Red Notes Criminal Law

C R I M I N A L L A W
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS

FREQUENTLY ASKED OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Distinguis !"ti#$ %&"! int$nt' (1(()* 1((()
ANSWER+ Motive is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a definite result,
while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result. Intent is an
element of the crime (except in unintentional felonies), whereas motive is not.
(,) W-t ." /"u un.$&st-n. 0/ aberratio ictus1 error in personae -n. praeter intentionem2 D"
t$/ -3t$& t$ 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ "% t$ -44us$.2 (1(5(* 1((6* 1((7* 1((()
ANSWER+ Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered
the blow at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or
more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim
and the consequences on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the
more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. t is only when
the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are
to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.
Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the
victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in
identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which
case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be
imposed but in the maximum period (Art. !", #$%).
Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. &', par. ', #$%) when there is a notorious
disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony,
i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender
from the act or means employed by him.
(6) Distinguis !-3- in s$ %&"! !-3- 8&"i0it-' (1(55* 1((9* 1((5* ,::1* ,::6)
ANSWER+ Mala in se is a wrong from its very nature, as most of those punished in the
#$%. (ence, in its commission, intent is an element and good faith is a defense. The test to
determine whether an offense is mala in se is not the law punishing it but the very nature
of the act itself.
)n the other hand, an act mala prohibita is a wrong because it is prohibited by law.
*ithout the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. (ence, the mere
commission of that act is what constitutes the offense punished and criminal intent will be
immaterial for reason of public policy.
(7) W-t -&$ $in"us 4&i!$s2 N-!$ t$n s8$4i%i4 $in"us 4&i!$s' (1((7* 1((;* 1((9)
ANSWER+ (einous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by
reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a
+ust, civili,ed and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
(WHEREAS CLAUSE, RA !"#$%

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
T$ t$n s8$4i%i4 $in"us 4&i!$s -&$+
&. Treason
-. .ualified $iracy
'. .ualified /ribery
!. $arricide
0. 1urder
2. 3idnapping and 4erious llegal 5etention
6. #obbery with (omicide
7. 5estructive Arson
". #ape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide
&8. $lunder
(;) W-t -&$ t$ inst-n4$s <$n t$ .$-t 8$n-3t/ 4"u3. n"t 0$ i!8"s$.1 -3t"ug it s"u3.
"t$&<is$ 0$ !$t$. "ut2 (1((9* 1((5)
ANSWER+ 9nder Art. !6 of the #$%, the death penalty shall not be imposed when:
&. The guilty person is below &7 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime, or
-. s more than 68 years of age, or
3. *hen upon appeal of the case by the 4%, the required ma+ority vote is not obtained
for the imposition of the death penalty.
()) W$n is t$ 0$n$%it "% t$ In.$t$&!in-t$ S$nt$n4$ L-< n"t -883i4-03$2 (1(((* ,::6)
ANSWER+ The ndeterminate 4entence ;aw does not apply to:
&. $ersons convicted of offenses punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment<
-. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason<
'. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage<
!. Those convicted of piracy<
0. Those who are habitual delinquents<
2. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence<
6. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the %hief
=xecutive<
7. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year<
". Those who, upon the approval of the law (5ecember 0, &"''), had been sentenced
by final +udgment<
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of &estierro or suspension.
(9) W-t is -n i!8"ssi03$ 4&i!$2 (1((6* ,::6)
ANSWER+ t is an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art ', par (%
/ut where the acts performed which would have resulted in an impossible crime also &)
constitute an offense under the #$%, or (-) would sub+ect the accused to criminal liability
although of a different category, the penalty to be imposed should be that for the latter
and not that for an impossible crime.

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
(5) Distinguis instig-ti"n %&"! $nt&-8!$nt' (1((:* 1((;* ,::6)
ANSWER+ Insti)ation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a
crime. *ithout the inducement, the crime would not be committed. (ence, it is exempting
by reason of public policy. )therwise, the peace officer would be a co>principal.
)n the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace officer
to entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. *ith or without the
entrapment, the crime has been committed already. (ence, entrapment is not mitigating.
(() W-t is t$ 8u&8"s$ "% t$ =&"0-ti"n L-<2 (1(5)* 1(5()
ANSWER+ The purposes of the $robation ;aw are:
a. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with
individuali,ed treatment<
b. To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be
less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence< and
c. To prevent the commission of offenses.
(1:) W-t is t$ ."4t&in$ "% i!83i$. 4"ns8i&-4/2 (1((5* ,::6)
ANSWER+ The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in
the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co>conspirators although
absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of
criminal intent and a common purpose or ob+ective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be
inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act
of one shall be the act of all.
(11) A&$ &$43usi"n 8$&8$tu- -n. 3i%$ i!8&is"n!$nt t$ s-!$2 C-n t$/ 0$ i!8"s$.
int$&4-ng$-03/2 (1((1* 1((7* ,::1)
ANSWER+ ?). Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the #$%, with a fixed
duration of imprisonment from -8 years and & day to !8 years, and carries with it accessory
penalties.
Li*e imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no
fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.
(1,) W-t is - !$!"&-n.u! 4$4>2 Is - 8$&s"n <" issu$s - !$!"&-n.u! 4$4> <it"ut
su%%i4i$nt %un.s gui3t/ "% #i"3-ting B'= B3g' ,,2 (1((7*1((;)
ANSWER+ A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word @1emorandum,A
@1emo,A or @1emA written across the check, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to
pay its holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of a promissory note. t is drawn on a
bank and is a bill of exchange within the purview of 4ec. &70 of the ?egotiable nstruments
;aw.
A person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of violating
/.$ /lg. -- as said law covers all checks whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in
payment of a pre>existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee.

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
,::7 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS IN CRIMINAL LAW
QUESTION I
A' RR &$8&$s$nt$. t" AA1 BB1 CC -n. DD t-t s$ 4"u3. s$n. t$! t" L"n."n t" <"&>
t$&$ -s s-3$s 3-.i$s -n. <-it&$ss$s' S$ 4"33$4t$. -n. &$4$i#$. %&"! t$! #-&i"us -!"unts "%
!"n$/ %"& &$4&uit!$nt -n. 83-4$!$nt %$$s t"t-3ing =7::1:::' A%t$& t$i& .-t$s "% .$8-&tu&$
<$&$ 8"st8"n$. s$#$&-3 ti!$s1 t$ %"u& 8&"s8$4ts g"t sus8i4i"us -n. <$nt t" =OEA (=i3i88in$
O#$&s$-s E!83"/!$nt Aut"&it/)' T$&$ t$/ %"un. "ut t-t RR <-s n"t -ut"&i?$. n"&
3i4$ns$. t" &$4&uit <"&>$&s %"& $!83"/!$nt -0&"-.' T$/ s"ugt &$%un. t" n" -#-i3'
Is RR gui3t/ "% -n/ g&-#$ "%%$ns$2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/'
B' DAN1 - 8&i#-t$ in.i#i.u-31 >i.n-88$. CAU1 - !in"&' On t$ s$4"n. .-/1 DAN
&$3$-s$. CAU $#$n 0$%"&$ -n/ 4&i!in-3 in%"&!-ti"n <-s %i3$. -g-inst i!' At t$ t&i-3 "% is
4-s$1 DAN &-is$. t$ .$%$ns$ t-t $ .i. n"t in4u& -n/ 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ sin4$ $ &$3$-s$. t$
4i3. 0$%"&$ t$ 3-8s$ "% t$ 6B.-/ 8$&i". -n. 0$%"&$ 4&i!in-3 8&"4$$.ings %"& >i.n-88ing <$&$
institut$.'
Wi33 DANCs .$%$ns$ 8&"s8$&2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. Bes. ## is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment constituting
the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of
$&88,888.88.
=conomic sabotage is an offense defined in '7(b) of the ;abor %ode, as amended by
$residential 5ecree ?o. -8&7, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large
scale or by a syndicate. t is a large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties,
individually or as group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons conspire or
cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or activity. (UP La+
Center%
/. ?), 5A?Cs defense will not prosper because he is liable for 3idnapping and 4erious
llegal 5etention and the circumstances that he released %(9 before the lapse of three days and
before the criminal proceedings were instituted, are pertinent only when the crime committed is
4light llegal 5etention. These circumstances mitigate the liability of the offender only when the
crime committed is 4light llegal 5etention. The crime committed by 5A? was 3idnapping and
4erious llegal 5etention because he is a private individual who detained and kidnapped %(9, who
is a minor. (Arts ("! an& (",, Revise& Penal Co&e%
QUESTION II
A' On is <-/ "!$ %&"! "%%i4$1 DD &".$ in - E$$8n$/' Su0s$Fu$nt3/1 GG 0"-&.$. t$
s-!$ E$$8n$/' U8"n &$-4ing - s$43u.$. s8"t in QC1 GG 8u33$. "ut - g&$n-.$ %&"! is 0-g -n.
-nn"un4$. - "3.Bu8' A$ t"3. DD t" su&&$n.$& is <-t41 <-33$t -n. 4$338"n$' F$-&ing %"& is
3i%$1 DD Eu!8$. "ut "% t$ #$i43$' But -s $ %$331 is $-. it t$ 8-#$!$nt1 4-using is inst-nt
.$-t'
Is GG 3i-03$ %"& DDCs .$-t2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/'
B' MNO1 <" is 6: /$-&s "3.1 <-s 4-&g$. -s - .&ug 8us$& un.$& t$ C"!8&$$nsi#$
D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t "% ,::,' Du&ing 8&$Bt&i-31 $ "%%$&$. t" 83$-. gui3t/ t" t$ 3$ss$& "%%$ns$
4"n4$&ning us$ "% .-ng$&"us .&ugs'
S"u3. t$ Ju.g$ -33"< MNOCs 83$- t" t$ 3$ss$& "%%$ns$2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/.
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
A. B=4, DD is liable for EECs death because criminal liability is incurred by a person
committing a felony although the wrong done be different from that which he intended. (e is
responsible for all the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. DDCs act of
announcing a hold>up is an attempted robbery. EECs death is the direct, natural and logical
consequence of DDCs felonious act because EE +umped out of the vehicle by reason of DDCs
announcement of a hold>up. DD is liable for EECs death even if he did not intend to cause the
same. (Art ', Revise& Penal Co&e- People vs Arpa, (! SCRA ./0! 1.$"$2%
/. ?), the +udge should not allow 1?) to plead to a lesser offense because plea bargaining
is expressly prohibited under the %omprehensive 5angerous Act of -88-. (RA $."#, Sec (0%
QUESTION III
A' BB -n. CC1 0"t -&!$. <it >ni#$s1 -tt-4>$. FT' T$ #i4ti!Cs s"n1 ST1 u8"n s$$ing
t$ -tt-4>1 .&$< is gun 0ut <-s 8&$#$nt$. %&"! s""ting t$ -tt-4>$&s 0/ AA1 <" g&-883$.
<it i! %"& 8"ss$ssi"n "% t$ gun' FT .i$. %&"! >ni%$ <"un.s' AA1 BB -n. CC <$&$ 4-&g$.
<it !u&.$&'
In is .$%$ns$1 AA in#">$. t$ Eusti%/ing 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% -#"i.ing "% g&$-t$& $#i3 "&
inEu&/1 4"nt$n.ing t-t 0/ 8&$#$nting ST %&"! s""ting BB -n. CC1 $ !$&$3/ -#"i.$. - g&$-t$&
$#i3'
Wi33 AACs .$%$ns$ 8&"s8$&2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
B' =G <-s 4"n#i4t$. -n. s$nt$n4$. t" i!8&is"n!$nt "% ti&t/ .-/s -n. - %in$ "% "n$
un.&$. 8$s"s' =&$#i"us3/1 =G <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% -n"t$& 4&i!$ %"& <i4 t$ 8$n-3t/ i!8"s$.
"n i! <-s ti&t/ .-/s "n3/'
Is =G $ntit3$. t" 8&"0-ti"n2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. ?), AACs defense will not prosper because AA was not avoiding any evil when he sought
to disable 4T. AACs act of preventing 4T from shooting // and %%, who were the aggressors, was
designed to insure the killing of FT without any risk to his assailants. =ven if 4T was about to shoot
// and %%, his act being in defense of his father FT, is not an evil that could +ustifiably be avoided
by disabling 4T. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .., par ',%
/. B=4, $D may apply for probation. (is previous conviction for another crime with a
penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (&) month, does not disqualify him from
applying for probation< the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from
applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed six (2) years. (P3 45 $",, Sec
$%
QUESTION IV
A' OW is - 8&i#-t$ 8$&s"n $ng-g$. in 4-tt3$ &-n4ing' On$ nigt1 $ s-< AM st-0 CV
t&$-4$&"us3/1 t$n t&"< t$ .$-. !-nCs 0"./ int" - &-#in$' F"& ,; /$-&s1 CVCs 0"./ <-s
n$#$& s$$n n"& %"un.* -n. OW t"3. n" "n$ <-t $ -. <itn$ss$.'
Y$st$&.-/1 -%t$& 4"nsu3ting t$ 8-&is 8&i$st1 OW .$4i.$. t" t$33 t$ -ut"&iti$s <-t $
<itn$ss$. -n. &$#$-3$. t-t AM >i33$. CV ,; /$-&s -g"'
C-n AM 0$ 8&"s$4ut$. %"& !u&.$& .$s8it$ t$ 3-8s$ "% ,; /$-&s2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
B' TRY <-s s$nt$n4$. t" .$-t 0/ %in-3 Eu.g!$nt' But su0s$Fu$nt3/ $ <-s g&-nt$.
8-&."n 0/ t$ =&$si.$nt' T$ 8-&."n <-s si3$nt "n t$ 8$&8$tu-3 .isFu-3i%i4-ti"n "% TRY t"
"3. -n/ 8u03i4 "%%i4$'
A%t$& is 8-&."n1 TRY &-n %"& "%%i4$ -s M-/"& "% A==1 is "!$t"<n' Ais "88"n$nt s"ugt t"
.isFu-3i%/ i!' TRY 4"nt$n.$. $ is n"t .isFu-3i%i$. 0$4-us$ $ <-s -3&$-./ 8-&."n$. 0/ t$
=&$si.$nt un4"n.iti"n-33/'
Is TRYCs 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
A. B=4, A1 can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of -0 years, because the crime
has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run.
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the
crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. )*, a private
person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been
discovered by the authorities or their agents. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art $.%
/. ?), T#BCs contention is incorrect because the pardon granted by the $resident does not
expressly extinguish the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office. A
pardon granted by the $resident shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or
the right of suffrage, unless such right is expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. (Revise&
Penal Co&e, Art 0"%
QUESTION V
A' T$ .$-t 8$n-3t/ 4-nn"t 0$ in%3i4t$. un.$& <i4 "% t$ %"33"<ing 4i&4u!st-n4$s+
1' W$n t$ gui3t/ 8$&s"n is -t 3$-st 15 /$-&s "% -g$ -t t$ ti!$ "% t$
4"!!issi"n "% t$ 4&i!$'
,' W$n t$ gui3t/ 8$&s"n is !"&$ t-n 9: /$-&s "% -g$'
6' W$n1 u8"n -88$-3 t" "& -ut"!-ti4 &$#i$< 0/ t$ Su8&$!$ C"u&t1 t$
&$Fui&$. !-E"&it/ %"& t$ i!8"siti"n "% .$-t 8$n-3t/ is n"t "0t-in$.'
7' W$n t$ 8$&s"n is 4"n#i4t$. "% - 4-8it-3 4&i!$ 0ut 0$%"&$ $@$4uti"n
0$4"!$s ins-n$'
;' W$n t$ -44us$. is - <"!-n <i3$ s$ is 8&$gn-nt "& <itin "n$ /$-& -%t$&
.$3i#$&/'
E@83-in /"u& -ns<$& "& 4"i4$ 0&i$%3/'
B' CB= is 3$g-33/ !-&&i$. t" OBM' Wit"ut "0t-ining - !-&&i-g$ 3i4$ns$1 CB= 4"nt&-4t$.
- s$4"n. !-&&i-g$ t" RST'
Is CB= 3i-03$ %"& 0ig-!/2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. 9nderstanding the word @inflictedA to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its
execution, the circumstance in which the penalty cannot be inflicted is no. -: @when the guilty is
more than 68 years of ageA (Article !6, #evised $enal %ode). nstead, the penalty shall be
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article !8, #$%.
n circumstance no. & the guilty person is at least &7 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal
age when he committed the crime.
%ircumstance no. ' no longer operates, considering the decision of the 4upreme %ourt in
$eople vs. =fren 1ateo (G.#. ?o. &!6267>76, Huly 6, -88!) providing an intermediate review by the
%ourt of Appeals for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment before they are elevated to the 4upreme %ourt. *hile the Fundamental ;aw requires
a mandatory review by the 4upreme %ourt of cases where the penalty imposed is reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate
review. A prior determination by the %ourt of Appeals on, particularly, the factual issues, would
minimi,e the possibility of an error of +udgment. f the %ourt of Appeals should affirm the penalty
of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, it could then render +udgment imposing the
corresponding penalty as the circumstances so warrant, refrain from entering +udgment and elevate
the entire records of the case to the 4upreme %ourt for its final disposition.
n circumstances nos. ! and 0, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law
violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could
be executed and while he is insane. ;ikewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but
its execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery. (UP La+
Center%

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
/. *hether %/$ could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second
marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general rule, marriages
solemni,ed without license are null and void ab initio, there are marriages exempted from license
requirement under %hapter -, Title & of the Family %ode, such as in Article -6 which is marriage in
articulo mortis. f the second marriage was valid even without a marriage license, then %/$ would
be liable for bigamy. )therwise, %/$ is not liable for bigamy but for llegal 1arriage in Art. '08 for
the #evised $enal %ode, specifically designated as @1arriage contracted against provisions of laws.A
(UP La+ Center%
A3t$&n-ti#$ Ans<$&+
B=4, %/$ is liable for bigamy because the legality of the second marriage is immaterial as
far as the law on bigamy is concerned. Any person who shall contract a second or subsequent
marriage, before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has
been declared presumptively dead by means of a +udgment rendered in the proper proceedings, is
criminally liable for the crime of bigamy. A plain reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that
the provision penali,es the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the
subsistence of a valid marriage.
To hold otherwise would render the 4tateCs penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and
allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and
to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of
hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment. (6E4E7R5 vs C5UR6 58 APPEALS,
9R 4o .#/!#,, 8ebruar: .,, (//'%
QUESTION VI
A' CD is t$ st$8%-t$& "% FEL' On$ .-/1 CD g"t #$&/ !-. -t FEL %"& %-i3ing in is 4"33$g$
4"u&s$s' In is %u&/1 CD g"t t$ 3$-t$& suit4-s$s "% FEL -n. 0u&n$. it t"g$t$& <it -33 its
4"nt$nts'
1' W-t 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. 0/ CD2
,' Is CD 4&i!in-33/ 3i-03$2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/2
B' HV <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8ing TC1 is ni$4$ -n. $ <-s s$nt$n4$. t" .$-t' It <-s
-33$g$. in t$ in%"&!-ti"n t-t t$ #i4ti! <-s - !in"& 0$3"< s$#$n /$-&s "3. -n. $& !"t$&
t$sti%i$. t-t s$ <-s "n3/ si@ /$-&s -n. t$n !"nts "3.1 <i4 $& -unt 4"&&"0"&-t$. "n t$
<itn$ss st-n.' T$ in%"&!-ti"n -3s" -33$g$. t-t t$ -44us$. <-s t$ #i4ti!Cs un43$1 - %-4t
8&"#$. 0/ t$ 8&"s$4uti"n'
On -ut"!-ti4 &$#i$< 0$%"&$ t$ Su8&$!$ C"u&t1 -44us$.B-88$33-nt 4"nt$n.s t-t
4-8it-3 8unis!$nt 4"u3. n"t 0$ i!8"s$. "n i! 0$4-us$ "% t$ in-.$Fu-4/ "% t$ 4-&g$s -n.
t$ insu%%i4i$n4/ "% t$ $#i.$n4$ t" 8&"#$ -33 t$ $3$!$nts "% t$ $in"us 4&i!$ "% &-8$ 0$/"n.
&$-s"n-03$ ."u0t'
Is -88$33-ntCs 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. &. The crime committed by %5 is arson under $res. 5ecree ?o. &2&' (the ne+ Arson
La+% which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another (Section . o*
Pres 3ecree 4o .".0%
-. %5 is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of F=; whose property he burnt,
because such relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in
crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 00(, Revise& Penal Co&e% The
provision (Art 0(0% of the %ode to the effect that burning property of small value should be
punished as malicious mischief has long been repealed by $res. 5ecree &2&'< hence there is no
more legal basis to consider burning property of small value as malicious mischief. (UP La+
Center%
/. B=4, the appellantCs contentions are correct, because the victimCs minority was not
sufficiently proved by the prosecution, and neither was the appellantCs relationship with the victim
properly alleged in the information. The testimony of the mother regarding the age of T%,
although corroborated by her aunt, is not sufficient proof of the age of the victim in order to +ustify
the imposition of the death penalty. Testimonial evidence on the age of the victim may be
presented only if the certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents such as baptismal

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim, is shown to have been
lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable. (PE5PLE vs PRU4A, 9R 4o .0,'!., 5ctober ./,
(//(%
Furthermore, if the offender is merely a relative, not a parent, ascendant, step>parent, or
guardian or common>law spouse of the mother of the victim, the information must allege that he is
a relative by consanguinity or affinity, as the case may be, Iwithin the third civil degree.I Thus, it
is not enough for the information to merely allege that appellant is the IuncleI of the victim even if
the prosecution is able to prove this matter during trial. t is still necessary to allege that such
relationship was Iwithin the third civil degree,I so that in the absence of said allegation, appellant
can only be held liable for simple rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
(PE5PLE vs HERE;ESE, 9R 4o .'#'/!, September .., (//0%
QUESTION VII
A' AG <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% &$4>3$ss i!8&u.$n4$ &$su3ting in "!i4i.$' T$ t&i-3 4"u&t
s$nt$n4$. i! t" - 8&is"n t$&! -s <$33 -s t" 8-/ =1;:1::: -s 4i#i3 in.$!nit/ -n. .-!-g$s'
Wi3$ is -88$-3 <-s 8$n.ing1 AG !$t - %-t-3 -44i.$nt' A$ 3$%t - /"ung <i."<1 , 4i3.&$n -n. -
!i33i"nB8$s" $st-t$'
W-t is t$ $%%$4t1 i% -n/1 "% is .$-t "n is 4&i!in-3 -s <$33 -s 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/2 E@83-in
0&i$%3/2
B' OG -n. YO <$&$ 0"t 4"u&ting t$i& 4"B$!83"/$$1 SUE' B$4-us$ "% t$i& 0itt$&
&i#-3&/1 OD .$4i.$. t" g$t &i. "% YO 0/ 8"is"ning i!' OD 8"u&$. - su0st-n4$ int" YOCs 4"%%$$
tin>ing it <-s -&s$ni4' It tu&n$. "ut t-t t$ su0st-n4$ <-s <it$ sug-& su0stitut$ >n"<n -s
EFu-3' N"ting -88$n$. t" YO -%t$& $ .&-n> t$ 4"%%$$'
W-t 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ .i. OD in4u&1 i% -n/2 E@83-in 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. The death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction will extinguish his
criminal liability as well as his civil liability arising from the crime committed. (owever civil
liability arising from sources other than the crime committed survives and maybe pursued in a
separate civil action. 4ources of civil liability other than crime are law, contracts, quasi>contracts
and quasi>delicts. (PE5PLE vs 7A<56AS, 9R 45 .#(//!, September (, .$$'%
/. )E incurred criminal liability for impossible crime. The crime committed by )E could
have been murder, which is a crime against persons, if it were not on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means. The substance poured by )E on B)Cs drink was not arsenic as
)E thought it would be, but was merely white sugar which was ineffectual to produce B)Cs death.
(Revise& Penal Co&e, Art '%
QUESTION VIII
A' =A >i33$. OJ1 is 8"3iti4-3 &i#-3 in t$ $3$4ti"n 4-!8-ign %"& M-/"& "% t$i& t"<n' T$
in%"&!-ti"n -g-inst =A -33$g$. t-t $ us$. -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&! in t$ >i33ing "% t$ #i4ti!1
-n. tis <-s 8&"#$. 0$/"n. &$-s"n-03$ ."u0t 0/ t$ 8&"s$4uti"n' T$ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n#i4t$. =A
"% t<" 4&i!$s+ !u&.$& -n. i33$g-3 8"ss$ssi"n "% %i&$-&!s'
Is t$ 4"n#i4ti"n 4"&&$4t2 R$-s"n 0&i$%/'
B' DCB1 t$ .-ugt$& "% MCB1 st"3$ t$ $-&&ings "% GDY1 - st&-ng$&' MCB 8-<n$. t$
$-&nings <it TBI =-<ns"8 -s - 83$.g$ %"& =;:: 3"-n' Du&ing t$ t&i-31 MCB &-is$. t$ .$%$ns$
t-t 0$ing t$ !"t$& "% DCB1s$ 4-nn"t 0$ $3. 3i-03$ -s -n -44$ss"&/'
Wi33 MCBCs .$%$ns$ 8&"s8$&2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. ?), $( should be convicted only of murder. The use of the unlicensed firearm shall be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance only and not punishable separately. f homicide or

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall
be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (RA 45 ,($', Sec .%
/. 1%/Cs defense will not prosper because she profited from the effects of the crime
committed by her daughter 5%/. An accessory is not exempt from criminal liability even if the
principal is his spouse, ascendant, descendant, or legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister, or
relative by affinity with in the same degree, if such accessory profited from the effects of the
crime, or assisted the principal to profit therefrom. The reason is that the accessory in such cases
act not by the impulse of affection but by detestable greed. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art (/%
QUESTION IG
A' M&s' MNA <-s 4-&g$. "% 4i3. -0us$' It -88$-&s %&"! t$ $#i.$n4$ t-t s$ %-i3$. t"
gi#$ i!!$.i-t$3/ t$ &$Fui&$. !$.i4-3 -tt$nti"n t" $& -."8t$. 4i3.1 B=O1 <$n $ <-s
-44i.$nt-33/ 0u!8$. 0/ $& 4-&1 &$su3ting in is $-. inEu&i$s -n. i!8-i&$. #isi"n t-t 4"u3.
3$-. t" nigt 03in.n$ss' T$ -44us$.1 -44"&.ing t" t$ s"4i-3 <"&>$& "n t$ 4-s$1 us$. t" <i8
i! <$n $ %-i3$. t" 4"!$ "!$ "n ti!$ %&"! s4""3' A3s"1 t" 8unis i! %"& 4-&$3$ssn$ss in
<-sing .is$s1 s$ s"!$ti!$s s$nt i! t" 0$. <it"ut su88$&'
S$ !"#$. t" Fu-s t$ 4-&g$ "n t$ g&"un. t-t t$&$ is n" $#i.$n4$ t-t s$
!-3t&$-t$. $& -."8t$. 4i3. -0itu-33/' S$ -..$. t-t t$ -44i.$nt <-s 4-us$. 0/ $&
.&i#$&Cs n$g3ig$n4$' S$ .i. 8unis $& <-&. %"& n-ugtin$ss "& 4-&$3$ssn$ss1 0ut "n3/ !i3.3/'
Is $& !"ti"n !$&it"&i"us2 R$-s"n 0&i$%3/'
B' T"g$t$& GA1 YB -n. DC 83-nn$. t" &"0 Miss OD' T$/ $nt$&$. $& "us$ 0/ 0&$->ing
"n$ "% t$ <in."<s in "us$' A%t$& t->ing $& 8$&s"n-3 8&"8$&ti$s -n. -s t$/ <$&$ -0"ut t"
3$-#$1 GA .$4i.$. "n i!8u3s$ t" &-8$ OD' As GA <-s !"3$sting $&1 YB -n. DC st"". "utsi.$ t$
.""& "% $& 0$.&""! -n. .i. n"ting t" 8&$#$nt GA %&"! &-8ing OD'
W-t 4&i!$ "& 4&i!$s .i. GA1 YB -n. DC 4"!!it1 -n. <-t is t$ 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ "%
$-42 E@83-in 0&i$%3/'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+
A. ?), 1?A is guilty of %hild Abuse under #.A. ?). 62&8. 4aid statute penali,es acts of
child abuse whether habitual or not. 1Sec 0 (b%, RA 45 !"./2 1?ACs act of whipping her adopted
child when he failed to come home on time, sending him to bed without supper for carelessness in
washing dishes, and failure to immediately give medical treatment to her in+ured adopted child
resulting in serious impairment of growth and development and in his permanent incapacity,
constitutes maltreatment and is punishable as %hild Abuse. 1Sec 0 (b% o* RA 45 !"./2
/. The crime committed by DA, B/ and E% is the composite crime of robbery with rape, a
single, indivisible offense under Art. -"!(&) of the #evised $enal %ode.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only DA
raped %5, the other robbers, B/ and E%, were present and aware of the rape being committed by
their co>conspirator. (aving done nothing to stop DA from committing the rape, B/ and E% thereby
concurred in the commission of the rape by their co>conspirator DA.
The criminal liability of all, DA, BE and E%, shall be the same, as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is +ust a component. (UP La+ Center%
QUESTION G
Distinguis 43$-&3/ 0ut 0&i$%3/+
1' B$t<$$n &$0$33i"n -n. 4"u8 .C$t-t 0-s$. "n t$i& 4"nstituti#$ $3$!$nts -s
4&i!in-3 "%%$ns$s'
,' B$t<$$n 4"!8"un. -n. 4"!83$@ 4&i!$s -s 4"n4$8ts in t$ =$n-3 C".$'
6' B$t<$$n Eusti%/ing -n. $@$!8ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s in 4&i!in-3 3-<'
7' B$t<$$n int$nt -n. !"ti#$ in t$ 4"!!issi"n "% -n "%%$ns$'
;' B$t<$$n "&-3 .$%-!-ti"n -n. 4&i!in-3 4"n#$&s-ti"n'
Sugg$st$. Ans<$&s+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
&. #ebellion is committed by a public uprising and taking arms against the government
while coup dC etat is committed by means of swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation,
threat, strategy, and stealth.
The purpose of rebellion is either to remove from the allegiance to the $hilippine
Government or its laws the territory of the $hilippines or any part thereof or any body of land,
naval or other armed forces< or to deprive the %hief =xecutive or %ongress wholly or partially of
any of their powers or prerogatives. )n the other hand, the purpose of a coup dC etat is to sei,e or
diminish state power from the duly constituted authorities of the government or any military camp
or the installation communication networks, public utilities and other facilities needed for the
exercise of continued possession of powers.
#ebellion may be committed by any group of persons while coup d Jetat is committed by a
person or persons belonging to the military or police, or holding any public office or employment.
#ebellion is committed by more than & person as it involves a public uprising, while coup d Jetat
may be committed by only one person.
-. %ompound crime is when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies while a complex crime is when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other.
'. Hustifying circumstance are those when the act of a person is said to be in accordance
with law, so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from both
criminal and civil liability. )n the other hand, exempting circumstances are those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which makes the act voluntary or negligent.
!. ntent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect a definite result while motive is
the moving power which impels one to action for such result.
0. )ral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission or
circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit,
contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penali,ed in Art.
'07 of the #evised $enal %ode.
%riminal conversation is a term used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as
in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. t has no definite concept as a crime. (UP La+
Center%
BAR TY=E QUESTIONS BASED ON
=REVAILINH JURIS=RUDENCE
Qu$sti"n N"' 1
A -&!$. <it - &$#"3#$&1 su..$n3/ -88&"-4$. C <" <-s s$-t$. -t t$ .&i#$&Cs s$-t "%
-n FG t-@i -n. s"t i! "n t$ -0."!$n' A%t$& <i4 A !"#$. 0-4> <i3$ B s"t t$ #i4ti!
-g-in tis ti!$ t<i4$' A -n. B t$n %3$. t"g$t$& %&"! t$ s4$n$' A -n. B <$&$ 4"n#i4t$. "%
!u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4$&/ %"& 4"ns8i&ing t" >i33 B -n. s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& t$ 8$n-3t/ "%
&$43usi"n 8$&8$tu-'
(-) W-s t$&$ 4"ns8i&-4/ 0$t<$$n A -n. B2
(0) W-s t$ t$&$ t&$-4$&/ in t$ !".$ "% -tt-4>2
(4) W-s t$ 8$n-3t/ 8&"8$&3/ i!8"s$.2
ANSWERS+
(-) YES, A and / conspired to kill %. %onspiracy may be implied if two or more persons
aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob+ect, each doing a part so
that their combined acts, though apparently independent of each other, were, in fact, connected
and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. t
may be deduced from the acts of the malefactors before, during and after the commission of the

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
crime which are indicative of a +oint purpose, concerted acts and concurrence of sentiments. )nce
conspiracy is established, the act of one is deemed the act of all. n this case, the collective acts of
A and / before, during and after the shooting, evince no other conclusion than that they conspired
to kill %.
(0) YES, although the attack was frontal and in broad daylight, it was sudden and
unexpected, giving % no opportunity to repel the same or offer any defense on his person.
(4) YES, under Article -!7 of the #evised $enal %ode, the imposable penalty for murder is
reclusion perpetua to death. There being no modifying circumstances attendant to the crime, the
appellants should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article
2' of the #evised $enal %ode, which provides that when the penalty consists of two indivisible
penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed in the absence of any modifying circumstance.
(PE5PLE vs ALLAWA4, 9R 4o .'$,,! 8ebruar: .0, (//'%
Qu$sti"n N"' ,
L$@ <-s %"un. gui3t/ 0/ t$ RTC "% %"u& 4"unts "% &-8$ -n. i!8"s$. u8"n i! t$
su8&$!$ 8$n-3t/ "% t&i83$ .$-t s$nt$n4$ -n. 3i%$ i!8&is"n!$nt'
W-s t$ i!8"siti"n "% t$ 8$n-3t/ "% 3i%$ i!8&is"n!$nt 8&"8$&2
ANSWER+
NO, the #evised $enal %ode does not impose the penalty of life imprisonment in any of the
crimes punishable therein. The proper penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua, not life
imprisonment. t bears reiterating that reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not
synonymous penalties. They are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory penalties..
#eclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for -8 years and & day to !8 years. t also carries with it
accessory penalties, namely: perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for life or for
the duration of the sentence. t is not the same as Ilife imprisonmentI which, for one thing, does
not carry with it any accessory penalty, and for another, does not appear to have any definite
extent or duration. (PE5PLE vs ME3I4A, SR 9R 4os .(!!#"=#, >une .,, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 6
A&!$. <it s"tguns1 R1 C1 -n. J 0-&g$. int" t$ "us$ "% M"./ <i3$ t$ 3-tt$& <-s
-#ing .inn$& <it is %-!i3/' R 8">$. is gun -t M"./ <i3$ C -n. J si!u3t-n$"us3/ g&-00$.
t$ "gBti$. M"./' A 8i$4$ "% 43"t <-s 83-4$. in t$ !"ut "% M"./ -n. $ <-s $&.$. int" -
#-n' M"./ <-s t->$n t" - s$43u.$. -&$- in t$ n$@t t"<n -n. <-s s"t t" .$-t'
W$&$ t$ R1 C1 -n. J gui3t/ "% !u&.$& "& >i.n-88ing2
ANSWER+
They are guilty of murder, not kidnapping. The act of the malefactors of abducting 1ody
was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him. *here the detention andKor forcible
taking away of the victim by the accused, even for an appreciable period of time but for the
primary and ultimate purpose of killing them, holds the offenders liable for taking their lives or
such other offenses they committed in relation thereto, but the incidental deprivation of the
victimsL liberty does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention. *hat is primordial then
is the specific intent of the malefactors as disclosed in the information or criminal complaint that is
determinative of what crime the accused is charged with M that of murder or kidnapping. n
murder, the specific intent is to kill the victim. n kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the
victim of hisKher liberty. n this case, it is evident that the specific intent of #, %, and H in barging
into the house of 1ody was to kill him and that he was sei,ed precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances. (PE5PLE vs 3ELIM, 9R 4o .'(!!0, >anuar: (,, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 7
On$ $#$ning1 A1 B1 C -n. D1 $-4 -&!$. <it -n.guns1 0-&g$. int" t$ "us$ "%
H$"&g$ -n. is 1:B/$-& "3. s"n C&ist"8$&' T$ %"u& int&u.$&s .&-gg$. H$"&g$ -n. C&ist"8$&
"ut "% t$ "us$ int" t$i& g$t -<-/ 4-& -n. .&"#$ "%%' A%t$& -0"ut %i%t$$n !inut$s1 A -n. B
-3igt$. %&"! t$ 4-& 0&inging C&ist"8$& <it t$!' In t$ !$-nti!$1 t$ 8"3i4$ &$4$i#$. -
&-.i" &$8"&t t-t H$"&g$ -n. is s"n C&ist"8$& -. 0$$n >i.n-88$.' A 4$4>8"int <-s 8ut u8

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
-n. it <-s t$&$ t-t t$ 8"3i4$ int$&4$8t$. t$ 4-& 4-&&/ing H$"&g$1 -n. <-s tus -03$ t"
&$s4u$ t$ 3-tt$&' A%t$& "n$ <$$>1 H$"&g$ &$4$i#$. - -n.<&itt$n 3$tt$&1 .$!-n.ing =6M %"&
C&ist"8$&Cs &$3$-s$' N" &-ns"! !"n$/1 "<$#$&1 <-s $#$& 8-i.1 %"& t$ 8"3i4$ <-s -03$ t"
&$s4u$ C&ist"8$&'
W-t 4&i!$ "& 4&i!$s <$&$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ A1 B1 C1 -n. D2
ANSWER+
As to the abduction of %hristopher, A, /, %, and 5 are liable for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Art. -26 of the #evised $enal %ode (#$%), the elements of which are as
follows:
&. That the offender is a private individual<
-. That he detains another or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty<
'. That the act of detention must be illegal< and
!. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. That the detention lasts for more than ' days<
b. That it is committed simulating public authority<
c. That any serious physical in+uries are inflicted upon the person detained or
threats to kill him are made< or
d. That the person detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
n the problem at hand, the detention of %hristopher lasted for more than ' days.
Furthermore, %hristopher is a minor. ?either actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
necessary for the crime to be committed. Although kidnapping for a certain purpose is a qualifying
circumstance, the law does not require that the purpose be accomplished.
As to the abduction of George, they are liable for slight illegal detention, which is
committed if the kidnapping is committed in the absence of any of the circumstances qualifying the
crime to serious illegal detention. n the instant case, George was kidnapped and detained illegally
by the malefactors only for less than a day. Also George was not detained for the purpose of
extorting ransom for his release. ?either was he inflicted with any serious physical in+uries, nor did
the malefactors simulate public authority, or threatened to kill George.
Although A, /, %, and 5 kidnapped George and %hristopher on the same occasion and from
the same situs, they are guilty of two separate crimes: kidnapping and serious illegal detention and
slight illegal detention. The malefactors were animated by two sets of separate criminal intents
and criminal resolutions in kidnapping and illegally detaining the two victims. The criminal intent in
kidnapping %hristopher was separate from and independent of the criminal intent and resolution in
kidnapping and detaining George for less than three days. n the mind and conscience of the
malefactors, they had committed two separate felonies< hence, should be meted two separate
penalties for the said crimes. (PE5PLE vs PA9ALASA4, 9R 4os .0.$(" ? .0,$$., >une .,, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' ;
On S$8t$!0$& ,51 1(()1 Ju-n -n. Vi4t"& 0"-&.$. -t -&"un. 6+:: -'!' - Fi#$ St-& Bus
.&i#$n 0/ R"."3%" C-4-ti-n1 0"un. %"& =-ng-sin-n1 in C-!-4i3$1 B-3int-<->1 Qu$?"n Cit/'
T<$nt/ (,:) !inut$s "& s" 3-t$&1 <$n t$ 0us &$-4$. t$ #i4init/ "% N-0u-g1 =3-&i.$31
Bu3-4-n1 -3"ng t$ N"&t E@8&$ss<-/1 t$ -44us$. <it guns in -n. su..$n3/ st"". u8 -n.
-nn"un4$. - "3.Bu8' Si!u3t-n$"us3/ <it t$ -nn"un4$!$nt "% - "3.Bu81 Ju-n %i&$. is gun
u8<-&.s' Vi4t"&1 !$-n<i3$1 t""> t$ gun "% - !-n s$-t$. -t t$ 0-4>' B"t t$n <$nt "n t"
t->$ t$ !"n$/ -n. #-3u-03$s "% t$ 8-ss$ng$&s1 in43u.ing t$ 0us 4"n.u4t"&Is 4"33$4ti"ns'
T$&$-%t$&1 t$ .u" -88&"-4$. t$ !-n -t t$ 0-4> t$33ing i! in t$ #$&n-4u3-& J=-s$nsi/- >-
n- 8-&$1 8-8-t-/in >- n-!in' B-&i3 !" &in -ng 8-8-t-/ s- i/"'J T$/ 8"int$. t$i& guns -t i!
-n. %i&$. s$#$&-3 s"ts "03i#i"us "% t$ 83$- %"& !$&4/ "% t$i& #i4ti! -%t$&<i4 t$ 3-tt$&
4"33-8s$. "n t$ %3""&' T$ t<" (,) t$n -3igt$. %&"! t$ 0us -n. %3$.' Du&ing t$
in#$stig-ti"n 4"n.u4t$. 0/ t$ 8"3i4$1 it <-s %"un. "ut t-t t$ s3-in 8-ss$ng$& <-s -
8"3i4$!-n'
Ju-n -n. Vi4t"& <$&$ 4-&g$. <it -n. %"un. gui3t/ "% R"00$&/ <it A"!i4i.$ -s
8$n-3i?$. un.$& A&t' ,(7 "% t$ R=C'
(-) W-s t&$-4$&/ -tt$n.-nt in t$ 4"!!issi"n "% t$ 4&i!$2

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
(0) Is t&$-4$&/ - g$n$&i4 -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ in &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$2
ANSWER+
(-) YES, treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when
the following essential elements are present, vi,: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not
in a position to defend himself< and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the
particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The essence of treachery is the
sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of
any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself.
Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he
was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. n the case at
bar, the victim was disarmed and then shot even as he pleaded for dear life. *hen the victim was
shot, he was defenseless. (e was shot at close range, thus insuring his death.
(0) YES, treachery is applied to the constituent crime of IhomicideI and not to the
constituent crime of IrobberyI of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Going by the
letter of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title
=ight, %hapters )ne and Two, /ook of the #evised $enal %ode. (owever, the 4upreme %ourt of
4pain has consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide, classified as a crime against
property. %iting decisions of the 4upreme %ourt of 4pain, %uello %alon, a noted commentator of the
4panish $enal %ode says that despite the strict and express reference of the penal code to
treachery being applicable to persons, treachery also applies to other crimes such as robbery with
homicide. Thus, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide although
said crime is classified as a crime against property (PE5PLE vs ESC56E, et al, 9R 4o .'/!#",
April ', (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' )
On t$ nigt in Fu$sti"n1 M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ <$nt t" t$ "us$ "% R"nit" -n. M-&i- F$ t"
0"&&"< !"n$/' M-&i- F$ &$%us$. -t %i&st t" 3$n. t$ !"n$/ 0ut s$ <-s 8&$#-i3$. u8"n 0/
R"nit"' M-nu$31 J"s$ -n. R"nit" t$n -. - .&in>ing s8&$$ in t$ s-3-' A%t$& !i.nigt1 M-&i- F$
s8&$-. - !-t %"& M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ t" s3$$8 "n1 <i3$ s$ -n. R"nit" <$nt t" t$i& &""! t"
s3$$8'
At -&"un. ,+:: -'!'1 M-nu$31 -&!$. <it - '65 4-3i0$& gun1 -n. J"s$1 -&!$. <it -
>ni%$1 $nt$&$. t$ 0$.&""! "% R"nit" -n. M-&i- F$ <" <$&$ s3$$8ing' M-nu$3 8">$. t$ s-i.
gun "n M-&i- F$' S$ <">$ u8 -n. -tt$!8t$. t" st-n. u8 0ut M-nu$3 "&.$&$. $& t" 3i$ ."<n'
M-nu$3 "&.$&$. J"s$ t" ti$ t$ -n.s "% M-&i- F$ 0$in. $& 0-4> -n. 8ut - t-8$ "n $& !"ut'
J"s$ 4"!83i$.' T$/ t$n .i#$st$. M-&i- F$ "% $& E$<$3&i$s -n. 3-t$& "n $& !"n$/'
M-nu$3 t""> - 03-n>$t -n. "&.$&$. J"s$ t" >i33 R"nit" <it it' J"s$ <$nt t" t$ >it4$n1
g"t - >ni%$1 4"#$&$. R"nit" <it t$ 03-n>$t -n. s-t "n t"8 "% i! t$n st-00$. t$ 3-tt$&
s$#$&-3 ti!$s' M-nu$3 -3s" st-00$. R"nit" "n .i%%$&$nt 8-&ts "% is 0"./' M-nu$3 it R"nit" <it
t$ 0utt "% is gun' J"s$ s3it t$ t&"-t "% R"nit" -n. t""> t$ 3-tt$&Is <&ist<-t4 -n. &ing'
M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ st-/$. in t$ "us$ unti3 7+:: -'!' B$%"&$ t$/ 3$%t1 M-nu$3 -n. J"s$
t"3. M-&i- F$ t-t t$/ <$&$ -4ting "n "&.$&s "% 4$&t-in 8$"83$' T$/ -3s" <-&n$. $& n"t t"
&$8"&t t$ in4i.$nt t" t$ 8"3i4$ -ut"&iti$s1 "t$&<is$ t$/ <i33 >i33 $&' M-&i- F$ !-n-g$. t"
unti$ $&s$3% -n. &$8"&t$. t$ in4i.$nt t" 8"3i4$ -ut"&iti$s'
M-/ M-nu$3 -n. J"s$ 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ <it
"!i4i.$ "& s$8-&-t$ 4&i!$s "% !u&.$& -n. &"00$&/2
ANSWER+
1anuel and Hose are liable of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The
elements of the crime are as follows: (&) the taking of personal property is committed with
violence or intimidation against persons< (-) the property taken belongs to another< (') the taking is
done with animo lucrandi< and (!) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is
committed.
A conviction for robbery with homicide requires certitude that the robbery is the main
purpose and ob+ective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The
animo lucrandi must preceed the killing. f the original design does not comprehend robbery, but
robbery follows the homicide either as an afterthought or merely as an incident of the homicide,
then the malefactor is guilty of two separate crimes, that of homicide or murder and robbery, and

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
not of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, a single and indivisible offense. t is the
intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery
necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
(owever, the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and
commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. n $eople vs. Tidula, et al., this %ourt
ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction
for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. A conviction for robbery with homicide is
proper even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery.
The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. =ven
if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical in+uries are inflicted on
another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. *hat is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as
to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime.
Furthermore, robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is
different from the victim of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery. t is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person
the malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the special complex crime, the robbery itself
must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. n this case, the prosecution
proved through the testimony of 1aria Fe that the appellants threatened to kill her and her family
and robbed her of her money and +ewelry.
t may be true that the original intent of appellant 1anuel was to borrow money from
#onito and 1aria Fe but later on conspired with Hose and robbed the couple of their money and
pieces of +ewelry, and on the occasion thereof, they killed #onito. ?onetheless, the appellants are
guilty of robbery with homicide. n $eople v. Tidong, this %ourt held that the appellant was guilty
of robbery with homicide even if his original intention was to demand for separation pay from his
employer and ended up killing his employer in the process. (PE5PLE vs 3A4IELA, et al, 9R 4o
.0$(0/, April (', (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 9
O&3-n." <-s t$ "<n$& "% - 8-&4$3 "% 3-n. 3"4-t$. in T-3is-/1 C$0u' On D$4$!0$& 171
1(59 O&3-n." s"3. t$ -0"#$ !$nti"n$. 8&"8$&t/ %"& =):1:::':: t" A0&--! 8u&su-nt t" -
4"nt&-4t t" s$33 $nt$&$. int" 0$t<$$n t$!' It <-s sti8u3-t$. in t$ 4"nt&-4t t-t A0&--! <i33
t$n.$& -n initi-3 ."<n 8-/!$nt "% =,:1:::'::1 <i3$ t$ 0-3-n4$ "% t$ t"t-3 -!"unt "% t$
8&"8$&t/ <i33 0$ 8-i. "n - !"nt3/ 0-sis* t-t %-i3u&$ "n t$ 8-&t "% t$ 0u/$& t" 8-/ -n/
!"nt3/ inst-33!$nts <itin ): .-/s %&"! its .u$ .-t$ <i33 $ntit3$ t$ s$33$& t" s$33 t$ 8&"8$&t/
t" ti&. 8$&s"ns* -n. t-t t$ .$$. "% s-3$ -n. t$ tit3$ t" t$ 8&"8$&t/ <i33 0$ t&-ns%$&&$. t"
t$ #$n.$$ "n3/ -%t$& %u33 8-/!$nt "% t$ 8u&4-s$ 8&i4$ -s 0$$n t$n.$&$.'
A0&--! %-it%u33/ 8-i. t$ !"nt3/ inst-33!$nts' A$ -3s" "0t-in$. O&3-n."Cs 4"ns$nt in
-#ing t$ 8&"8$&t/ %$n4$.' A"<$#$&1 "n J-nu-&/ 161 1(5(1 O&3-n." s"3. t$ s-!$ 8-&4$3 "%
3-n. t" Wi33i-! %"& =,::1:::':: -s $#i.$n4$. 0/ t$ D$$. "% A0s"3ut$ S-3$ $@$4ut$. 0/ t$
%"&!$& in %-#"& "% t$ 3-tt$&' C"ns$Fu$nt3/1 <i3$ A0&--! <-s in t$ 8&"4$ss "% %$n4ing t$
3"t1 $ <-s s"4>$. t" >n"< t-t t$ s-!$ -. 0$$n s"3. 0/ O&3-n." t" Wi33i-!' Tis $#$nt
8&"!8t$. Wi33i-! t" %i3$ - 4-s$ "% $st-%- un.$& A&t' 61) (,) "% t$ R=C O&3-n." %"& .is8"sing
8&$#i"us3/ $n4u!0$&$. 8&"8$&t/'
Is O&3-n." 3i-03$ %"& t$ 4&i!$ "% $st-%- -s .$%in$. in A&t' 61) (,) "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3
C".$2
ANSWER+
NO, the gravamen of the crime is the disposition of legally encumbered real property by
the offender under the express representation that there is no encumbrance thereon. (ence, for
one to be criminally liable for estafa under the law, the accused must make an express
representation in the deed of conveyance that the property sold or disposed of is free from any
encumbrance.
The prosecution is burdened to allege in the information and prove the confluence of the
following essential elements of the crime for the accused to be criminally liable for estafa under

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
Art '&2, paragraph - of the #$%: (&) that the thing disposed of be real property< (-) that the
offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or
not< (') that there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free
from encumbrance< and (!) that the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of
another (owever, )rlando did not expressly represented in the sale of the sub+ect property to
*illiam that the said property was free from any encumbrance. rrefragably, then, petitioner may
not be charged with estafa under Art. '&2, par. - of the #$%. (4A<A vs SPS A7RAHAM A43
9UILLERMA A7I49 an& PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES, 9R 4o .'"!!/ 8ebruar: (!, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 5
J"$31 Ag-8it"1 -n. Isi.&" <$&$ -#ing - .&in>ing s8&$$ n$-& t$ Ag-8it"Cs &$nt$.
-8-&t!$nt' B/ t$ ti!$ t$/ -. 4"nsu!$. -0"ut t<"B-n.B-B-3% &"un. 0"tt3$s "% gin1 J"$3
st-&t$. singing "n t"8 "% is 3ungs t$ s"ng JSi Ai.-1 Si L"&n-1 " Si F$'J A$ <-s i!!$.i-t$3/
4-uti"n$. 0/ Ag-8it" t" 3"<$& is #"i4$ -s t$ singing !igt .istu&0 t$ n$ig0"&"".' =$$#$.1
J"$3 4"n%&"nt$. Ag-8it"' An -3t$&4-ti"n $nsu$.' J"$3 <-&n$. Ag-8it" JB-0-3i>-n >it-' M->it-
!"1J (II33 g$t 0-4> -t /"u' Y"uI33 s$$') t$n 3$%t in - u%%' T$ g&"u8 .$4i.$. t" $n. t$i&
.&in>ing s8&$$' B/ t$n1 it <-s 8-st (+:: 8'!' Isi.&" -.#is$. Ag-8it" t" g$t insi.$ t$i& "us$'
A"<$#$&1 Ag-8it" <-s sti33 u8s$t -0"ut is -&gu!$nt <it J"$3 -n. 3ing$&$. "utsi.$ is "us$'
M$-n<i3$1 Isi.&" <$nt insi.$ t$i& &$nt$. -8-&t!$nt -t t$ s$4"n. %3""& "% t$ "us$1 <i3$
is <i%$ 8&$8-&$. is .inn$&' At -&"un. 1:+:: 8'!' <i3$ $ <-s t->ing is su88$&1 Isi.&" $-&.
s"!$0"./ s"uting JAu<-g1 J"$3 S->3"3"1 !-/ t-!- ->"KJ Isi.&" t$n 8$$8$. "utsi.$ -n. s-<
J"$3 8u33ing "ut %&"! Ag-8it"Is 4$st - 03-.$. <$-8"n' S"4>$.1 Isi.&" -n. is <i%$ <$nt ."<n
t" $38 Ag-8it"' B/ t$n1 J"$3 -. -3&$-./ %3$. %&"! t$ s4$n$' T$ 4"u83$ <">$ u8 s"!$ "%
t$i& n$ig0"&s t" $38 t$! 4-&&/ Ag-8it" -n. 0&ing i! t" t$ "s8it-3' S"!$ n$ig0"&s
-&&i#$. -n. 0&"ugt Ag-8it" t" t$ "s8it-3' On t$ <-/1 Ag-8it" $@8i&$.'
J"$3 <-s 4-&g$. <it -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% !u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4$&/ %"& t$ %-t-3
st-00ing "% Ag-8it"1 <it Isi.&" -s 8&"s$4uti"n <itn$ss' On -88$-31 $ -ss$&ts t$ t&i-3 4"u&tCs
-88&$4i-ti"n "% t$ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% t&$-4$&/ "n t$ g&"un. t-t t$ 8&"s$4uti"n <itn$ss
Isi.&" .i. n"t s$$ t$ initi-3 st-g$ "% t$ st-00ing -n. t$ 8-&ti4u3-&s "% t$ -tt-4> "n t$
#i4ti!1 t&$-4$&/ 4-nn"t tus 0$ -88&$4i-t$.'
M-/ t&$-4$&/ 0$ -88&$4i-t$. in t$ 4-s$ -t 0-&2
ANSWER+
NO, because sidro failed to see how the attack started. *hen he looked out through the
window, he saw Hoel pulling out his knife from the chest of the victim. sidro did not see the initial
stage of the stabbing and the particulars of the attack on the victim. Treachery cannot thus be
appreciated. The mere fact that Agapito was unarmed when he was stabbed is not sufficient to
prove treachery. The settled rule is that treachery cannot be presumed. t must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence, as the crime itself. t behooves the prosecution to prove that the
appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such means, method or manner of attack as would
deprive the victim of an opportunity for self>defense or retaliation. (ence, the appellant is guilty
only of homicide and not murder. (PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES vs>5EL PERE@, 9R 4o .'/!!(,
3ecember ./, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' (
At -0"ut 9 "C43"4> in t$ !"&ning1 Migu$3 <$nt t" is %-&! t" 43$-& is 3-n. 8&$8-&-t"&/
t" 83"<ing -n. 83-nting' Wi3$ $ <-s 4utting <$$.s in t$ %-&!1 R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u81
n-!$3/+ Ai3-&i"1 F$3i@1 =$8it"1 L$"n-&."1 D"!ing" -n. B$&t" -&&i#$. -t t$ %-&!' F&"! -
.ist-n4$ "% -0"ut 1: !$t$&s1 Migu$3 n"ti4$. t-t R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u8 <$&$ -33 -&!$. <it
$it$& - 3"ng 0"3" "& s3ings"t "& 0u4>s"t (s"tgun)' As R"0$&t" -88&"-4$. Migu$31 $ .&$<
is s"tgun1 -i!$. it -t Migu$3 -n. %i&$. itting t$ 3-tt$& "n t$ 4$st' Ai3-&i" -3s" %i&$. is
s"tgun <i4 <-s .i&$4t$. -t Migu$3' I!!$.i-t$3/ t$&$-%t$&1 R"0$&t" -n. is g&"u8 &-n
-<-/' Migu$3 <$nt .i&$4t3/ t" t$ 8"3i4$ st-ti"n t" &$8"&t t$ in4i.$nt'
T$n Migu$3 <-s t->$n t" t$ "s8it-3 %"& t&$-t!$nt "% is guns"t <"un.s "n is 4$st
-n. 3$%t si.$ "% t$ 0"./'
R"0$&t" <-s t$n t&i$. %"& %&ust&-t$. "!i4i.$' A$ 4"nt$n.s t-t $ -. n" int$nt t"
>i33 Migu$31 tus1 $ is gui3t/ "n3/ "% s3igt "& 3$ss s$&i"us 8/si4-3 inEu&i$s'
Is R"0$&t" 4"&&$4t2

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
ANSWER+
NO, #oberto acted with intent to kill in firing the gun at 1iguel. 9sually, the intent to kill
is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victimCs body at which
the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted. %orollarily, conviction for a frustrated
felony requires that the offender must have performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony as a result but nevertheless did not produce it due to a cause independent of
the offenderCs will.
(ere, it is undisputed that appellant fired his gun point>blank at 1igeul, hitting the latter
at his breast. The nature of the weapon used and the location of the wounds speak for themselves
of #obertoCs intent to finish off 1iguel /eran who, by now, must have been dead if no timely
medical attendance was given him. (95R5SPE vs PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES, 9R 4o .'!$!',
>anuar: ($, (//'%
Qu$sti"n N"' 1:
N"&!- <-s 4-&g$. <it #i"3-ti"n "% B-t-s =-!0-ns- B3g' ,, 0$%"&$ t$ Muni4i8-3 T&i-3
C"u&t' A%t$& t&i-3 s$ <-s 4"n#i4t$. -n. s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& i!8&is"n!$nt "% "n$ /$-&' T$
8$titi"n$& &$!-in$. -t 3-&g$ -n. n" -88$-3 <-s %i3$. %&"! -n/ "% t$ s-i. .$4isi"ns' In t$
!$-nti!$1 t$ Su8&$!$ C"u&t issu$. Su8&$!$ C"u&t A.!inist&-ti#$ Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,:::
$nE"ining -33 4"u&ts -n. Eu.g$s 4"n4$&n$. t" t->$ n"ti4$ "% t$ &u3ing -n. 8"3i4/ "% t$ C"u&t
$nun4i-t$. in V-4- #' C"u&t "% A88$-3s -n. Li! #' =$"83$ <it &$g-&. t" t$ i!8"siti"n "% t$
8$n-3t/ %"& #i"3-ti"ns "% B'=' B3g' ,,'
A%t$& %i#$ /$-&s1 t$ 8$titi"n$& <-s %in-33/ -&&$st$. <i3$ s$ <-s -883/ing %"& -n NBI
43$-&-n4$' S$ <-s %"&t<it .$t-in$.' S$ t$n %i3$. -n u&g$nt !"ti"n <it t$ Muni4i8-3
T&i-3 C"u&t -s>ing t$ 4"u&t t" -883/ SC A.!in' Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,::: -n. "&.$& $& &$3$-s$
%&"! .$t$nti"n' S$ 8"sits t-t SC A.!in' Ci&4u3-& N"' 1,B,::: .$3$t$. t$ 8$n-3t/ "%
i!8&is"n!$nt %"& #i"3-ti"n "% B'=' B3g' ,, -n. -33"<s "n3/ t$ i!8"siti"n "% - %in$'
Is N"&!-Cs 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2
ANSWER+
NO, 4% Admin. %ircular ?o. &'>-88&, 4% Admin. %ircular ?o. &->-888 merely lays down a
rule of preference in the application of the penalties for violation of /.$. /lg. --. t does not
amend /.$. /lg. --, nor defeat the legislative intent behind the law. The clear tenor and intention
of Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but
to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in /.$. /lg. --.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of imprisonment for
violators of /.$. /lg. --. ?either does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. Thus,
Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 establishes a rule of preference in the application of the penal
provisions of /.$. /lg. -- such that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender
clearly indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence, the imposition of
a fine alone should be considered as the more appropriate penalty. ?eedless to say, the
determination of whether the circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely
upon the Hudge. 4hould the Hudge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalty,
Administrative %ircular ?o. &->-888 ought not be deemed a hindrance. (3E >5<A vs 6HE >AIL
WAR3E4 58 7A6A49AS CI6< A43 H54 RU7E4 A 9AL;E@, 9R 4os .#$'.,=.$, 3ecember ./,
(//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 11
A.-!1 - .$-3$& in s-0u <-s 4"nt-4t$. 0/ - 8"s$u& 0u/$& %"& t$ 8u&4-s$ "% s-0u'
T$/ !$t -t t$ 8-&>ing 3"t "% - s"88ing !-33' W$n A.-! s"<$. t$ 8"s$u&B0u/$& -
t&-ns8-&$nt 83-sti4 t$- 0-g <i4 4"nt-in$. <it$ 4&/st-33in$ su0st-n4$s1 t$ s-i. 8"s$u&B0u/$&
in tu&n -n.$. "#$& -n $n#$3"8$ 4"nt-ining t$ !-&>$. =11:::':: 0i33s -n. t$ 0"".3$ !"n$/
t" A.-!' T$ 8"s$u& 0u/$& t$n i!!$.i-t$3/ i.$nti%i$. i!s$3% -s - 8"3i4$ "%%i4$& -n.
-&&$st$. A.-!'

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
W$n t&i$. %"& #i"3-ti"n "% t$ D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t "% ,::,1 A.-! 4"nt$n.s t-t $
4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4"nsu!!-t$. 4&i!$ "% s$33ing s-0u %"& $ <-s -&&$st$. 0$%"&$ $
4"u3. -n. "#$& t$ 83-sti4 t$- 0-g t" t$ 8"s$u&B0u/$& -n. t-t $ <-s n"t -<-&$ t-t t$
$n#$3"8$ -n.$. t" i! 4"nt-in$. t$ !-&>$. !"n$/ n"& <-s t$&$ !$$ting "% t$ !in.s
0$t<$$n i! -n. t$ 8"s$u&B0u/$& t" t&-ns%$& "<n$&si8 in $@4-ng$ %"& t$ 8&i4$' A$ insists
t-t t$ 8&"s$4uti"n <-s n"t -03$ t" 8&"#$ t$ t-t - s-3$ "% ,:: g&-!s "% s-0u t""> 83-4$
0$t<$$n i! -n. t$ 8"s$u&B0u/$& %"& R$8u03i4 A4t N"' (1); .$%in$s t$ s-3$ "% i33i4it .&ugs -s
Jt$ -4t "% gi#ing - .-ng$&"us .&ug1 <$t$& %"& !"n$/ "& -n/ !-t$&i-3 4"nsi.$&-ti"n'J
M-/ A.-! 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4"nsu!!-t$. 4&i!$ "% s$33ing s-0u <$n $ <-s
-&&$st$. $#$n 0$%"&$ $ 4"u3. -n. "#$& t$ 83-sti4 t$- 0-g 4"nt-ining s-0u2
ANSWER+
NO, because Adam merely showed the bag containing the shabu and held on to it before it
was confiscated. There is no evidence that the poseur>buyer talked about and agreed with Adam on
the purchase price of the shabu. There is no evidence that Adam handed over the shabu to the
poseur buyer. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the ob+ect, and consideration< and the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. ?either was there evidence to prove that Adam was aware that the envelope
contained money.
(owever, Adam is guilty of the crime of attempted sale of shabu. Adam intended to sell
shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the
substance to the poseur>buyer. (PE5PLE vs A3AM, 9R 4o .'0,'(, 5ctober .0, (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 1,
At -0"ut (+:: -'!'1 M-&i3/n -n. Ai3/n <$&$ -s>$. 0/ t$i& 8-&$nts t" 0u/ tin-8- (.&i$.
%is) %&"! - st"&$ -0"ut -3% - >i3"!$t$& -<-/ %&"! t$i& &$si.$n4$' T$/ us$. - %""t 8-t t"
g$t t" t$ st"&$' A%t$& 0u/ing t$ .&i$. %is1 t$/ <-3>$. 0-4> "!$' M"!$nt-&i3/1 t$/ s-<
t$ %i%t$$nB/$-&B"3. D-&i" $!$&g$ %&"! - 4-t!"n t&$$' A$ st&u4> Ai3/n t<i4$ <it - 8i$4$ "%
<"". "n $& 0-4> -n. 0"@$. $& "n t$ 3$%t si.$ "% $& %-4$' S$ %$3t $@4&u4i-ting 8-in "n $&
0-4> -n. %-4$1 -n. -33 "#$& $& 0"./' S$ %$33 un4"ns4i"us' D-&i" t$n st&u4> M-&i3/n t<i4$ "n
t$ 0-4> <it t$ 8i$4$ "% <"".' A$ t$n 4-&&i$. Ai3/n t" - g&-ss/ -&$- -n. 3$%t $& t$&$'
W$n Ai3/n &$g-in$. $& 0$-&ings1 s$ 3"">$. %"& M-&i3/n 0ut D-&i" -n. $& sist$& <$&$
n"<$&$ t" 0$ %"un.'
U8"n in#$stig-ti"n !-.$ 0/ t$ 8"3i4$!$n1 M-&i3/nIs .$-. 0"./ <-s %"un. in - g&-ss/
-&$- n$-& 0us$s -n. t&$$s -3"ng - &i#$&' S$ <-s 3/ing %-4$ ."<n* $& 3$gs s8&$-. -8-&t -n.
<-s 4"!83$t$3/ n->$.' T$&$ <-s 03"". "n $& n"s$1 $& !"ut1 -n. $& #-gin-' A$& -i& <-s
.is$#$3$.' T$ 8"3i4$!$n -&&$st$. D-&i" -n. -. i! .$t-in$. in E-i3' A%t$& t&i-31 D-&i" <-s
4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ <it "!i4i.$ -n. -tt$!8t$. !u.$& -n. s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& t$ 8$n-3t/ "%
i!8&is"n!$nt "% &$43usi"n 8$&8$tu- -n. i!8&is"n!$nt "% TWO (,) MONTAS -n. ONE (1) DAY t"
FOUR (7) MONTAS "% -&&$st" !-/"& in its !$.iu! 8$&i".1 &$s8$4ti#$3/'
W$&$ t$ 8$n-3ti$s 8&"8$&3/ i!8"s$.2
ANSWER+
NO. 5ario was over " years but under &0 years old when he committed the crime and
clearly acted with discernment when he committed the same. Article 2 of the #evised $enal %ode
provides that the imposable penalty should be reduced by two degrees. 9nder the #$%, rape with
homicide is punishable by death. #educing the penalty by two degrees, the imposable penalty is
reclusion temporal, from which the maximum of the indeterminate penalty should be taken. To
determine the minimum of the penalty, it should be reduced by one degree, which is prision
mayor. Applying the indeterminate sentence law and taking into account how the ghastly crime was
committed, 5ario should be sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from 2 years and one
day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to &6 years and ! months of reclusion
temporal in its medium period, as maximum.
For attempted murder, the trial court sentenced 5ario to an indeterminate penalty, from -
months and one day to ! months of arresto mayor. The penalty imposed by the trial court is
erroneous. The penalty of consummated murder under Article -!7 of the #evised $enal %ode, as
amended, is reclusion perpetua to death. The imposable penalty should be reduced by two degrees
under Article 27 of the #evised $enal %ode because the appellant is a minor. As reduced, the
penalty is reclusion temporal. #eclusion temporal should be reduced by two degrees lower,

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
conformably to Article 0& of the #evised $enal %ode which is prision correccional, because the
murder was committed in the attempted stage. This penalty should be reduced by one degree,
which is arresto mayor, to determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. Accordingly,
5ario should be sentenced to a straight penalty of four (!) months. t goes without saying that if
the trial court decides to impose on the accused a penalty of imprisonment of one year or less, it
should impose a straight penalty and not an indeterminate penalty. (PE5PLE vs 3ARILA<, 9R
4os .0$!#.=#(, >anuar: (", (//'%
Qu$sti"n N"' 16
A3%&$." -%t$& -#ing - .&in>ing s8&$$ <it "t$& 4&$< !$!0$&s <$nt 0-4> t" FLB E#$&
IV1 <$&$ $ <-s <"&>ing -s - 4"">' G-n.$&1 t$ 4-8t-in "% t$ #$ss$31 "&.$&$. %"". %&"!
A3%&$."' A3%&$." "n3/ g-#$ &i4$ t" G-n.$&1 -n. t"3. t$ 3-tt$& t-t $ <-s n"t -03$ t" 4""> -n/
#i-n.' G-n.$& <-s in4$ns$. -n. t"3. A3%$&." t-t $ <-s - us$3$ss 4""> -n. it <"u3. 0$ 0$tt$&
%"& i! t" &$sign %&"! is $!83"/!$nt' A3%&$." ign"&$. G-n.$&Is .i-t&i0$s -n. <$nt t" t$
>it4$n t" ti./ tings u8' M$-n<i3$1 G-n.$& <$nt t" t$ >it4$n -n. t""> t$ >ni%$ %&"! t$
t&-/ n$-& t$ .""&' Wit t$ >ni%$ in is -n.1 G-n.$& <$nt n$-& A3%&$."1 <" !"#$. 0-4><-&.
t"<-&.s t$ %&"nt 8-&t "% t$ 0"-t* 0ut G-n.$& 8u&su$. t$ i!' W$n $ <-s 4"&n$&$.1
A3%&$." <-s %"&4$. t" g&-883$ <it G-n.$& %"& t$ 8"ss$ssi"n "% t$ >ni%$' Wit is 3$%t -n.1
A3%&$." $3. G-n.$&Cs &igt %"&$-&!1 -n. <it is 3$%t -n.1 t<ist$. G-n.$&Cs &igt -n.
t"<-&.s t$ 4$st' G-n.$& 83-4$. is 3$%t -n. "n A3%&$."Is s"u3.$&' A3%&$." <-s -03$ t" <&$st
8"ss$ssi"n "% t$ >ni%$1 -n. st-00$. G-n.$& "n t$ 4$st' G-n.$& 83-4$. is &igt -n. "n
A3%&$."Is "t$& s"u3.$&1 -s $ <-s st-00$. "n t$ 4$st1 "n t$ -0."!$n -n. "n t$ 0-4>'
G-n.$& %$331 is $-. itting t$ $.g$ "% t$ .$4>' A3%&$." 4"u3. n" 3"ng$& &$!$!0$& t$
nu!0$& "% ti!$s $ st-00$. G-n.$&'
C-&g$. <it -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% !u&.$&1 A3%&$." -&gu$s t-t t$ >i33ing "% G-n.$& <-s
!-.$ in s$3%B.$%$ns$.
Di. t$ -88$33-nt -4t in s$3%B.$%$ns$2
ANSWER+
NO, the inceptual aggression of Dander had already ceased after Alfredo had wrested
possession of the knife. Alfredo managed to wrest possession of the knife from the victim. *hile
Alfredo was grappling for the possession of the knife, Dander placed his left hand on AlfredoCs right
shoulder. =ven after Alfredo had wrested possession of the knife, he stabbed Dander while the
latter placed his right hand on AlfredoCs other shoulder. ?evertheless, Alfredo stabbed the hapless
Dander six more times. Two of the stab wounds were at the back of Dander.
Furthermore, the number, locations and depth of the wounds sustained by Dander belie
AlfredoLs pretension that he killed the victim in self>defense< the same are proof that Alfredo
intended to kill the victim and not merely to defend himself. The victim sustained no less than six
(2) stab wounds. t certainly defies reason why Alfredo had to inflict such in+uries on the victim if
he was only defending himself.
4elf>defense must be distinguished from retaliation< in that in retaliation, the inceptual
unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. n self>defense, the
unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was in+ured or disabled by the person
making the defense (PE5PLE 58 6HE PHILIPPI4ES vs 9ALLE95, 9R 4o .(!',$, >ul: .., (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 17
L-t$ in t$ $#$ning "n O4t"0$& 1:1 1((91 T"t"/1 R-n./1 R"tBR"t1 -n. J"nBJ"n1 0"-&.$.
- NED MAJ T-@i4-0 in A3-0-ng1 .&i#$n 0/ M-nn/' W$n t$ t-@i st"88$. un.$& t$ 0&i.g$ -t
M""n<-3> su0.i#isi"n1 T"t"/ t"3. M-nn/1 MTol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil kailangan lang'N
A"<$#$&1 M-nn/ &$sist$. -n. t&i$. t" g$t "ut "% t$ t-@i 4-0' T"t"/ 8u33$. i! 0-4> in -n.
st-00$. i! <it - 03-.$. <$-8"n "n t$ 4$st' R-n./1 R"tBR"t1 -n. J"nBJ"n t""> tu&ns in
st-00ing M-nn/ <it 03-.$. <$-8"ns' M-nn/ !-n-g$. t" g$t "ut "% t$ t-@i4-01 -n. %3$$ %&"!
t$ s4$n$' A$ <-s 3-t$& "n t->$n t" - "s8it-3 <$&$ $ $@8i&$.'

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
A&$ T"t"/ -n. is 4"n%$.$&-t$s gui3t/ "% t$ 4"nsu!!-t$. 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ <it
"!i4i.$2
ANSWER+
NO, there was no showing that Totoy and his cohorts managed to take any money from the
victim. For Totoy and his cohorts to be guilty of consummated robbery, there must be
incontrovertible proof that property was taken from the victim. The malefactors are guilty of
attempted robbery with homicide only, because they commenced the commission of robbery
directly by overt acts but was not able to perform all the acts of execution which would produce
robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than their own spontaneous desistance.
n this case, Totoy demanded from the victim, I6ol, pera=pera lan) ito, &ahil Aailan)an
lan).I The victim refused to part with his earnings and resisted. (e even tried to get out of the
taxicab but Totoy pulled him back and stabbed him. #andy, #ot>#ot and Hon>Hon followed suit and
stabbed the victim with their bladed weapons. The victim was able to flee from the vehicle without
anything being taken from him. Totoy and his confederates commenced by overt acts the execution
of the robbery, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of the victimLs resistance
(PE5PLE vs 75CALA4, 9R 4o .'.#(!, September ', (//0%
Qu$sti"n N"' 1;
At -&"un. 1,+:: n""n1 C$s-& s-< is 4"usinBinB3-<1 Lit" -n. =-8-ng .&-gging is
s$#$nt/Bt<"B/$-&B"3. -unti$1 N-ti#i.-.1 in t$ .i&$4ti"n "% - %"&$st$. -&$- <$&$ t$&$ <$&$
-3s" !-ng" -n. 4"4"nut t&$$s' C$s-& s"ut$.1 JA"/1 0->it nin/" >in->-3-.>-. -ng ->ing ti/-2J
=-8-ng -n. Lit" -88&"-4$. -n. t"3. i! n"t t" int$&%$&$' T$n =-8-ng 8"int$. - >ni%$ -t
C$s-& -n. <-&n$. i! n"t t" &$#$-3 <-t $ s-< t" -n/"n$* "t$&<is$1 t$/ <"u3. >i33 i! -n.
is %-!i3/1 in43u.ing is 4i3.&$n' L-t$& C$s-& s-< "< Lit" -n. =-8-ng %"&4i03/ t""> t$
8"ss$ssi"ns "% N-ti#i.-. -n. -3s" s-< "< t$/ st&-ng3$. N-ti#i.-. using - <it$ &"8$' Initi-33/1
C$s-& >$8t <-t $ s-< t" i!s$3% 0$4-us$ "% %$-& "% &$t-3i-ti"n %&"! t$ -44us$.' L-t$& "n
"<$#$&1 $ &$#$-3$. <-t $ s-< .u&ing t$ 4"!!issi"n "% t$ 4&i!$' As - &$su3t1 - 4&i!in-3
in%"&!-ti"n %"& &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ <-s %i3$. -g-inst Lit" -n. =-8-ng'
A&$ Lit" -n. =-8-ng gui3t/ "% &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$2
ANSWER+
YES, the accused are guilty of robbery with homicide. n robbery, there must be an
unlawful taking or apoderamiento which is defined as the taking of items without the consent of
the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things. Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing,
even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. There is, likewise, no need to prove the
exact amount of money taken, as long as there is proof of the unlawful taking. ntent to gain, or
animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an internal act, hence, presumed from
the unlawful taking of things.
n robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit
robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The intent to
commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The homicide may take place before,
during or after the robbery. There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless
imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and
homicide, must be consummated. As long as there is a nexus between the robbery and the
homicide, the latter crime may be committed in a place other than the situs of the robbery.
(PE5PLE vs HER4A43E@, 9R 4o .0$"$!, >une .#, (//'%
Qu$sti"n N"' 1)
F&"! 0$in. D"!in-."&1 A&t$!i" 8"int$. is s"tgun -t D"!in-."& -n. s"t t$ 3-tt$&
"n4$ "n t$ 0-4>' D"!in-."& %$33 t" t$ g&"un. %-4$ ."<n' T$n 4-!$ A&tu&" -n. D"si!"1 <"
<$&$ -&!$. <it - s!-33 0"3"s' A&tu&" tu&n$. D"!in-."&Is 0"./ %-4$ u81 -n. st-00$. i!
!"&$ t-n "n4$ <it t$ 0"3"' D"si!" %"33"<$. suit -n. st-00$. D"!in-."& "n4$ <it is 0"3"'
T$ t&$$ t$n %3$. %&"! t$ s4$n$1 t"<-&.s t$ .i&$4ti"n "% B-3i&i &i#$&'
T$ t&$$ <$&$ t$n t&i$. -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% !u&.$& %"& t$ >i33ing "% D"!in-."&' T$
t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n43u.$. t$&$ <-s - 4"ns8i&-4/ 0$t<$$n A&t$!i"1 A&tu&"1 -n. D"si!"' On -88$-31

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
t$ -88$33-nts 4"nt$n. t-t t$ t&i-3 4"u&t $&&"n$"us3/ &u3$. "n t$ $@ist$n4$ "% 4"ns8i&-4/
0$4-us$ n" -g&$$!$nt -!"ng t$ -88$33-nts t" >i33 t$ #i4ti! <-s 8&"#$.'
M-/ 4"ns8i&-4/ $@ist .$s8it$ -0s$n4$ "% -n $@8&$ss -g&$$!$nt t" >i33 t$ #i4ti!2
ANSWER+
YES. 5irect evidence is not required to prove conspiracy. t may be proved by
circumstantial evidence. t is not even required that they have an agreement for an appreciable
period to commence it. *hat is important is that all participants performed specific acts with such
cooperation and coordination bringing about the death of the victim. *hen conspiracy is present,
the act of one is the act of all. n this case, Artemio, Arturo, and Eosimo acted in concert to
achieve a common purpose, i.e., to kill 5ominador. Artemio shot 5ominador at close range.
Artemio and Eosimo followed suit and stabbed 5ominador with their bolos. The three fled from the
scene together, carrying their weapons with them. ndubitably, the three acted in concert< hence,
all are guilty for the killing of 5ominador. (PE5PLE vs ELL5RA7A, et al, 9R 4o .(0$.!
3ecember ./, (//0%
QUESTION NO' 19
On M-/ )1 1((:1 <i3$ L$- <-s s3$$8ing1 s$ s-< J"$3 -n. B$&n-&."1 16 -n. 1, /$-&s
"3. &$s8$4ti#$3/1 "3.ing $& -n.s -n. %$$t -s s$ <-s 0$ing un.&$ss$.' L$- st&ugg3$. 0ut
<-s $-si3/ "#$&8"<$&$. 0/ t$ t<"' S$ t&$-t$n$. t" s"ut1 0ut s$ <-s t"3. t-t n"0"./
<"u3. $-& $&' J"$3 <$tt$. L$-Cs #-gin- <it is s-3i#- -n. 8&"4$$.$. t" -#$ 4-&n-3
>n"<3$.g$ <it $&' B$&n-&." st"". 0/ t$ .""& "% t$ &""! -s - 3"">"ut <i3$ J"$3 <-s
-#ing is <-/ <it L$-' A%t$& t$i& .-st-&.3/ .$$.1 J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." t$n 4-33$. L"u -n.
Li"n$31 L$-Cs sist$&s1 int" t$ &""!1 3$tting t$! s$$ t$i& sist$& n->$.' J"$3 -n. B$&n-&."
t&$-t$n$. t" >i33 $& -n. t$ !$!0$&s "% t$ %-!i3/ i% s$ t"3. -n/"n$ -0"ut <-t -88$n$.
t" $&' J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." 3$%t t$ &""! t"g$t$&'
In - 8&"s$4uti"n %"& &-8$1 s"u3. J"$3 -n. B$&n-&." 0$ $@$!8t$. %&"! 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/
"n t$ g&"un. "% !in"&it/2
ANSWER+
NO, the facts show beyond cavil that Hoel and /ernardo acted with discernment when they
raped the victim, thus: (a) they wetted the victimLs vagina before they raped her< (b) one of them
acted as a lookout while the other was raping the victim< (c) they threatened to kill the victim if
she divulged to her parents what they did to her< (d) they ordered ;eah ;ou and ;ionel to look at
their sister naked after they had raped her. A minor who is over nine years old and under fifteen
years old at the time of the commission of the crimes is exempt from criminal liability only when
the said minor acted without discernment. t is the burden of the prosecution to prove that a minor
acted with discernment when he committed the crime charged. The discernment that constitutes
an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over
nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong, and such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking
into consideration all the facts and circumstances afforded by the records in each case, the very
appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of said minor, not only before
and during the commission of the act, but also after and even during the trial. (PE5PLE vs
C5R6E@A45, 9R 4o .(0.'/ September (0, (//0%
QUESTION NO' 15
B$t<$$n 11+:: 8'!' -n. 1,+:: !i.nigt1 B"00/ <-s sitting in%&"nt "% t$ "us$ "% -
4$&t-in A3ing =$t' B"00/ &$$>$. "% 3iFu"& -n. -88$-&$. t" 0$ .&un>' H&$g -&&i#$. t"g$t$&
<it J-i!$ -n. 0$g-n t-3>ing -0"ut t$ 0-s>$t0-33 g-!$ t-t t$/ -. Eust s$$n' B"00/1 <"
<-s s$-t$. 0$si.$ J-i!$1 .i. n"t t->$ 8-&t in t$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n' Su..$n3/1 B"00/ %&is>$.
J-i!$Cs <-ist -n. utt$&$. t-t $ M<-nt$. t" >i33'N J-i!$ -n. H&$g 0$4-!$ %&igt$n$. -n.
i!!$.i-t$3/ <$nt t" t$i& "us$1 <i4 <-s Eust -.E-4$nt t" A3ing =$tCs "us$' Wi3$ H&$g <-s

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
-0"ut t" "8$n t$ .""& t" is "us$1 B"00/1 4-&&/ing t<" >ni#$s1 $!$&g$. -n. i!!$.i-t$3/ -n.
<it"ut <-&ning1 st-00$. H&$g"&i" -t t$ &igt si.$ "% t$ 0$33/ <it "n$ "% t$ >ni#$s'
W-s t$ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n 8&$s$nt in tis 4-s$2
ANSWER+
NO. For evident premeditation to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, it is
indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had elapsed
before it was carried out. The facts does not show when /obby decided to commit the crime and
that a sufficient amount of time elapsed for him to reflect upon his resolution to kill Gregorio.
*here there is no evidence as to how and when the plan to kill was decided and what time had
elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
For evident premeditation to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (&) the
time when the offender determined to commit the crime< (-) an act manifestly indicating that the
culprit has clung to his determination< and (') sufficient lapse of time between the determination
and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act. The essence of evident
premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act was preceded by cool thought and reflection
upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a
calm +udgment. t must be based on external acts which must be notorious, manifest and evident N
not merely suspecting N indicating deliberate planning. =vident premeditation, like other
circumstances that would qualify a killing as murder, must be established by clear and positive
evidence showing the planning and preparation stages prior to the killing. *ithout such evidence,
mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable, will not suffice (PE5PLE
vs 75R754, 9R 4o .'0/,# March ./, (//'%
QUESTION NO' 1(
Os4-& <-s 43$-ning is 4-& in%&"nt "% Ji!!/Cs "us$ <$n t$ 3-tt$& -&&i#$. -n.
4"n%&"nt$. Os4-& -0"ut t$ n"is$ 4"!ing %&"! Os4-&Cs 4-& st$&$"' Os4-& ign"&$. Ji!!/ -n.
8&"4$$.$. t" 43$-n is 4-&' Insu3t$.1 Ji!!/ &-is$. is #"i4$ -n. s"ut$. in#$4ti#$s -t Os4-&'
Tis ti!$ Os4-& %-4$. Ji!!/ -n. &$t"&t$. <it in#$4ti#$s "% is "<n' T$n Os4-& 0"-&.$. is
4-& -n. s8$. -<-/' A%t$& -n "u&1 Os4-& 4-!$ 0-4> -n. 8-&>$. is 4-& - %$< !$t$&s -<-/ %&"!
Ji!!/Cs "us$' A$ t""> - -n. gun -n. st$-3ti3/ -88&"-4$. Ji!!/ %&"! 0$in. -s t$ 3-tt$&
<-s s<$$8ing t$ si.$<-3>' Os4-& t$n 4-33$. Ji!!/Cs n-!$1 -n. <$n t$ 3-tt$& tu&n$.
-&"un. $ <-s s"t 0/ Ji!!/ in t$ st"!-4' Ji!!/ .i$. -s - 4"ns$Fu$n4$'
C-n t&$-4$&/ 0$ 4"nsi.$&$. t" $@ist in tis 4-s$2
ANSWER+
YES, Himmy had no opportunity to anticipate the imminence of the )scarCs attack, nor was
Himmy in a position to defend himself or repel the aggression because he was unarmed. As a rule,
there can be no treachery when an altercation ensued between the offender and the victim.
(owever, the facts reveal that after the altercation, )scar left and Himmy was not aware that
)scar had come back armed with a hand gun.
That Himmy was shot facing )scar does not negate treachery. The settled rule is that
treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal, as long as the attack is sudden and unexpected,
giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or to defend himself. *hat is decisive is that the
execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from an unarmed victim, made it
impossible for the latter to defend himself or to retaliate. (PE5PLE vs PERE@, 9R 4o .0'',#
5ctober (0, (//0%
QUESTION NO' ,:
On Jun$ ,71 ,::;1 On." -n. is %&i$n.s <$nt t" t$ C3$-& W-t$& R$s"&t %"& - s<i!!ing
8-&t/' At -0"ut ;+:: 8'!'1 On." -n. is %&i$n.s $-.$. 0-4> "!$' T<" !$n1 "n$ "% <"!
<-s E.g-&1 <$&$ -#ing s"!$ .&in>s' W$n t$/ s-< On."1 E.g-& -n. is %&i$n. "%%$&$. i! -
.&in> "% T-n.u-/' On."1 .$43in$.1 s-/ing JB-/1 I -! n"t .&in>ing n"<'J T$&$-%t$&1 On." 3$%t'
E.g-& <-s 8$$#$.' A$ &"s$ %&"! is s$-t -n. %"33"<$. On."' E.g-& t$n t""> "3. "% On."Is
&igt s"u3.$&1 t""> "ut - st-in3$ss >ni%$ -n. st-00$. t$ 3-tt$& "n t$ 0&$-st' E.g-& 3$%t t$
s4$n$' M"&t-33/ <"un.$.1 On." &-n t"<-&.s t$ #$i43$ -n. %$33 insi.$ it' On."Is 4"!8-ni"ns
0&"ugt i! t" t$ A"s8it-31 <$&$ $ <-s 8&"n"un4$. .$-. "n -&&i#-3'

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
W-s t$&$ t&$-4$&/ in t$ %-t-3 st-00ing On."2
ANSWER+
NO, mere suddenness of the attack on the unarmed and unsuspecting victim does not
+ustify the finding of treachery. As a general rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether
frontally or from behind, is treachery if such mode of attack was deliberately adopted by him with
the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply if
the attack was not preconceived but merely triggered by infuriation of =dgar on an act made by
)ndo. n the present case, it is apparent that the attack was not preconceived. t was triggered by
=dgarCs anger because of the )ndoCs refusal to have a drink with the former and his companion.
Treachery cannot be appreciated if it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the assailant did not make any preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the
killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the victim to defend himself. The prosecution must
prove that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method of attack directly and
specially to facilitate and insure the killing without risk to himself. The mode of attack must be
planned by the offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. (PE5PLE vs
3UMA3A9, 9R 4o .'!.$" >une ', (//'%
QUESTION NO' ,1
J"E" <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4&i!$ "% !u&.$&1 -n. <-s s$nt$n4$. t" su%%$& t$ 8$n-3t/ "%
.$-t 0/ 3$t-3 inE$4ti"n1 %"& 4-using t$ .$-t "% Ri4-&." "n F$0&u-&/ ,61 1((91 <it t$ us$
"% -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&!' T$ t&i-3 4"u&t s$nt$n4$. J"E" t" su%%$& t$ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t1
-88&$4i-ting t$ us$ "% -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&! -s - s8$4i-3 -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ 8u&su-nt t"
R'A'5,(7 <i4 t""> $%%$4t -%t$& t$ >i33ing "n Ju3/ )1 1((9'
W-s t$ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"&&$4t in i!8"sing t$ .$-t 8$n-3t/2
ANSWER+
NO. 9nder Article -!7 of the #$%, as amended by #A ?o. 620", the imposable penalty for
murder is #eclusion $erpetua to 5eath. 4ince #A ?o. 7-"! took effect after the crime charged was
committed, it should be applied prospectively and not retroactively. For if the new law were to be
applied retroactively as the trial court did, the same would aggravate the criminal liability of Ho+o
and the imposable penalty for the crime charged. (PE5PLE vs ABUI43E E6 AL, 9R 4o .00!00
Au)ust ($, (//0%
QUESTION NO' ,,
M-&it- <-s 4-&g$. <it -n. 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4&i!$ "% t$%t %"& st$-3ing E$<$3&i$s' S$
<-s -3s" "&.$&$. t" 8-/ t$ 8&i#-t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/ t$ su!s "% =11;::1::: %"& t$ #-3u$ "% t$
st"3$n E$<$3&i$s -n. =1::1::: %"& !"&-3 .-!-g$s' Du&ing t$ 8$n.$n4/ "% $& -88$-3 t" t$
Su8&$!$ C"u&t s$ .i$.' T$ 8&i#-t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/ !"#$s t-t s$ 0$ 8-i. t$ su!s -<-&.$.
&$8&$s$nting t$ M-&it-Cs 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/'
M-/ -!"unts &$8&$s$nting 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/ ex-delicto 0$ -<-&.$. .$s8it$ t$ .$-t "% t$
-44us$. 8$n.ing -88$-32
ANSWER+
NO, the civil action instituted with the criminal action for recovery of civil liability ex
delicto is ipso facto extinguished, upon the extinction of the criminal action due to the death of
the accused. The pecuniary liabilities ad+udged against 1arita are undeniably ex delicto. 4he was
ordered to pay actual damages, which is the value of the pieces of +ewelry allegedly taken from the
private complainant, and moral damages for the fear and trauma caused to the complainant by
reason of the commission of the crime. These civil liabilities arose from the crime of Theft and are
based solely on said delict. (3E 9U@MA4 vs PE5PLE, 9R 4o .#'#!$ 5ctober ,, (//0%

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
QUESTION NO' ,6
D"$s t$ -0s$n4$ "% s8$&!-t"?"- in t$ #i4ti!Cs g$nit-3i- .is8&"#$ &-8$2
ANSWER+
NO, the negative findings of spermato,oa does not prove that rape was not committed.
The absence of spermato,oa does not disprove rape. t has been long settled that absence of
spermato,oa does not necessarily mean that rape was not committed< the slightest penetration of
the female organ is enough. n any case, a negative sperm>detection test is immaterial to the crime
of rape, it being firmly settled that the important consideration in rape is penetration and not
emission. (PE5PLE vs MAL54ES, 9R 4os .('0,,=$/ March .., (//'%
QUESTION NO' ,7
Mi.-1 -%t$& 0$ing 0$&-t$. 0/ $& !"t$&1 3$%t t$i& "us$' Tu8$ng1 <" <-s - n$ig0"&
"% Mi.-1 in#it$. t$ 3-tt$& t" is -8-&t!$nt t" s8$n. t$ nigt t$&$in t" <i4 Mi.- #"3unt-&i3/
-g&$$.' Tu8$ng 3$. Mi.- t" - &""! <$&$ s$ <-s t" s3$$8' T$n !inut$s -%t$& 3$-#ing t$
&""!1 Tu8$ng &$tu&n$. -n. s-t "n t$ 0$. in t$ $#$ning "% t$ s-!$ .-/1 4"!83$t$3/ n->$.'
A$ t$n -. 4-&n-3 >n"<3$.g$ <it Mi.- -g-inst $& <i33' A%t$& g&-ti%/ing is 3ust1 Tu8$ng
<-&n$. Mi.- n"t t" t$33 -n/"n$ -0"ut t$ in4i.$nt -n. <-&n$. $& t-t $& !"t$& <"u3.
4"n.$!n $& %"& s3$$8ing -t is -8-&t!$nt' Mi.- <-s 8-.3"4>$. insi.$ t$ "us$ %"& %i#$ .-/s
unti3 s$ <-s &$s4u$.'
W-s t$ 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% s$&i"us i33$g-3 .$t$nti"n <it &-8$ 4"!!itt$.2
ANSWER+
NO, Tupeng is guilty only of rape and not of serious illegal detention. The original and
primordial intention of Tupeng in keeping 1ida in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive
her of her liberty. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real ob+ective of the
accused is to rape the victim. (ence, Tupeng is guilty only of rape under Article ''0, paragraph &
of the #evised $enal %ode, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape
under Article -26, in relation to Articles ''0 and !7 of the %ode. Although 1ida initially agreed to
stay at appellantCs apartment, she did so because she had nowhere to go and she believed, at that
time, that she was safe with Tupeng, who was her neighbor. (PE5PLE vs SA7AR3A4, 9R 4o
.0(.0# Ma: (., (//'%
QUESTION NO' ,;
M-/ >i.n-88ing 0$ 4"!!itt$. i% t$ 8&i#-t$ 4"!83-in-nt n$#$& &$sist$. n"& 4"!83-in$.
t" g" <it t$ "%%$n.$& -t t$ in4$8ti"n "% t$ 4&i!$2
ANSWER+
YES' The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victimCs liberty
under any of circumstances mentioned in Article -26 coupled with indubitable proof of intent of
the accused to effect the same. The victimCs lack of consent is also a fundamental element of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The involuntariness of the sei,ure and detention is the
very essence of the crime. Although the victim my have inceptually consented to go with the
offender to a place but the victim is thereafter prevented, with the use of force, from leaving the
place where he was brought to with his consent and is detained against his will, the offender is
guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. (PE5PLE vs PICCRELL, 9R 4o .(/'/$ 5ctober
(0, (//0%
QUESTION NO' ,)
J"s$ <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ %"& -33$g$.3/ &-#ising M-&in-1 - !$nt-3 &$t-&.-t$' M-&in-
t$sti%i$. t-t J"s$ >iss$. -n. un.&$ss$. $&1 -n. t$n 8u33$. $& /$33"<B4"3"&$. 8-nts ."<n t"
$& >n$$s' A$ t$n !"unt$. $& -n. ins$&t$. is 8&i#-t$ "&g-n int" $& #-gin-' A$ 8ut is
43"t$s 0-4> "n -n. 3$%t' T$ in%"&!-ti"n 4-&g$. t-t J"s$1 0/ !$-ns "% %"&4$1 #i"3$n4$1
t&$-ts -n. inti!i.-ti"n1 .i. t$n -n. t$&$ <i33%u33/1 un3-<%u33/ -n. %$3"ni"us3/ -#$ 4-&n-3
>n"<3$.g$ "% M-&in-1 -g-inst $& <i33'

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
On -88$-31 J"s$ -ss$&ts t-t un.$& t$ 4&i!in-3 4"!83-int1 $ <-s 4-&g$. "% &-8$
un.$& 8-&-g&-8 11 A&ti43$ 66; "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$1 -s -!$n.$.' A"<$#$&1 t$
8&"s$4uti"n1 t&"ug t$ #i4ti! $&s$3%1 %-i3$. t" 8&"#$ t-t $ %"&4$.1 t&$-t$n$. "&
inti!i.-t$. $& int" -#ing s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it i!' Fu&t$&!"&$1 -44"&.ing t" J"s$1 t$
8&"s$4ut"& !$&$3/ 8&"#$. t-t t$ #i4ti! <-s - !$nt-3 &$t-&.-t$ -n. t-t $ -. s$@u-3
int$&4"u&s$ <it $&' A$ 4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ un.$& 8-&-g&-8 ,1 A&ti43$ 66; "% t$
R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$* "t$&<is$1 $ <"u3. 0$ .$8&i#$. "% is &igt t" 0$ in%"&!$. "% t$ n-tu&$
"% t$ 4&i!$ 4-&g$. -g-inst i!' D$s8it$ t$ t&i-3 4"u&tCs %in.ings t-t t$ 8&"s$4uti"n %-i3$.
t" 8&"#$ &-8$ -s 4-&g$. in t$ 4&i!in-3 4"!83-int un.$& 8-&-g&-8 11 A&ti43$ 66; "% t$
R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$1 t$ 4"u&t sti33 4"n#i4t$. i! "% &-8$ un.$& t$ s$4"n. 8-&-g&-8 "% t$
s-i. A&ti43$
M-/ t$ -88$33-nt 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% &-8$ t&"ug %"&4$ "& inti!i.-ti"n2
ANSWER+
YES, it bears stressing that force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. n this case,
the victim is a mental retardate. Hose took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her. (ence, he is guilty of forcible rape.
%arnal knowledge of an insane woman, knowing her to be insane, is rape. There is a lack of
capacity to consent, and it is presumed that the act was done without her consent, hence it is
against the femaleCs will< the force required may be in the wrongful act itself. t follows that such
act is done Jforcibly and against her will.C n an indictment the office of the words Jagainst her willC
is merely to negative consent. (PE5PLE vs 7ALA6A@5, 9R 4o ..,/(! >anuar: ($, (//'%
QUESTION NO' ,9
F&-n4is4" &$nt$. - &""! in t$ "us$ un.$& t$ 4-&$ "% =u&it-' =u&it- "44u8i$. -n"t$&
&""! in t$ "us$' S$ -. - #$&/ 43"s$ &$3-ti"nsi8 <it F&-n4is4"1 0ut 0$4-!$ .isi33usi"n$.
<$n $ %-i3$. t" 8-/ t$ !"nt3/ &$nt-3s' E@-s8$&-t$.1 =u&it- -. t$ !-tt$& 83-4$. in t$
8"3i4$ 03"tt$&' Tis in%u&i-t$. F&-n4is4"'
On$ $#$ning1 F&-n4is4" -&&i#$. -t is n$ig0"&Cs &$si.$n4$ -n. 03u&t$.+ M=-&$1 I <i33 >i33
=u&it-'N A"<$#$&1 t$ n$ig0"& t"3. F&-n4is4" t-t =u&it- <-s #$&/ >in. t" i! -n. 4"uns$3$.
-g-inst >i33ing $&' At ;+:: -'!' "n O4t"0$& 111 1((;1 F&-n4is4" st-00$. =u&it- <i3$ t$ 3-t$&
<-s -s3$$8 insi.$ $& &""!1 t$&$0/ 4-using $& .$-t'
W$&$ t$ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s "% t&$-4$&/ -n. $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n 8&$s$nt in
tis 4-s$2
ANSWER+
NO, the facts fail to show that Francisco deliberately or consciously adopted a mode of
attack to ensure the killing. There is even no showing of the particulars as to how the aggression
commenced or the events that led to the stabbing. For treachery to be qualifying, the prosecution
must prove the confluence of the following requisites: (a) the employment of means of execution
that gives the person attacked the opportunity to defend himself or retaliate< (b) that the accused
deliberately and consciously adopted the means of execution.
?either was evident premeditation attendant in the commission of the crime. Francisco
may have intended to kill the victim even before )ctober &&, &""0. (owever, there is nothing in
the facts to show that from that time on, until the victim was stabbed and killed, Francisco
performed overt acts indicating his determination to commit the crime. For evident premeditation
to be appreciated the following must be present: (&) the time when the accused decided to
commit the crime< (-) an overt act showing that the accused clung to their determination to
commit the crime< and (') the lapse of a sufficient period of time, as to allow the accused to
reflect upon the consequences of the act. (PE5PLE vs SA46IA95, 9R 4o .'!0.' 8ebruar: ",
(//'%
QUESTION NO' ,5

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
R"g$3i" <-s 4"n#i4t$. 0/ t$ t&i-3 4"u&t "% "!i4i.$1 <it t$ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$
"% #"3unt-&/ su&&$n.$& -88&$4i-t$. in is %-#"&' A$ <-s s$nt$n4$. t" t$ 8$n-3t/ "%
i!8&is"n!$nt &-nging %&"! EIHAT (5) YEARS -n. ONE (1) DAY "% 8&isi"n !-/"&1 t" FOURTEEN
(17) YEARS -n. EIHAT (5) MONTAS "% R$43usi"n T$!8"&-3 !ini!u!'
W-s t$ 8$n-3t/ 8&"8$&3/ i!8"s$.2
ANSWER+
YES. The imposable penalty for homicide under Article -!" of the #evised $enal %ode is
reclusion temporal in its full range. From this penalty, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty
shall be determined by taking into account the attendant modifying circumstances. 9nder Article
2!, paragraph - of the #evised $enal %ode, when only a mitigating circumstance is present in the
commission of a crime, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the
minimum of the penalty imposed by law, vi,., reclusion temporal in its minimum period which has a
range of &- years and & day to &! years and 7 months. To determine the minimum of the
indeterminate penalty, reclusion temporal has to be reduced by one degree without taking into
account the attendant modifying circumstances. The penalty lower by degree is prision mayor in its
full range. 9nder 4ection & of the ndeterminate 4entence ;aw, the minimum of the penalty shall
be within the full range of prision mayor which is 2 years and & day to &- years. The trial court is
given the widest discretion to fix the minimum of the indeterminate penalty provided that such
penalty is within the range of prision mayor. n fixing the minimum of the indeterminate penalty,
the trial court is to consider two aspects, namely: first, the more or less mechanical determination
of the extreme limits of the minimum imprisonment period< and second, the broad question of the
factors and circumstances that should guide the discretion of the court in fixing the minimum
penalty within the ascertained limits.
(ence, the trial court may impose prision mayor in its minimum, or medium, or maximum
period as the minimum of the indeterminate penalty. n this case, the trial court correctly imposed
7 years and & day of prision mayor as minimum (9ARCIA vs PE5PLE, 9R 4o .''"$$ March ./,
(//'%
QUESTION NO' ,(
A 4&i!in-3 4"!83-int <-s %i3$. -g-inst Est$0-n %"& -4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss -33$g$.3/
4"!!itt$. -g-inst M-&i3/n1 t$ %"&!$&Cs 16B/&B"3. st$8B.-ugt$&'
Du&ing t$ t&i-3 M-&i3/n t$sti%i$. t-t Est$0-n <"u3. t"&!$nt $& .-/B0/B.-/ 0/
8$&sist$nt3/ >issing $& -n. t"u4ing $& 8&i#-t$ 8-&ts' On August ;1 1(()1 Est$0-n -n. M-&i3/n
<$&$ -3"n$ in t$ "us$' A$ -g-in t"u4$. M-&i3/nCs 8&i#-t$ 8-&ts1 >iss$. $& "n t$ 3i8s1
!-s$. $& 0&$-sts1 -n. t"u4$. $& tigs -n. 3$gs' Un-03$ t" 0$-& t$ -4ts "% Est$0-n1
M-&i3/n &-n -<-/ -n. <$nt t" $& sist$& <" <-s <"&>ing -s - "us$!-i.' M-&i3/n &$3-t$. t"
i! $& t&-u!-ti4 "&.$-3s -t t$ -n.s "% Est$0-n' M-&i3/nCs sist$& t""> 8it/ "n $& -n.
-44"!8-ni$. $& t" t$ 8"3i4$ st-ti"n <$&$ s$ &$8"&t$. Est$0-nCs s$@u-3 -ss-u3t -n.
3-s4i#i"us -4ts "n $&' M-&i3/n <-s -3s" su0E$4t$. t" - !$.i4-3 $@-!in-ti"n'
At t$ -&&-ign!$nt1 Est$0-n $nt$&$. - 83$- "% n"t gui3t/' A%t$& t&i-31 t$ t&i-3 4"u&t
4"n#i4t$. i! "% t$ 4&i!$ 4-&g$.' Est$0-n 4"nt$n.s t-t -3t"ug $ t"u4$. t$ 8&i#-t$
8-&ts "% M-&i3/n -n. g&-00$. $& 0&$-sts1 $3. $& tigs -n. 3$gs -n. >iss$. $&1 t$ s-i. -4ts
<$&$ n"t 3$<. -n. ." n"t 4"nstitut$ t$ %$3"n/ "% -4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss'
Di. t$ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"!!it $&&"& in 4"n#i4ting Est$0-n "% -4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss2
ANSWER+
NO. There can be no doubt that =steban was propelled by lewd designs when he touched
1arilynCs private part, mashed her breasts, touched her thighs and legs and kissed her. *hat
constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case.
The presence or absence of the lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and
the environmental circumstances. =steban had been sub+ecting 1arilyn to lascivious acts whenever
he and 1arilyn were alone by themselves in the house.
The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (&) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness< (-) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using
force or intimidation< (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious< or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (&-) years of age. (PE5PLE vs
;IC65R, 9R 4o .(!$/' 3ecember #, (//(%

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
QUESTION NO' 6:
Vi4$nt$1 "n is <-/ "!$ %&"! <"&>1 %"un. is <i%$ -n. .-ugt$&1 T$"."&- -n. Ju3i-
&$s8$4ti#$3/1 -t - n$ig0"&Cs "us$ i.ing' A$ %"un. "ut t-t1 H-00/1 t$ us0-n. "% is "t$&
.-ugt$& Ju3i-1 $-&3i$& 4-!$ t" Vi4$nt$Cs "us$ .&un> -n. st-&t$. 0"@ing -n. >i4>ing Ju3i-*
-%t$& <i4 H-00/ <$nt "!$ -n. s3$8t'
F&igt$n$. "% %u&t$& t&"u03$ %&"! H-00/1 Vi4$nt$ &$%$&&$. t$ !-tt$& t" Ju-n1 t$
3$-.$& "% MH&$$n-n1N -n -gg&u8-ti"n "% 4i#i3i-ns -&!$. <it 0"3"s -n. unting >ni#$s <"
t-s>$. t$!s$3#$s t" 8&$s$&#$ t$ 8$-4$ -n. "&.$& in t$ 4"!!unit/' Vi4$nt$ t-3>$. t" Ju-n
-n. t$ 3-tt$& -g&$$. t" -&&$st H-00/' T$ "t$& !$!0$&s "% H&$$n-n <$&$ t$n 4-33$. t" $38
in t$ -&&$st' T$/ <$nt t" H-00/Cs "us$ -n. <$&$ -03$ t" $#$ntu-33/ -<->$n i! -n. ti$. is
-n.s 0$in. i!' H-00/ <-s 0&"ugt 0$%"&$ Ju3i- -n. <-s -s>$. </ $ -. 0"@$. Ju3i-'
H-0// s-i. it <-s 0$4-us$ $ <-s -ng&/ -n. t-t $ <-s .&un>' Ju-n t$n -n. t$&$ -.Eu.g$.
i! gui3t/' T$/ t$n st-&t$. <-3>ing' W$n Ju-n -n. t$ "t$&s <$&$ 6 !$t$&s -$-. "%
H-00/1 t$/ st"88$.' H-00/ <-s t$n st-00$. -t is si.$ -n. 0-4> -n. t$n %in-33/ s"t'
H&$$n-n .u!8$. t$ .$-. 0"./ -t - !$-t g&in.$& <$&$ it <-s s&$..$. 0$/"n. &$4"gniti"n'
C-n 4&u$3t/ 0$ -88&$4i-t$. -s -n -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ in tis 4-s$2
ANSWER+
NO. $aragraph -&, Article &! of the #evised $enal %ode provides that there is cruelty in the
commission of a felony when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission. There is no cruelty when the
other wrong is done after the victim is already dead. The test in appreciating cruelty as an
aggravating circumstance is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the
wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increased the
victimLs suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. n this case, Huan and his
confederates threw Gabby into the meat grinder, the latter was already dead. (PE5PLE vs
SI7549A, et al, 9R 4o $#$/. >une .", (//0%
QUESTION NO' 61
In - 8-&t/1 L$" -n. is <i%$ <$&$ singing t"g$t$&' A%t$& t$i& .u$t1 t$ 4"u83$ .$4i.$.
t" g" "!$' L$" -n.$. t$ !i4&"8"n$ t" B$&n-0$1 &$!-&>ing1 JB-/-<1 its /"u& tu&n 0$4-us$
<$ -&$ g"ing "!$ <it !/ <i%$'J B$&n-0$ t""> t$ !i4&"8"n$ -n. 0$g-n t" sing <it is <i%$
H&-4i-' A"<$#$&1 $ <-s $n&-g$. <$n t$ #i.$">$ su..$n3/ st"88$.' B$&n-0$ s"ut$.' JVu3#-
"% /"u& !"t$&1 <" is t"ug $&$1 /"u -&$ %"u3ing !$'J Si!u3t-n$"us3/1 B$&n-0$ 8u33$. - t-03$
-n. tu&n$. it u8si.$ ."<n' A$ g&-00$. -n $!8t/ 0"tt3$ "% 0$$& g&-n.$ -n. s!-s$. it' A$ t$n
s"ut$. in#$4ti#$s -t t$ ="nt-<$ %-!i3/+ JVu3#- "% /"u& !"t$&1 /"u ="nt-<$ %-!i3/J L$"
4"n%&"nt$. B$&n-0$ -n. .$!-n.$. t" >n"< </ B$&n-0$ <-s s" !-. -t is %-!i3/' T" 8&$#$nt
t$ -3&$-./ t$ns$ situ-ti"n %&"! %u&t$& $s4-3-ting1 H&-4i- 8&"..$. L$" t" 3$-#$' As L$" <-s
&$t&i$#ing is s3i88$&s1 B$&n-0$ t&i$. t" it i! <it t$ 0&">$n 0"tt3$' L$" 8-&&i$. t$ t&ust
-n. 0"@$. B$&n-0$ "n t$ n"s$'
T$/ <$&$ s$8-&-t$. 0/ t$ B-&-ng-/ K-g-<-.s <" 0&"ugt B$&n-0$ t" is t&i4/43$'
On is <-/1 t" t$ t&i4/43$1 B$&n-0$ <-&n$. L$"+ JW-it %"& !$ -n. I <i33 4"!$ 0-4>'J N"n"ng1
B$&n-0$Is s"n1 .&"#$ t$ t&i4/43$ -n. 0&"ugt t$ 3-tt$& "!$'
A%t$& -0"ut ti&t/ t" %"&t/ !inut$s1 B$&n-0$ &$tu&n$.1 -&!$. <it - s"&t gun' A$
8"siti"n$. i!s$3% in - .-&> 83-4$' Su..$n3/1 H&-4i- $-&. - guns"t' S$ tu&n$. $& $-.
t"<-&.s t$ .i&$4ti"n <$&$ t$ guns"t $!-n-t$. %&"! -n. s-< t-t L$" <-s it "n t$ 3$%t
t$!83$ -n. %$33 t" t$ g&"un.1 !"&t-33/ <"un.$.'
A%t$& t&i-31 t$ 4"u&t &$n.$&$. - .$4isi"n %in.ing B$&n-0$ gui3t/ 0$/"n. &$-s"n-03$
."u0t "% !u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4$&/ -n. $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n'
(1) Di. t$ t&i-3 4"u&t g&-#$3/ $&& in %in.ing t-t t$ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$. <-s "n$ "%
!u&.$& Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t&$-4$&/2
(,) Di. t$ t&i-3 4"u&t g&-#$3/ $&& in -88&$4i-ting $#i.$nt 8&$!$.it-ti"n -s -n
-gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$2

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
ANSWER+
(1) NO. Treachery is committed when two conditions concur, namely: (&) at the time of the
attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself< and (b) the assailant consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the assailant on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its
commission without risk to himself. There may still be treachery even if before the assault, the
assailant and the victim had an altercation and a fisticuffs where, after the lapse of some time
from the said altercation, the assailant attacked the unsuspecting victim without affording him of
any real chance to defend himself. n this case, /ernabe, armed with a gun, shot the victim as the
latter was conversing with his wife and /everlyLs other guests in front of the gate of the latterLs
house. The victim was unarmed. The attack of the appellant was sudden. The victim had no inkling
that the appellant had returned, armed with a gun.
(,) YES. For evident premeditation to be appreciated, it must be proved the confluence of
the following elements: (&) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime< (b) an
act manifestly indicating that he has clung to such determination< and (c) sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequence of
his act. The aggravating circumstance must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of
the crime charged. The mere lapse of time does not prove evident premeditation. There must be
proof of overt acts of the appellant, showing when he conceived the plan to kill the deceased, and
that in the interim, he clung to his determination to kill, and that sufficient time had elapsed
between his determination and the execution of the crime to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will. The mere fact that after his fight with ;eo, /ernabe came back with a gun
and shot ;eo does not constitute proof of evident premeditation. The facts show that after /ernabe
left the gathering at /everlyLs house, he returned armed with a gun after the lapse of thirty to forty
minutes. %onsidering that it took /ernabe twenty to thirty minutes to get to his house and a similar
period of time to return to /everlyLs residence, it cannot be said that /ernabe had sufficient time
to ponder upon the dire consequences of the crime he had decided to commit (PE5PLE vs
M546EMA<5R, 9R 4o .(#0/# >une .,, (//0%
QUESTION NO' 6,
On N"#$!0$& (1 1((;1 R"3-n." -s>$. L$- -n. L$tt/!-&1 4"u3. st-/ in is "us$ t"
<-t4 "#$& is .-ugt$&1 =&in4$ss1 <i3$ $ <-s "ut "n is t&i4/43$ !->ing - 3i#ing' T$ t<"
4"ns$nt$. -n. st-/$. -t R"3-n."Cs "us$' At t-t 8-&ti4u3-& !"!$nt1 S-!u$31 <-s st-/ing <it
is 0&"t$& R"3-n."'
At -0"ut )+6: 8!1 L$- <-s s$$n $!$&ging %&"! t$ "us$ "% R"3-n."1 &unning t"<-&.s
t$ st&$$t <i3$ s"uting Mun43$ S-!1 un43$ S-!KN S$ <-s %"33"<$. 0/ S-!u$3 <" <-s in
8"ss$ssi"n "% -n 5Bin4 >ni%$' S-!u$3 st-00$. L$- $igt$$n ti!$s <i4 u3ti!-t$3/ 4-us$. $&
.$-t'
A%t$& t&i-3 "n t$ !$&its1 t$ 4"u&t - Fu" %"un. S-!u$3 gui3t/ 0$/"n. &$-s"n-03$ ."u0t
"% !u&.$&1 Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t$ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% -0us$ "% su8$&i"& st&$ngt1 %"& t$ .$-t "% L$-'
S-!u$3 4"nt$n.s t-t t$ t&i-3 4"u&t $&&$. in "3.ing i! gui3t/ "% !u&.$& sin4$ t$ >i33ing <-s
n"t !-.$ <it -0us$ "% su8$&i"& st&$ngt'
W-s t$&$ 8&$s$nt in t$ >i33ing -0us$ "% su8$&i"& st&$ngt -s t" Fu-3i%/ t$ 4&i!$ t"
!u&.$&2
ANSWER+
YES. 4amuel was armed with a knife and used the same in repeatedly stabbing ;eah, a
young wisp of a girl, no less than eighteen times after overtaking her. nfragably, then, 4amuel
abused his superior strength in stabbing ;eah. There are no fixed and invariable rules regarding
abuse of superior strength or employing means to weaken the defense of the victim. 4uperiority
does not always means numerical superiority. Abuse of superiority depends upon the relative
strength of the aggressor vis>a>vis the victim. There is abuse of superior strength even if there is
only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the
aggressorCs natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both and the
employment of means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it. The aggressor must have
taken advantage of his natural strength to insure the commission of the crime. (PE5PLE vs
L5RE65, 9R 4o .0!'..=.0 8ebruar: (,, (//0%

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
QUESTION NO' 66
Di$g"1 <" <-s <$-&ing - 8-i& "% s"&t 8-nts 0ut n->$. %&"! <-ist u81 $nt$&$. t$
0$.&""! "% M"n-1 <$nt "n t"8 "% $&1 $3. $& -n.s1 &$!"#$. $& 8-nt/1 !-s$. $& 0&$-sts
-n. t"u4$. $& s$@ "&g-n' A"<$#$&1 Di$g" s-< R"ss$31 M"n-Cs /"ung$& 0&"t$& 8$$8ing
t&"ug t$ .""& "% t$ &""! -n. .is!"unt$.' A$ 0$&-t$. R"ss$3 %"& 8$$8ing -n. "&.$&$. i!
t" g" 0-4> t" is &""! -n. t" s3$$8' Di$g" t$n 3$%t M"n-Cs &""!'
Is Di$g" gui3t/ "% 4"nsu!!-t$. -4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss .$%in$. in A&ti43$ 66) "% t$
R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$ "& -tt$!8t$. &-8$ un.$& A&ti43$ 66; "% t$ s-i. C".$2
ANSWER+
5iego is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness. 5iego intended to have
carnal knowledge of 1ona, and by the series of his overt acts he commenced the execution of rape
which, if not for his desistance, will ripen into the crime of rape. Although 5iego desisted from
performing all the acts of execution however his desistance was not spontaneous as he was
impelled to do so only because of the sudden and unexpected arrival of #ossel. (PE5PLE vs
LI@A3A, 9R 4os .'0'",=!., >anuar: (', (//0%
QUESTION AND ANSWER
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ 4-&.in-3 8&in4i83$s "% 4&i!in-3 3-<2 Hi#$ t$ $@4$8ti"ns t$&$t"'
ANSWER+
The three cardinal principles or characteristics of criminal law are:
(a) G=?=#A;TB. %riminal laws apply to all persons who commit crimes in $hilippine
territory, regardless of their nationality, gender, age or other personal circumstances.
=xceptions to this are treaty stipulations, laws of preferential application, and
principles of public international laws.
(b) T=##T)#A;TB. %riminal laws apply to all offenses committed within $hilippine
territory. =xceptions to this rule are those found in Art. - of the #$% which provides for
extraterritorial +urisdiction of our courts.
(c) $#)4$=%TOTB. $enal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in which it was
not punishable when committed. =xception to this rule is whenever a new statute
dealing with a crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it
can be given retroactive effect. (owever, this exception has no application: &) where
the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of
action and< -) where the offender is a habitual criminal under Art. 2-, #$%.
QUESTION
W-t is Mist->$ "% F-4t2 W-t -&$ its &$Fuisit$s2
ANSWER+
1istake of Fact is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the person who caused in+ury to
another. (e is not, however, criminally liable because he did not act with criminal intent. An
honest mistake of fact destroys the presumption of criminal intent which arises upon the
commission of a felonious act. The requisites of 1istake of Fact are as follows:

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
&. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused
believed them to be<
2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful.
3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused.
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ >in.s "% .$sist-n4$ &$4"gni?$. 0/ 3-< un.$& A&t' ) "% t$ R=C2
ANSWER+
;egal desistance> the desistance referred to in law which would obviate criminal liability
unless the overt or preparatory act already committed in themselves constitute a felony other than
what the actor intended.
Factual desistance> actual desistance of the actor which is made after the attempted stage
of the crime< the actor is still liable for the attempt
QUESTION
F$3i8$ <-s -#ing - .&in>ing 0ing$ <it =-03"' T$n1 =-03"1 <" <-s sit$. 0$si.$
F$3i8$1 83-4$. is &igt -&! -&"un. F$3i8$ -n.1 <it is 3$%t -n.1 st-00$. i!1 <is8$&ing1
MTis is !/ C&ist!-s gi%t t" /"u1 B&".N' F$3i8$ <-s <"un.$. "n is 3$%t 4$st -n. %$33 ."<n'
F"& is inEu&i$s1 F$3i8$ <-s 0&"ugt t" t$ B-/-<-n Dist&i4t A"s8it-3 <$&$ $ <-s 4"n%in$. %"&
%"u& .-/s' A44"&.ing t" t$ ."4t"& <" t&$-t$. F$3i8$1 t$ "n3/ <-/ 0/ <i4 F$3i8$Is 3i%$
<"u3. -#$ 0$$n $n.-ng$&$. <-s i% t$ <"un. .$#$3"8$. - !-E"& in%$4ti"n'
Dis4uss =-03"Cs 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/'
ANSWER+
$ablo is liable for attempted murder. *hen the wound inflicted could not have caused
instantaneous death, the offender is liable only for the attempted stage of the crime. The element
of treachery attended the stabbing incident, which qualifies the attempted killing to murder.
ndeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without
the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. The stabbing was not preceded by an
altercation nor did Felipe give the slightest provocation. $abloCs act of putting his right arm
around FelipeLs shoulder right before stabbing Felipe ensured that his victim would not be able to
dodge his attack. (PE5PLE vs 3ELA CRU@, 9R 4os .#'0',=#/ >une ,, (//'%
QUESTION
W-t is t$ su0E$4ti#$ 8-s$ "% t$ 4"!!issi"n "% -n "%%$ns$2
ANSWER+
The sub+ective phase is that portion of the act constituting the crime included between the
act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which,
with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that point forward, the phase is
ob+ective. 1ay also be said to be the period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he
has control N that period between the point where he begins and the point which he voluntarily
desists. f between these - points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his
own voluntary desistance, the crime is attempted. f he is not so stopped but continuous until he
performs the last act the crime is frustrated.
QUESTION
G1 -%t$& 8&"!ising Y t" gi#$ i! =1:1:::'::1 in.u4$. t$ 3-tt$& (Y) t" >i33 D1 <" -t t$
ti!$ <-s #-4-ti"ning in -n is"3-t$. is3-n. in t$ s$- <i4 4-n $-si3/ 0$ &$-4$. 0/ - 0"-t' W1
<" "<ns t$ "n3/ !"t"& 0"-t in t$ 3"4-3it/1 "%%$&$. t" t&-ns8"&t -n. -4tu-33/ t&-ns8"&t$. Y t"
s-i. is3-n.' U8"n t$ &$-4 t$ is3-n.1 Y >i33$. D' In.i4-t$ <$t$& G1 Y -n. W is - 8&in4i8-3 "&
-44"!83i4$ in t$ 4"!!issi"n "% t$ 4&i!$' Hi#$ /"u& &$-s"ns'
ANSWER+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
D is a principal by inducement. /y promising to give B $&8,888.88 to kill E, which is an
agreement for a consideration, the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring
the commission of the crime. Further, the facts show that B has no personal reason to kill E except
the inducement which is therefore, the determining cause for the commission of the crime by B.
B is a principal by direct participation because he killed E pursuant to the inducement or
agreement for a consideration and he, therefore, personally took part in the execution of the act
constituting the crime. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!, par .%
* is neither a principal nor an accomplice. Although * offered and actually transported B
to the island where E was vacationing as he owns the only motor boat in the locality, the facts of
the problem do not show that * has any knowledge of the criminal design nor purpose of B.
To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, it is essential that there be either anterior
conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose an intention immediately before the commission of the
crime. This means participation in the same resolution of B, the principal by direct participation. *
is not a principal by direct participation because he did not participate directly in the execution of
the act constituting the crime. %learly, he also is not a principal by inducement because he did not
induce B to kill E.
* is not an accomplice because he has also no knowledge of the criminal design of B, the
principal by direct participation. f * has knowledge of the criminal purpose of B then he will be a
principal by indispensable cooperation because he cooperated in the commission of the crime by B,
which is the transporting of B to the island in his boat which is the only one in the locality, without
which the crime would not have been accomplished. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!, Par 0%
QUESTION
Is 8&i"& -g&$$!$nt t" 4"!!it - 4&i!$ n$4$ss-&/ %"& t$ $@ist$n4$ "% 4"ns8i&-4/2
ANSWER+
NO, conspiracy is present so long as the acts of the accused clearly manifest a concurrence
of the will and a common intent or design to commit a crime. t may be inferred if it is proven that
two or more persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful ob+ect,
each doing a part so that their acts N although apparently independent> were in fact connected and
cooperative, thus indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrence of sentiment.
This is also known as the 5octrine of mplied %onspiracy.
%onspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused>> from the beginning, during and
after the crime>> which are indicative of design, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.
)nce it is shown that there is concurrence in action or action in concert to achieve a criminal
design, the act of one is deemed the act of all the conspirators. (PE5PLE vs 8ELIPE, 9R 4o
.'(#/# 3ecember .., (//0%
QUESTION
At "n$ ti!$1 8-st !i.nigt1 t$ -44us$. <$nt ."<nst-i&s <it - 3"-.$. gun t"
in#$stig-t$ <-t $ t"ugt <$&$ t$ %""tst$8s "% -n unin#it$. gu$st' A%t$& s$$ing <-t
-88$-&$. t" i! -n -&!$. st&-ng$& 3"">ing -&"un. -n. "ut t" &"0 t$ "us$1 $ %i&$. is gun
s$&i"us3/ inEu&ing t$ !-n' W$n t$ 3igts tu&n$. "n1 t$ un%"&tun-t$ #i4ti! tu&n$. "ut t" 0$
is 0&"t$& in 3-< "n is <-/ t" t$ >it4$n t" g$t s"!$ 3igt sn-4>s' T$ -44us$. <-s in.i4t$.
%"& s$&i"us 8/si4-3 inEu&i$s' S"u3. t$ -44us$.1 gi#$n t$ 4i&4u!st-n4$s1 0$ -4Fuitt$. "&
4"n#i4t$.2 W/2
ANSWER+
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief,
his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on the person is not +ustified.
5efense of property or property right does not +ustify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the
life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused
acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, hi is not absolved from criminal liability. ((//0 7ar
EDaminations%

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
QUESTION
(1) Distinguis 0$t<$$n -n "&.in-&/ 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ -n. - s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ -s t"
t$i& 4"n4$8ts -n. -s t" t$ i!8"siti"n "% 8$n-3ti$s'
(,) C-n t$&$ 0$ - 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% 4"u8 .C$t-t <it &$0$33i"n2
(6) C-n t$&$ 0$ - 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% 4"u8 .C$t-t <it s$.iti"n2
ANSWER+
(1) n concept N
An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct
provisions of the #evised $enal %ode but alleged in one information either because they were
brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing
the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed.
A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the
#evised $enal %ode.
As to penalties N
n ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in
its maximum period.
n special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component
crimes, which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor
in its maximum period. t is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that
shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
(,) YES, if there was conspiracy between the offender(s) committing the coup dCetat and
the offenders committing the rebellion. /y conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the
other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup dCetat may be any person
belonging to the military or the national police or public officer, whereas rebellion does not so
require. 1oreover, the crime of coup dCetat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a
public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. 4ince the two
crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment
to the application of Art. !7 of the #evised $enal %ode.
(6) YES, coup dCetat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly punished under the #evised $enal %ode. 4edition may not be
directed against the Government or non>political in ob+ective, whereas coup dCetat is always
political in ob+ective as it is directed against the Government and led by persons or public officer
holding public office belonging to the military or national police. Art. !7 of the %ode may apply
under the conditions therein provided. ((//0 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
In <-t 4-s$s is A&t' 75 n"t -883i4-03$2
ANSWER+
The rules in Art. !7 are not applicable:
(&) *hen the crimes sub+ect of the case have common elements<
(-) *hen the crimes involved are sub+ect to the rule of absorption of one crime by
the other<
(') *here the two offenses resulting from a single act are specifically punished as
a single crime, such as less serious physical in+uries with serious slander of deed, since
this is punished under Art. -20 par. -, as the single crime of less serious physical
in+uries with ignominy<
(!) n special complex crimes<
(0) *hen the crimes involved cannot be legally complexed, vi,:
a) 1alicious obtention or abusive service of search warrant (Art. &-") with
per+ury<
b) /ribery (Art. -&8) with infidelity in the custody of prisoners<
c) 1altreatment of prisoners (Art. -'0) with serious physical in+uries<

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
d) 9surpation of real rights (Art. '&-) with serious physical in+uries< and
e) Abandonment of persons in danger (Art. -60) and crimes against minors (Arts.
-62>-67) with another felony.
QUESTION
W$n !-/ ins-nit/ 0$ -88&$4i-t$. -s -n $@$!8ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ un.$& A&ti43$ 1, "%
t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2
ANSWER+
nsanity under Art. &-, par. &, of The #evised $enal %ode exists when there is a complete
deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., appellant is deprived of reason< he acts
without the least discernment because of complete absence of the power to discern< or, there is a
total deprivation of freedom of the will. The fact that a person behaves cra,ily is not conclusive
that he is insane. The prevalent meaning of the word Icra,yI is not synonymous with the legal terms
Iinsane,I Inon compos mentis,I Iunsound mind,I Iidiot,I or Ilunatic.I The popular conception of the
word Icra,yI is being used to describe a person or an act unnatural or out of the ordinary. A man
may behave in a cra,y manner but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally
so (PE5PLE vs 8L5RE435, 9R 4o .0",'# 5ctober ,, (//0%
QUESTION
Distinguis 8&"#"4-ti"n %&"! #in.i4-ti"n "% - g&-#$ "%%$ns$ -s !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s'
ANSWER+
n the case of provocation, it is made directly only to the person committing the felony< in
vindication, the grave offense may be committed also against the offenderCs relatives mentioned by
the law.
n vindication, the offended party must have done a grave offense to the offender or his
relatives mentioned in the law< while in provocation, the cause that brought about the provocation
need not be a grave offense.
n provocation, it is necessary that the provocation or threat immediately preceded the
act, i.e., that there be no interval of time between the provocation and the commission of the
crime< while in vindication, the vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which admits of
an interval of time between the grave offense done by the offended party and the commission of
the crime by the accused.
QUESTION
Li"n$3 <-s 0$ing -&&$st$. %"& -#ing 4"!!itt$. - 4&i!$' W$n $ s-< t$ 8"3i4$
!"#ing t"<-&.s i!1 $ "%%$&$. n" &$sist-n4$ -n. -33"<$. t$! t" -&&$st i! <it"ut 8&"t$st'
M-/ t$ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% #"3unt-&/ su&&$n.$& 0$ -88&$4i-t$. in Li"n$3Cs %-#"&2
ANSWER+
NO, the fact that ;ionel did not resist arrest or deny his criminal act did not constitute
voluntary surrender. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous and must clearly indicate
the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. (ere, the ;ionel was
arrested. There was, therefore no voluntary surrender to speak of because ;ionel was in fact
arrested. There is voluntary surrender only when the following requisites are proven, namely: (&)
the offender has not actually been arrested< (-) the offender surrendered himself to a person in
authority< and (') the surrender was voluntary. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous,
showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily
incurred in his search and capture. Ooluntary surrender presupposes repentance. (PE5PLE vs
5SPI9, 9R 4o .'.!"", 4ovember .,, (//0%
QUESTION

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
An -44us$. 4-&g$. <it "!i4i.$ 83$-.$. Mn"t gui3t/N .u&ing t$ 8&$3i!in-&/
in#$stig-ti"n 0$%"&$ t$ Muni4i8-3 C"u&t' U8"n t$ $3$#-ti"n "% t$ 4-s$ t" t$ R$gi"n-3 T&i-3
C"u&t (RTC)1 $ 83$-.$. Mgui3t/N %&$$3/ -n. #"3unt-&i3/ u8"n -&&-ign!$nt' C-n is 83$- "%
gui3t/ 0$%"&$ t$ RTC 0$ 4"nsi.$&$. s8"nt-n$"us -n. tus $ntit3$ i! t" t$ !itig-ting
4i&4u!st-n4$ "% s8"nt-n$"us 83$- "% gui3t/2
ANSWER+
YES1 his plea of guilty before the #T% can be considered spontaneous, for which he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. (is plea of not guilty before the 1unicipal
%ourt is immaterial because it was made during preliminary investigation only and before a court
not competent to render +udgment. (.$$$ 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
F"u& -&!$. 8$&s"ns 4-su-33/ !$t -n"t$& g&"u8 "% t&$$ -&!$. 8$&s"ns in -n
unin-0it$. 83-4$ -t nigtti!$' An -3t$&4-ti"n $nsu$. 0$t<$$n t$ t<" g&"u8s <i4 3$. t" -
st&$$t %igt' In t$ $-t "% -ng$&1 t$ %"u& -&!$. 8$&s"ns <$&$ -03$ t" >i33 -33 t$ !$!0$&s "%
t$ "t$& g&"u8' M-/ t$i& 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ %"& t$ .$-t "% t$ t&$$ -&!$. 8$&s"ns 0$
-gg&-#-t$. 0/ t$ 4i&4u!st-n4$s "% nigtti!$1 unin-0it$. 83-4$ -n. 0/ - 0-n.2
ANSWER+
NO' *hen the meeting between the offenders and the group of the deceased was casual,
the offenders could not have sought for the circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place, and
their forming a band. *hen the offenders attacked the group of the deceased in the heat of anger,
they could not have taken advantage of such circumstances. Furthermore, since they did not
afford the offenders any advantage, such circumstances could not have facilitated the commission
of the crime. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .'%
QUESTION
M-/ t$ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% .<$33ing 0$ -88&$4i-t$. i% t$ "%%$n.$& .i. n"t
$nt$& t$ #i4ti!Cs "us$1 -s <$n t$ "%%$n.$& s"t t$ #i4ti! <it - &i%3$ %&"! - .ist-n4$ <it
t$ 0u33$t 8-ssing t&"ug t$ <in."<2
ANSWER+
B=4, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense M it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own abode,
although the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assault from the outside. The
triggerman showed greater perversity when, although outside the house, he attacked his victim
inside the latterLs own house when he could have very well committed the crime without
necessarily transgressing the sanctity of the victimLs home. (e who goes to anotherLs house to hurt
him or do him wrong is guiltier than he who offends him elsewhere. (PE5PLE vs 7A9SI6, 9R 4o
.',,!!, Au)ust .$, (//0%
QUESTION
T"8->1 - 8$&#$&t1 &-8$. M-&i- <" <-s -t t-t ti!$ "n3/ 1: /$-&s "3.' M-&i-Cs %-!i3/
%i3$. - 4"!83-int -g-inst T"8->' W$n T"8-> >n$< tis $ <$nt t" M-&i-Cs %-!i3/ -n. "%%$&$. -
8&"!is$ t" !-&&/ M-&i-' W$n T"8-> <-s 0$ing -&&$st$. $ -&gu$. t-t t$&$ <-s -3&$-./ -
8&"!is$ t" !-&&/ M-&i- $n4$1 is 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ s"u3. 0$ $@tinguis$.' D$4i.$'
ANSWER+
TopakCs criminal liability was not extinguished. Article -22>% of #A 7'0' requires that
there be a subsequent valid marriage to effect the extinction of the criminal liability. 1ere
promise to marry is not enough. Further, there can be no valid marriage between 1aria and Topak
as 1aria is only &8 years old, she lacks the capacity to enter into a valid marriage.
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ .istin4ti"ns 0$t<$$n 8-&."n 0/ t$ =&$si.$nt -n. 0/ t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/2

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
ANSWER+
&. $ardon by the $resident extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender< such is not the
case when the pardon is given by the offended party.
-. $ardon by the $resident cannot include civil liability that the offender must pay< but the
offended party can expressly waive the civil liability that the offender must pay.
'. n cases where the law allows pardon by the offended party (Art '!!), the pardon should be
given before the institution of the criminal prosecution and must be extended to both
offenders< whereas, pardon by the $resident is granted only after conviction and may be
extended to any of the offenders.
QUESTION
W-t is su0si.i-&/ i!8&is"n!$nt2 W$n !-/ - 8$&s"n un.$&g" su0si.i-&/
i!8&is"n!$nt2
ANSWER+
9nder Article '" of the #$%, subsidiary imprisonment is a subsidiary personal liability
imposed when the person has no property with which to meet the F?= mentioned in Article '7,
paragraph ' at the rate of one day for each $7.88.
(owever, in order that subsidiary imprisonment may be enforced, it must be expressly
stated in the +udgment that in case of failure to pay the fine, the accused must suffer subsidiary
imprisonment. n absence of such express statement, the subsidiary imprisonment cannot be
imposed. The reason is because subsidiary imprisonment is a substitute principal penalty, not an
accessory penalty. (Ramos v 9onon), !( SCRA #$% 1oreover, there is no subsidiary penalty if:
a) The principal penalty is higher than prision correccional<
b) t is not of fixed duration<
c) The subsidiary penalty, though properly imposable is not expressly stated in the
+udgment<
d) The penalty is not F54 (Fine< mprisonment and fine< &estierro and fine< suspension
and fine)< or
e) The penalty does not include fine.
QUESTION
T 3".g$. in t$ M--&3i>- A"t$3 <it"ut n"ti%/ing t$ !-n-g$!$nt "% t$ "t$3 "% t$
g"".s $ 0&"ugt -3"ng <it i!' N$it$& .i. $ %"33"< t$ .i&$4ti"ns "% t$ "t$3 <it &$s8$4t
t" t$ 4-&$ -n. #igi3-n4$ "#$& s-i. g"".s' On$ $#$ning1 t$ 0$330"/ "% t$ "t$3 8">$. - gun "n
T -n. .i#$st$. i! "% is g"".s'
Assu!ing t-t t$ s-i. 0$330"/ -0s4"n.$.1 !-/ t$ "<n$& "% t$ "t$3 0$ !-.$
su0si.i-&i3/ 3i-03$ %"& t$ &$stituti"n "% s-i. g"".s1 "& t" 8-/ t$ #-3u$ t$&$"%2 R$-s"n %u33/'
ANSWER+
The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily and civilly liable for the restitution of the goods or to
pay the value thereof. An inkeeper or tavernkeeper is subsidiarily and civilly liable for restitution
of goods taken by means of robbery with violence and intimidation against persons when the same
is committed by the inkeeperCs employees. 1aharlika (otel is subsidiarily liable because the goods
were taken by the hotelCs bellboy by means of robbery. The nature of the business of the hotel is
to provide not only lodging for the guests but also security to their persons and effects. The
necessity for this security to their persons and effects is apparent from the provisions of Articles
&""7>-88' of the ?ew %ivil %ode and Article &8- of the #evised $enal %ode. The security mentioned
is not confined to effects delivered to the hotel management for safekeeping but also to all effects
brought in the hotel. The reason is that the hotel management has supervision and control over
their inns and the premises thereof.

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
QUESTION
Ju-n .$ C-st&" -3&$-./ -. t&$$ (6) 8&$#i"us 4"n#i4ti"ns 0/ %in-3 Eu.g!$nt %"& t$%t
<$n $ <-s %"un. gui3t/ "% R"00$&/ <it A"!i4i.$' In t$ 3-st 4-s$1 t$ t&i-3 Eu.g$
4"nsi.$&$. -g-inst t$ -44us$. 0"t &$4i.i#is! -n. -0itu-3 .$3inFu$n4/' T$ -44us$.
-88$-3$. -n. 4"nt$n.$. t-t in is 3-st 4"n#i4ti"n1 t$ t&i-3 4"u&t 4-nn"t 4"nsi.$& -g-inst i!
- %in.ing "% &$4i.i#is! -n.1 -g-in1 -0itu-3 .$3inFu$n4/' Is t$ -88$-3 !$&it"&i"us2 E@83-in'
ANSWER+
NO, the appeal is not meritorious. #ecidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency.
Huan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final +udgment for theft
and again found guilty of robbery with homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced
under the same Title (Title Ten, /ook Two) of the #evised $enal %ode. The implication is that he is
speciali,ing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for
robbery with homicide.
(abitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is
convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Huan had
already three (') previous convictions by final +udgment for theft and again convicted for robbery
with homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft
and robbery.
QUESTION
A -n. B 83$-.$. gui3t/ t" t$ 4&i!$ "% 8-&&i4i.$' T$ 4"u&t %"un. t&$$ !itig-ting
4i&4u!st-n4$s1 n-!$3/ 83$- "% gui3t/1 3-4> "% inst&u4ti"n -n. 3-4> "% int$nt t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ -
<&"ng -s t-t 4"!!itt$.' T$ 8&$s4&i0$. 8$n-3t/ %"& 8-&&i4i.$ is &$43usi"n 8$&8$tu- t" .$-t'
I!8"s$ t$ 8&"8$& 8&in4i8-3 8$n-3t/'
ANSWER+
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. =ven if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree. n cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lower penalty shall be applied when
the commission of the crime is attended by some mitigating circumstances and there are no
aggravating circumstances. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art "0, par 0%
QUESTION
A <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% .$-t t&"ug %-3si%i4-ti"n "% 8u03i4
."4u!$nt' Sin4$ t$ -!"unt in#"3#$. ." n"t $@4$$. =,::'::1 t$ 8$n-3t/ 8&$s4&i0$. 0/ 3-<
%"& $st-%- is -&&$st" !-/"& in its !$.iu! -n. !-@i!u! 8$&i".s' T$ 8$n-3t/ 8&$s4&i0$. 0/ 3-<
%"& %-3si%i4-ti"n "% 8u03i4 ."4u!$nt is 8&isi"n !-/"& 83us %in$ n"t t" $@4$$. =;1:::'::'
I!8"s$ t$ 8&"8$& 8$n-3t/'
ANSWER+
The proper penalty is A?B #A?G= *T(? prision correctional (six months and one day to
six years) as 1?191, to A?B #A?G= within prision mayor maximum (ten years and one day to
twelve years) as 1AD191. For the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the
penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the
penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty
actually applied because of Article !7 of the #evised $enal %ode. The penalty next lower in degree
therefor is prision correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should
be taken. (RA 45 './0%
QUESTION
E%&$n1 - 0us .&i#$&1 <-s 4-&g$. <it R$4>3$ss I!8&u.$n4$ R$su3ting in A"!i4i.$ %"&
t$ .$-t "% R"!/' T$ t&i-3 4"u&t %"un. i! gui3t/ -s 4-&g$.' E%&$n -883i$. %"& 8&"0-ti"n -n.

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
<-s gi#$n .u$ 4"u&s$ 0/ t$ t&i-3 4"u&t' A$ t$&$-%t$& %i3$. - %u33 -88$-3 &$g-&.ing t$
i!8"siti"n "% .-!-g$s' T$ RTC .$ni$. t" gi#$ .u$ 4"u&s$ t" t$ n"ti4$ "% -88$-3' M-/ E%&$n
%i3$ - n"ti4$ "% -88$-3 n"t<itst-n.ing is -883i4-ti"n %"& 8&"0-ti"n2
ANSWER+
YES, the appeal in this case involved only the civil aspect of the trial courtCs +udgment. t
must be remembered that the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime
committed. $5 "27, otherwise known as the $robation ;aw provides that the filing of the
application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. #elying solely on the
letter of the law, the filing of the application for probation should be deemed a waiver of the right
to appeal. (owever, the above law provides only for the suspension of the sentence imposed on the
accused by virtue of his application for probation. t has absolutely no bearing on civil liability.
Although the execution of sentence is suspended by the grant of probation, it does not follow that
the civil liability of the offender, if any, is extinguished. (SAL;A4 ;S PE5PLE, 9R 4o .#0,'#,
September .., (//0%
QUESTION
A <-s t<" !"nts 0$3"< $igt$$n /$-&s "% -g$ <$n $ 4"!!itt$. t$ 4&i!$' A$ <-s
4-&g$. <it t$ 4&i!$ t&$$ !"nts 3-t$&' Inst$-. "% 8&$8-&ing t" s$&#$ - E-i3 t$&!1 $ s"ugt
- sus8$nsi"n "% t$ s$nt$n4$ "n t$ g&"un. t-t $ <-s - Eu#$ni3$ "%%$n.$&' S"u3. $ 0$
$ntit3$. t" - sus8$nsi"n "% s$nt$n4$2 R$-s"ns'
ANSWER+
NO, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the
time of the promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offenderCs
age at the time of promulgation of the sentence in the one considered, not his age when he
committed the crime. 4o, although A was below eighteen when he committed the crime, but he
was already twenty three years only when sentenced, he is no longer eligible to suspension of
sentence. ((//0 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
C-n Eu#$ni3$ "%%$n.$&s1 <" -&$ &$4i.i#ists1 #-3i.3/ -s> %"& sus8$nsi"n "% s$nt$n4$2
E@83-in'
ANSWER+
YES, so long as the offender is a minor at the time of promulgation of sentence. The law
establishing family courts, #epublic Act 7'2", 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. (owever, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application
pursuant to $5 28', otherwise known as the %hild and Bouth welfare code. (RA ,0"$, Sec #A% t is
under $5 28' that an application for the suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is
one of the condition of suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has
been displaced by #A 7'2". ((//0 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
W-t is t$ 8u&8"s$ %"& %i@ing t$ !-@i!u! -n. !ini!u! t$&!s in t$ In.$t$&!in-t$
S$nt$n4$ L-<2
ANSWER+
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace
period at which the convict may be released on parole from imprisonment, unless by his conduct he
is not deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term in +ail but in no case to

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
go beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence. The minimum and maximum terms are fixed
because they serve as bases for the following rules:
&. *henever a prisoner has: (a) served the 1?191 penalty imposed on him, and (b) is fit
for release on parole, upon terms and conditions prescribed by the /oard of
ndeterminate 4entence, he shall be released on parole.
-. /ut when the paroled prisoner violates any of the conditions of his parole during the
period of surveillance, he may be rearrested to serve the remaining unexpired portion
of the 1AD191 sentence.
'. =ven if a prisoner has already served the 1?191, but he is not fitted for release on
parole, he shall continue to serve his sentence until the end of the 1AD191 term.
QUESTION
In %i@ing t$ in.$t$&!in-t$ 8$n-3t/1 "< -&$ t$ !ini!u! -n. !-@i!u! 8$&i".s
.$t$&!in$.2
ANSWER+
*hen the crime is punished by the #evised $enal %ode, the maximum period is that which
could be properly imposed in view of the ordinary mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The
minimum period is that which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that provided
by the #$% for the offense without regard to the ordinary mitigating and aggravating
circumstances. =xcept in the case of privileged mitigating circumstances, which are taken into
consideration in determining such penalty next lower. The penalty next lower is determined
according to the scale provided in Art. 6& of the #$%.
*hen the crime is punished by special law maximum and minimum terms shall not be more
than nor less than the period of imprisonment fixed by the special law.

QUESTION
A&ni$ 4"!!itt$. "!i4i.$' A$ #"3unt-&i3/ su&&$n.$&$. t" t$ 8"3i4$' I!8"s$ t$
in.$t$&!in-t$ 8$n-3t/'
ANSWER+
(aving been found guilty of the crime of homicide, the penalty that should be imposed on
Arnie should be reclusion temporal under Article -!" of the #evised $enal %ode. There being one
(&) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, the penalty to be imposed shall be the
minimum period of reclusion temporal, that is, from twelve (&-) years and one (&) day to fourteen
(&!) years and eight (7) months. Applying the ndeterminate 4entence ;aw, the minimum of the
penalty to be imposed shall be the penalty next lower which is prision mayor in any of its periods.
Therefore, Arnie may be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten (&8) years and one (&) day
of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (&!) years and eight (7) months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. (PE5PLE vs A4654I5, 9R 4o .(,$//, >ul: .', (///%
QUESTION
On Jun$ 11 1(551 - 4"!83-int %"& 4"n4u0in-g$ 4"!!itt$. in F$0&u-&/ 1(59 <-s %i3$.
-g-inst R"0$&t" in t$ !uni4i8-3 t&i-3 4"u&t "% T-n?-1 C-#it$ %"& 8u&8"s$s "% 8&$3i!in-&/
in#$stig-ti"n' F"& #-&i"us &$-s"ns1 it <-s "n3/ "n Ju3/ 61 1((5 <$n t$ Eu.g$ "% s-i. 4"u&t
.$4i.$. t$ 4-s$ 0/ .is!issing it %"& 3-4> "% Eu&is.i4ti"n sin4$ t$ 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. in
M-ni3-' T$ 4-s$ <-s su0s$Fu$nt3/ %i3$. <it t$ 4it/ %is4-3 "% M-ni3- 0ut it <-s .is!iss$. "n
t$ g&"un. t-t t$ 4&i!$ -. -3&$-./ 8&$s4&i0$.' T$ 3-< 8&"#i.$s t-t t$ 4&i!$ "%
4"n4u0in-g$ 8&$s4&i0$s in 1: /$-&s' W-s t$ .is!iss-3 0/ t$ %is4-3 4"&&$4t2 E@83-in'
ANSWER+
NO, the fiscalCs dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the
complaint with the municipal trial court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted
and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the +urisdiction of a court in a criminal case
is determined by the allegation in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. ((//.
bar eDaminations%

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
QUESTION
A <-& 0$t<$$n =i3i88in$s -n. Cin- <-s .$43-&$. -s t$ 3-tt$& s"ugt t" in#-.$ t$
4"unt&/' M$!0$&s "% t$ Cin$s$ -&!/ t$n 0"ugt 0-n.-g$s %&"! - .&ugst"&$ "<n$. 0/ Ju-n'
W$n t$ =i3i88in$ -&!/ %"un. "ut1 Ju-n <-s 4-&g$. -n. 3-t$& "n 4"n#i4t$. "% t&$-s"n' W-s
is 4"n#i4ti"n 8&"8$&2
ANSWER+
NO, the sale of bandages to the enemy does not per se constitute treason because the said
articles are not exclusively for war purposes and their sale does not necessarily carry an intention
on the part of Huan to adhere to the enemy. Although it may constitute giving aid or comfort to
the enemy, still there is no treason as there is no intent to betray the $hilippines. (Revise& Penal
Co&e, Art ..'%
QUESTION
R"g$& -n. An.&$s 0"-&.$. 0/ !$-ns "% - !"t"&0"-t1 t$ MLT T-0-ng-" -s s-i. #$ss$3
<-s s-i3ing -3"ng t$ is3-n. "% Min."&"' A&!$. <it MB1) &i%3$s1 t$/ .$t-in$. t$ 4&$< -n.
t""> 4"!83$t$ 4"nt&"3 "% t$ #$ss$3' T$&$-%t$&1 R"g$& "&.$&$. t$ 4&$< t" t->$ t$ JMLT
T-0-ng-"J t" - 8"&t in Sing-8"&$' T$&$1 t$ #$ss$3Cs 4-&g" <-s t&-ns%$&&$. t" t$ "3. "%
-n"t$& #$ss$31 t$ JN-#i =&i.$J' R"g$& -n. An.&$s s"3. t$ 4-&g" -n. .i#i.$. t$ 8&"4$$.s
0$t<$$n t$!s$3#$s' W$n 4-&g$. <it Fu-3i%i$. 8i&-4/ un.$& ='D' ;6,1 R"g$& -n. An.&$s
-&gu$ t-t t$/ 4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. %"& -4ts ."n$ "utsi.$ =i3i88in$ <-t$&s "& t$&&it"&/1 sin4$
t$ 4-&g" <-s t->$n -n. .is8"s$. "% 0$/"n. =i3i88in$ <-t$&s'
Is t$&$ 4"nt$nti"n 4"&&$4t2
ANSWER+
?), because the attack on and sei,ure of I1KT TabangaoI and its cargo were committed in
$hilippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to 4ingapore where
its cargo was off>loaded, transferred, and sold. ?otwithstanding that $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'-
requires that the attack and sei,ure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in $hilippine waters,
the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy,
hence, the same need not be committed in $hilippine waters.
1oreover, piracy falls under Title )ne of /ook Two of the #evised $enal %ode. As such, it is
an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if #oger
and Andres were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a
special law, $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'- which penali,es piracy in $hilippine waters. Oerily,
$residential 5ecree ?o. 0'- should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to
discourage and prevent piracy in $hilippine waters. t is likewise, well>settled that regardless of
the law penali,ing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world. (PE5PLE vs
6ULI4, 9R 4o ...!/$, Au)ust 0/, (//.%
QUESTION
=&i#-t$ Fi&stBC3-ss M-n-t-. <-s t&$-4$&"us3/ gunn$. ."<n 0/ - g&"u8 "% 5 !$n <i3$
!-nning t$ t&-%%i4 -t B"ni%-4i" St' in M-n.-u$ Cit/' As - &$su3t "% t$ >i33ing1 t<" t$-!s "%
8"3i4$ "%%i4$&s <$&$ t-s>$. t" 4"n.u4t su&#$i33-n4$ "n - sus8$4t$. s-%$"us$ "% !$!0$&s "%
t$ N$< =$"83$Cs A&!/ (N=A) S8-&&"< Unit 3"4-t$. in C$0u Cit/' A$&$1 t$/ <$&$ -03$ t" -&&$st
R".&ig" -n. E.<in' R".&ig" $@$4ut$. -n $@t&-Eu.i4i-3 4"n%$ssi"n <$&$in $ 4"n%$ss$. t-t $
-n. t$ g&"u8 "% E.<in >i33$. =%4' M-n-t-.' A$ 3i>$<is$ -.!itt$. t-t $ -n. E.<in <$&$
!$!0$&s "% t$ S8-&&"< Unit -n. t-t t$/ un.$&t""> t$ >i33ing "% =%4' M-n-t-. u8"n t$
"&.$&s "% t$i& &$0$3 4"!!-n.$&'
S"u3. R".&ig" -n. E.<in 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% .i&$4t -ss-u3t <it !u&.$&1 %"& t$ &$-s"n
t-t M-n-t-. <-s - >i33$. in t$ 8$&%"&!-n4$ "% is .uti$s -s - 8$&s"n in -ut"&it/2
ANSWER+

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
NO, where the accused who was charged with murder admitted his membership with the
?$A and the killing of an agent of a person in authority, the crime committed is not direct assault
with murder but rebellion. 4ince the killing was made pursuant to the order of a rebel commander,
the crime was politically motivated, in that the same was committed in the furtherance of the
rebellion. %rimes committed in furtherance of a rebellion are deemed absorbed therein and are not
punishable separately.
The crime of rebellion consists of a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues
and plots. Acts committed in the furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed
absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that
the victim is a person in authority, is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in
furtherance of the rebellion. t cannot be made a basis of a separate charge. (PE5PLE vs 3ASI9,
((. SCRA #'$%

QUESTION
Du&ing t$ M-/ ,::7 $3$4ti"ns1 %i#$ 8$&s"ns1 -&!$. <it guns -n. >ni#$s1 -tt-4>$. -
E$$8n$/ <$&$in $igt 8"3i4$!$n1 t$ 4i$% "% 8"3i4$1 -n. "t$& 8-ss$ng$&s <$&$ &i.ing' T<"
8"3i4$!$n1 t$ E$$8n$/ .&i#$& -n. t<" 4i3.&$n <$&$ >i33$. <i3$ t<" 8"3i4$!$n <$&$
<"un.$.' T$ -44us$. <$&$ 4-&g$. <it t$ 4&i!$ "% s$.iti"n <it !u3ti83$ !u&.$& -n.
."u03$ %&ust&-t$. !u&.$&' D$4i.$'
ANSWER+
n sedition, the uprising must be done publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force,
intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods any of the following ob+ects:
&. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular
election<
-. to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or
any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the
execution of any administrative order<
'. to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public
officer or employee<
!. to commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class< and
0. to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or
the national government of all its property or any part thereof.
n the instant case, there is no sedition because the purpose of the attack was not known.
t does not appear that the purpose of the accused in attacking the +eepney passengers is one of
those mentioned above.
QUESTION
M-/ -&0it&-&/ .$t$nti"n 0$ 4"!!itt$. i% t$ "%%$n.$. 8-&t/ is n"t >$8t <itin -n
$n43"su&$ t" &$st&i4t i! "% is %&$$."! "% 3"4"!"ti"n2
ANSWER+
YES, arbitrary detention may still be committed even if the offended party was not kept
within an enclosure. n establishing the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, it is not
necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict his freedom of
locomotion. The prevailing +urisprudence on illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victimLs
liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victimLs person. f the acts and actuations
of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paraly,e the latter, to
the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with
the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will.
(AS65R9A vs PE5PLE, 9R 4o .#'.0/, 5ctober ., (//0%
QUESTION
J-s"n %-3si%i$. - 8&i#-t$ ."4u!$nt -n. us$. t$ s-!$ t" "0t-in %&-u.u3$nt g-in 0/
!$-ns "% .$4$it' A$ <-s 4-&g$. <it $st-%- t&"ug %-3si%i4-ti"n' W-s t$ 4-&g$ 8&"8$&2
ANSWER+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
NO, in such case, the crime committed is falsification of private document only and not
estafa through falsification. There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private
document, because the immediate effect of falsification of private document is the same as that of
estafa. The falsification of a private document cannot be said to be a means to commit estafa,
because the fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the commission of which a
private document was falsified, is nothing more or less than the very damage caused by the
falsification of such document. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art .!(%
QUESTION
6 -&!$. !$n 0&">$ int" t$ HSIS 0ui3.ing -n. $@8&$ss$. g&i$% "#$& t$ 8""&
8$&%"&!-n4$ "% t$ -g$n4/' T$/ 4-33$. t$ 8$"83$ t$&$ t" $38 t$!s$3#$s t" -33 t$ tings
%"un. in t$ 8&$!is$s 0ut t$/1 t$ -44us$.1 .i. n"t $38 t$!s$3#$s t" - sing3$ "0E$4t' W-t
<-s t$ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$.2
ANSWER+
The accused committed the crime of direct assault. There are two forms of direct assault
and the first is committed where the offenders through force, violence, or intimidation committed
acts aimed at any of the ob+ectives of #ebellion or 4edition. n the instant case, all the requisites
for the first form of sedition was present:
&. the accused used force, violence or intimidation<
-. there was no public uprising because there were only ' of them<
3. their aim is to attain any of the purposes of rebellion or sedition, which in this case is,
to despoil for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the
national government of all its property or any part thereof. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art
.',%
QUESTION
Ju-n <-s s$nt$n4$. t" t$ 8$n-3t/ "% D$sti$&&" <$&$in $ <-s 8&"i0it$. t" $nt$& t$
0-&&i" "% Lu0-ng %"& - s8$4i%i$. 8$&i".' On M-/ ,1 t$ 0-&&i" "% Lu0-ng 4$3$0&-t$. its %i$st-1
-n. M-@1 t$ 0$st %&i$n. "% Ju-n sin4$ 4i3."". in#it$. t$ 3-tt$&' Ju-n $@4it$.3/ -tt$n.$.
t$ 4$3$0&-ti"n -n. 4"ns$Fu$nt3/ #i"3-t$. is s$nt$n4$' W-t is t$ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ Ju-n
-n. <-t is 8$n-3t/ t" 0$ i!8"s$.2
ANSWER+
Huan committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence under Art. &06 of the #$%.
This crime may be committed even if the convict was originally sentenced to 5estierro, as when he
will enter the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius to such places as stated in the
+udgment.
The penalty to be imposed is not imprisonment but also destierro. The reason is that the
penalty for the evasion cannot be more severe than the penalty that was evaded.
QUESTION
N"n" <-s 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4&i!$ "% t$%t -n. <-s s$nt$n4$. t" i!8&is"n!$nt' Ais
!"t$&1 .$s8$&-t$ t" -#$ i! &$3$-s$.1 <$nt t" t$ Muni4i8-3 M-/"& -n. -s>$. %"& is $38'
T$ !-/"& .$!-n.$. =1::1:::':: in $@4-ng$ %"& t$ &$3$-s$ "% N"n" %&"! i!8&is"n!$nt'
W$n N"n" <-s n"t &$3$-s$.1 t$ !"t$& %i3$. - 0&i0$&/ 4-s$ -g-inst t$ !-/"&' D$4i.$'
ANSWER+
The crime is not bribery because in bribery it is essential that the act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he executes be connected with the performance of his official duties.
n the instant case, the release of a prisoner is not connected with the 1ayorCs duties. nstead, the
1ayor is guilty of estafa because by promising the mother that he would release Huan, he
pretended to possess authority to do so.

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
QUESTION
M-/ t$ 4&i!$ "% M-3#$&s-ti"n 0$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ - 8&i#-t$ in.i#i.u-32 M-/ 8&i#-t$
8&"8$&t/ 0$ t$ su0E$4t !-tt$& "% t$ 4&i!$ "% M-3#$&s-ti"n2
ANSWERS+
B=4, private individuals who, having charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenue or property appropriate, take, or misappropriate or consent, or through abandonment or
negligence permit another person to take them, are liable for the crime of malversation. The same
criminal liability may be incurred by an administrator or depositary of funds or property, attached,
sei,ed or deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
B=4, the expression, @even if such property belongs to a private individualA, is a sweeping
and all embracing statement so as to include a case where private funds or property are involved,
as long such funds or property are placed in the custody of accountable public officers. (Revise&
Penal Co&e, Article (((%
QUESTION
W-t is t$4ni4-3 !-3#$&s-ti"n2
ANSWER+
Technical malversation is a crime committed by any public officer who shall apply any
public funds or property under his administration to any public use other than that for which funds
or property were appropriated by law or ordinance. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Article ((/%
QUESTION
E."ng t&$< - 0-g 4"nt-ining g-s"3in$ -t t$ "us$ "% -n"t$& -n. 3it it' T$ %&"nt <-33
"% t$ "us$ st-&t$. 03-?ing' F"&t<it1 t$ n$ig0"&s 8"u&$. <-t$& "n t$ 0u&ning 8"&ti"n "%
t$ "us$' On3/ - 8"&ti"n "% t$ "us$ <-s 0u&n$.' Dis4uss E."ngCs 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/'
ANSWER+
=dong is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. t is destructive arson
because fire was resorted to in destroying an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is
consummated because the house was in fact already burned although not totally. n arson, it is not
required that the premises be totally burned for the crime to be consummated. t is enough that
the premises suffer destruction by burning. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art 0(/%
QUESTION
A1 <i3$ -tt$n.ing - %i$st- -t - n$ig0"&ing t"<n 4-n4$. u8"n Q <" <-s <$-&ing t$
s"$s1 8-nts -n. si&t 0$3"nging t" A <i4 <$&$ st"3$n - !"nt -g" <i3$ 0$ing -ng$.
"utsi.$ ACs "us$ t" .&/'
R$-3i?ing tis1 A i!!$.i-t$3/ -44"st$. Q -n. -ss$&t$. is "<n$&si8 "#$& t$ 8$&s"n-3
-88-&$3 <"&n 0/ Q' A %u&t$& .$!-n.$. its &$tu&n -n. <$n Q &$%us$. t" &$!"#$ t$ 43"ting1
t$ %"&!$& .&$< - %-n >ni%$ -n. t&$-t$n$. Q <" $#$ntu-33/ 4"n4$.$.'
Di. A 4"!!it -n/ 4&i!$2
ANSWER+
YES, A is guilty of grave coercion. . was in the actual possession of the disputed garments
and with violence, A compelled . to remove the same and turn the things to him which the latter
initially did not desire to give up if not for the threat given by A.
A compelled . with violence and threat to do something against the latterCs will, this
constitutes grave coercion punished under the #evised $enal %ode.
=ven granting that A is the owner of the clothes, . being in actual possession of the same,
the duty devolves upon A to seek the aid of proper authority and assert ownership in a manner
provided by law.

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
QUESTION
A -s -n i33$giti!-t$ s"n B1 <" !-u3$. -n. >i33$. t$ 3$giti!-t$ %-t$& "% A' Is B gui3t/
"% 8-&&i4i.$2
ANSWER+
NO, because under Art. -!2 of the #$% on parricide, in case of other ascendants
(grandparents, great>grandparents, etc.) the relationship with the killer must be legitimate. The
same is true with other descendants, that is, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. 4ince / is an
illegitimate child of A he canCt be held guilty of parricide for killing ACs father (/Cs grandfather).
QUESTION
M&' G >i33$.+ (1) - <"!-n <it <"! $ 3i#$. <it"ut t$ 0$n$%it "% 43$&g/1 (,) t$i&
4i3. <" <-s "n3/ t<" .-/s "3.1 (6) t$i& .-ugt$&1 -n. (7) t$i& -."8t$. s"n'
W-t 4&i!$ "& 4&i!$s .i. M&' G 4"!!it2
ANSWER+
1r. D committed the following crimes:
(&) (omicide or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common>law wife who is
not legally considered a spouse.
(-) nfanticide for the killing of the child as said child is less than (') days old. (owever
the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child
within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.
(') $arricide for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as
she is not less than three (') days old at the time of the killing.
(4) 1urder for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between 1r. D and the
said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise. (.$$$ 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
Tit" st&u4> G in t$ !"ut <it - 3$-. 8i8$1 4-using t$ 3"ss "% t$ 3-tt$&Cs %"u& %&"nt
t$$t' W-t is t$ 4&i!$ 4"!!itt$.2
ANSWER+
Tito is liable for serious physical in+ury as the loss of teeth constitutes a deformity. /y
deformity is meant physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. t must be conspicuous
and visible. The in+ury contemplated is an in+ury that cannot be repaired by the action of nature.
The fact that the in+ured party may have artificial teeth, if he has the necessary means and so
desires, does not repair the in+ury, although it may lessen the disfigurement. (Revise& Penal
Co&e, Art ("0%
QUESTION
Ru./ <-s 4-&g$. <it &-8$' It <-s -33$g$. in t$ in%"&!-ti"n t-t t$ #i4ti! <-s -
!in"& -n. t-t Ru./ <-s t$ st$8B%-t$& "% t$ #i4ti!' Du&ing t$ t&i-3 "% t$ 4-s$1 it <-s
8&"#$.1 -!"ng "t$&s1 t-t Ru./ <-s - 3i#$Bin 8-&tn$& "% t$ #i4ti!Cs !"t$&' In t$ $#$nt "% -
4"n#i4ti"n %"& t$ 4&i!$ "% &-8$1 !-/ Ru./ 0$ i!8"s$. t$ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t2
ANSWER+
NO. 9nder section && of #epublic Act ?o. 620", the death penalty is imposed in rape cases
where Ithe victim is under eighteen (&7) years of age and the offender is . . . the common>law
spouse of the parent of the victim.I /eing in the nature of special qualifying circumstances, the
minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must be both alleged and proved with
certainty.
n the case at bar, although the information against #udy alleged that he is the stepfather
of the victim, the evidence shows that complainantLs mother, was not married to #udy and that he

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
was in fact merely the common>law spouse of the victimCs mother. The death penalty could not be
imposed since there is a disparity in the allegation made in the information and proof offered in the
course of the trial, as accused was not in fact the victimCs stepfather. ndeed, a stepfather has
been defined as the husband of oneLs mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which
the person spoken of is the offspring. For the foregoing reason, the death penalty cannot be
imposed on #udy, should he be convicted, he shall be punished with reclusion perpetua. (PE5PLE
vs 954@ALES, 9R 4os .0$''#='", >une (/, (//.%
QUESTION
Lu4-s &-8$. is sist$& Y' Y t$sti%i$. t-t Lu4-s ins$&t$. is 8$nis insi.$ $& #-gin- -n.
t-t Lu4-s $E-4u3-t$. t<i4$ .u&ing t$ s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ t-t 3-st$. %"& -0"ut ti&t/ !inut$s1
-%t$& <i4 Lu4-s <it.&$< is 8$nis -n. 3$%t' T$ t&i-3 4"u&t 4"n#i4t$. Lu4-s "% t<" 4"unts "%
Fu-3i%i$. &-8$ -n. s$nt$n4$. i! t" su%%$& t$ 8$n-3t/ "% .$-t "n 0"t 4"unts1 t$ &-8$ 0$ing
Fu-3i%i$. 0/ t$ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"nsi8 un.$& A&t' 1; "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$'
(1) S"u3. Lu4-s 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t<" 4"unts "% &-8$2
(,) Wi33 t$ -3t$&n-ti#$ 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"nsi8 <-&&-nt t$ i!8"siti"n "% t$
.$-t 8$n-3t/2
ANSWERS+
(&) ?). ;ucas committed only one act of rape although he e+aculated twice during the
sexual act. ;ucas did not withdraw his penis to insert it again into the vagina or to ItouchI the
labia ma+ora or the labia minora when he e+aculated the second time. t is not the number of times
that the offender e+aculates rather it is the penetration or ItouchingI that determines the
consummation of the sexual act. B testified that ;ucasC penis penetrated her genitalia. At that
point, ;ucas had already consummated the rape. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia
ma+ora of the victimLs genitalia engenders the crime of rape. (ence, it is the ItouchingI or IentryI
of the penis into the labia ma+ora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victimLs genitalia that
consummates rape.
(-) ?). The #evised $enal %ode is silent as to when the alternative circumstance of
relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating. Hurisprudence considers relationship as an
aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity. (owever, rape is no longer a crime against
chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. 1oreover, the aggravating circumstance
sufficient to +ustify the imposition of the death penalty must not only be duly alleged and proven,
it must be one of those enumerated in Article &! of the #evised $enal %ode or that specified by law
such as under 4ection && of #epublic Act ?o. 620", amending Article ''0 of the #evised $enal %ode.
*herein it is provided that the death penalty is to be imposed in rape cases Iwhen the victim is
under eighteen (&7) 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.I The %ourt has since held that the circumstances enumerated by the
amendatory law are to be regarded as special qualifying (aggravating) circumstances.
*hen the penalty to be imposed is a range of penalties where the maximum penalty is
death and the appreciation of an aggravating circumstance would call for the imposition of the
maximum penalty, which is death, the term Iaggravating circumstanceI must be strictly construed.
The law must declare unequivocally an attendant circumstance as qualifying to warrant the
imposition of the death penalty. The %onstitution expressly provides that the death penalty may
only be imposed for crimes defined as heinous by %ongress. Any attendant circumstance that
qualifies a crime as heinous must be expressly so prescribed by %ongress.
(owever, resort must be made to the strict interpretation of the term Iaggravating
circumstanceI only for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. n all other cases where the
maximum penalty is not death, the term Iaggravating circumstanceI must be interpreted in its
broad or generic sense so as to include the alternative circumstances under Article &0 of the
#evised $enal %ode. (PE5PLE vs 5RILLA, 9R 4os .',$0$='/, 8ebruar: .0, (//'%
QUESTION
Un.$& A&t' ,,6: "% t$ Ci#i3 C".$1 $@$!83-&/ .-!-g$s -s - 8-&t "% t$ 4i#i3 3i-0i3it/ !-/
0$ i!8"s$. <$n t$ 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. <it "n$ "& !"&$ -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s' M-/

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
t$ -88&$4i-ti"n "% t$ Fu-3i%/ing -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ "% &$3-ti"nsi8 in &-8$ 4-s$s Eusti%/
t$ -<-&. "% $@$!83-&/ .-!-g$s2
ANSWER+
YES, the term Iaggravating circumstancesI used by the %ivil %ode, the law not having
specified otherwise, is to be understood in its broad or generic sense. The commission of an offense
has a two>pronged effect, one on the public as it breaches the social order and the other upon the
private victim as it causes personal sufferings, each of which is addressed by, respectively, the
prescription of heavier punishment for the accused and by an award of additional damages to the
victim. The increase of the penalty or a shift to a graver felony underscores the exacerbation of the
offense by the attendance of aggravating circumstances, whether ordinary or qualifying, in its
commission. 9nlike the criminal which is basically a 4tate concern, the award of damages,
however, is likewise, if not primarily, intended for the offended party who suffers thereby. t would
make little sense for an award of exemplary damages to be due the private offended party when
the aggravating circumstance is ordinary but to be withheld when it is qualifying. *ithal, the
ordinary or qualifying nature of an aggravating circumstance is a distinction that should only be of
consequence to the criminal, rather than to the civil, liability of the offender. n fine, relative to
the civil aspect of the case, an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or qualifying, should
entitle the offended party to an award of exemplary damages within the unbridled meaning of
Article --'8 of the %ivil %ode. (PE5PLE vs CA6U7I9, 9R 4o .0!,'(, Au)ust (0, (//.%
QUESTION
M-/"& Ant"n &-8$. Ms' S si@ ()) ti!$s' A%t$& s-tis%/ing is 3ust1 $ >i33$. t$ -83$ss
#i4ti!' M-/"& Ant"n <-s 4-&g$. <it ) 4"unts "% &-8$ <it "!i4i.$' A$ -&gu$s t-t it <-s
-0su&. t-t $ 0$ 4-&g$. <it1 !u4 3$ss 4"n#i4t$. "% si@ 4"unts "% &-8$ <it "!i4i.$
0$4-us$ t$ #i4ti! in tis 4-s$ 4"u3. n"t -#$ .i$. si@ ti!$s -n. t-t t$&$ <-s "n3/ "n$
<"!-n (#i4ti!) >i33$.' Is $ 4"&&$4t2
ANSWER+
NO1 he can be charged with and convicted of six counts of the special complex crime of
homicide even if only one person was killed. n the special complex crime of rape with homicide,
the homicide is used to qualify or raise a penalty provided by law. t is not necessary that there are
as many persons killed as are the crimes of rape with homicide. t is possible that only one person is
killed and the death of that person is used to qualify or to aggravate the penalty for each of the
rapes committed by the accused. There is one common denominator, the homicide aggravates the
penalty in all six crimes of rape. Thus, where the offender commits six acts of rape against the
same victim, the homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each rape, must be deemed
as a constituent of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Therefore, there will be as
many crimes of rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.
n effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime of rape, thereby raising its penalty
to the highest degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of the rape, loses its
character as an independent offense, but assumes a new character, and functions like a qualifying
circumstance. /y fiction of law, it is merged with rape to constitute a constituent element of a
special complex crime of rape with homicide. (SancheE vs 3emetriou, 9R 4os ...!!.=!!,
4ovember $, .$$0%
QUESTION
C&is-nt"1 - E$$8n$/ .&i#$&1 <-s s8$$.ing -3"ng - 8u03i4 t"&"ug%-&$1 <$n su..$n3/
is 4$338"n$ 0$$8$.' As $ &$-4$. %"& is 4$338"n$1 $ .i. n"t n"ti4$ t$ t&-%%i4 3igt tu&n
&$.' As $ 4&"ss$. t$ int$&s$4ti"n1 $ 0u!8$. - 8&$gn-nt 3-./ 4&"ssing t$ st&$$t' T$ #i"3$nt
i!8-4t 4-us$. t$ 0-0/ t" 0$ .is3".g$. %&"! t$ 3-./Cs <"!0' W-t 4&i!$1 i% -n/1 .i. C&is-nt"
4"!!it2
ANSWER+

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
%risanto is liable for unintentional abortion through reckless imprudence. Abortion is
committed whenever by reason of the application of violence upon a pregnant woman, the foetus
dies while in the motherCs womb or after it is expelled therefrom. The abortion is unintentional
because the violence, which caused the expulsion of the fetus, was inflicted without intending an
abortion. The violence was inflicted through reckless imprudence as it resulted from %risantoCs
inexcusable lack of precaution in driving his +eepney. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art (#!%
QUESTION
Distinguis &"00$&/ <it #i"3$n4$ -g-inst -n. inti!i.-ti"n "% 8$&s"ns %&"! g&-#$ t&$-ts
t" $@t"&t !"n$/'
ANSWER+
The distinctions are:
&. n robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate< while in threats, the intimidation
is conditional or future, that is, not immediate<
-. n robbery, the intimidation is personal, while in threats, it may be through an
intermediary<
'. n threats, the intimidation may refer to the person, honor or property of the offended
party or that of his family< while in robbery, the intimidation is directed only to the
person of the victim<
!. n robbery, the gain of the culprit is immediate< whereas in threats, the gain of the
culprit is not immediate.
QUESTION
W$&$ &"00$&/ <-s 4"!!itt$. <it #i"3$n4$ -g-inst "& inti!i.-ti"n "% 8$&s"ns1 -n.
%"&4$ u8"n tings <-s -3s" 8&$s$nt -n. $!83"/$. 0/ t$ "%%$n.$&1 s"u3. t$ 4&i!$ 0$
4-t$g"&i?$. -n. 8unis$. un.$& t$ %i&st !".$ (A&t' ,(7) "& t$ s$4"n. !".$ (A&t' ,(()2
ANSWER+
n the case of $eople vs. 4ebastian, et al. (70 $hil. 28&), it was held that the crime should
be categori,ed under the first mode, i.e., through violence or intimidation under Art. -"! and not
under the second mode (Art. -""). This was +ustified on the theory that violence or intimidation
should supply the controlling qualification since it is graver than robbery through force upon things
and produces greater disturbance to social order and the security of the individual.
(owever, a modification of this rule appears to have been later introduced by ?apolis vs.
%A, et al., (!' 4%#A '8&) and $eople vs. 5isney, et al. (G# ?o. ;>!&''2, February &7, &"7'). (ere,
it was held that Art. -"! applies only where robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons takes place without entering an inhabited house under the circumstances in Art. -"". *hen
both circumstances were present, the offense shall be considered as a complex crime under Art.
!7, and the penalty shall be for the graver offense in the maximum period.
QUESTION
In &"00$&/1 <$n s"u3. #i"3$n4$ "& inti!i.-ti"n 0$ 8&$s$nt2
ANSWER+
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. t is not necessary that violence
or intimidation should be present from the very beginning.
/ut when the violence results in (a) homicide, (b) rape, (c) intentional mutilation, or (d)
any of the serious physical in+uries penali,ed in paragraphs & and - of Art. -2', 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. (Revise& Penal Co&e, Art ($'%
QUESTION
At -0"ut 5+:: "I43"4> in t$ $#$ning1 -%t$& -tt$n.ing !-ss1 sist$&s M-&i3"u -n. M-&it$ss1
t"g$t$& <it t$i& %&i$n.s I!8$&i" -n. Tu!-ng1 <$nt "!$ using -n Isu?u 8i4>Bu8' Su..$n3/1

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
H-i. -n. F"&ti41 -&!$. <it -n.guns $!$&g$. %&"! t$ &$-& $n. "% t$ #$i43$ -n. %i&$. -
s"t <i4 it t$ 3$%t si.$ "% t$ 8i4>Bu8' T$/ "&.$&$. I!8$&i" -n. Tu!-ng t" g$t "ut "% t$
#$i43$' H-i. tu!8$. I!8$&i" "n t$ $-. <it - '65 4-3i0$& &$#"3#$& 4-using i! t" %-33
."<n1 <i3$ Tu!-ng <-s it s$#$&-3 ti!$s 0/ F"&ti4 <it %ist03"<s in #-&i"us 8-&ts "% t$ 0"./
-n. !"!$nt-&i3/ 3"st 4"ns4i"usn$ss' I!8$&i" -n. Tu!-ng <$&$ t$n .i#$st$. "% t$i&
#-3u-03$s'
H-i. -n. F"&ti4 .&"#$ t$ 8i4>Bu81 <it M-&i3"u -n. M-&it$ss -t t$ 0-4> s$-t1 t"<-&.s
- .i&t &"-. <$&$ t$/ 8-&>$. t$ #$i43$' At tis Eun4tu&$1 H-i. -. t&-ns%$&&$. t" t$
0-4>s$-t <it M-&i3"u <i3$ M-&it$ss <-s !-.$ t" sit u8 in %&"nt <it F"&ti4' H-i. 8">$. is
gun -t t$ &igt si.$ "% M-&i3"uIs n$4> -n. su44$$.$. in -#ing s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it $&'
M-&it$ss1 "n t$ "t$& -n.1 <-s &-#-g$. 0/ F"&ti4' T$/ s<it4$. #i4ti!s t<i4$ 0$%"&$
.i#$sting t$! "% t$i& 8"ss$ssi"ns'
W-t 4&i!$Ls <$&$ 4"!!itt$. 0/ H-i. -n. F"&ti42
ANSWER+
As for the unlawful taking of mperio and TumangCs valuables, Gaid and Fortich are liable
for simple robbery. The asportation by Gaid and Fortich of the personal properties was done by
means of violence against or intimidation upon the persons of mperio and Tumang. The physical
in+uries inflicted upon mperio and Tumang by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are
penali,ed under Article -"!, paragraph 6 of the #evised $enal %ode. 4light physical in+uries and
less serious physical in+uries inflicted in the commission of the robbery are absorbed in the crime of
simple robbery.
As for the violence inflicted upon the person of Tumang, the element of intent to kill was
not present. t must be stressed that while Fortich was armed with a handgun, he never shot
Tumang but merely hit him on the head with it. t has been held that intent to kill being an
essential element of the offense of frustrated or attempted homicide, said element must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence and with the same degree of certainty as is required of the other
elements of the crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of
circumstances sufficient to prove such intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Fortich and Gaid are each guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and, likewise,
of two counts of rape as defined and penali,ed in Article '!-, in relation to Article --2>A, of the
#evised $enal %ode for the abduction of 1arilou and the subsequent acts of rape committed against
her. The same criminal liability is incurred by Fortich and Gaid with respect to the forcible
abduction of and subsequent acts of rape committed against 1aritess. They are liable not only for
the acts of rape committed personally by them but also for each act of rape committed by the
other because of the existence of conspiracy. Fortich and Gaid acted in concert, each of them
doing his part in the commission of the offense. t has been held that in such a case, the act of one
becomes the act of all and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime
committed.
1ore importantly, when the first act of rape was committed by Fortich and Gaid, the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape was then consummated. Any subsequent acts of
intercourse would be only separate acts of rape and can no longer be considered separate complex
crimes of forcible abduction with rape. (PE5PLE vs 85R6ICH an& 9AI3, 9R 4o ,/0$$='/',
4ovember .0, .$$!%
QUESTION
G1 D -n. Y su44$ss%u33/ &"00$. - su8$&!-&>$t1 "<$#$& "n t$i& <-/ "ut1 G -n. D >i33$.
Y t" $n-03$ t$! t" g$t - 3-&g$& s-&$ "% t$ 3""t'
Is &"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ 4"!!itt$. $#$n i% t$ 8$&s"n >i33$. is "n$ "% t$ &"00$&s2
ANSWER+
YES, robbery with homicide is committed when in the course of the robbery another robber
is killed by companion, who wants to partake his share of the loot.
The law does not require that the person killed is the owner of the property taken. Article
-"! of the #evised $enal %ode provides: @ Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence
against xxx any personA. $ar. & points that when by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
crime of homicide shall have been committed. The killing of any person by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery should be punished with the highest penalty regardless of the person killed.
QUESTION
As Ju.it- <-s <-3>ing "!$1 A30$&t" 8">$. - >ni%$ -t $& 0-4> -n. .&-gg$. $&
t"<-&.s is "us$' On4$ insi.$1 A30$&t" .i#$st$. $& "% $& #-3u-03$s' T$n1 $ 8">$. - >ni%$
-t $& n$4> -n. -. 4-&n-3 >n"<3$.g$ "% $& -g-inst $& <i33' A%t$& s-tis%/ing is 3ust1 A30$&t"
<$nt "utsi.$ "% t$ "us$ -n. s!">$. - 4ig-&$tt$' A%t$&<i41 A30$&t" &$tu&n$. -n. -g-in -.
4-&n-3 >n"<3$.g$ "% Ju.it- -g-inst $& <i33' W-t 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. 0/ A30$&t"2 M-/ t$
su0s$Fu$nt &-8$ 0$ 4"nsi.$&$. -s -n -gg&-#-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$2
ANSWER+
Alberto committed the special complex crime of robbery with rape. (e committed both
robbery and rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape. 9nder
Art. -"!, par. (&), of the #evised $enal %ode, I. . . PaQny person guilty of robbery with the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons shall suffer: &. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death . . . when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape . . .I
As for the subsequent rape, the same cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance despite a resultant Ianomalous situationI wherein robbery with rape would be on the
same level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The %ourt reali,ed that there was no
law providing for the additional rapeKs or homicideKs for that matter to be considered as
aggravating circumstance. t further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances
under Art. &! of the #evised $enal %ode is exclusive, unlike in Art. &' of the same %ode which
enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered,
hence, the remedy lies with the legislature. %onsequently, unless and until a law is passed
providing that the additional rapeKs or homicideKs may be considered aggravating, the %ourt must
construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he
is not clearly made so by the statute. 9nder this view, the additional rape committed by accused>
appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance. (PE5PLE vs RE9ALA, 9R 4o .0/#/,,
April #, (/// an& PE5PLE vs SUL6A4, 9R 4o .0('!/, April (!, (///%
QUESTION
A <-s in n$$. "% !"n$/' D$s8-i&$. -n. 8&$ss$. 0/ is n$$.s -n. -%t$& 3$-&ning BCs
83-n1 is n$ig0"&1 "% g"ing t" t$ 8&"#in4$ t" -tt$n. "n s"!$ i!8"&t-nt !-tt$&s1 $ %in-33/
.$4i.$. t" &"0 3-tt$&Cs "us$' Wi3$ B <-s -<-/1 A <$nt t" t$ %"&!$&Cs "us$ t" 4-&&/ "ut is
83-n' U8"n .is4"#$&ing t-t - 8-.3"4> <-s -tt-4$. t" BCs !-in.""&1 A -!!$&$. t$ s-i. 3"4>'
As - &$su3t t$&$"%1 t$ 3"4> <-s .-!-g$.' T$&$-%t$&1 A <-s -03$ t" $nt$& t$ .<$33ing -n.
-s su44$ss%u33/ t->$n s"!$ "% t$ 8$&s"n-3 8&"8$&t/ "% B t$&$in'
W-s &"00$&/ <it %"&4$ u8"n tings 4"!!itt$.2
ANSWER+
YES. /efore, if the door was not damaged but only the lock attached to the door was
broken, the taking from within is only theft. /ut the ruling is now abandoned because the door is
considered useless without the lock. =ven if it is not the door that was broken but only the lock,
the breaking of the lock renders the door useless and it is therefore tantamount to the breaking of
the door. (ence, the taking inside the house is considered robbery with force upon things.
(Revise& Penal Co&e, Art ($$%
QUESTION
M&s' G <-s "n 0"-&. $& M$&4$.$s B$n?1 <$n $& 8$&s"n-3 .&i#$&1 Is-0$3" 8u33$. "#$&
t$ si.$ "% t$ ig<-/' A !-n1 <" int&".u4$. i!s$3% -s Mit"1 0"-&.$. t$ 4-&' Is-0$3"
$@83-in$. t" M&s' G t-t Mit" <-s is n$8$< -n. t$/ <-nt$. t" g$t !"n$/ %&"! $&' At tis
Eun4tu&$1 Mit" 8">$. - gun -t M&s' GCs n$4>' F&igt$n$.1 M&s' G i!!$.i-t$3/ -n.$. "#$& t"
Mit" -33 t$ !"n$/ in $& 0-g'
A&$ Is-0$3" -n. Mit" 3i-03$ %"& ig<-/ &"00$&/ un.$& ='D' ;6, %"& t$ &$-s"n t-t t$
&"00$&/ <-s 4"!!itt$. -3"ng - ig<-/2

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
ANSWER+
?), because sabelo and 1ito did not commit the robbery indiscriminately against any
person, instead they committed the same against a particular victim. $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'-
punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws
indiscriminately against any person or persons on $hilippine highways as defined therein, and not
acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim. f the purpose is only
a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed
participants. The mere fact that the robbery was committed on a highway does not invite the
application of $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'-. The preambular clause of $residential 5ecree ?o. 0'-
reveals the intention of the law to prevent lawless elements from committing acts of depredation
upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place
to another, thereby disturbing the peace, order and tranquility of the nation and stunting the
economic and social progress of the people. ndeed, it is hard to conceive of how a single act of
robbery against a particular person chosen by the accused as their specific victim could be
considered as committed on the Iinnocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to
another,I and which single act of depredation would be capable of Istunting the economic and
social progress of the peopleI. (PE5PLE vs PU45, 9R 4o $!'!., 8ebruar: .!, .$$0%
QUESTION
A>!-. <-s -44us$. "% un3-<%u33/ t->ing - !"t"&4/43$ <it t$ us$ "% #i"3$n4$ -n.
inti!i.-ti"n1 -n. >i33ing t$ "<n$& t$&$"% 0/ &$-s"n "% su4 un3-<%u3 t->ing' A%t$& t&i-31 $
<-s 4"n#i4t$. "% C-&n-88ing <it A"!i4i.$' W-s is 4"n#i4ti"n 8&"8$&2
ANSWER+
NO, because there is no such crime denominated as %arnapping with (omicide. The proper
denomination for the crime is %arnapping as defined and penali,ed under of #epublic Act ?o. 20'",
4ections - and &!. 9nder #epublic Act ?o. 20'", 4ection &!, the penalty for carnapping in case the
owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the course of the commission
of the carnapping shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (PE5PLE vs SIRA3, 9R 4o .0/#$', >ul:
#, (///%
QUESTION
M&s' S <-s - 0-n> t$33$&' In n$$. "% !"n$/1 s$ t""> =;1:::':: %&"! $& !"n$/ .&-<$&
-n. !-.$ it -88$-& t-t - 4$&t-in .$8"sit"& !-.$ - <it.&-<-3 %&"! is -44"unt <$n in %-4t
n" su4 <it.&-<-3 <-s !-.$' W-t 4&i!$ <-s 4"!!itt$. 0/ M&s' S2
ANSWER+
1rs. 4 is liable for qualified theft. 1rs. 4 was only in material possession of the deposits as
she received the same in behalf of the bank. Huridical possession remains with the bank. Huridical
possession means possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee
may set up even against the owner. f a bank teller appropriates the money for personal gain then
the felony committed is theft. Further, since 1rs. 4 occupies a position of confidence, and the bank
places money in her possession due to the confidence reposed on her, the felony of qualified theft
was committed. (R5BUE vs PE5PLE, 9R 4o .0,$#' 4ovember (#, (//'%

QUESTION
D"$s - n"#-ti"n "& 4"!8&"!is$ -%%$4t t$ 4&i!in-3 3i-0i3it/ "% - 8$&s"n -44us$. "%
$st-%-2 E@83-in'
ANSWER+
?ovation or compromise does not affect criminal liability of the offender of the accused.
4o, partial payment or extension of time to pay the amount misappropriated or acceptance of a
promissory note for payment of the amount involved does not extinguish criminal liability, because

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
a criminal offense is committed against the people and the offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense.
n order that novation of contract may relieve the accused of criminal liability, the
novation must take place before the criminal liability is incurred< criminal liability for estafa is not
affected by compromise or novation of contact for it is a public offense which must be prosecuted
and punished by the state at its own volition.
/ut if the compromise is executed before a criminal action is instituted or where the
amount misappropriated was converted into a contract of loan and the accused was made to
acknowledge the debt, there is novation of contract so as to extinguish any incipient criminal
liability of the accused< but the novation must be express and must refer only to the incipient
criminal liability. (PE5PLE vs 7ULI=E, 9R 4o .(0.'", >une .!, (//0%
QUESTION
W$n ."$s t$ -4t "% 8"st.-ting "& issuing - 4$4> 4"nstitut$ $st-%-2
ANSWER+
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation
must be the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to or
simultaneous with, the act of fraud. (4A9RAMPA v PE5PLE, 0," SCRA '.(%
QUESTION
C-n -n -g$nt <" %-i3$. t" tu&n "#$& t$ 8-&t "% is 4"33$4ti"n <i4 &$8&$s$nts is
4"!!issi"n 0$ $3. 3i-03$ %"& $st-%-2
ANSWER+
t depends. if the agent is authori,ed to retain his commission out of the amounts he
collected, there is no estafa. )therwise, he is guilty of estafa because the right to a commission
does not make the agent a +oint owner with a right to the money collected.
QUESTION
Sit- 8u&4-s$. 11::: 0-gs "% sug-& %&"! Su>i1 in 8-/!$nt t$&$"%1 Sit- issu$. si@ 8"stB
.-t$. 4$4>s' On3/ t<" "% t$ 4$4>s <$&$ "n"&$. 0/ t$ .&-<$$ 0-n> <i3$ t$ &$st <$&$
&$tu&n$. %"& 3-4> "% su%i4i$nt %un.s' U8"n >n"<3$.g$ "% t$ .is"n"& "% $& 4$4>s1 Sit- issu$.
-n"t$& s$t "% 4$4>s -s &$83-4$!$nt %"& t$ "n$s t-t <$&$ .is"n"&$.' R$g&$tt-03/1 t$s$
4$4>s <$&$ -3s" .is"n"&$.' Sit- t$n <$nt t" Su>i -n. "%%$&$. t" !->$ - 8-&ti-3 8-/!$nt1
$@83-ining t-t s$ <-s un-03$ t" %un. $& 4$4>s "n ti!$ .u$ t" t$ su..$n -n. un%"&$s$$n
%3u4tu-ti"n in t$ 8&i4$ "% sug-&1 <i4 &$su3t$. in $& in-0i3it/ n"t "n3/ t" 4"33$4t %&"! $&
"<n 0u/$&s1 0ut t" s$33 -33 t$ sug-& -s s$ -. $@8$4t$.' Su>i -44$8t$. t$ 8-&ti-3 8-/!$nt
-n. -33"<$. Sit- t" &$tu&n (, 0-gs "% sug-&'
U8"n %-i3u&$ "% Sit- 8-/ t$ &$st "% t$ -!"unt1 s$ <-s 4-&g$. <it $st-%- un.$& 8-&'
,(D)1 A&t' 61; "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$' M-/ Sit- 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% t$ 4&i!$ 4-&g$.2
ANSWER+
NO, because there was no fraud or deceit on the part of 4ita. For the crime of estafa to
exist, the element of fraud or bad faith is indispensable. And its presence must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt before the accused can be found guilty of such crime.
These circumstances M the prompt action of 4ita in offering to replace the dishonored
checks and in later making partial payment and the taking of postdated checks and subsequently of
the replacement checks, and the acceptance of partial payment M show, first, that in all
probability 4uki knew that the funds to cover the six postdated checks were to come from the sale
of the sugar which the accused had bought from it. This kind of a situation is not unusual in the

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
trading of commodities like sugar and rice. f 4uki had such knowledge, then it follows that there
was no deceit. And where there is no proven deceit or fraud, there is no crime of estafa. )n the
other hand, one who is guilty of bad faith would probably not have acted the way the 4ita did. f
she had fraudulent intentions at the time of the sale and the issuance of the sub+ect checks, her
normal reaction would have been to hide or at least avoid or delay confrontation with 4uki. /ut she
did neither. )n the contrary, as soon as she was, notified of the dishonor, she immediately went to
4uki to offer replacement checks and later, partial payment, both of which were accepted by 4uki.
(PE5PLE vs SI49S54, 9R 4o !#$(/, 4ovember .(, .$$(%
QUESTION
C-n - .&-<$& <" <-s -4Fuitt$. "& 4"n#i4t$. un.$& t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$ "& $st-%-
0$ 8&"s$4ut$. un.$& B= B3g' ,,2
ANSWER+
YES. An acquittal or conviction of the drawer under the #evised $enal %ode is not a bar to
his prosecution or conviction under /$ --, because the latter law requires the additional fact of the
drawerCs knowledge of lack of insufficiency of funds.
QUESTION
M1 - !-&&i$. <"!-n1 -. s$@u-3 int$&4"u&s$ <it - !-n <" <-s n"t $& us0-n.' T$
!-n .i. n"t >n"< s$ <-s !-&&i$.' W-t 4&i!$1 i% -n/1 .i. $-4 "% t$! 4"!!it2 W/2
ANSWER+
1, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under article ''' of the #evised
$enal %ode, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while her
marriage was still subsisting. /ut the man who had carnal knowledge of her not knowing her to the
married shall not be liable for adultery. ((//( 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
M&' O is !-&&i$.' A$ -s - 8-&-!"u& <it <"! $ -s s$@u-3 &$3-ti"ns "n - !"&$ "&
3$ss &$gu3-& 0-sis' T$/ !$$t -t 3$-st "n4$ - <$$> in "t$3s1 !"t$3s -n. "t$& 83-4$. <$&$
t$/ 4-n 0$ -3"n$' Is M&' O gui3t/ "% -n/ 4&i!$2
ANSWER+
1r. ) is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances with a woman who is not his wife. (aving sexual relations on a more of less regular
basis on motels, hotels and other places may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends
public conscience giving rise to criticism and general protest, such act being imprudent and wanton
and setting a bad example. ((//( 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
W-t is t$ !$-ning "% #i&ginit/ in Fu-3i%i$. s$.u4ti"n -n. 4"ns$nt$. -0.u4ti"n2
ANSWER+
Oirginity in qualified seduction does not require physical virginity (virgo intacta) or as the
term is understood in medical science. The legal view is that qualified seduction only requires
virginity in law, i.e., that the victim has no other voluntary carnal relations with another man.
;ikewise, virginity in consented abduction is not to be understood in its material sense, as
to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of the crime of abduction is not
in+ury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family.
QUESTION
W" -&$ t$ 8$&s"ns &$s8"nsi03$ %"& 3i0$32

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
ANSWER+
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication, or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means (Art0"/,par .%
-. The author or editor of a book of pamphlet
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, maga,ine or serial publication
(Art 0"/, par(%
!. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and
all other persons who in any way participate in or have connection with its publication
QUESTION
Is "n$st !ist->$ - 4"!8$t$ .$%$ns$ in 3i0$32
ANSWER+
?o, the publication of the article through an honest mistake is not a complete defense but
serves only to mitigate damages where the article is libelous per se.
QUESTION
W-t is !-3i4$ in 3-< -n. !-3i4$ in %-4t in &$3-ti"n t" t$ 4&i!$ "% 3i0$32
ANSWER+
1alice in ;aw > f on its fact the article is defamatory, even if the facts therein are true, it
is presumed that the offender acted with malice. (ence, no evidence regarding malice has to be
submitted eDcept where what is involved is privileged communication under Art. '0!, in which case
malice in law cannot arise and malice in fact has to be proved.
1alice in fact > f the article is not defamatory on its face or it is ambiguous, but it can be
considered libelous in light of the surrounding circumstances which gave rise to its existence, then
actual malice on the part of the offender has to be proved.
QUESTION
W-t is t$ &u3$ &$g-&.ing 8&""% "% t&ut un.$& A&t' 6)1 "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2
ANSWER+
As a general rule, proof of truth of the defamation against the victim is not a defense.
?onetheless, such proof of the truth is admissible if the act imputed constitutes a crime, whether
the victim is a private individual or a public officer. n such cases, proof of the truth plus )oo&
motives an& Fusti*iable en&s will warrant the acquittal of the accused.
(owever, in the imputation of a crime against public officers in connection with the
performance of public functions, proof of truth is an absolute defense< no need to establish good
motive.
QUESTION
W$n is s3-n.$& 4"nsi.$&$. g&-#$ "& si!83$2
ANSWER+
t is considered grave when it is of a serious or insulting nature, (=xample: a false charge
of immorality) otherwise, it is only considered simple slander.
QUESTION
Is t$ .$%$ns$ "% 4"nt&i0ut"&/ n$g3ig$n4$ -883i4-03$ in 4&i!in-3 4-s$s t&"ug &$4>3$ss
i!8&u.$n4$2
ANSWER+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
NO, the defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases through
reckless imprudence since one cannot allege negligence of another to evade the effects of ones
own negligence.
QUESTION
B"0 <-s - n$"8/t$ "% t$ =-s-<-/ F&-t$&nit/' A$ <-s t->$n t" t$ "us$ "% D"ng1 "n$
"% t$ !$!0$&s "% t$ %&-t$&nit/1 %"& is %in-3 initi-ti"n &igts' T$ initi-ti"n &igts <$&$
4"n.u4t$. in t$ g-&-g$ "% t$ "us$' Du&ing t$ initi-ti"n &igts1 On/">1 D"ngCs "us$ 0"/1
<-s "&.$&$. 0/ D"ng t" s$&#$ .&in>s -n. %"". t" t$ !$!0$&s "% t$ %&-t$&nit/ <" <$&$
-#ing - .&in>ing s8&$$ -s t$ initi-ti"n <-s 4"n.u4t$.' In t$ !i.st "% t$ initi-ti"n &igts1
<i4 in#"3#$. 8/si4-3 #i"3$n4$1 B"0 4"33-8s$.' T$ !$!0$&s "% t$ %&-t$&nit/1 in43u.ing
D"ng1 8-ni4>$. -n. i!!$.i-t$3/ 3$%t t$ "us$' B$%"&$ 3$-#ing1 D"ng1 inst&u4t$. On/"> t" t->$
B"0 t" t$ "s8it-3' On/"> .i. s"1 0ut u8"n -&&i#ing -t t$ "s8it-31 B"0 <-s -3&$-./ .$-.'
On/"> <-s -&&$st$. 0/ t$ 8"3i4$' A%t$& 8"3i4$ int$&&"g-ti"n1 On/"> &$-s"n$. t-t $ <-s -
!$&$ "us$ 0"/ -n. $ <-s n"t - !$!0$& "% t$ =-s-<-/ F&-t$&nit/ <" 4"n.u4t$. t$
-?ing' Ais st-t$!$nts 3$. t" t$ -&&$st "% D"ng' F"& is 8-&t1 D"ng -.!itt$. -#ing
8-&ti4i8-t$. in -?ing B"0 0ut -&gu$. t-t $ -. n" int$nti"n t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ - <&"ng'
(1) M-/ On/"> 0$ 4-&g$. %"& #i"3-ti"n "% t$ AntiBA-?ing L-<2
(,) Is D"ng $ntit3$. t" t$ !itig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$ t-t t$&$ <-s n" int$nti"n
t" 4"!!it s" g&-#$ - <&"ng2
ANSWER+
(1) YES, )nyok may be charged under the Anti>(a,ing ;aw because his presence during the
ha,ing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the
commission of the acts of leading to the death of /ob. The Anti>(a,ing ;aw in creating this
presumption does not distinguish whether the person present is a member of the fraternity or not.
The law merely uses the phrase @any personA. The facts clearly show that )nyok did not do
anything to prevent the infliction of physical violence against /ob causing the latterCs death. (RA
4o ,/'$, sec ', par e%
(,) NO, the Anti>(a,ing ;aw expressly provides that any person charged with any violation
thereof shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit
so grave a wrong. (RA 4o ,/'$, sec ', par e%
QUESTION
J$nn/ <-s -883/ing -s - s-3$s 3-./ in t$ MS Su8$&st"&$' H&$g1 t$ $-. "% t$ Au!-n
R$s"u&4$s D$8-&t!$nt1 -s>$. J$nn/ i% s$ 4"u3. &-is$ $& s>i&t s" t-t $ 4"u3. s$$ $& 3$gs'
H&$g t"3. J$nn/ t-t it <-s is 8"3i4/ t-t -33 s-3$s 3-.i$s in MS Su8$&st"&$ -. %3-<3$ss 3$gs'
J$nn/ &$%us$. -n. .$4i.$. t" 3$-#$' H&$g .$ni$. J$nn/Cs $!83"/!$nt -883i4-ti"n %"& $&
&$%us-3 t" -44$.$ t" is .$!-n.'
Is H&$g 3i-03$ %"& s$@u-3 -&-ss!$nt2
ANSWER+
YES, GregCs act of demanding Henny raise to her skirt to view her legs clearly constitutes a
demand for a sexual favor as a condition for her employment. The Anti>4exual (arassment Act
provides that a manager or employer who demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor
from another in a work related or employment environment shall be liable for sexual harassment,
regardless of whether the demand request or requirement is accepted by the ob+ect of the act.
(ence, GregCs criminal liability is not affected by HennyCs refusal to accede to his demand. (RA
4o !,!!, sec 0%
QUESTION

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
A"< ."$s B'=' B3g' ,, .i%%$& %&"! $st-%- un.$& A&t' 61;1 8-&' ,(.) "% t$ R$#is$. =$n-3
C".$ <it &$g-&.s t" t$ .&-<$&Cs >n"<3$.g$ "% insu%%i4i$n4/ "% %un.s2
ANSWER+
n violation of /.$. /lg. --, the drawerCs knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in or credit
with the bank is required but not under the #evised $enal %ode. 5eceit constituting false pretenses
and fraudulent acts is inherent under the #evised $enal %ode but not under /.$. /lg. --. $ursuant
to the #evised $enal %ode, the check is issued in payment of an obligation (for value) while /.$. /lg
--, makes reference to a check issued to apply on account or for value. From that fact the relevant
provisions of the #evised $enal %ode exclude checks issued in payment of a pre>existing obligation
because deceit or false pretense must be prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud. (PE5PLE vs SA7I5, ," SCRA #",%
QUESTION
F&-n4is4" 8u&4-s$. "n inst-33!$nt1 %&"! F&-n4$3 R$-3t/ C"&8"&-ti"n1 - t"<n"us$
unit' F&-n4is4" t$n - 8"st.-t$. 4$4>1 in 8-/!$nt "% t$ 8u&4-s$ 8&i4$' A%t$& !"#ing in is
unit1 F&-n4is4" 4"!83-in$. t" F&-n4$3 &$g-&.ing .$%$4ts in t$ unit -n. in4"!83$t$ %$-tu&$s "%
t$ t"<n"us$ 8&"E$4t' F&-n4$3 ign"&$. t$ 4"!83-int' F&-n4is4" s$nt Jst"8 8-/!$nt "&.$&sJ t"
t$ 0-n>' U8"n sugg$sti"n "% t$ 0-n>1 F&-n4is4" 43"s$. is 4$4>ing -44"unt t" -#"i. t$
8-/!$n/ "% 0-n> 4-&g$s' Du$ t" t$ 43"su&$ "% 8$titi"n$&Is 4$4>ing -44"unt1 t$ .&-<$$ 0-n>
.is"n"&$. si@ 8"st.-t$. 4$4>s' F&-n4$3 %i3$. - 4"!83-int -g-inst 8$titi"n$& %"& #i"3-ti"ns "%
B'=' B3g' ,, in#"3#ing s-i. .is"n"&$. 4$4>s'
F&-n4is4" -&gu$s t-t $ 4-nn"t 0$ 4"n#i4t$. %"& #i"3-ti"n "% B'=' B3g' ,,1 4"nsi.$&ing
t-t $ -. 4-us$ t" st"8 8-/!$nt "% t$ 4$4>s issu$. t" &$s8"n.$nt' C"nsi.$&ing t-t un.$&
='D' N"' (;91 t$ 0u/$& "% - t"<n"us$ unit -s t$ &igt t" sus8$n. is -!"&ti?-ti"n
8-/!$nts1 s"u3. t$ su0.i#isi"n "& 4"n."!iniu! .$#$3"8$& %-i3 t" .$#$3"8 "& 4"!83$t$ t$
8&"E$4t in -44"&.-n4$ <it .u3/B-88&"#$. 83-ns -n. s8$4i%i4-ti"ns'
M-/ F&-n4is4" 0$ $3. 3i-03$ %"& #i"3-ti"n "% B'=' B3g' ,,2
ANSWER+
NO, there is no showing that the time said checks were issued, Francisco had knowledge
that his deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover them when presented for
encashment. The closure of FranciscoCs account with the bank was not for insufficiency of funds. t
was made upon the advice of the drawee bank, to avoid payment of hefty bank charges each time
Francisco issued a Istop paymentI order to prevent encashment of postdated checks in FrancelLs
possession. 4uch fact contradicts the prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds.
%onviction under /.$. /lg. -- requires knowledge on the part of the issuer at the time of
the checkLs issuance that he did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof
upon its presentment. /.$. ?o. -- creates a presumption +uris tantum that knowledge of
insufficiency of funds prima facie exists when the first and third elements of the offense are
present, namely: the making, drawing and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value<
and the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment. /ut such evidence may be rebutted. f not rebutted or contradicted, it will suffice to
sustain a +udgment in favor of the issue, which it supports. 4uch knowledge of the insufficiency of
FranciscoCs funds Iis legally insufficiency of funds.I /ut such presumption cannot hold if there is
evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, following Article && (0) of the #evised $enal %ode, petitionerLs exercise of a
right of the buyer under Article -' of $.5. ?o. "06 is a valid defense to the charges against him.
)ffenses punished by a special law, like the /ouncing %hecks ;aw, are not sub+ect to the #evised
$enal %ode, but the %ode is supplementary to such a law. There is nothing in the text of /.$. /lg.
--, which would prevent the #evised $enal %ode from supplementing it. (S<CIP vs C5UR6 58
APPEALS, 9R 4o .(#/#$, March .!, (///%
QUESTION
Luis issu$. - 4$4> t" gu-&-nt$$ t$ 8-/!$nt "% 4ust"!$& "&.$&s' W$n .$8"sit$.
-%t$& 1;9 .-/s %&"! its issu-n4$1 t$ 4$4> <-s .is"n"&$.'

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
In - 8&"s$4uti"n %"& B'=' B3g ,,1 !-/ Luis su44$ss%u33/ 4"nt$n. t-t+ (1) t$ 4$4>s
<$&$ n"t issu$. in 8-/!$nt "% -n "03ig-ti"n 0ut <$&$ !$&$3/ t" gu-&-nt$$ 8-/!$nt "%
4ust"!$& "&.$&s1 -n. t-t (,) t$ sin4$ t$ 4$4> <-s 8&$s$nt$. %"& 8-/!$nt 0$/"n. (: .-/s
%&"! its issu-n4$1 t$ 8&$su!8ti"n "% >n"<3$.g$ "% 3-4> "% %un.s un.$& S$4ti"n , "% B'=' B3g' ,,
s"u3. n"t -883/ t" i!2
ANSWER+
NO, ;uisC contentions are incorrect. First, /.$. /lg. -- punishes the issuance of a bouncing
check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its
issuance. To determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms and conditions for
their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability and commercial value
of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking communities. 4o
what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was
issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless
check is malum prohibitum.
4econd, the law does not require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only "8
days. t is not an element of the offense. That the check must be deposited within ninety ("8) days
is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to
arise. ?either does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account
within a reasonable time thereof. 9nder 4ection &72 of the ?egotiable nstruments ;aw, Ia check
must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be
discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.I /y current banking
practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (2) months, -' or &78 days. The check was
deposited &06 days after the date of the check, hence said checks cannot be considered stale. )nly
the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be
proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. (W549 vs C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9R 4o ..!,#!,
8ebruar: (, (//.%
QUESTION
M-/ - 8$&s"n1 <" issu$. - 4$4> <i4 <-s .is"n"&$. u8"n 8&$s$nt!$nt %"&
8-/!$nt1 0$ 4"n#i4t$. "% B'=' ,, i% $ 8-i. t$ -!"unt "% t$ 4$4> $#$n 0$%"&$ &$4$i8t "% t$
n"ti4$ "% .is"n"&2
W-t i% t$ &$-s"n %"& t$ .is"n"& "% t$ 4$4> <-s t-t it <-s M.&-<n -g-inst
un4"33$4t$. .$8"sitN -n. n"t M.&-<n -g-inst insu%%i4i$nt %un.sN1 <i33 - 8&"s$4uti"n un.$& B'='
,, 8&"s8$&2
ANSWER+
NO, knowledge of insufficiency of funds is rebutted when it is shown that the maker or
drawer pays or makes arrangements for the payment of the check within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check had been dishonored< more so when the dishonored check is paid
even before receipt of notice of dishonor. Thus, it is essential for the maker or drawer to be
notified of the dishonor of her check, so he could pay the value thereof or make arrangements for
its payment within the period prescribed by law.
f the reason for the dishonor of a check was that it was @drawn against insufficient fundsA,
the drawer thereof is still liable under /.$. -- because +ust the same, said drawer has no sufficient
funds in his account to cover the amount of the check at the time of its presentment. This
situation arises when a check is deposited with the bank to fund another check drawn against such
bank, and the check so deposited has not been credited by the bank. =ven with uncollected
deposits, the bank may honor the check at its discretion in favor of clients, in which case there
would be no violation of /.$. /lg. --. %orollarily, if the bank so desires, it could likewise dishonor
the check if drawn against uncollected deposits, in which case the drawer could be held liable for
violation of /$ /lg. -- (A7ARBUE@ vs C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9R 4o .',##!, Au)ust !, (//0%
QUESTION
W-t is t$ 4&i!$ "% 83un.$& un.$& t$ =3un.$& L-< (R'A' N"' 9:5:)2

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
ANSWER+
t is committed by any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his
family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill>gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or
criminal acts:
(a) misappropriation or malversation of public funds<
(b) receiving any commission or kickbacks by reason of his public position<
(c) illegal disposition of assets belonging to the government<
(d) receiving or accepting shares of stocks or equity in any business enterprise or
undertaking<
(e) establishing monopolies or combinations or implementation of decrees and
orders intended to benefit particular persons<
(f) taking undue advantage of official position to the pre+udice of the
government<
in the aggregate amount of at least $08 1illion.
These acts are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations
relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging separate criminal
offenses punished under the #evised $enal %ode, the Anti>Graft and %orrupt $ractices Act and
other related penal statutes. These predicate acts merely constitute acts of plunder and are not
crimes separate and independent of the crime of plunder (SERAPI5 vs SA43I9A47A<A4, 9R
4o .','",, >anuar: (,, (//0%
QUESTION
W-t is !$-nt 0/ M4"!0in-ti"nN -n. Ms$&i$sN "% "#$&t "& 4&i!in-3 -4ts un.$& t$
=3un.$& L-<2
ANSWER+
*hen the $lunder ;aw speaks of @combinationA, it is referring to at least two (-) acts
falling under different categories of enumeration provided in 4ec. &, par. (d). =xample: raids on the
public treasury in 4ec. &, par. (d), subpar. (&), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to
the ?ational Government under 4ec. & par. (d), subpar. (').
)n the other hand, to constitute a @seriesA there must be two (-) or more overt or criminal
acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in 4ec. &, par. (d), say,
misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which falls under 4ec. &,
par. (d), subpar. (&). Oerily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for
@combinationA and @seriesA, it would have taken greater pains in specially providing for it in the
law. (ES6RA3A vs SA43I9A47A<A4, 9R 4o .',#"/, 4ovember (., (//.%
QUESTION
Is t$ 4&i!$ "% 83un.$& !-3u! in s$ "& !-3u! 8&"i0itu!2
ANSWER+
$lunder is a crime of malum in se because the constitutive crimes are mala in se. The
elements of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for plunder. 1oreover, any doubt as to
whether the crime of plunder is malum in se must be deemed to have been resolved in the
affirmative decision of %ongress in &""' to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. The legislative declaration in #.A. 620" that plunder is a heinous
offense implies that it is malum in se. For when the acts punished are inherently immoral or
inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are punished in a
special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se.
(>oseph EFercito Estra&a vs San&i)anba:an, 9R 4o .',#"/, 4ovember (., (//.%
QUESTION
M-n?" <-s -&&$st$. %"& &"00$&/ "% #-3u-03$ 8i$4$s "% E$<$3&/ "<n$. 0/ is %"&!$&
$!83"/$&' A$ -.!itt$. t-t $ t""> t$ E$<$3&/ 0ut s"3. t$ s-!$ t" -88$33-nt' Su0s$Fu$nt3/1
-88$33-nt <-s -&&$st$. -n. %&"! is 8"ss$ssi"n t$ 8"3i4$ &$4"#$&$. s"!$ "% t$ st"3$n 8i$4$s

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
"% E$<$3&/' A$ <-s 4-&g$. <it #i"3-ti"n "% ='D' 1)1, "& t$ AntiBF$n4ing L-<' B/ <-/ "%
.$%$ns$1 $ 43-i!$. t-t t$ #-3u-03$s &$4"#$&$. %&"! i! <$&$ 3$giti!-t$3/ -4Fui&$. 0/ i!
%&"! "t$& s"u&4$s "t$& t-n M-n?" -n. t-t $ is n"t in#"3#$. in t$ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/
4"!!itt$. 0/ M-n?"'
(1) D"$s t$ AntiBF$n4ing L-< &$Fui&$ t$ -44us$. t" 0$1 in -n/ <-/1 in#"3#$. in t$
4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ ("& t$%t)2
(,) Di. -88$33-nt 4"!!itt$. - #i"3-ti"n "% t$ AntiBF$n4ing L-<2
ANSWER+
(1) NO. t is enough that the elements concur:
a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed<
b) the accused is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of the
robbery or theft, but receives, keeps, acquires, buys andKor sells, or in any matter
deals in any article, item, ob+ect or anything of value derived from robbery or
theft<
c) the accused knows or should have known that such article, item, ob+ect or
thing was the proceeds of robbery or theft< and
d) there is, on the part of the accused, an intent to gain for himself or for
another. (3iEon=Pamintuan vs People, (0' SCRA "0%
(,) YES. All the elements of the crime of fencing are present. The prosecution has
sufficiently established the fact of robbery as testified to by the person who committed the same.
At any rate, the law does not require proof of purchase of the stolen articles by the accused as
mere possession thereof is enough to give rise to a presumption of fencing. Appellant, who was in
possession of some of the stolen articles has not rebutted this presumption. (Capili vs CA, 9R 4o
.0$(#/, Au)ust .", (///%
QUESTION
Att/' Tit" t$3$8"n$. L$" t" .is4uss t$ s$tt3$!$nt "% - .i&$4t -ss-u3t 4-s$ %i3$. 0/
Att/' Tit"Cs 43i$nt -g-inst L$"' Att/' E.1 L$"Cs &$t-in$. 4"uns$31 s$4&$t3/ 3ist$n$. t" t$
t$3$8"n$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n t&"ug - t$3$8"n$ $@t$nsi"n'
(-) W-s t$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n 0$t<$$n Att/' Tit" -n. L$" M8&i#-t$N in n-tu&$ -s t" 0$ t$
su0E$4t "% #i"3-ti"n "% t$ R'A' N"' 7,::1 "t$&<is$ >n"<n -s t$ AntiBWi&$t-88ing A4t2
(0) Is -n $@t$nsi"n t$3$8"n$ -!"ng t$ 8&"i0it$. .$#i4$s in R'A' N"' 7,::1 su4 t-t
its us$ t" "#$&$-& - 8&i#-t$ 4"n#$&s-ti"n <"u3. 4"nstitut$ - #i"3-ti"n "% s-i. A4t2
ANSWERS+
(a) YES, the telephone conversation between Atty. Tito and ;eo was IprivateI in the sense
that the words uttered were made between one person and another as distinguished from words
between a speaker and a public. As worded under the law, if a party secretly records a public
speech, he would not be penali,ed under 4ection l because the speech is public. The conversations
or communications contemplated under #.A. ?o. !-88 are those made between one person and
another person M not between a speaker and a public. (9AA4A4 vs I46ERME3IA6E APPELLA6E
C5UR6, 9R 4o L="$,/$, 5ctober .", .$,"- RAMIRE@ vs H545RA7LE C5UR6 58 APPEALS, 9R
4o $0,00, September (,, .$$#%
(b) NO, an extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone,
dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in 4ection & of #A ?o. !-88 as the use thereof cannot
be considered as ItappingI the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in this
case was not installed for that purpose. t is a separate device and distinct set of a movable
apparatus consisting of a wire and a set of telephone receiver not forming part of a main telephone
set which can be detached or removed and can be transferred away from one place to another and
to be plugged or attached to a main telephone line to get the desired communication coming from
the other party or end. The law refers to a ItapI of a wire or cable or the use of a Idevice or
arrangementI for the purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting, or recording the
communication. There must be either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
t can be readily seen that our lawmakers intended to discourage, through punishment,
persons such as government authorities or representatives of organi,ed groups from installing
devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate, blackmail or gain some
unwarranted advantage over the telephone users. %onsequently, the mere act of listening, in order
to be punishable must strictly be with the use of the enumerated devices in #A ?o. !-88 or others
of similar nature. (9AA4A4 vs I46ERME3IA6E APPELLA6E C5UR6, 9R 4o L="$,/$, 5ctober .",
.$,"%
QUESTION
=$titi"n$&1 - BIR "%%i4i-3 t-s>$. t" $@-!in$ t$ B"">s "% A44"unts %"& In4"!$ -n.
Busin$ss T-@ -n. "t$& -44"unting &$4"&.s "% 8&"%$ssi"n-3s1 "n$ .-/ -88$-&$. in t$
4"!83-in-ntCs "%%i4$ -n. t"3. t$ 3-tt$& t-t is t-@ .$%i4i$n4i$s <"u3. -!"unt t" =;::1:::'::'
B$4-us$ is 0"">s <$&$ n"t $@-!in$.1 4"!83-in-nt $nt$&t-in$. t$ i.$- t-t it <-s t$ st-&t "%
-n $@t"&ti"n1 -n. $ t&i$. t" n$g"ti-t$ %"& - s!-33$& -!"unt' A$ &$Fu$st$. t$ -ssist-n4$ "%
t$ NBI %"& -n $nt&-8!$nt "8$&-ti"n'
On t$ s$t 8-/"%% .-t$1 8$titi"n$& -88$-&$. in t$ 4"!83-in-ntCs "%%i4$' T$ !$$ting
$nsu$. -n. t$ 4"!83-in-nt -n.$. -n $n#$3"8$ <it t$ 83-nt$. !"n$/' =$titi"n$& -44$8t$.
t$ $n#$3"8$1 "8$n$. it1 3"">$. insi.$ -n. s-< t$ !"n$/' A$ t$n 43"s$. t$ $n#$3"8$ -n.
83-4$. it in %&"nt "% i!' A%t$& t-t1 t$ NBI -88&$$n.$. i!'
(1) Is .$!-n.1 4"!ing %&"! t$ -44us$. 8u03i4 "%%i4$&1 n$4$ss-&/ t" 4"n#i4t i! un.$&
S$4ti"n 6 (0) "% R'A' 6:1(2
(,) W-s t$&$ &$4$i8t "% 8-/"%% !"n$/2
ANSWER+
(1) NO. 4ection '(b) of #.A. '8&" penali,es three distinct acts N (&) demanding or
requesting< (-) receiving< or (') demanding, requesting and receivingA any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit for oneself or for any person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the government and any other party, wherein a public officer in an official capacity has to
intervene under the law. These modes of committing the offense are distinct and different from
each other. $roof f existence of any of them suffices to warrant conviction. The lack of @demandA
is immaterial. After all, 4ection '(b) of #.A. '8&" uses the word @orA between requesting and
receiving.
(,) YES, because there was be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the
gift so offered and consider it as his or her own property from then on. 1ere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead
the court to conclude that the crime has been committed. To hold otherwise would encourage
unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody
some, gift, money or other property. (PELI9RI45 vs PE5PLE, 9R 4o .0"("", Au)ust 0., (//.%
QUESTION
W-t is t$ !$-ning "% Mg&"ss n$g3ig$n4$N in t$ 4"nt$@t "% S$4' 6 ($) "% RA 6:1(2
ANSWER+
To be held liable under said section, the act of the accused which caused undue in+ury
must have been done with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Gross negligence has
been defined as negligence characteri,ed by the want of even slight care acting or omitting to act
a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a
conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. t is the
omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their
property. (AleFan&ro v People, .!/ SCRA '//% n case of public officials, there is gross negligence
when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. (BUI7AL v SA43I9A47A<A4, ('' SCRA (('%
QUESTION+
M-/ 4"n#i4ti"n un.$& t$ AntiBH&-%t -n. C"&&u8t =&-4ti4$s A4t 8&$43u.$ 8&"s$4uti"n %"&
4&i!$s 4"!!itt$. 0/ 8u03i4 "%%i4$&s un.$& t$ R$#is$. =$n-3 C".$2
ANSWER+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
NO1 the Anti>Graft and %orrupt $ractices Act expressly provides that in addition to acts and
omissions of public officers already penali,ed by existing law (such as those under Title 4even of
the #evised $enal %ode), the acts or omissions described therein constitute corrupt practices of
public officers and are punishable thereby. (RA 4o 0/.$, Sec 0%
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ s-3i$nt %$-tu&$s "% t$ D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t (R'A' (1);)2
ANSWER+
1. The former classification of dangerous drugs into either prohibited or regulated drugs has
been discontinued. The present classification now involves both &an)erous &ru)s an&
controlle& precursors an& essential chemicals.
2. Plantin) evi&ence to incriminate an innocent party, and actin) as *inancier,
protectorGco&&ler are duly defined and correspondingly punished.
3. Plea bar)ainin) for those charged under any provision of the Act, and regardless of the
imposable penalty, shall not be allo+e&. %onvicted drug traffickers and pushers cannot
avail o* probation, regardless of the penalty imposed
4. 4ome acts are punishable by life imprisonment to death, which is a peculiar penalty.
5. The #$% cannot apply even in a suppletory character because the penalties provided under
the #$% are not adopted therein.
6. 4pecifically provides that in case the offender is a minor, privile)e miti)atin) circumstance
o* minorit: may be appreciated.
6. Attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the crimes penali,ed therein are punishable with
the same penalty as when the crime is consummated or actually committed.
QUESTION
A -n. B <$&$ <-3>ing -3"ng M$n.i"3- <$n t$/ s-< - g&"u8 "% 8"3i4$!$n -88&"-4ing
t$!' B i!!$.i-t$3/ -n.$. t" A1 t$ s-4$t "% s-0u $ <-s 4-&&/ing insi.$ is 8"4>$t' T$
8"3i4$ s-< A 83-4ing t$ s-0u insi.$ is 0-g' I% A <-s un-<-&$ t-t <-t <-s insi.$ t$ s-4$t
gi#$n t" i! <-s s-0u1 is s$ n"n$t$3$ss 3i-03$ un.$& t$ D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t2
ANSWER+
NO, A will not be criminally liable because he is unaware of the content of the sachet
handed to him by /, and therefore, the criminal intent to possess the drug in violation of the
5angerous 5rugs Act is absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal liability to her in the
absence of animus possi&en&i. ((//( 7ar EDaminations%
QUESTION
M-/ t$ 4&i!$ "% i33$g-3 s-3$ "% .&ugs 0$ 4"nsu!!-t$. <it"ut t$ $@4-ng$ "% t$
!-&>$. !"n$/2
ANSWER+
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. 1ere 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. n a Ibuy>bustI 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 %ourt.
n short, proof of the transaction suffices. 4ettled 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

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.
(PE5PLE vs <A49, 9R 4o .',/!!, 8ebruar: .", (//'%

QUESTION
W" is - (1) Fin-n4i$& -n. (,) =&"t$4t"&LC"..3$& un.$& R'A' NO' (1);2
ANSWER+
(&) A Financier is any person who pays for, raises or supplies money for or underwrites any
of the illegal activities proscribed under #A "&20.
(-) A $rotectorK%oddler is any person who knowingly or willfully consents to unlawful act
provided for in this Act and uses hisKher influence, power or position in shielding, harboring,
screening or facilitating the escape of any person he or she knows or has reasonable ground to
believe or suspects has violated the provisions of this Act in order to prevent the arrest,
prosecution and conviction of the violator.
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ "%%$ns$s 8unis-03$ un.$& t$ AntiBM"n$/ L-un.$&ing A4t (R'A' N"'
(1):)2
ANSWER+
The offenses punishable are as follows:
(a) 1oney ;aundering )ffense N a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful act, as
defined in #.A. ?o. "&28, are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from
legitimate sources. t is committed by the following:
- Any person knowing that any money instrument or property represents
or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity transacts or attempts to
transact said monetary instrument or property<
- Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves
the proceeds of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as the
result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering< and
- Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is
required to be disclosed with the Anti>1oney ;aundering %ouncil fails to do so.
(b) Failure to keep records of all transactions of covered institutions, which is required to
be maintained and safely stored for five years from the dates of transaction.
(c) /reach of confidentiality > officers and employees of covered institutions are prohibited
from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact
that a covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto.
(d) 1alicious reporting N any person who, with malice, or in bad faith, reports or files a
completely unwarranted or false information relative to money laundering transaction against any
person.
QUESTION
W-t -&$ t$ -4ts 4"nsi.$&$. -s "0st&u4ti"n in t$ -88&$$nsi"n -n. 8&"s$4uti"n "%
"%%$n.$&s 8unis$. un.$& =D' NO' 15,(2
ANSWER+
The following acts are prohibited under $5 &7-":
&. preventing witnesses from testifying in any criminal proceeding or from reporting
the commission of any offense or the identity of offenders by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or threats<
-. altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing evidence in criminal cases<
'. harboring or concealing or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
!. publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime.
0. delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or
court orders or disturbing proceedings<
2. making, presenting or using any record, document, paper or ob+ect with knowledge
of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation or
official proceeding<
6. soliciting, accepting or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discounting or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender<
7. threatening another with the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any member of his family to prevent such person from appearing in
the investigation of official proceedings in criminal cases or imposing a condition
whether lawful or unlawful in order to prevent a person from appearing<
". giving false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life and property of
victim or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by authorities
for background information and not for publication to mislead the investigator or the
court.
QUESTION
I% in t$ 4"!!issi"n "% .i&$4t -ss-u3t <it !u3ti83$ -tt$!8t$. "!i4i.$ t$ -44us$.
us$. -n un3i4$ns$. %i&$-&!1 4-n t$ -44us$. 0/ 4"n#i4t$. s$8-&-t$3/ "% t$ "%%$ns$s "% (-)
i33$g-3 8"ss$ssi"n "% %i&$-&!s un.$& =D 15))1 -s -!$n.$. 0/ RA 5,(71 -n. (0) .i&$4t -ss-u3t
<it -tt$!8t$. "!i4i.$2
ANSWER+
NO. #A 7-"! provides that possession and use of an unlicensed firearm shall be punishable
as a separate offense only if no other crime is committed. 4o if an unlicensed firearm is used in the
commission of any other crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of
firearms. ncidentally, the law also provides that if homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. 4ince direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case,
the accused cannot be separately convicted of illegal possession of firearms, and neither can the
use of the unlicensed firearm be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the offense
committed was direct assault with attempted homicide and not plain homicide or murder as
provided in #A 7-"!.
$enal laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused. n this case, the plain meaning of
#A 7-"!Cs simple language is most favorable to the accused. Oerily, no other interpretation is
+ustified, for the language of the new law demonstrates the legislative intent to favor the accused.
*hile it is true that this interpretation effectively exonerates the accused of illegal possession of
an unlicensed firearm, an offense which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct
assault. *hile the penalty for the first is prision ma:or, for the second it is only prision
correccional. ndeed, the accused may evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using
such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm and scandal or slight physical
in+uries, both of which are punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however, necessarily
arises from the language of #A 7-"!, whose wisdom is not sub+ect to +udicial review. Any
perception that the result reached here appears unwise should be addressed to %ongress. ndeed,
the courts have no discretion to give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest
intendment and language of the legislature. Hudicial power is constitutionally confined only to

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
applying the law and +urisprudence

to the proven facts. (PE5PLE vs LA3>AALAM, 9R 4os
.0".'$=#. September .$, (///%
DOCTRINES OF SELECTED CASES IN CRIMINAL LAW
CONS=IRACY
*hen accused>appellant $ugay poured gasoline on the victimCs body and thereafter his co>
accused 4amson set the victim on fire, there is nothing in the records showing that there was
previous conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention between the two accused>appellants
immediately before the commission of the crime. There was no animosity between the deceased
and $ugay or 4amson. Their meeting at the scene of the incident was accidental. t is also clear
that the accused and his group merely wanted to make fun of the deceased. (ence, the respective
criminal responsibility of $ugay and 4amson arising from different acts directed against the
deceased is individual and not collective, each of them is liable only for the act committed by him.
$ugay is liable for (omicide through #eckless mprudence, while 4amson is liable for (omicide.
$ugay failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence
arising from his act. 4amson knew very well that the liquid poured on the body of the deceased
was gasoline and a flammable substance for he would not have committed the act settling the
latter on fire if it were otherwise. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, it can be conceded that as
of their fun>making he merely intended to set the deceasedCs clothes on fire. Art. ! of the #evised
$enal %oed provides, inter alia, that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. (PEOPLE vs.
PU!", #o. L-$%&'%. #ovember ($, ()**+
FRUSTRATED FELONY
*here the offender treacherously inflicted a wound upon the victim which was sufficient to
have caused death, but the victim survives by reason of prompt medical attention, the offender is
liable for frustrated murder. (PEOPLE vs. ,-.-O#. ./. #o. 0&%*1. 2ebruar3 '0,())(+
SELFBDEFENSE
4elf>defense is manCs inborn right. n a physical assault, retaliation becomes unlawful after
the attack has ceased, because there would be no further harm to repel. /ut that is not the case
when it is aimed at a personCs good name. )nce the aspersion is cast its sting clings and the one
thus defamed may avail himself of all the necessary means to shake it off' A$ !-/ it 0-4> <it
-n"t$& 3i0$3 <i41 i% -.$Fu-t$1 <i33 0$ Eusti%i$.' (PEOPLE vs. 4-O#. #o. (1%(&-/. October
'1, ()5%+
f there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or to repel and the second
requisite of self>defense would have no basis. =ven if we allow appellantCs contention that Tuquero
was the initial unlawful aggressor, we still cannot sustain his plea of self>defense. After appellant
successfully wrested the knife from Tuquero, the unlawful aggression had ceased. After the
unlawful aggression has ceased, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even
wound the former aggressor. The presence of large number of wounds on the part of the victim,
their nature and location disprove self>defense and instead indicate a determined effort to kill the
victim. (PEOPLE vs. .O, ./. #o.(1%00%. !ugust '*, ())5+
$lainly, the accused>appellant could no longer retreat from the continuing assault by the
victim who, as inexorably shown by his relentless advance towards the accused>appellant, was
poised to kill the latter. The danger to the accused>appellantCs life was clearly imminent. t would
not then be proper nor reasonable to claim that he should have fled or selected a less deadly
weapon, because in the emergency in which, without any reason whatever, he was placed, there
was nothing more natural than to use the weapon he had to defend himself. n the natural order of
the things, following the instinct of self>preservation, he was compelled to resort to a proper
defense. It is s$tt3$. t-t &$-s"n-03$ n$4$ssit/ "% t$ !$-ns $!83"/$. ."$s n"t i!83/ !-t$&i-3
4"!!$nsu&-0i3it/ 0$t<$$n t$ !$-ns "% -tt-4> -n. .$%$ns$' W-t t$ 3-< &$Fui&$s is &-ti"n-3
$Fui#-3$n4$1 in t$ 4"nsi.$&-ti"n "% <i4 <i33 $nt$& t$ 8&in4i8-3 %-4t"&s t$ $!$&g$n4/1 t$

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
i!!in$nt .-ng$& t" <i4 t$ 8$&s"n -tt-4>$. is $@8"s$.1 -n. t$ instin4t !"&$ t-n t$
&$-s"n1 t-t !"#$s "& i!8$3s t$ .$%$ns$1 -n. t$ 8&"8"&ti"n-t$n$ss t$&$"% ."$s n"t .$8$n.
u8"n t$ -&! ."n$1 0ut &$sts u8"n t$ i!!in$nt .-ng$& "% su4 inEu&/' (PEOPLE vs. UTU!L.
./. #o. ((5'&&. 2ebruar3 '',())0+.
The actuation of deceased Fleischer in angrily ordering the continuance of the fencing
would have resulted in the further chiseling of the walls of appellantCs house as well as the closure
of the access to and from his house and his rice millMwhich were not only imminent but were
actually in progress. There is no question, therefore, that there was aggression on the part of the
victims: Fleischer was ordering, and #ubia was actually participating in the fencing. This was
indeed an aggression, not on the person of appellant, but on his property rights.
The reasonableness of the resistance is also a requirement of the +ustifying circumstance of
self>defense or defense of oneCs rights under paragraph & of Article &&, #evised $enal %ode. *hen
the appellant fired his shotgun from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was
disproportionate to the attack. Appellant who was sleeping when the victims chiselled his house
and fenced off his estate and who asked them to stop doing so is not guilty of sufficient provocation
when he shot the victims who ignored his plea. (PEOPLE vs. #!/6!E7. #os. L-&&%00-0$. !pril
'1,()*&.+
9nlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of aggression. =ven if we give credence to accused>appellantCs version of the
events, specifically that the deceased hurled invectives at him and moved as if to draw something
from his waist, the %ourt are unable to establish a finding of unlawful aggression on the victimCs
part. 9nlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger
thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of real aggression. (PEOPLE vs. !/-7!L!, ./. #o. (&1$1*. October '',
()))+
OBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF A SU=ERIOR OFFICER
The subordinate who, in following an order of the superior, failed to observe all auditing
procedures of disbursement, cannot escape responsibility for such omission< but where he acted in
good faith, his liability should only be administrative or civil in nature, not criminal. (T!8UE#! vs.
.!#9-!#8!"!#. ./. #os. (1&51(-1&. 2ebruar3 ($,())$+
INSANITY AS EGEM=TINH CIRCUMSTANCE
Accuse>appellant must thus prove that he was completely deprived of reason when he
killed his father in order to be exempt for parricide. There is nothing either in the report of 5r.
Gerona or his testimony which indubitably show that accused>appellant was completely without
reason when he killed his father because the latter wanted him to leave the house. The defense of
insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance and, like the +ustifying circumstance of self>
defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was
insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution.
Although schi,ophrenia is not exempting if it does not completely deprive the offender of the
consciousness of his acts, it may nevertheless be considered mitigating under Art &' (") if it
diminishes the exercise of his will power. (PEOPLE vs. 8!#E7, ./. #o. ('5*%), :anuar3 '1,
()))+
EGEM=TINH CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
*ith respect to accused>appellant #ene =stepano, the records show that he was only
thirteen (&') years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. 9nder Art.&-, par. ('), of
the #$%, a person over nine (") years of age and under fifteen (&0) years is exempt from criminal
liability unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. T$ !in"& &$%$&&$. t" $&$ is

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
8&$su!$. t" -#$ -4t$. <it"ut .is4$&n!$nt' Tus1 it is in4u!0$nt u8"n t$ 8&"s$4uti"n t"
8&"#$ t-t su4 !in"& -4t$. "t$&<is$'
=ven if he was indeed a co>conspirator, he would still be exempt from criminal liability as
the prosecution failed to rebut the presumption of non>discernment on his part by virtue of his age.
(PEOPLE vs. E.TEP!#O. ./. #o. ('0'*&. ,a3 '&,()))+
ACCIDENT AS AN EGEM=TINH CIRCUMSTANCE
At all events, accidents to be exempting, presupposes that the act done is lawful. (ere,
however, the act of the accused>appellant of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, the
same not being in self>defense, is unlawfulMit at least constitutes light threats (Art. -70,par. & of
#$%). There is thus no room for the invocation of accident as ground for exemption.
The fact that the victim is not shot in the head, or in any vital part of her body does not
negate intent to kill. The extent of the physical in+ury inflicted on the victim, as above proved,
manifests intention to extinguish life. 1oreover, it was likewise declared that the bullet in+ured a
vital organ of the victim. (PEOPLE vs. #EPO,U;E#O, :/.. ./. #o.('$*(*. #ovember ((, ())*+
VINDICATION OF A HRAVE OFFENSE AS MITIHATINH CIRCUMSTANCE
The presence of the 0
th
mitigating circumstance, that is, immediate vindication of a grave
offense to said accused, may be taken into consideration in favor of the two accused. There was no
interruption from the time the offense was committed to the vindication thereof. The herein
accused belong to a family of old customs to whom the elopement of a daughter with a man
constitutes a grave offense to their honor and causes disturbance of the peace and tranquility of
the home and at the same time spreads uneasiness and anxiety in the minds of the members
thereof. ( PEOPLE vs. 9-O<#O, #o. %5(11 . October '0, ()&0+
/E-TE/!;-O#
R$it$&-4i"n &$Fui&$s t-t i% t$&$ is "n3/ "n$ 8&i"& "%%$ns$1 t-t "%%$ns$ !ust 0$
8unis-03$ 0/ -n $Fu-3 "& g&$-t$& 8$n-3t/ t-t t$ "n$ %"& <i4 t$ -44us$. -s 0$$n
4"n#i4t$.' There is no reiteracion because that circumstance requires that the previous offenses
should not be embraced in the same title of the %ode. *hile grave threats fall in a title, different
from homicide, still reiteracion cannot be appreciated because such aggravating circumstance
requires that if there is only one prior offense, that offense must be punishable by an equal or
greater penalty that the one for which the accused has been convicted. ;ikewise, the prosecution
has to prove that the offender has been punished for the previous offense. There is no evidence
presented by the prosecution to that effect. (PEOPLE vs. /E!L, ./. #o. )&%&0. ,arch '%,
())5+
EVIDENT =REMEDITATION
n the absence of other notorious acts evincing his determination to murder the victim,
known premeditation in the instant case cannot be deduced from the mere fact that six (2) hours
before he stabbed the victim to death, the accused>appellant took the hunting knife of the victim.
There is nothing in the records to show that there was an enmity between the two and it is not for
the %ourt to con+ecture that there was. ndeed, it is foolhardy for the %ourt to draw from this
single act a cold>blooded intention to take the life of another. The killing was simply committed as
a>spur>of>the>moment, induced by that degree of intoxication which then triggered of the
bellicosity in the accused>appellant who, incidentally, is known in the community as an ex>convict
and a killer. (PEOPLE vs. ;!L-:!#, ./. #o. )%5)'. .eptember '*, ())&+
TREACAERY
As a rule, a sudden attack by the assailant, whether frontally or from behind, is treachery if
such mode of attack was coolly and deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the
victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. The rule does not apply, however, where the attack
was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was +ust triggered by the sudden infuriation on
the part of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim. This is more so, where the
assault upon the victim was preceded by a heated exchange of words between him and the

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
accused. n the case at bench, the assault came in the course of an altercation and after appellant
had sharpened his bolo in full view of the victim. AppellantCs act of sharpening his bolo can be
interpreted as an attempt to frighten the victim so the latter would leave him alone. t was simply
foolhardy for the victim to continue walking to and fro near appellant in a taunting manner while
the latter was sharpening his bolo. 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 victimCs
helpless position was incidental. (PEOPLE vs. /E!L, ./. #o. )&%&0. ,arch '%, ())5+
COM=LEG CRIME
*here the appellant inflicted a stab wound on each of the two (-) victims who were
separated from each other by a distance of three (') meters, the acts of the appellant may not be
characteri,ed as a &elito compuesto. There were, in other words two (-) distinct acts, directed at
two (-) different victims successively, separated from each other by a brief but discernible interval
of time and space. A &elito compuesto, in contrast, arises from a single physical act resulting in
simultaneous in+ury to two (-) or more victims. (PEOPLE vs. ,-.-O#. ./. #o. 0&%*1. 2ebruar3
'0,())(+
AMNESTY
A 8$&s"n &$3$-s$. 0/ -!n$st/ st-n.s 0$%"&$ t$ 3-< -s t"ug $ -. 4"!!itt$. n"
"%%$ns$' A!n$st/ 3"">s 0-4><-&. -n. -0"3is$s -n. 8uts int" "03i#i"n t$ "%%$ns$ its$3%1 it s"
"#$&3"">s -n. "03it$&-t$s t$ "%%$ns$ <it <i4 $ is 4-&g$.' A!n$st/ is - 8u03i4 -4t "%
<i4 t$ 4"u&t s"u3. t->$ Eu.i4i-3 n"ti4$' Thus, the right to the benefits of amnesty, once
established by the evidence presented either by the complainant or prosecution or by the offense,
can not be waived, because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by the Amnesty
$roclamation, which has force of the law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the eyes of the law
as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty, but as a patriot or
hero, and not to be punished as a criminal. (PEOPLE vs. 6E/!, ./. #o. '05&). 2ebruar3 '*,
())1+
=ARDON
=-&."n ."$s n"t i8s" %-4t" &$st"&$ - 4"n#i4t$. %$3"n t" 8u03i4 "%%i4$ n$4$ss-&i3/
&$3inFuis$. "& %"&%$it$. 0/ &$-s"n "% t$ 4"n#i4ti"n -3t"ug su4 8-&."n un."u0t$.3/
&$st"&$s is $3igi0i3it/ %"& -88"int!$nt t" t-t "%%i4$' The pardon granted to petitioner resulted
in removing her disqualification from holding public employment, but to regain her former post,
she must reapply and undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment. The %ourt
cannot oblige her %ivil liability arising from crime. t subsists notwithstanding service of sentence,
or for any reason the sentence is not served by pardon, amnesty or commutation of sentence.
$etitionerCs civil liability may only be extinguished by the same causes recogni,ed in the %ivil %ode,
namely: payment, loss the thing due, remission of the debt, merger of the rights of creditor and
debtor, compensation and novation. (,O#.!#TO vs. 2!;TO/!#, ./. #o. $*'&). 2ebruar3 ),
()*)+
MALVERSATION
t is settled that good faith is a valid defense in the prosecution of malversation for it
would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. To constitute a crime, the act must,
except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by criminal intent, or by such
negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent.
The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit reaMa crime is not committed if the mind of the
person performing the act complained of is innocent. (T!8UE#! vs. .!#9-!#8!"!#. ./. #os.
(1&51(-1&. 2ebruar3 ($,())$+

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
ESTAFA TAROUHA FALSIFICATION
Acts of endorsing of checks by way of identification of the signatures of the payees entitled
to said checks and their proceeds constitute the crime of estafa through falsification of mercantile
document by reckless imprudence because such endorsement constituted a written representation
that the payees participated in the indorsement and cashing of the checks, when in truth and in
fact the true payees had no direct intervention in the proceedings.
In t$ 4&i!$ "% %-3si%i4-ti"n 0/ i!8&u.$n4$ "% 8u03i4 "& !$&4-nti3$ ."4u!$nts t$
$3$!$nt "% int$nt t" 4-us$ .-!-g$ is n"t &$Fui&$. 0$4-us$ <-t t$ 3-< s$$>s t" &$8&$ss is t$
8&$Eu.i4$ t" t$ 8u03i4 4"n%i.$n4$ in t$s$ ."4u!$nts. (.!,.O# vs. ;!, et al. #os. L-(1&0%
and L-(1&$0. ,arch &(.()5*+
RA=E
T$&$ is n" su4 4&i!$ -s %&ust&-t$. &-8$. %learly, in the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and from
that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. ?othing more
is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. The uniform rule is that for the consummation of rape,
perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is
sufficient. =ntry of the labia or the lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. (PEOPLE vs. =U->!#OL!, ./. #o.
('0(%*, ,a3 5, ()))+
Absence of in+uries doe not negate the commission of rape. t is true that, although
complainant testified that appellant boxed her on the stomach, the medical report did not indicate
any abrasion, hematoma or bruise on that part of her anatomy. This is of no consequence. 1edical
authorities agree that when force is applied on the stomach, no marks may be detected. n+uries
may have been caused in the internal organs, but external signs are not always visible. The absence
of in+uries, however, does not negate the commission of rape. (PEOPLE vs. :O"!, ./. #o. $)1)1.
October (, ())&+
t should be underscored that the presence or absence of spermato,oa in the vagina is not
determinative of the commission of rape because a sperm test is not a sine qua non for the
successful prosecution of a rape case. Thus, the lack of spermato,oa in the victimCs body does not
negate the crime of rape. The important element in rape is penetration of the pudenda and not
emission of seminal fluid. (PEOPLE vs. 8O#9O", ./. #o. $)1*). ,a3 (*, ())&+
ROBBERY
*hen robbery is committed by three (') persons in conspiracy and not by a band, that is
more than three (') armed malefactors taking part in the commission of the crime, "n3/ t$
"%%$n.$& 4"!!itting &-8$ s-33 0$ 3i-03$ %"& t$ s8$4i-3 4"!83$@ 4&i!$ "% &"00$&/ <it &-8$'
(PEOPLE vs. ,O/E#O, ./. #o. )'1%), ,arch '', ())&+
t should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rapeKs or homicideKs
should be considered as aggravating circumstances. The enumeration of aggravating circumstance
under Art. &! of the #evised $enal %ode is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Art. &' of
the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (par &8)
providing for analogous circumstances. t is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of
multiple homicide on the occasion of robbery) would result in an analogous situation where from
the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as
robbery with multiple rapes. (owever, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally
construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not
clearly made so by the statute. n view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein
accused>appellant should not be considered as aggravating. The proper penalty of reclusion
perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. (PEOPLE vs. /E!L!, ./. #o. (&151*. !pril 5,
'111+

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
n robbery with homicide cases, the prosecution need only to prove these elements: (a) the
taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against persons< (b) that the property
taken belongs toanother< (c) the taking be done with animus lucrandi< and (d) on the occasion of
the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) was committed. These
elements were present when accused>appellants, acting in unison, demanded money from her
mother, forcibly took tha same against her will and then hacked here to death. (PEOPLE vs.
;!8-LE., ./. #o.((&$*5. .eptember (%, ())5+
t has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection exists between the
robbery and the killing, regardless of which the two precedes the other, or whether they are
committed at the same time, the crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. t is a settled doctrine that when death supervenes by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere accident. *hat is important and
decisive is that death results by reason or on occasion of the robbery. The death of robbery victim
by accident can, however, be considered as a mitigating circumstance. f the circumstances would
indicate no intention to kill, as in the instant case where evidently, the intention is to prevent the
deceased from making an outcry, and so a @pandesalA was stuffed into her mouth, the mitigating
circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave may be appreciated. The stuffing of the
@pandesalA in the mouth would not have produced asphyxiation had it not slid into the neckline,
@caused by the victimCs own movements.A (PEOPLE vs. OPE/O, #o. L- %*$)0. :une ((, ()*(+
KIDNA==INH WITA SERIOUS ILLEHAL DETENTION
T$ $ss$n4$ "% >i.n-88ing "& s$&i"us i33$g-3 .$t$nti"n is t$ -4tu-3 4"n%in$!$nt "&
&$st&-int "% t$ #i4ti! "& t$ .$8&i#-ti"n "% is 3i0$&t/. There is no kidnapping with murder , but
only murder where a '>year old child was gagged, hidden in a box where it did and ransom asked.
The demand for ransom did not convert the offense in to kidnapping with murder. The defendant
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 the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to
conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver. (PEOPLE vs. LO/!,
./. #o.%)%&1. ,arch &1, ()*'+
DEATA UNDER EGCE=TIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in
this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a
fit of a passionate outburst. Art. -!6 prescribes the following elements: (&) that a legally married
person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person< and (-)
that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are
present in the case.
Though about one hour, had passed between the time the accused>appellant discovered his
wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the
shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused>
appellant. The #$%, in requiring that the accused @shall kill any of them or both of themR
immediatelyA after surprising his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse, does not say that he
should commit the killing instantly thereafter. t only requires that the death caused be the
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the
basest act of infidelity. /ut the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind
impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by>
product of the accusedCs rage. (PEOPLE vs. !8!/;!. L-$%%&&. .eptember (%,()*$+.
CARNA==INH
%onsidering the phraseology of amended 4ection &! of #.A. ?o. 20'", the carnapping and
the killing (or the rape) may be considered a single or indivisible or a special complex crime which,
however, is not covered by Article !7 of the #evised $enal %ode. As such, the killing (or the rape)

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
merely qualifies the crime of carnapping whick for lack of specific nomenclature may be known as
qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form.
4ince 4ection &! of #.A. ?o. 20'" uses the words @4 3;;=5,A no distinction must be made
between homicide and murder. *hether it is one or the other which is committed @in the course of
carnapping or on the occasion thereofA makes no difference insofar as the penalty is concerned. t
follows then that the killing of the driver, whether it be homicide or murderMcannot be treated as
a separate offense, but should only be considered to qualify the crime of carnapping.
)n the otherhand, if attempted or frustrated murder or homicide is committed @in the
course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof,A then it must be deemed to
fall under the clause (of 4ection &!) @when the carnapping is committed by means of violence
against or intimidation of any person.A (PEOPLE vs. ,E:-!. ./. #os.((*)%1-%( and ./.
#o.(()%1$. :ul3 $, ())$+
DANHEROUS DRUHS ACT
To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and
unmistakably established. To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material
consideration. t must, therefore, be established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant actually
sold and delivered two tea bags of mari+uana dried leaves to 4gt. ;ope,, who acted as the poseur>
buyer, in exchange for twenty>peso bills. (PEOPLE vs. .-,O#. ./. #o.)&1'*. :ul3 '),())%.+
TALLY OF FREQUENTLY ASKED BAR EGAM QUESTIONS
SUBJECTS INCLUSIVE
YEARS
FREQUENCY TOTALS
B""> I
H$n$&-3 8&in4i83$s in 4&i!in-3 3-< -88! -
-88' &
&""" -
&""7 &
&""6 &
&""2 & 5
Aberratio ictus &""" & &
Accessories (Art. &") -88& & &
Aggravating circumstances (generic) &""" - -
Aggravating circumstances (qualifying) -888 &
&""" & -
Aggravating: band &""2 &
&""! & -
Aggravating: cruelty &""! & &
Aggravating: dwelling &""2 &
&""! & -
Aggravating: evident premeditation &""6 &
&""& & -
Aggravating: motor vehicle &""' & &
Agg&-#-ting+ nigtti!$ &""6 &
&""2 &
&""0 &
&""! & 7
Agg&-#-ting+ &$4i.i#is! -88& &
&""7 &
&""' & 6
Aggravating: relationship &""! & &
Agg&-#-ting + t&$-4$&/ &""" &
&""6 &
&""' &

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
&""- &
&""& & ;
Aggravating: uninhabited place &""2 & &
Aggravating: unlawful entry &""6 & &
Alternative: ntoxication -888 &
-88- & -
Applicability of the #$% (Art.-) &""! & &
Applicability of the #$% (Art -) -888 & &
%ircumstances wKc exempt from criminal liability &""! & &
C"!83$@ 4&i!$ -88! &
&""" &
&""2 &
-888 - ;
C"ns8i&-4/ -88' -
&""7 &
&""2 &
&""! &
&""' &
&""- &
&""8 & 5
%ontinuing offense &""! & &
%orpus 5elicti -88& & &
C&i!in-3 Li-0i3it/ -88! &
-88& -
&""2 -
&""! -
&""' &
&""- & (
3elito continua&o &""! & &
5octrine of implied conspiracy &""7 & &
Error in personae &""" & &
=xempting circumstances &""7 & &
=xempting : accident &""- & &
=xempting : insanity &""- &
&""& & -
=xempting: minority -888 &
&""7 & -
=xtinction of criminal liability &""8 &
-888 & -
F$3"ni$s (-tt$!8t$. O %&ust&-t$.) &""7 &
&""2 -
&""! & 7
A-0itu-3 D$3inFu$n4/ -88& &
&""- &
&""& & 6
(einous crimes &""6 &
&""0 & -
I!8"ssi03$ 4&i!$ -88! &
-888 '
&""! & ;
Hustifying circumstances &""7 &
-88- & -

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
Hustifying: avoidance of greater in+uryKevil -88! &
&""8 & -
Hustifying: defense of a stranger -88- & &
Hustifying: lawful exercise of a right &""& & &
Justi%/ing+ s$3%B.$%$ns$ -88' &
-888 &
&""7 &
&""2 &
&""' &
&""8 & )
Hustifying: $erformance of a 5uty -888 & &
;ife imprisonment -88& &
&""! & -
Mala in se -88& & &
Mala Prohibita -88& &
-888 & -
1arriage against the provisions of the marriage law &""' & &
Mitig-ting 4i&4u!st-n4$s -88! &
-88' &
-88- -
&""" & ;
1itigating: immediate vindication of a grave offense &""' &
-88- & -
1itigating: passion S obfuscation &""0 & &
Mitig-ting + 83$- "% gui3t/ &""" -
&""6 &
&""- & 7
Mitig-ting + #"3unt-&/ su&&$n.$& &""" &
&""6 &
&""2 &
&""- & 7
1itigating: ?o intent to commit so grave a wrong -888 & &
1itigating: 4ufficient $rovocation -888 & &
=-&."n -88! &
&""! &
&""& &
&""8 & 7
=$n-3ti$s &""" &
&""6 ' 7
$enalties containing ' periods &""0 & &
Praeter intentionem &""" & &
=&in4i8-3s -88- -
-888 &
&""0 &
&""! & ;
$rivileged mitigating: minority -888 &
&""' & -
=&$s4&i8ti"n "% 4&i!$s -88!
-88&
-888
&
&
&
&""! &
&""' & ;
$reventive imprisonment &""" &
&""! & -
=&"0-ti"n -88! &

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
-88' &
-88& &
&""0 &
&""! &
&""' &
&""- &
&""& &
&""8 &
-88- - 11
.uasi>#ecidivism &""7 &
&""& & -
#eclusion perpetua -88& &
&""! & -
4uspension of death penalty under the #$% &""0 & &
B""> II
A4ts "% 3-s4i#i"usn$ss &""2 &
&""! &
&""' & 6
Adultery -88- & &
Alarms S scandal &""2 & &
Arbitrary 5etention &""- & &
A&s"n (A&ts'6,:B6,)BB -s &$8$-3$. 0/ =D 1)16) -888 -
&""0 &
&""! & 7
Big-!/ -88! &
&""2 &
&""0 &
&""! - ;
%arnapping &""' & &
C"u8 .I $t-t -88! &
-88- -
&""7 -
&""& & )
%oncubinage -88- &
&""! & -
%onnivingKconsenting to evasion &""2 & &
%onsented Abduction -88- & &
%orruption of public officials -88& &
&""' & -
5eath under exceptional circumstances -88& &
&""& & -
5amage to property &""' & &
5eath in tumultuous affray &""6 & &
5elay in the delivery of detained persons &""8 & &
5elivery of prisoners from +ails -88- & &
5ereliction in the prosecution of offenses &""- &
&""& & -
Di&$4t -ss-u3t -88- &
-88& &
&""' & 6
5irect bribery -88& &

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
&""6 & -
Est-%- -88-
-888
&"""
&""6
&""2
&""'
&""-
&""&
&""8
&
&
-
&
&
&
-
&
- 1,
=stafa through negligence &""" & &
False Testimony in civil cases &""& & &
False testimony favorable to defendant &""! & &
F-3si%i4-ti"n "% ."4u!$nts (A&t' 191 O 19,) &""" -
&""7 &
&""' &
&""- &
&""& & )
Forcible Abduction -888 & &
Grave coercion &""" & &
A"!i4i.$ -88' &
&""7 &
&""6 &
&""2 -
&""! &
&""' &
&""- -
&""8 & 1:
(omicide wK assault &""0 & &
llegal detention &""" &
&""6 & -
llegal possession S use of false treasury notes &""" & &
llegal use of public fundsKproperty &""2 & &
mmoral doctrines, obscene publications, etc. &""' & &
ndirect Assault -88& & &
ndirect bribery &""' & &
3idnapping -88! &
&""6 & -
3idnapping and failure to return a minor -88- & &
3idnapping wK homicide &""2 & &
;ibel -88' &
-88- - '
1arriages contracted against the marriage law &""' & &
1alicious 1ischief -88! & &
1altreatment &""" &
&""! & -
M-3#$&s-ti"n -88& '
&""" -
&""2 &
&""! &
&""8 & 5
1isprision of treason &""! & &
Mu&.$& -88& &
&""" '
&""7 '

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
&""6 -
&""2 &
&""0 -
&""' &
&""& - 17
)ral defamation -88! &
&""! & -
$arricide -88' &
&""" &
&""2 & '
$arricide wK unintentional abortion &""! & &
=$&Eu&/ &""6 &
&""2 &
&""' &
&""& & 7
$ersons exempt from criminal liability -888 & &
$ersons in Authority -88- &
-888 & -
=/si4-3 InEu&i$s (A&t' ,),B,))) &""7 &
&""6 &
&""0 &
&""! &
&""' &
&""& & )
R-8$ -88! &
-88- -
-888 &
&""2 &
&""0 -
&""- & 5
#ape wK homicide &""7 & &
R$0$33i"n -88! &
&""- &
&""& -
&""8 & ;
#eckless mprudence -88& & &
#esistance S 5isobedience &""8 & &
R"00$&/ -88' &
-88- &
-88& &
-888 -
&""7 &
&""2 -
&""- & (
R"00$&/ <it "!i4i.$ &""" &
&""7 &
&""2 &
&""0 & 7
#obbery wK rape &""" &
&""6 & -
Si!83$ S3-n.$& &""! &
&""2 &

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,
&""8 & 6
4imulation of births -88- & &
4lander by deed &""! & &
4ubordination of per+ury &""6 & &
4ubsidiary criminal liability &""7 & &
T$%t (Fu-3i%i$.) -88- -
&""0 & 6
T$%t -88& &
-888 &
&""7 - 7
Trespass to dwelling (qualified) -88-
&""!
&
& -
9n+ust vexation &""! & &
9nlicensed firearm &""7 & &
9surpation of real rights &""2 & &
Oiolation of domicile -88- & &
S=ECIAL LAWS
AntiBF$n4ing L-< (=D 1)1,) &""2 &
&""0 &
&""- &
&""8 & 7
AntiBH&-%t O C"&&u8t =&-4ti4$s A4t (RA 6:1() -88' &
-88& &
-888 -
&""6 &
&""& &
&""8 & 9
Anti>(a,ing ;aw (#A 78!") -88- - -
Anti>4ubversion Act (#A &688) &""& & &
Anti>*iretapping Act (#A !-88) &""' & &
B"un4ing C$4>s L-< ( B= ,,) -88- &
-88' &
&""2 &
&""0 &
&""! &
&""- &
&""& &
&""8 & 5
On 4i3. -0us$1 $@83"it-ti"n O .is4&i!in-ti"n (RA9)1:) -88- -
&""' & 6
%ode of %onduct for $ublic =mployees(#A4 26&') -88& & &
D-ng$&"us D&ugs A4t (RA )7,;) -88! &
-88- &
-888 &
&""7 -
&""2 &
&""0 &
&""' &
&""8 & (
D$-t 8$n-3t/ un.$& RA 9);( -88! &
&""7 &
&""6 & 6
(ighway #obbery $5 0'- -88& &
-888 & -
llegal $ossession of Firearms -88& &

R
$
.

N
"
t
$
s

i
n

C
&
i
!
i
n
-
3

L
-
<
;
San Beda
College of Law
C R I M I N A L
L A W
-888 & -
llegal #ecruitment -88! & &
In.$t$&!in-t$ S$nt$n4$ L-< -88' &
-88- -
&""" '
&""! &
&""& -
&""8 &
&"7" -
&"77 & 16
;aw on $lunder (#A6878) &""' & &
$unishing illegal Fishing ($50'!) &""2 & &
#ights of persons arrested (#A 6!'7) &""' & &
Trusts #eceipts ;aw ($5 &&0) &""0 & &
%hild S Bouth *elfare %ode -88' &
&""0 & -

S
-
n

B
$
.
-

C
"
3
3
$
g
$

"
%

L
-
<
9,

Red Notes Criminal Law

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Red Notes Criminal Law

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

C R I M I N A L L A W

2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen