On the occasion or by reason of robbery two of the victims were killed by the

robbers, and the third, a woman, was raped by the perpetrators. A complaint for
robbery with multiple homicides and with rape was filed against the perpetrators.
(a) Rule on the propriety as regards the above-mentioned designation of
the crime [Hijada, En Banc, 11 March 2004]
The complaint for robbery with multiple homicides and with rape is not proper. As held in
People v. Hijada, there is no crime of robbery with multiple homicide under the RPC. The
crime is robbery with homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides committed on
the occasion of the robbery and even if murder, physical injuries and rape were also
committed on the same occasion.

(b) What are the elements of the crime ROBBERY

[Sumalinog, Jr. 05 Feb 2004; Rugay, 16 March 2004]

WITH

HOMICIDE

Article 294 of the RPC states that the elements of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide are:
(1) The taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a
person
(2) The property taken belongs to another
(3) The taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi
(4) And on the occasion of or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, used in
the generic sense is committed.

Distinguish from each other (a) Theft; (b) Estafa [Art. 315 (1)(b) by
misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the offender in trust or commission or for
administration or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery
of or return the same; (c) Civil Obligation [Chua-Burce v. CA & PP 27 April 2000]
(a) THEFT
Under the RPC, the elements of theft are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

There is taking of personal property

The said property belongs to another
The taking is done with the intent to gain
The taking is done without the consent of the owner
The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things

(b) ESTAFA
The elements of estafa through conversion or misappropriation under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the
RPC are:
1.

There is money, goods, or other personal property to be received by the offender in

trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same;

2.

There is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or

denial on his part of such receipt;

3.

That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and

4.

There is demand made by the offended party to the offender

(c) CIVIL OBLIGATION

A civil obligation negates criminal liability on specific performance or damages. There is civil
obligation in estafa and theft. This obligation is to return the object in accordance with Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the performance of the civil obligation does not remove the criminal aspect of estafa
and theft. Hence, fulfillment of the civil obligation will only extinguish the civil aspect and the
criminal aspect remains.

What is the essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of

funds received from third persons paid to the bank and an agent who receives the

proceeds of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal?

[Chua-Burce v. CA & PP 27 April 2000]
As cited in Chua-Burce vs. the Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, there is an
essential distinction between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from third
persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds of sales of merchandise
delivered to him in agency by his principal.
In the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to the bank itself. The
teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds received, and has no independent right or title
to retain or possess the same as against the bank.
An agent, on the other hand, can even assert, as against his own principal, an independent,
autonomous, right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency; as when
the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made, and indemnify him for damages
suffered without his fault

Panfilo, with criminal intent, maliciously tried to set on fire the house of Rodolfo,
but because of timely discovery, the neighbors of the latter were able to
extinguish the fire before it became uncontrollable. Only a small portion of the
wall was burned. What crime did Panfilo commit? [People v. Hernandez 5 Dec
1929]
The crime is consummated arson. Under P.D. 1613, Arson is defined as the malicious
destruction of property by fire.
In the case at bar, Panfilo had criminal intent and he did in fact set the house of Rodolfo on fire.
Although the neighbors were able to extinguish the flames before it became uncontrollable,
the crime of arson had already been consummated when the fire started.
As held in People v. Hernandez, the crime of arson is consummated once the fire has been
started. Furthermore, the consummation of the crime of arson does not depend upon the
extent of the damage cause.

On 25 March 2007, during the subsistence of marriage, the wife committed

adulterous acts. On 25 January 2008, the marriage was annulled. Subsequently,
the ex-husband instituted a complaint for adultery against his former wife before
the Iloilo City Prosecutors Office. If you were the Investigating Prosecutor
assigned to the case, how you resolve the complaint? [Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, et.
al 30 June 1980]
The law provides that the offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of
the criminal case. As held in Pilapil v. Ibajay-Somera, when the offended partys marriage to
the offender has already been annulled, the offended party is no longer the husband of
petitioner. Thus, he has no legal standing to commence the adultery case.
In the case at bar, the complaint for adultery was filed after the marriage was annulled. At that
time, the husband no longer had the right to institute proceedings against the offenders.

What is the indispensable condition for convicting a married man of concubinage

outside of the conjugal dwelling?
The law provides that the indispensable condition for convicting a married man of concubinage
outside of the conjugal dwelling is the element of scandalous circumstance. As held in U.S. v.
Casipong and Hongoy an indispensable condition for convicting the husband of concubinage
outside of his home is that his conduct produces a scandal which gives rise to criticism and
general protest among neighbors.

Distinguish Rape (1st par) from seduction where the victim was a 13-year old girl.

The elements of rape under paragraph 1 are as follows:

1.
2.
3.

Offender is a man
Offender had carnal knowledge with a woman
Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:

By using force or intimidation; or

When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or

By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented

On the other hand, seduction of a 13-year old girl may either be simple seduction or qualified
seduction. There is simple seduction of a 13-year old girl when:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age

She must be of good reputation, single, or widow
Offender had sexual intercourse with her
That it is committed with deceit

While there is qualified seduction when:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Offended party is a virgin

She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
The offender had sexual intercourse with her
There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender

Rule on the contention that the crime of Bigamy entails joint liability of two
persons who marry each other while the previous marriage of one or the other is
valid and subsisting [People v. Nepomuceno Jr. 27 Jun 1975]
As held in People v. Nepomuceno, the crime of bigamy can be committed by one person who
contracts a subsequent marriage while the former marriage is still valid as subsisting. Bigamy
does not entail joint liability unlike concubinage and adultery.
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the offended parties
depending on the circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without
being aware of his previous marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous
undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the information as a co-accused.

What do you understand of the Doctrine of Last Clear Chance?

As cited in LBC Air Cargo, the doctrine of last clear chance in essence, is to the effect that
where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than
that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be
attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending
harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof.
Stated differently, the doctrine implies that the one who had the last fair chance to avoid the
impending harm by the exercise of due diligence is liable when both parties are negligent or
when it is impossible to determine who was at fault or negligent.

In the law of Libel, in what instances would a discreditable imputation to a public

official may be actionable?
The law provides that in order that a discreditable imputation to a public official may be
actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false
supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is
immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred
from the facts.