Cedric came home one night and surprised his wife, the beautiful Deniece, and her

paramour, Vhon, in the act of illicit sexual intercourse, but Vhong had a gun so Cedric
scampered away, looked for a gun, returned and in a state of passionate outburst, killed
Vhong. The latter has his gun still tucked on his waste when shot by Cedric. About one hour
had already passed from the time Cedric surprised Deniece and Vhong in the act of sexual
intercourse and the time the latter was actually killed.
Art. 247 RPC provides Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.
Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
QUESTION 1: If Cedric is prosecuted for the death of Vhong, which of the following could
make him best avail of the beneficient effect of Art. 247 despite the fact that the article
requires that the killing be done while the spouse and the other person were in the act of
sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter?
ANSWER: Cedric was still blinded by his anger when he killed Vhong (People v.
Abarca)
QUESTION 2: What about Deniece that was killed by Cedric, what crime is committed?
ANSWER: NONE Art. 247 does penalize a felony.
QUESTION 3: Supposing Deniece was 3 months pregnant and because of shame and fear,
jumped off from the 10th floor of Forbeswood Condo. Unfortunately on her way down to the
concrete pavement she fell on the shoulder of a passing Greg Binunos who consequently
dided. The foetus was aborted but Deniece survived. As regards to the aborted foetus, what
was the crime Deniece committed?
ANSWER: NO CRIME COMMITTED.
ART. 253
o A person who commits suicide is not liable
o A woman who tried to commit suicide is not committing a
felony. Thus, she is not liable for abortion for expelling the
foetus instead.
QUESTION 4: As regards Greg Binunos, what was the crime committed by Deniece?
ANSWER: NONE. Inflicting death upon exceptional circumstances does not make
one liable for injuries sustained by third persons as a result thereof. (Art.
247)
QUESTION 5: As regards to herself, Deniece is liable for what crime?
ANSWER: NONE. Suicide is not a felony. Attempting to commit suicide is not a
crime (Art. 253)

Jack and Jill were lovers. One day the couple went up the hill to get a pail of San Miguel. On
their way down, Jack fell down and broke his crown and Jill came tumbling after. Seeing Jills
legs wide open, Jack was overwhelmed by his libido and tried to force himself on Jill who
gave a fight to protect her honor. Because of sheer force Jack prevailed. At first he inserted
his forefinger inside her vagina and after which he attempted to insert his penis into Jills
vagina, but just touched the space between the labia pudenda of the woman when Sgt.
Cedric and Sgt. Vhong arrived so Jack scampred away like hell.
QUESTION 6: As regards to his forefinger as stated above, what crime did Jack commit?
ANSWER: SEXUAL ASSAULT. As held in People v. Soriano a person is guilty of rape by
sexual assault when he inserted his finger into the vagina of his victim.
QUESTION 7: What crime did Jack commit?
ANSWER: CONSUMMATED RAPE. Not essential that there be complete penetration
it is enough that the labia of the female organ was penetrated. As held in
People v. Oscar, the slightest penetration of the labia consummates the
crime of rape.
QUESTION 8: Suppose Jill had an orgasm while Jack was manipulating his forefinger, what
crime would Jack be liable of?
ANSWER: RAPE character of offended woman is immaterial in rape (People v.
Blanco).

QUESTION 9: Jinggoy, accountable public officer, has in his possession P40,000.00

appropriated for the repair and painting of the Municipal Hall. A week after receiving said
public fund, he misappropriated the amount of P10,000. Every week thereafter, he
misappropriated the same amount per week until the said fund was thoroughly exhausted.
Jinggoy is liable for how many counts of malversation of public funds?
ANSWER: ONE COUNT 1 count if taken from 1 public fund, 2 counts if taken from 2
funds

QUESTION 10: Which of the following is an element of serious illegal detention?

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Ransom
Dehumanizing Acts
Confinement of the victim
Unchaste design
None of the above

ANSWER: CONFINEMENT OF THE VICTIM

Mrs. Deleverio, public elementary school principal, lent to the schools employees several
pieces of furniture to be used during the fiesta celebration; with the condition that they will
be returned the following Monday. Early morning the following Monday, before the pieces of
furniture were returned, auditors from the COA arrived and noted the absence of those
chairs, tables, etc. Based on that, a case of malversation of public property was filed against
Mrs. Deleverio. Noteworthy is the fact that those pieces of furniture were all returned in the
afternoon that day. Rule on the propriety of the charge,
ANSWER: NOT LIABLE.
Mrs. Deleverio was in fact a public officer accountable for the several pieces of
the schools furniture, and she did consent the employees to use the furniture
for the fiesta celebration but she gave them a condition to return the items
the following Monday.
In the case at bar, Mrs. Deleverio cannot be liable for Malversation of Public
Property because she acted in good faith there was no criminal intent. The
prima facie evidence that she put the said school property to personal use or
personal use of others was also destroyed when the school employees
returned the furniture later on that same day.
Although she did violate the regulations of public office to some degree when
she consented to the use of school property for the personal gain of others,
the violation she committed was not so grave approximating to malice or
fraud. As the Latin maxim goes, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
=======================================================
======================
After engaging in a drinking spree at Celias birthday party, a turbulent commotion took
place in Celias premises involving no less than 40 guests during which occasion Tito was
killed by shots fired from a .45 cal pistol. The fiscal filed a case of death in tumultuous
affray against all the participants in the melee. Do you agree? Reasons.
ANSWER: NO.
Death caused in a tumultuous affray is committed when:
1. There are several persons
2. That did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally
3. That these several persons quarreled and assault one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or
who used violence can be identified.
Furthermore, Art. 251 of the RPC provides that: If it cannot be determined
who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, all those who shall
have used violence upon the person of the victim are liable.
In the case at bar, it was not known who fired the shots that killed Tito.
Likewise, it cannot be identified who among the 40 persons actually inflicted
serious physical injuries or used violence against him.
Thus, the case death caused in a tumultuous affray cannot be filed against all
40 participants since the law requires that the identities of the persons who

inflicted serious or physical injuries or who used violence against the victim
can be identified.
=======================================================
======================
SPO1 Don Juan responded to a call for assistance from the manager of Happy and Glad night
club. It appears that Brutus, a customer, had been creating trouble in the night club, and
was asked by the manager to leave. Brutus pulled a gun and shot the manager, but missed
and was subdued by other customers. SPO1 Don Juan questioned Brutus and found out that
the latters gun was unlicensed. The police officer confiscated the said firearm.
SPO1 Don Juan sold the firearm of Brutus. What felony under the RPC, if any, did the police
officer commit? Give the elements of the offense as part of the explanation in your answer.
ANSWER:
In the case at bar, SPO1 Don Juan committed malversation of public property. Under
Art. 217 of the RPC, the elements of the crime are:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. That he had the custody or control of property by reasons of the duties of his
office
3. That the property was public property for which he was accountable
4. That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through
abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them.
SPO1 Don Juan is a public officer who had custody of the firearm by reason of the
duties of his office. As held in People v. Mario, firearms or explosives seized from
persons not authorized to possess the same, which are in the custody of peace
officers, are public property thus the confiscated unlicensed firearm is public
property. Selling the confiscated firearm is synonymous to appropriating public
property that he did not have the right to dispose of.
=======================================================
======================
While manning the traffic lights at the intersection of San Agustin and MH Del Pilar, Traffic
Aide Torrres ordered BB to stop his taxi, threatened to arrest him, and confiscate his drivers
license for speeding and reckless driving. Conversant with the dirty plays of some traffic
aides, BB pulled out his wallet, picked up his drivers license with the hidden P500 bill inside
and handed it to Torres. Thereafter, Torres returned the license and allowed him to go.
What criminal prosecution may be filed against Traffic Aide Torres and/or BB?
ANSWER:
Direct bribery may be filed against Traffic Aide Torres as he was a public officer, he
accepted a gift to refrain from arresting BB and confiscating his license an act
connected with the performance of Torres duties.
On the other hand, BB can be charged for corruption of a public official. He gave a
gift to Torres who is a public officer, and the gift given under circumstances will make
the latter liable for direct bribery.