CRIMINAL LAW 1. The Death Penalty Law (R.A. 7659) is based on what theory in criminal law?

It is based on the Classical Theory, under which the basis of criminal responsibility is the existence of the offenders free will and the purpose of the penalty is retribution. The imposition of penalty under this theory endeavors to establish a mechanical and direct proportion between the crime and the penalty. The crimes punishable by death under the Death Penalty Law are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful offenses, and by reason of their inherent wickedness and perversity are repugnant to the norms of a civilized society. 2. Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death a Singaporean seaman aboard the 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 a rich Filipino businessman. When an information for homicide was filed against him before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Binoy moved to quash for lack of jurisdiction. Should the motion be granted? Why? Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information must 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. 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. 3. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain.

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. 4. Angelo, a janitor in the hospital entered Mrs. As hospital room and removed the respirator attached to her mouth. This caused the hapless patient to have a convulsion ( mangisay). Mrs. A was taken immediately to the emergency room to have her respirator re-attached. She was then transferred to another hospital, where she died after 2 days. Angelo was arrested and charged with murder qualified by treachery. Was the charge proper? NO, the overt acts committed by Angelo constitute attempted murder. He was not able to perform all acts of execution necessary to consummate the crime because the victim was transferred to another hospital and he was immediately apprehended. Moreover, the respirator was re-attached to Mrs. As mouth. The proximate cause of Mrs. As death was the removal of the respirator. (People vs. Umaguing, G.R. No. L-52797, August 31, 1981) 5. What crimes do not admit of the frustrated stage? They are those which, by the definition of a frustrated felony, the offender cannot possibly perform all the acts of execution to bring the desired result without consummating the offense. a. Rape, since the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge, hence, no matter how slight the penetration, the felony is consummated. b. Corruption of public officers, because the offense requires the concurrence of the will of both parties, such as that when the offer is accepted, the offense is consummated. But when the offer is rejected, the offense is merely attempted. c. Adultery because the essence of the crime is sexual congress. d. Physical injury since it cannot be determined whether the injury will be slight, less serious, or serious unless and until consummated. 6. Is direct proof necessary to establish conspiracy?

NO, direct proof is not necessary as conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It is enough that at the time of the commission of a crime, all the malefactors had the same purpose and was united in their execution. Once established, all the conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of each of them for in contemplation of the law; the act of one is the act of all. (PEOPLE vs. AGUDEZ, G.R. Nos. 138386-87, May 20, 2004)

7.

What is the Battered Woman Syndrome? What are its effects on criminal liability?

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 as provided under Republic Act 9262, known as the Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004. Battery refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress. Under this law, violence against women and their children refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. (Sec. 26, R.A. No. 9262) 8. When may a threat of physical assault constitute unlawful aggression?

A threat, to constitute as unlawful aggression must be offensive and positively strong. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression. A threat even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to attack, is not sufficient to constitute an unlawful aggression. Thus, it has been held that the mere thrusting of ones hand into his pocket as if to draw a weapon, or even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target, or approaching somebody with a knife, does not constitute unlawful aggression. (PEOPLE vs. SE, G.R. No. 152966,

March 17, 2004)

9. Distinguish retaliation from self-defense.

In retaliation, the inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. In selfdefense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense. (PEOPLE vs. ANSUS, G. R. No. 149784. July 14, 2003) 10. Is a slap on the face an unlawful aggression?

YES, since the face represents a person and his dignity. Slapping the face of a person is a serious personal attack; it is a physical assault, coupled with a willful disgrace, nay, a defiance, of an individuals personality; and it may, therefore, be frequently regarded as placing in real danger a persons dignity, rights and safety. (RUGAS vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 147789, January 14, 2004) 11. Manny was hurling invectives at Boy when he suddenly moved backward as if to draw his gun from his waist. Boy, who himself had a knife in his pocket, stabbed Manny, leaving the latter dead with 14 stab wounds on various parts of his body. May Manny claim self-defense? NO, because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. The mere act of moving backward as if to draw a gun from his waist does not constitute unlawful aggression, which presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. Furthermore, the presence of the large number of wounds inflicted on the victim clearly indicates a determined effort on the part of Boy to kill him and belies the reasonableness of the means adopted to prevent or repel an unlawful act of an aggressor which is an element of self-defense. (People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999) 12. Melvin saw X coming towards him carrying a fan knife. When X was about to stab Melvin, the latter was able to get hold of Xs wrist and twisted it. X was able to drop the knife and Melvin was able to take possession of the same. With the knife, Melvin stabbed X five (5) times. Did Melvin act in self-defense? NO, because at the time Melvin stabbed X, the latters initial unlawful aggression had already ceased and that there was therefore no more need for Melvin to still stab X. After Melvin successfully wrested the knife from X, the unlawful aggression had ceased. After the unlawful aggression had ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel and the plea of self defense would have no basis. (People vs. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995) 13. 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? Yes, A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involve 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 RPC as amended. 14. Without provocation, Boby approached Pupung and slapped him and strangled his neck. Pupung saw that Boby had a knife tucked in his waist, so he pulled it out and used the same to slash Boby in the stomach. Boby immediately released Pupung and ran for his life. Pupung ran after him and when Boby tripped and fell on the ground, he was stabbed by Pupung in the chest causing his instantaneous death. (a) May Pupung validly claim selfdefense? (b) If not, was the killing attended by treachery? (a) NO, because whatever act of aggression was initiated by Boby against Pupung had already ceased when the latter inflicted the mortal wound on Boby. This is demonstrated by the fact that Boby was running away from the Pupung. The tables were turned when Pupung chased Boby with the obvious intent of stabbing him. At this juncture, Pupung had assumed the role of aggressor, thus the claim of self-defense cannot obviously prosper. Pupungs act of stabbing the unarmed victim after the latter had ran away belies his claim of self-preservation and indicates nothing more than a perverse desire to kill. When the incipient aggression of the victim had already ceased, the one making the defense had no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. (b) NO, because Pupung had not consciously adapted the particular means, methods or form of the attack employed by him; as the meeting between him and the victim was merely by chance. Where the meeting between the accused and the victim was casual and the attack was done impulsively, there is no treachery even if the attack was sudden and unexpected and while the victim was running away. The accused in this case could not have made the preparations for the attack, the means of the attack could not therefore have been thought of by the accused, because it was impulsively done. (People vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997) 15. A raped X while the latter was in the throes of death. A psychiatrist testified that he conducted physical, mental and psychological examinations on A and found him to be suffering from psychosis. As father testified that A was playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters, stole his mothers 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 was lucid before and after the crime was committed and that he acted with discernment. Given the conflicting testimonies as to the sanity of the accused, may insanity be appreciated as an exempting circumstance in this case? No, because while there was testimony that A was suffering from a mental disorder, the testimony of As father disclosed that A had lucid intervals. 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. 16. Lana pushed her classmate Bart down the staircase causing severe injuries to the latter. What would be her liability? a. Suppose Lana was seven years old at the time of the commission of the crime?

Lana is exempt from criminal liability. b. Suppose Lana was 12 years old and she has not acted with discernment?

Lana is still exempt from criminal liability. c. Suppose Lana was 12 years old and she acted with discernment in the commission of the crime?

Lana is criminally liable, but she is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. She is also entitled to a discretionary penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the crime; and may also be entitled to suspended sentence. d. Suppose Lana was 16 years old, is she liable?

YES. Lana is liable but she is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance. She may also entitled to suspended sentence and the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, always in the proper period.

e. If after hearing the case and the court was convinced that Lana committed the crime, what will be the course of action of the court, Lana being a youthful offender under the law? If after the hearing the court finds that the youthful offender has committed the acts charged against him the court shall promulgate sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. The sentence, however, shall be suspended without need of application. (RA 8369, Section 5a) The court, if it finds that the best interest of the public as well as that of the offender will be served thereby, shall commit such minor to the custody or care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), or to any training institution operated by the government, or to any other responsible person, until he shall have reached 21 years of age or, for a shorter period as the court may deem proper, after considering the reports and recommendations of the DSWD, or the government training institution or responsible person under whose care he has been committed. NOTE: Prior to the enactment of RA 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997), the Child and Youth Welfare Code required an application to be filed by the minor. 17. Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for a suspension of sentence? Explain.

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, Section 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. 18. Mr. N and his wife were engaged in an altercation. In the heat of the argument, Mr. N drew his gun from his waist and pointed it towards his wife. Mr. N and his wife then grappled for the possession of the gun. Mr. N was then able to squeeze the trigger. The gun fired and the wife was shot on the left hip, causing her death. Charged with parricide, Mr. N invokes the exempting circumstance of accident under Art. 12, par. 4 of the RPC. He further contends that intent to kill was not present in the case at bar since his wife was shot in a non-vital part of her body. Is Mr. N correct? NO. Mr. N may not invoke the exempting circumstance of accident. Accident to be exempting presupposes that the act done is lawful. Here, the act of Mr. N of drawing his gun in the course of the quarrel, the same not being in selfdefense, is unlawful it at least constitutes the crime of light threats. Furthermore, the fact that the wife was not shot in a vital part of her body does not negate intent to kill on the part of Mr. N. The extent of the injuries sustained by the wife manifests the intention to extinguish her life. (People vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998) 19. Mel and Gardo were having a heated argument. As Mel kept on shouting invectives at Gardo, the latter started to sharpen his bolo. When Mel turned around with his back towards Gardo, the latter hacked him on the nape, causing instant death. (a) May Gardo be convicted of murder if the killing was alleged to have been committed with treachery? (b) Is he entitled to the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation and immediate vindication of a grave offense? (a) NO, because the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted by Gardo. It was triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of Gardo because of the provocative act of the victim. As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was cooly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of the chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply however where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted. This is more so, where the assault upon the victim was preceded by a heated exchange of words between him and the accused. The suddenness of the attack does not by itself suffice to support a finding of alevosia where the decision to attack was made peremptorily and the victims helpless position was accidental. (b) The peculiarity of theses two mitigating circumstances is that they cannot be applied at the same time if they arise from the same facts and motive. If Gardo attacked Mel in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and obfuscation. At most, only one of this two may be considered in his favor. The act of Mel in berating and humiliating Gardo was enough to produce passion and obfuscation, considering that the incident happened in the presence of bystanders. (People vs. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995) 20. 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. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating?

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. 21. When should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused? The following are the requisites of voluntary surrender: (1) that the offender had not actually been arrested; (2) that the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority or to the latters agent; and (3) that the surrender was voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally, either because: (1) he acknowledges his guilt, or (2) he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. On the other hand, the requisites for voluntary plea of guilty are as follows: (1) that the offender spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before the competent court that is to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. 22. After killing her paramour in Manila, Annie ran away to avoid retaliation from the relatives of the deceased and decided to hide in her mothers house in Laguna. She was then struck by the pangs of her conscience and surrendered to the police authorities of Laguna. Charged with murder, she expressed her willingness to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of homicide during the arraignment. May the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be appreciated in her favor? YES, she is entitled to both mitigating circumstances. The law does not require that the perpetrator of an offense to be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, must give himself up to the authorities of the place where the offense was committed. All that is required is for the offender to surrender to the authorities to save the government the trouble and expense of looking for him in order to arrest him. The accuseds willingness to plead to a lesser offense than that charged may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. It was not the defendants fault that aggravating circumstances were erroneously alleged in the information and the mitigating circumstances omitted therefrom. If a plea to a lesser offense could deprive the accused of the benefit of plea of guilty, then the prosecution could nullify this mitigating circumstance by counteracting it with unfounded allegations of aggravating circumstances. (People vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997) 23. Name the different kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof? The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are: a. Generic aggravating or those which 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; b. Specific aggravating or those which apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; c. Qualifying aggravating or those which change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about the penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; d. Inherent aggravating or those which essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever. e. Special Qualifying aggravating or those which, if attendant in the commission of the crime, will cause the imposition of the death penalty; such as those provided under Art 266-B of the RPC mandating the imposition of the death penalty when the victim of rape is under 18 years of age AND the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim. 24. 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? a. 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.

b. Treachery is 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 to himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made. c. 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. Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery. d. 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. 25. Lucas was resting inside his house when he heard a loud knocking at the door. Lucas stood up and opened the door. Suddenly, Jose grabbed Lucas, poked a gun at him and forced him out of the house. Lucas was taken to an alley outside his house and was shot to death by Jose. May the circumstance of dwelling aggravate Joses criminal liability? YES, dwelling may be appreciated in this case even if the victim was killed outside his residence. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house and killed just beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein. A persons abode is regarded as a sanctuary which should be respected by everybody. Here, the victim was hurriedly led out of his house shortly before he was shot to death. At that point, the aggression had begun, although it ended outside the victims house. An act performed cannot be divided or its unity broken up, when the offender began the aggression in the dwelling of the offended party and ended it in the street or outside said dwelling. (People vs. Uycoque, G.R. No. 107495, July 31, 1995) 26. Can the aggravating circumstance of treachery be committed when death is inflicted under exceptional circumstances? NO, because inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not a punishable act. Article 247 does not define or provide a specific crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned. In effect therefore, Article 247 amounts to an exempting circumstance. Not being a punishable act, it cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying circumstances. (People vs. Abarca, G.R. No. L-74433, September 14, 1987) 27. When is abuse of superior strength aggravating?

It is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor which the latter selected or took advantage of in the commission of the crime. The circumstance applies as in a case, where there is notorious disparity between the relative strength of the victim, a 74-year-old unarmed woman, and the assailant, a young man armed with a knife. (PEOPLE vs. CALPITO, G.R. No. 123298. November 27, 2003) 28. Is the number of wounds inflicted upon the victim a test in determining whether the killing was attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty? NO. The number of wounds is not a test for determining cruelty; it is whether the offender deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim's physical suffering. Thus, there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before the offender rendered the blow which snuffed out his life. There must be a showing that he deliberately and inhumanly increased the victims physical suffering. (PEOPLE vs. FLORENDO, G.R. No. 136845. October 8, 2003) 29. Ms. L gagged Bimbo, a 3-year old boy, and stuffed him inside a box and covered it with sacks. Ms. L then placed the box containing the poor little boy inside the ceiling of the house and left him there. Ms. L then demanded money from Bimbos parents as ransom for the release of their child. After receiving the ransom money, Ms. L told the parents that she left Bimbo in the ceiling of the house, where they discovered that Bimbo was already dead. What crime did Ms. L commit? Ms. L committed the crime of murder qualified by treachery. The gagging of Bimbo and placing him inside a box were the methods of Ms. L to commit murder. There is treachery because the victim is only a 3-year old child. The demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder. Ms. L was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of a diabolical scheme of Ms. L to murder Bimbo, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver. Furthermore the crime committed is aggravated by the circumstances of lack of respect due to age and cruelty. The aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to age applies in cases where the victim is of tender age as well as of old age. The gagging of the mouth of a three-year-old child with stockings, dumping him into a box, and covering the box with sacks, thereby causing slow suffocation, is cruelty. (People vs. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982)

30. Sergeant Cara was about to enter the house of Carlito when the latter suddenly rushed from a tree which was about 2.5 meters away from where Sgt. Cara was, saying, Vulva of your mother you policemen, I hate all of you and at the same time pushed and stabbed the latter at the back with a knife. He repeated the stabbing for eight more times. (a) Was there treachery? (b) May the aggravating circumstance of with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank be appreciated in this case? (a) YES, because the attack at the back of the victim was made in such a manner that would make it difficult for the deceased to offer an effective defense against his aggressor. Sergeant Cara had no opportunity to retaliate due to the sudden, unexpected and overpowering attack launched by Carlito. He afforded the hapless victim no chance to resist or to escape. The fact that the attack was preceded by the statement, Vulva of your mother you policemen, I hate all of you cannot be considered a sufficient warning for the deceased to offer adequate defense for the treacherous attack. For even when the victim was warned of the danger to his person if the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate, treachery can still be appreciated. (b) NO, because for this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, there must be proof which would clearly demonstrate that the accused deliberately intended to act with insult or in disregard of the respect due the victim on account of his rank, which is the essence of said aggravating circumstance. There must be proof that the specific fact or circumstance that the accused deliberately intended to insult the rank of the victim. A spontaneous utterance of hate and anger which is naturally harbored by any assailant, is not necessarily an expression of insult or disregard owing to a victims rank. (People vs. Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999) 31. Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. In recidivism 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 inal 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. 32. How is criminal liability extinguished? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Under Art. 89, criminal liability is totally extinguished by: The death of the convict as to the personal penalties, and as to the pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. Service of sentence Amnesty Absolute pardon Prescription of the crime Prescription of penalty The marriage of the offended woman as in the crimes of rape, abduction, seduction and acts of lasciviousness On the other hand, criminal liability is partially extinguished by Conditional pardon (Art. 95) Commutation of sentence (Art. 96) Good conduct allowance (Art. 97) Special conduct and workmanship allowance (Act No. 2489) Loyalty allowance (Art. 98) Preventive imprisonment (Art. 29) Confinement in a rehabilitation center (PD 603)

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 33.

Distinguish proclamation of amnesty from a grant of pardon.

Amnesty completely extinguishes criminal liability. Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense charged, that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense.

Amnesty is a public act of which the court should take judicial notice. The right to the benefits of the amnesty may not be waived because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by an amnesty proclamation, which has the force of law, not only as innocent but as a patriot or hero, and not to be punished as a criminal; for he stands in the eyes if the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty. Pardon, on the otherhand, granted after conviction frees the individual from all the penalties and legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil rights. But unless grounded on his innocence, (which is rare) it cannot bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Hence, a grant of pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon to public office necessarily relinquished by reason of the conviction although such pardon undoubtedly restores his eligibility for appointment to that office. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989) 34. When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. 35. Those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua; Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage; Those convicted of piracy; Those who are habitual delinquents; Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; Those already sentence to final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like destierro.

How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable under the RPC determined?

For crimes punished under the RPC, 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 Article 64 of the said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribe for the crime under the said Code. 36. 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? Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is more than one 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 prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said minimum and maximum. 37. What is the effect of death of the offended party in a criminal case? How about the death of the accused?

The death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue the case. On the other hand, if it were the accused who died pending appeal of conviction, his 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 the source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts. 38. Juan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed and the appellate court sustained his conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain. 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 accused has perfected an appeal from judgment of conviction.

39. While V was soundly asleep in his fishing boat then moored in the Pasig River near Jones Bridge,Manila. W beat V to unconsciousness and thereafter took his cash and valuables. What crime did W commit? Give your reasons. The crime committed by W is piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. Since W beat V to unconsciousness while he was sound asleep in his fishing boat then moored in the Pasig River near the Jones Bridge and then took his cash and valuables. Presidential decree No. 532 punishes piracy in Philippine waters and refers to any vessel or watercraft which includes boats used for fishing. Under the decree, piracy is committed not only by attacking or seizing any vessel but includes the taking away of personal belonging of a passenger irrespective of the value thereof by any person. 40. Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago community in a police car with SPO3 Caloy Itliong, blew his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly entered a one-way street. After demanding from Lunda Lo Hua, the driver her drivers license, Menor asked her to follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave instructions to Itliong to guard Lu Hua in one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight until he returns; then he got the car key to Lo Hua. In the meantime, the latter was not allowed to make any phone calls but was given food and access to the bathroom. What criminal offense has Menor committed? Expain. Menor is liable under Article 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention) he being under a public officer who detained a person without legal grounds. Violation of traffic ordinance by entering 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. 41. What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? The difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are: a. 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. b. 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. 42. On May 5, 1992 at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car travelling along the national Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting to his instant death. At the time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New Peoples Army and they killed the governor upon the orders of their senior officer, Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If your were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? 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 Peoples Army and the killing was upon the orders of their commander, hence, politically motivated. 43. 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? If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader thereof? 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 government powers and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations. The leader being unkown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoken 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 ( Article 135, RPC).

44. A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the students 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 As rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter. What crime or crimes, if any did B commit? Why? B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping 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 Article 148 and 151 of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a student. 45. A and his financee B were walking in the plaza when they met a group of policemen who had earlier tipped off that A was in possession of prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and sensing that they were after him, A handed a sachet containing shabu to his financee B, telling her to hide it in her handbag. The policeman saw B placing the sachet inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or that what was inside the sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? No. B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or of the content of the sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal intent to possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Acts is absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal liability to her in the absence of animus possidendi. 46. What is a buy-bust operation? How is it different from an instigation?

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment to arrest violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Its opposite is instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause. 47. May the crime of illegal sale of drugs be consummated without the exchange of the marked money?

YES. The consummation of the crime of illegal sale of drugs may be sufficiently established even in the absence of an exchange of money. The offer to sell and then the sale itself arises when the poseur-buyer shows the money to the offender, which prompts the latter to show the contents of the carton, and hand it over to the poseur-buyer. Mere showing of the said regulated drug does not negate the existence of an offer to sell or an actual sale. The crime of illegal sale of drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated. The payment could precede or follow delivery of the drug sold. In a "buy-bust" operation, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received the shabu from the offender and that the same was presented as evidence in Court. In short, proof of the transaction suffices. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by the offender and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods. (PEOPLE vs. YANG, G.R. No. 148077, February 16, 2004) 48. May an accused be convicted of selling shabu when he was arrested even before he could hand over the plastic tea bag containing shabu? No, without evidence that the accused handed over the shabu to the poseur buyer, he may not be convicted of consummated sale of shabu. However, where the accused intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to the poseur-buyer, he will be guilty of the crime of attempted sale of shabu. (PEOPLE vs. ADAM, G.R. No. 143842, October 13, 2003) 49. 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 lawyers 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

10

lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. What crime, if any, did the Sheriff commit? Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime? 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. 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. 50. Is good faith a defense in malversation?

YES, because proof of good faith will negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. A crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent. (Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103507, February 17, 1997) 51. May a public officer charged with intentional malversation be convicted of malversation through negligence? YES, because the felony of malversation through negligence is necessarily included in the felony of intentional malversation. Hence an allegation in the information of intentional malversation will allow conviction for malversation through negligence. (Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103507, February 17, 1997) 52. Mr. T was the general manager of the MIA. He was ordered by the President of the Philippines, through a memorandum, to immediately deliver the sum of 55 Million Pesos to the Office of the President for the payment of the MIAs indebtedness to another government agency, the PNOCC. It turned out that the said amount of money had not reached the PNOCC, and after investigation, it was discovered that the MIA was not indebted to the PNOCC. May Mr. T be convicted of Malversation? NO, because Mr. T acted in obedience to the order of the President of the Philippines, who is Mr. Ts superior officer. As a recipient of the order to deliver 55 Million Pesos to the Office of the President coming from the highest official of the land, goodfaith should be read on Tabuenas compliance to the Presidents order. Mr. T therefore is entitled to the justifying circumstance of obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. (Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 103507, February 17, 1997) 53. A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of marriage, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their daughter and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit? 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 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 said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise. 54. The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed 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. The accused is liable for the death if the victim though he merely aimed and fired at the latters leg, not intending to kill the victim, considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of the 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) 55. One afternoon, Gary went home early, and caught his wife having sexual intercourse with another man, Jim. Gary left the house and looked for a gun. After an hour, Gary returned to his house, on his way there he saw

11

Jim at a nearby store. Gary fired his gun at Jim five (5) times, instantly causing Jims death. Two innocent bystanders were also hit by the shooting, who suffered injuries and were placed in confinement for ten to fourteen days. Discuss the criminal liability of Gary. The death of Jim was inflicted under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Gary should be punished with the penalty of destierro. Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed between the time Gary discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with Jim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Gary. The revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused shall kill any of them . . . immediately after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accuseds rage. As for the injuries suffered by the two by-standers, Gary is liable for less serious physical injuries through simple imprudence. Gary did not have the intent to kill the two innocent bystanders. Gary was not committing a crime when he discharged his gun upon the victim. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not a crime; it is not a punishable act. Article 247 does not define or provide a specific crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned. In effect therefore, Article 247 amounts to an exempting circumstance. This does not mean however that Gary is totally free from any responsibility. There was negligence on his part in discharging his firearm, which caused less serious physical injuries upon the two innocent bystanders. (People vs. Abarca, G.R. No. L-74433, September 14, 1987) 56. 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 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 crimes or crimes were committed? Discuss fully. 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. 57. Will the mere touching of the external genitalia of the victim by the penis of the accused consummate the crime of rape? YES, because the slightest penetration is enough to consummate the crime of rape. In the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. (People vs. Quianola, G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999) 58. Code? What are the other acts considered rape under the Anti-rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are: a. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; b. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required in rape be present; and c. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a persons penis into the victims mouth or anal orifice or by a inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 59. Is there such a crime as frustrated rape by sexual assault?

NO, just like in rape committed by carnal knowledge, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the male penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any object into the genital or anal orifice of another person is sufficient. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the persons mouth or genital or anal orifice and the offender merely commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape by sexual assault, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage of this from of rape can ever be committed.

12

60.

In robbery, when should violence or intimidation be present?

The general rule is that if there is violence or intimidation at any time before asportation is complete, the taking of personal property is qualified to robbery. It is not necessary that violence or intimidation should be present from the very beginning. But when the violence results in (a) homicide, (b) rape, (c) intentional mutilation, or (d) any of the serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 263, the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes, even if the taking is already complete when the violence was used by the offender. (Art. 294, Revised Penal Code) 61. A, brother of B, with 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. (a) What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (b) Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. a. b. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut shell with the coins inside was taken without with intent to gain and broken outside of their home ( Art. 299(b) (2), RPC). 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.

62. Suppose that in the course of the execution of the crime of robbery, one of the offenders inflicted upon another robber, who wanted to get all the loot, physical injuries which resulted in the latters deformity. Is the crime robbery with serious physical injuries under Art. 294 (4)? NO. Note the word of Art. 294 (4): upon any person not responsible for its commission. Thus, it would seem that the penalty prescribed in par. 4 of Art. 294 should not be applied. The offender who inflicted on another robber physical injuries which later resulted in deformity, would be liable for 2 crimes, namely: (a) robbery and (b) serious physical injuries under Art. 263, par. 3. 63. 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. 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 persons relative to the taking that qualifies the crime of 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 employing violence against or intimidation of persons. 64. With intent to rob Petra, Badong entered her hotel room and hogtied her. Then he stuffed a piece of pandesal into Petras mouth to keep her from shouting. Badong ransacked the room for valuables. Petra made bodily movements to free herself, but this caused the pandesal stuffed in her mouth to slide down her throat; thereby suffocating her and causing her death. When charged with robbery with homicide, Badong contends that he was liable only for robbery, as his intention was only to rob Petra and that her death was merely accidental. Is he correct? NO, because it is settled doctrine that when death supervenes by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere accident. What is important is that the death results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection exists between the robbery and the killing, regardless of which of the two precedes the other, or whether they were committed at the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. If the circumstances would indicate no intention to kill, as in the instant case were evidently, the intention is to prevent the deceased from making an outcry, and so a pandesal was stuffed into her mouth, the mitigating circumstance of having intended to commit so grave a wrong may be appreciated. (People vs. Opero, G.R. No. L-48796, June 11, 1981) 65. Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed on a highway.

Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in these respects:

13

a. b.

c.

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 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 traveling thereat; whereas ordinary robbery in public highway is only occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.

66. If murder and frustrated murder is committed in the course of a carnapping punished under R.A. No. 6539, may three (3) separate informations charging murder, frustrated murder, and carnapping be filed against the accused? NO, because the crime of murder is absorbed in the single and indivisible crime or special complex crime of qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form . R.A. No. 6539 imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof. The words IS KILLED make no distinction between murder and homicide, hence when a person is killed in the course of the carnapping, whether it homicide or murder cannot be treated as a separate offense, but should only be considered to qualify the crime of carnapping. If attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed in the course of the carnapping, then it must be deemed to fall under the Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539 when the carnapping is committed by means of violence against and intimidation of any person. The unmistakable import of the words IS KILLED is that it refers only to the consummated felony of either murder or homicide. (People vs. Mejia, G.R. No. 118940, July 7, 1997) 67. A is a girl of 17 years, single, and a fourth year high school student whose teacher is B. Teaching in the same school is C. One afternoon, after class, A and C had sexual intercourse in the storeroom of the school. A became pregnant. Prosecuted for qualified seduction, C interposed the following defenses: (1) C is not the teacher of A; (2) A is not a virgin; and (3) the sexual relation was with the consent of A. Are the defenses of C meritorious? Reason. The defenses of C are not meritorious. (a) Qualified seduction may be committed as long as the accused is a teacher in the same school where the student is studying. This is due to the abuse of confidence and the moral influence which the teacher exercises over the victim as a member of the faculty. (Santos v. People, 40 O.G.) (b) Virginity is not to be understood in the physical sense. It includes a girl of good reputation . (People v. Lanot, CA-GR No. 04557) (c) consent of the woman is not a defense since it was accomplished by abuse of authority or confidence in view of the position of C as a teacher. 68. Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street, Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit? Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they collectively caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger the life or property of others. 69. A and B are brothers-in-law living together in the same house. A committed Estafa through Falsification of a Commercial Document against B. Prosecuted for this offense, A claimed that because of their relationship the liability that he had incurred was only civil, not criminal. Decide the case with reasons. A, in spite of his relationship with B cannot claim exemption from criminal responsibility from the crime committed. The absolutory cause provided in Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code refers to theft, estafa and malicious mischief. Estafa through falsification as a complex crime is not included. If at all, A is still liable for falsification of a commercial document. 70. A sold a washing machine to B 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?

14

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. 71. X was in charge of the releasing of AFP retirement checks. Upon the representations made by S that certain claimants were indeed the persons whose names appear on the checks, X released the checks. S made said representation upon the assurance made by a former classmate and after examining the residence certificates of the claimants. After two days, the real payees appeared, complaining that they had not yet received their checks. What crime if any was committed by S? S committed the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document by reckless imprudence. S cooperated in the commission of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document by reckless imprudence by acts without which it could not have been accomplished, and this being the fact, there would be no reason to exculpate him from liability. The mere assurance of a former classmate would certainly not be a satisfactory identification to justify the release of the checks, neither does the presentation of the residence certificates constitute adequate identification since these certificates are not means of establishing the identity of persons. (Samson vs. Court of Appeals, 103 Phil 277) 72. A and B agreed to meet at the latters house to discuss Bs financial problems. On his way, one of As car tires blew up. Before A left 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. 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, hence criminal intent or dolo is absent. 73. What if the reason for the dishonor of the check was that it was drawn against uncollected deposit and not drawn against insufficient funds, will a prosecution under B.P. 22 prosper? If the reason for the dishonor of a check was that it was drawn against insufficient funds, the drawer thereof is still liable under B.P. 22 because just the same, said drawer has no sufficient funds in his account to cover the amount of the check at the time of its presentment. However, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of clients, in which case there would be no violation of B.P. Blg. 22. (ABARQUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 148557, August 7, 2003) 74. Under B.P. Blg. 22, is the notice of dishonor required to be in writing?

YES, the notice of dishonor of a check to the maker must be in writing. While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of the law. i.e., "that where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal," a mere oral notice or demand to pay would appear to be insufficient for conviction under the law. Unless and until the drawer or maker of the check receives a written notice of dishonor of the check, or where there is no proof as to when such notice of dishonor was received by the drawer or maker, the five-day period within which the drawer or maker has to pay the amount due or made arrangements with the drawee bank for the payment of the check, cannot be determined. In such case, the prima facie presumption cannot arise. (SIA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 149695, April 28, 2004) 75. a. While the Commission on Appointments was considering the nomination of A as Department Secretary, a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to As appointment. They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, 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?

15

b. If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? a. 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. b. 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. 76. a. b. What is hazing as defined by law? What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed?

a. 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. b. Section 2 of R.A. 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 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. 77. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Theof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a consultant. Theof later received a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Bangko Sentral. May Theof be prosecuted under R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. No, Theof may not be prosecuted under R.A. 3019, but may be prosecuted for Indirect Bribery, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift by reason of his office is punished. Although Theof is a public officer within the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under R.A. 3019 since he is 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. 78. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, Mina argued for her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the jewelry recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. Is her defense well-taken? Explain. No, the 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. 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 v. 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 unlicensed, in order to escape liability.

16