1. Q: On his way home from the office, ZZ rode in a jeepney.

Subsequently, XX boarded the same

jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a
hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of
the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death.
Is XX liable for ZZs death? Explain briefly.
A (Suggested): Yes, XX is liable for ZZs death because his acts of pulling a grenade and announcing a
hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such
felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZs jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latters death.
Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct, natural and logical consequence of XXs felonious act
which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping
out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1036).
2. A. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victims son, ST, upon seeing the attack,
drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession
of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA
invoked the justifying circumstance of avoiding of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST
from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AAs defense prosper? Reason briefly.
A. NO, AAs defense will not prosper because AA was not avoiding any evil when he sought to disable
ST. AAs act of preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, who were the aggressors, was designed to
insure the killing of FT without any risk to his assailants. Even if ST was about to shoot BB and CC, his
act being in defense of his father FT, is not an evil that could justifiably be avoided by disabling ST.
(Revised Penal Code, Art. 11, par. 4,)
3. Lex was found guilty by the RTC of four counts of rape and imposed upon him the supreme penalty of
triple death sentence and life imprisonment. Was the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment
proper?
ANSWER:
NO, the Revised Penal Code 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. It bears
reiterating that reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous penalties. They are distinct
in nature, in duration and in accessory penalties.
Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. It also carries with it
accessory penalties, namely: perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction for life or for the
duration of the sentence. It is not the same as "life imprisonment" 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.
(PEOPLE vs. MEDINA, SR. G.R. Nos. 127756-58. June 18, 2003.)
4. A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged 3 months later
and was 23 years old when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail

term, he sought a suspension of sentence on the ground of being a juvenile offender. Is he entitled to
suspension?
A: No, A is not entitled to a suspension of sentence since he is no longer a minor at the time of the
promulgation of the sentence. He was already 23 years old. For purposes of suspension of sentence, his
age at the time of promulgation is the determining factor, not the age at the time of commission of the
offense.
5. Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late
evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Lorettas room with the use of a
picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust,
Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry. Discuss the
applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock
to enter the room of the victim.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the property of
Lorettas room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that dwelling includes a
room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind
and sanctity of an abode.
Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for
by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes.
Under the objective test, noctunity is aggravating when taken advantage of by the offender during the
commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim
is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the
offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in
robbery with force upon things.
6. Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal design of the
principal, their participation, the penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal, and the
requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold them criminally responsible for
their respective roles in the commission of the crime.
7. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as"ukay-ukay." Among
the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?
No, the charge of fencing will not prosper. Fencing is committed when a person, with intent to gain
foe himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value which he knows or should be
known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a
charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the
alleged fencing has been committed fact which I wanting in this case.
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the nature
of movable property carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The presumption of

fencing arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD
1612).
8. Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period of time the
crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty to be
imposed on a convict.
Difference between recidivism and habitual delinquency:
(a) Nature of crime in recidivism, the first crime, and the aggravated second crime are embraced in the
same Title of the Revised Penal Code. In habitual delinquency, the first, second and third crimes must be
a habitual-delinquency crime, and that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or
falsification of document.
(b) Time element in recidivism, the accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the
time of trial of the second crime. In habitual delinquency, the accused was convicted of the first habitualdelinquency crime; within 10 years after conviction or release, he was found guilty of habitualdelinquency crime for the second time; within 10 years after conviction or release he was found guilty of
habitual-delinquency crime for the third time or oftener.
(c) Number of crimes in recidivism, there must be at least two crimes committed; while in habitual
delinquency, there must be at least three crimes committed.
Nature of the aggravating circumstance recidivism is ordinary aggravating circumstance, the presence
of any which will trigger the application of the penalty for the second crime committed in its maximum
period unless it is off-set by a mitigating or special aggravating circumstance, the presence of which will
trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or subsequent crime. This is not subject to the
off-set rule.
9. (a)When are detainees credited with the whole duration of preventive imprisonment? (b)When is there
no credit? (c) What if the period of preventive imprisonment has exceeded the maximum penalty
allowed?
o 1. Full time, if the detention prisoner agrees to abide by the same disciplinary rules as convicted
prisoners
o 2. 4/5 time, if he does not agree to abide by the same rules
o When is there no credit?
1. Recidivists
2. Those convicted at least 2 times of any crime
3. Upon summoned for execution of sentence, they failed to surrender voluntarily
o What if the period of preventive imprisonment has exceeded the maximum penalty allowed?
Immediately release, but continue with trial or appeal
If its destierro, the maximum period is 30 days preventive imprisonment
10. (a) When is subsidiary imprisonment imposed? (b) How long is the subsidiary imprisonment? (c)
When can there be no subsidiary imprisonment?
When is subsidiary imprisonment imposed?

o Subsidiary imprisonment can only be imposed if the accused is penalized with a fine (either alone or in
conjunction with imprisonment), and because of insolvency, he cannot pay the fine.
How long is the subsidiary imprisonment?
o If penalty is PC/arresto + fine confined until the fine is satisfied under the conversion
Whichever is the least among:
1. 1/3 of his sentence term
2. 1 year
3. Quotient of fine divided by 8 pesos
o If penalty is just a fine
Subsidiary imprisonment must not exceed 6 months for grave or less grave felonies
Must not exceed 15 days for light felonies
o If penalty is higher than PC, no subsidiary imprisonment
When can there be no subsidiary imprisonment?
o If the penalty is higher than prision correccional, there can be no subsidiary imprisonment.