in the nearby lake. The
and tried to sleep but being so annoyed
public official wanted to make it appear that
over the suspected relation between his
the caddy died of drowning. The corpus
wife and the victim, he could not sleep.
delicti of the crime was discovered. Both
Later in the night, he resolved to kill the
the high-ranking public official and the
victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a
security guard were charged as coknife. He entered the apartment of the
conspirators for the crime of Homicide. Can
victim through an unlocked window. Inside,
the security guard be convicted as a
he saw the victim soundly asleep. He
principal to the crime of Homicide? Explain
thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting
briefly.
several wounds, which caused his death
Page 6 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
Answer: No, the security guard cannot be held
liable as a principal to the crime of Homicide.
He is a mere accessory to the crime.
Principals, under Art. 17 of the Revised Penal
Code, are those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act, directly force or induce
others to commit it, or cooperate in the
commission of the offense by another act
without which it would not have been
accomplished.
In this case, the security guard did not
participate in the killing of the caddy as
principal by direct participation as he did not
take a direct part in the killing of the caddy. He
also did not participate as a principal by
inducement as he did not force or induce the
public official to kill the caddy. Lastly, he did
not participate by indispensable cooperation
as the security guard did not participate
through another act without which, the crime
of homicide would not have been committed.
Based on the facts, the security guard
participated only subsequent to the
commission of the crime by concealing or
destroying the body of the crime to prevent its
discovery, making him an accessory as
defined in Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain
conspiracy.
Answer: There are two structures of multiple
conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle
conspiracy and chain conspiracy. A “wheel
conspiracy” occurs when there is a single
person or group (the hub) dealing individually
with two or more other persons or groups (the
spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the
hub rather than with another spoke. In the
event that the spoke shares a common
purpose to succeed, there is a single
conspiracy. However, in the instances when
each spoke is unconcerned with the success
of the other spokes, there are multiple
conspiracies. A “chain conspiracy”, on the
other hand, exists when there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the
same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and
then retailer and consumer (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, 26 Feb.
2002).
3. Mr. X has always been infatuated with
Ms. Y. Scorned by Ms. Y's disregard for his
feelings towards her, Mr. X came up with a
plan to abduct Ms. Y in order to have carnal
knowledge of her with the help of his
buddies, A, B, and C. On the day they
decided to carry out the plan, and while
surreptitiously waiting for Ms. Y, C had a
change
of
heart
and
left.
This
notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B continued
with the plan and abducted Ms. Y by
forcefully taking her to a deserted house
away from the city. There, Mr. X restrained
Ms. V's arms, while A held her legs apart. B
stood as a lookout. Mr. X was then able to
have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y, who was
resisting throughout the entire ordeal.
Consequently, Mr. X was charged with the
crime of Forcible Abduction under the
Revised Penal Code. Assuming that A, B,
and C are also charged, may they be held
criminally liable together with Mr. X?
Explain.
Answer: No. Only A and B may be held
criminally liable together with Mr. X. Under Art.
8, par. 1 of the RPC, a conspiracy exists when
two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. With A holding Ms. Y’s
legs apart and B standing as a lookout, they
actively participated in the commission of the
crime and are guilty as co-conspirators
[People v. Tumalip, G.R. No. L-28451, October
Page 7 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
28, 1974]. C may not be held criminally liable.
C dissociated himself from the conspiracy
when he had a change of heart and left. His
disavowal of the conspiracy was effective
since he decided not to perform his part in the
conspiracy before any material act of
execution leading to the Rape was committed.
Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval
of the act without cooperation is not enough to
constitute one as a party to a conspiracy (Taer
v. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990).
C. Penalties
1. A, a young boy aged 16 at the time of the
commission of the crime, was convicted
when he was already 17 years of age for
violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which
the imposable penalty is life imprisonment
and a fine. Sec. 98 of the same 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.
(a)
May
the
privileged
mitigating
circumstance of minority be appreciated
considering that the penalty imposed by
law is life imprisonment and fine?
refers
only
circumstances.
to
ordinary
mitigating
(b) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law
applicable
considering
that
life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and
Dangerous Drugs Law offenses are mala
prohibita?
Answer: 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.
2. Randy was prosecuted for forcible
abduction attended by the aggravating
circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the
court held that the prosecutor was able to
prove the charge. Nonetheless, it was
appreciated in favor of Randy, on the basis
of the defense’s evidence, the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender,
uncontrollable fear, and provocation. Under
Art. 342 of the RPC, the penalty for forcible
abduction is reclusion temporal. Applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what
penalty should be imposed on Randy?
Answer: Since he was found guilty of Forcible
Abduction with one aggravating circumstance
Answer: YES. under Sec. 98, RA 9165, if the
of recidivism, this aggravating circumstance is
offender is a minor, the penalty of life
off-set by one of the three mitigating
imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion
circumstances; so the penalty to be imposed
perpetua. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single
is still reclusion temporal (Art. 342, RPC) but
indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating
because there are two (2) more mitigating
circumstance of minority would still be
circumstances left and the penalty is divisible,
considered to lower the imposable penalty.
in determining the maximum term, the penalty
The rule in Art. 63, RPC that if the penalty
should be reduced to prision mayor and
prescribed by law is a single indivisible
because there is no more mitigating and
penalty, it shall be imposed regardless of
aggravating circumstances to be considered,
mitigating and aggravating circumstance
the maximum term shall be prision mayor in its
Page 8 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
medium period that is eight (8) years and one
(1) day to ten (10) years. The minimum term
shall be any range within, that is from six (6)
years and one (1) day to six (8) years. Thus,
Randy will suffer as minimum term any penalty
ranging from six years and one (1) day to eight
(8) years, and the maximum term will be, any
range from eight (8) years and one (1) day to
ten (10) years of prision mayor.
3. Mr. Q was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Serious
Physical Injuries, and accordingly, was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for an indeterminate period
of six (6) months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to four (4) years, two (2) months,
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as
maximum. He was also ordered to pay the
victim actual damages in the amount
of'P50,000.00,
with
subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Was
the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment
proper? Explain.
Answer: No, subsidiary imprisonment does
not apply to civil liability but only for nonpayment of fine (Art. 39, RPC). Here, there is
no penalty of fine imposed by the trial court.
D. Execution and Service of
Sentence
1. In Nov. 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal,
was found guilty of three (3) counts of
Murder and was consequently sentenced
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. A month after, he was likewise
found guilty of five (5) counts of Grave
Threats in a separate criminal proceeding,
and hence, meted with the penalty of
prision mayor for each count. How long will
Mr. N serve all his penalties of
imprisonment? Explain.
Answer: Mr. N will serve all these penalties of
imprisonment for a total of 40 years. Under Art.
70 of the RPC, when the culprit has to serve
two or more penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the penalties
will permit. However, the maximum duration of
the convict’s sentence shall not be more than
three-fold the length of time corresponding to
the most severe of the penalties imposed upon
him. No other penalty to which he may be
liable shall be inflicted after the sum total of
those imposed equals the same maximum
period. Such maximum period shall in no case
exceed 40 years.
E. Extinction of Criminal Liability
1. A prisoner who had been convicted, but
whose appeal was pending, died due to
complications caused by COVID-19. Should
the prisoner’s pending appeal be dismissed
as a consequence? Explain briefly.
Answer: YES. The appeal shall be dismissed
due to the death of the prisoner. Criminal
liability is totally extinguished only when the
death of the offender occurs before the final
judgment (Art. 89, RPC). In this case, both the
criminal and civil liability are extinguished
since the death of the prisoner occurred before
the final judgment or pending appeal. Civil
liability arising from the sources of obligation
other than delict may however proceed
against the estate of the deceased prisoner.
II. BOOK II AND RELATED
SPECIAL LAWS
B.
Crimes
Against
the
Fundamental Laws of the State
1. X was arrested for violating the AntiTerrorism Act of 2020 (“ATA”). His arrest
was due to his continued organization of
Page 9 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
mass shootouts and killings in Manila
which aim to terrorize the populace. He was
detained for 14 days in jail, and then
transferred to a prison, where he was
detained for another 4 days for further
investigation. X contended that the 4-day
extension is not allowed since it amounts to
arbitrary detention as defined in the
Revised Penal Code. Is X’s contention
correct?
Answer: No, X’s contention is not correct. As
clarified by the Court in the case of Calleja v.
Executive Secretary, the extended detention
period provided in the ATA for a person
suspected of committing acts defined and
penalized in Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
and 12 of the same, which could be up to 14
days with a 10-day extension, should be
deemed an exception to the proscription
against arbitrary detention in Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code based on Congress' own
wisdom and policy determination relative to
the exigent and peculiar nature of terrorism. In
this case, the detention was for 18 days
including the extension, which is below the
maximum prescribed in the ATA. Hence, X’s
contention is wrong.
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 fall 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.
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 flowerpot at him
but it was deflected by B.
(a) What, if any, are the respective criminal
liability of X, Y, and Z?
Answer: 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.
C. Crimes Against Public Order
Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct
Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries for
1. A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having
the fist blow on A, the teacher, which caused
gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because
the latter to fall down. For purposes of the
of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his
crime in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, a
teacher is considered a person in authority,
classmates, twisted his right ear. X went
and having been attacked by Y by reason of
out of the classroom crying and proceeded
his performance of official duty, direct assault
home located at the back of the school. He
is committed with the resulting less serious
reported to his parents, Y and Z, what A had
physical injuries complexed.
done to him, Y and Z immediately
Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be
proceeded to the school building and
liable as an accomplice to the complex of
because they were running and talking in
crimes of direct assault with less serious
loud voices, they were seen by the
physical injuries committed by Y. Her
barangay chairman, B, who followed them
participation should not be considered as that
as he suspected that an untoward incident
of a coprincipal, since her reactions were only
Page 10 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
incited by her relationship to X and Y, as the
mother of X and the wife of Y.
(b) Would your answer be the same if B
were a barangay tanod only?
Answer: 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 Art. 151, RPC 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’s
exercise of authority.
D. Crimes
Interest
Against
Public
1. 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 marriage contract, it was
stated that the marriage was solemnized by
Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral
and Donato commit? Explain.
Answer: Donato committed Usurpation of
Official Functions under Article 177 of the
Revised Penal Code because he performed
the act of solemnizing a marriage which
pertained to the mayor, without being lawfully
entitled to do so. Mayor Abral is liable for
falsification of public documents 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.
2. When is the commencement period of
prescription for instituting criminal actions
for falsification of public documents?
Answer: If the offense is falsification of a
public document punishable under Art 172 of
the RPC, the period for prescription
commences on the date of registration of the
forged or falsified document (Lim vs. People,
G.R. No. 226590, April 23, 2018).
E. Crimes Relative to Opium and
Other Prohibited Drugs [R.A.
9165, as amended by R.A. 10640;
Sec. 21, IRR]
1. Obie Juan is suspected to have in his
possession an unspecified amount of
methamphetamine
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 subsequently charged
with two crimes: Violation of Section 11,
Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of
“shabu” and violation of Section 15, Art. II
of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana.
Page 11 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
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?
Answer:
a. The charge of violation of Section 11, Article
II of RA 9165 for the possession of “shabu” is
proper because the law punishes mere
possession of dangerous drugs in certain
quantities. However, the charge of violation of
Section 15, Art. II of RA 9165 for the use of
marijuana is improper because under the same
provision, Section 15 is not applicable where
the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11
of this Act, in which case the provisions stated
therein shall apply. Thus, the charge should
also be under Section 11.
b. Yes, although Section 23, RA 9165 prohibits
plea-bargaining in cases of violation of the said
Act, this has been declared unconstitutional by
the Supreme Court as it encroaches on the
Court’s rule-making power, in Estipona v.
Lobrigo (G.R. No. 226679 August 15, 2017).
Therefore, Obie Juan can plead guilty to a
lesser offense.
b. What is the effect of failure to observe the
requirement?
Answer:
a. Chain of custody means the duly recorded,
authorized movements, and custody of the
seized drugs at each stage, from the moment
of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic
laboratory for examination until it is presented
to the court
The rationale of the chain of custody is the
preservation of the integrity of the evidence to
be presented in court that may or may not
incriminate the accused. According to the
Supreme Court, the deliberate taking of these
identifying steps is statutorily aimed at
obviating
switching,
"planting"
or
contamination of the evidence. Indeed, the
preservation of the chain of custody vis-a-vis
the contraband ensures the integrity of the
evidence incriminating the accused, and
relates to the element of relevancy as one of
the requisites for the admissibility of the
evidence.
b. The failure to observe this requirement
creates reasonable doubt on the integrity of
the evidence. Hence, the accused may be
acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt
on the proof of the prosecution.
2. 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 buy-bust
operation failed to observe the requisite
"chain of custody" of the evidence
confiscated and/or seized from him.
3. After a successful entrapment operation
by the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency, Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was
arrested for having been caught in flagrante
delicto selling a pack of shabu to the
poseur-buyer. Consequently, Mr. D was
frisked by the arresting officer, and
aluminum foils, plastic lighters, and another
plastic sachet of shabu were obtained from
him. The items were marked immediately
a. What is the "chain of custody"
upon confiscation, and they were likewise
requirement in drug offenses? What is its
inventoried and photographed at the place
rationale?
Page 12 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
of arrest. Throughout the process, a media
representative was able to witness the
conduct of the marking, inventory, and
photography of the seized items in the
presence of Mr. D. Mr. D was then charged
with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In
defense, he lamented that the chain of
custody procedure under Section 21,
Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, was not
followed
because
only
a
media
representative was present. In response,
the prosecution maintained that the said
media representative was a very credible
reporter and as such, the presence of any
other witness was unnecessary. Was the
chain of custody procedure validly
complied with in this case? If not, was the
deviation from such procedure justified?
Explain.
under Art. 125 of the RPC prove futile through
no fault of the arresting officers (People v.
Sipin, as cited in People v. Lim, G.R. 231989,
September 04, 2018).
G. Crimes Committed by Public
Officers
1. 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
RPC? State your reasons.
b. Assuming that he failed to replenish the
church funds, may he be held criminally
liable thereby?
Answer: No, the chain of custody was not
validly complied with. Under Sec. 21 of RA
9165, as amended by RA 10640, the presence
Answer:
of at least two insulating witnesses are
required: (1) an elected public official, and (2) a
a. No, Dencio cannot be liable for malversation
representative from the media, or a
because the same contemplates public or
representative from the National Prosecution
government funds. Church funds could not
Service. Here, only a media representative was
have been contemplated by law as part of
present to witness the conduct of marking,
public funds.
inventory and photography. Further, the
credibility of the media reporter as the lone
b. Yes, he may be held liable but for Estafa
witness in a buy-bust operation is neither a
under Article 215, RPC, because of the
plausible explanation nor an unacceptable
misappropriation of church funds otherwise
justification for the PDEA’s non-compliance
intended for other purposes.
with the chain of custody rule. The Supreme
Court listed the following acceptable
2. A typhoon destroyed the houses of many
justifications in case of the absence of
of the inhabitants of X Municipality.
witnesses: (1) their attendance was impossible
Thereafter, X Municipality operated a
because the place of arrest was a remote area;
shelter assistance program whereby
(2) their safety was threatened by an
construction materials were provided to the
immediate retaliatory action of the accused;
calamity victims, and the beneficiaries
and (3) earnest efforts to secure the presence
provided the labor. The construction was
of the witnesses within the period required
Page 13 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
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.
(a) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit?
Explain.
Answer: Mayor Maawain committed the crime
of Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
punishable under Art. 220 of the RPC. This
offense is also known as Technical
Malversation. The crime has three (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 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.
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 Nov. 2012)
3. One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President
of ABC Corp., happened to bump into the
Labor Arbiter assigned to the illegal
dismissal case filed by certain employees
against his company. During their
encounter, Mr. X promised the Labor
Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a
favorable ruling. The Labor Arbiter
immediately rejected the offer and walked
away. What crime did Mr. X commit under
the RPC, if any? Explain.
Answer: Mr. X committed the crime of
Attempted Corruption of a Public Official. He
offered to give the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in
exchange for a favorable ruling on a pending
illegal dismissal case. By making such offer,
Mr. X already commenced the performance of
(b) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense
material acts of execution in corrupting the
of good faith and that he had no evil intent
Labor Arbiter. He was not able to perform all
when he approved the transfer of the boxes
the material acts of execution only because
Page 14 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
the Labor Arbiter refused to accept the offer
(Pozar v. CA, G.R. No. L-62439, 23 Oct. 1990).
4. 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 connections and
despite knowledge by the authorities of his
ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the
crime of plunder only after 20 years from his
defeat in the last elections he participated
in.
(a) May Andy still be held criminally liable?
Why?
Answer: NO, Andy will not be criminally liable
because Sec. 6 of RA 7080 provides that the
crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe
in twenty years. In this case, Andy can no
longer be held criminally liable because he was
only charged with the crime of plunder after 20
years from his defeat in the last elections he
participated in, despite knowledge by the
authorities of his ill-gotten wealth. Thus, the
crime has already prescribed.
(b) 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.
Answer: YES, because Sec. 6 of R.A. No.
7080 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.
H. Crimes Against Persons
1. A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to
the hospital in a coma with a slight cerebral
hemorrhage. An endotracheal tube was
inserted in her mouth to facilitate her
breathing. B, a hospital janitor, removed the
tube. The victim started to convulse and
bleed in the mouth. Only the timely arrival of
the nurse prevented the patient’s death.
The patient was then transferred to another
hospital where she died the next day of
cardio-respiratory. Is B criminally liable? If
so, what crime was committed?
Answer: Yes, B is criminally liable for murder
with the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
Treachery was present when B removed the
tube, which can be considered the proximate
cause of her convulsion and bleeding in the
mouth, and, subsequently, her death due to
cardio-respiratory problems.
2. Is the mere failure or an inability to
provide financial support punishable by
R.A. 9262?
Answer: To be convicted under Section 5(i),
the evidence must establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused intended to
cause the victim mental or emotional anguish,
or public ridicule or humiliation through the
denial of - not the mere failure or inability to
provide - financial support, which thereby
resulted into psychological violence (Acharon
v. People, G.R. No. 224946. November 09,
2021).
Page 15 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
3. If the slightest penetration of the female
genitalia consummates rape by carnal
knowledge, how does the accused commit
attempted rape by carnal knowledge?
Answer: It is consummated rape when it
describes a penis touching the vagina as the
penis penetrating the cleft of the labia majora,
however minimum or slight. In other words, the
penis' mere touch of the pudendum would not
result in any degree of penetration since the
pudendum is a muscular part located over the
labia majora and therefore mere touch of or
brush upon the same would only constitute
attempted rape, not consummated.
Similarly, a penis' mere grazing of the fleshy
portion, not the vulva cleft of the labia majora,
will also constitute only attempted rape and
not consummated rape, since the same
cannot be considered to have achieved the
slightest level of penetration. Stated
differently, the Court here elucidates that
"mere touch" of the penis on the labia majora
legally contemplates not mere surface touch
or skin contact, but the slightest penetration of
the cleft of the labia majora, however minimum
in degree. (People v. Agao, GR No. 248049,
04, Oct. 2022)
I. Crimes Against
Liberty and Security
Personal
1. 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.
Answer: Food deprivation and confinement in
solitary cell are considered as physical and
psychological torture under Sec. 4(2) of R.A.
No. 9745. Hence, the crime committed is
torture.
2. Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his
initials. He saw Roy wearing the said
necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return the
necklace to him as it belongs to him, but
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?
Answer: Isagani committed grave coercion
under Article 286, RPC. There is grave
coercion when an offender prevents another
person from doing something not prohibited
by law or compels the same to do something
against his will, whether right or wrong. Isagani
drew his gun, thereby employing violence, and
coerced Roy to give him the necklace against
the latter’s will. The crime cannot be theft or
robbery because there was no intent to gain
on the part of Isagani, who believed that he
owned the necklace.
3. What is the effect on the criminal liability
of an accused if he or she publishes a
libelous article on an online news platform?
Explain.
Answer: The accused may be liable under RA
10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012. Under Sec. 4(c)(4), a cybercrime offense
includes the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel
as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC committed
through a computer system or any other
similar means which may be devised in the
future. Thus, RA 10175 penalizes the
publication of a libelous article on an online
news platform, and the penalty to be imposed
Page 16 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
shall be one (1) degree higher than that
provided under the RPC, pursuant to Section
6 thereof.
J. Crimes Against Property
1. Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan
held up a bank. After taking the bank’s
money, the robbers ran towards their
getaway car, pursued by the bank security
guards. As the security guards were closing
in on the robbers, the two fired their
firearms at the pursuing security guards. As
a result, one of the security guards was hit
on the head causing his immediate death.
For the taking of the bank’s money and
killing of the security guard with the use of
loose firearms, the robbers were charged in
court in two separate Informations, one for
robbery with homicide attended by the
aggravating circumstance of use of loose
firearms, and the other for illegal
possession of firearms. Are the indictments
correct?
Answer: The indictment for robbery with
homicide attended by the aggravating
circumstance of use of loose firearms is
correct. The special complex crime of robbery
with homicide is defined and penalized under
Article 294 (1), RPC, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide
shall have been committed. The security guard
was killed on the occasion of the robbery.
Furthermore, the aggravating circumstance of
use of loose firearms was correct. Under
Section 29 of RA 10591, the use of a loose
firearm, when inherent in the commission of a
crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws, shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Consequently, the indictment for illegal
possession of firearms is not correct, since
such circumstance was already considered as
aggravating.
2. 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?
Answer: A committed qualified theft. Qualified
theft under Article 310 RPC is committed when
the theft is committed by a domestic servant,
or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the
property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or
large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from
the premises of the plantation or fish taken
from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is
taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity,
vehicular
accident
or
civil
disturbance. In this case, A took advantage of
the fire that broke out in the department store.
3. 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
could extensively spread. Only a portion of
the house was burned. Discuss Eddie’s
liability.
Answer: Eddie is liable for consummated
arson. Jurisprudence provides that the extent
of damage of arson is immaterial, as long as a
Page 17 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW LAST MINUTE TIPS
portion of the property is burnt. (People v.
Hernandez, G.R. No. L-31770, (1929)) In such
a case, the arson is already at its
consummated stage. Despite his attempts to
extinguish the burning portion of the house, he
already committed arson.
L. Crimes Against
Status of Persons
the
Civil
1. 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.
Answer: I would render a judgment of
acquittal. A void ab initio marriage is a valid
defense in the prosecution for bigamy even
without a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity. (Pulido v. People, G.R. No. 220149, 27
July 2021, J. Hernando)
NOTE: In Pulido v. People, (G.R. No. 220149,
27 July 2021, J. Hernando), the Supreme Court
abandoned its earlier pronouncements and
held that “a judicial declaration of absolute
nullity is not necessary to prove a void ab initio
prior and subsequent marriages in a bigamy
case. Consequently, a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity in the first and/or second
marriages presented by the accused in the
prosecution for bigamy is a valid defense,
irrespective of the time within which they are
secured.”
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
Damage to Property for the death of
Jennie’s husband, Paul and damage to the
spouses’ vehicle. Then, Ryan pleaded guilty
to the first charge and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. May Ryan be held
guilty for the second charge? Explain.
Answer: No, Reckless Imprudence is a single
crime, its consequences on persons and
property are material only to determine the
penalty. The two charges against Ryan, arising
from the same facts, were prosecuted under
the same provision of the RPC, as amended,
namely, Art. 365. Reckless imprudence under
said article is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other
crimes such that conviction or acquittal of
such
quasi-offense
bars
subsequent
prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
regardless of its various resulting acts. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. 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 (Ivler v.
M-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17,
2010).
N. Criminal Negligence
1. Ryan was involved in a vehicular collision
causing him to be charged with two
separate offenses namely: 1) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical for
injuries sustained by Lisa; and 2) Reckless
Page 18 of 18
UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023