Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
B
1. While Pedro, Maria and their five children are travelling along the Banlat road in Quezon
s
City, a group of eight armed malefactors led by Felix suddenly opened fire and rained
e
l
bullets on their vehicle. Pedro and Maria died. Two of their children sustained fatal gunshot

o b
wounds while the rest sustained non-fatal gunshot wounds. Is Felix and his men liable for
complex crime of double Murder with double Frustrated Murder and multiple Attempted
Murder?
R
an ar
ANSWER: No. Felix and his men are individually liable for separate crimes of two counts of
B
Ch s
Murder, two counts of Frustrated Murder and three counts of Attempted Murder. It is not a

l e
complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code because the killing and
wounding of the victims was not the result of a single discharge of firearms by Felix and his

o b
men. To note, Felix and his men opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle boarded

R
Pedro and his family. Thus, more than one bullet hit the victims and more than one gunman

an r
fired at the vehicle of the victims. Each act of a gunman constitute distinct and individual
a
acts which cannot give rise to a complex crime. Felix and his men performed not only a
B
Ch
single act but several individual and distinct acts in the commission of the crime. Thus,

e s
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act."

l
(See, People v. Wenceslao Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)
b
R o
2. Salvacion, a Provincial Treasurer of Northern Samar, was convicted by the trial court of
Malversation. While serving her sentence, Salvacion applied and was granted absolute

an a r
pardon by the President. It was expressly provided pardon that Salvacion was granted an

B
Ch
absolute and unconditional pardon and restored to full civil and political rights as well as

s
her right to immediately hold / resume her former position as Provincial Treasurer.
e
l
Salvacion contends that her criminal liability was effectively extinguished and she is

o b
entitled to reinstatement to her former position without a need of a new appointment.
Cathy, the Acting Provincial Treasurer, contends that Salvacion is not automatically entitled
R
to reinstatement to her former position because absolute pardon does not ipso facto

an r
restore a convicted felon to a public office. According to Cathy, Salvacion must re-apply and
undergo the usual procedure required for a new appointment before she could regain her
Ba
Ch
former post. Whose contention is correct? Explain.

e s
b l
ANSWER: The contention of Salvacion is correct. Art. 36 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right

R o
of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. The absolute

an
pardon granted to Salvacion expressly restores the right of Salvacion to hold public office.
(See, the separate opinion of Justice Padilla in Salvacion Mosanto v. Factoran, G.R. No.

Ch
78239, February 9, 1989).

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

3. May a private individual who conspire with a public officer in the commission of a crime
of Plunder be held liable for Plunder?

ANSWER: Yes. Section 2 of R.A. 7080 provides, x x x Any person who participated with
the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder

r
shall likewise be punished for such offense. (see the related cases entitled Henry Go v.

Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010)


B a
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 16, 2009 and Engr. Ricardo Santillano v. People, G.R.

es
b l
4. Police officers Alan, Dindo and Carlo lawfully arrested Zack for Carnapping. On their
way to the police station, Zack managed to remove his handcuff, grabbed the M16 rifle of

R o
Alan and jumped off the police patrol car they were riding. Dino immediately responded by
firing his .9mm caliber firearm at the back leg of Zack. When Zack turned around to fire his

an r
M16 armalite rifle, Dindo fired another shot hitting Zack at the chest. Zack died
instantaneously.
B a
h
Cprosecution filed an Information for s
The
contended that the killing of Zack waslnot e justified
Homicide against Dindo. The prosecution

b
since the former did not attack the

him the opportunity to surrender.o


policemen. The prosecution added that Dindo had no right to shoot Zack without giving

should be applied only as a lastR


Under the General Rules of Engagement, the use of force

an in killing Zack? Explain. Bar


resort when all other peaceful and non-violent means have
been exhausted. Is Dindo justified

C h s in the fulfillment of a duty.


The policemen has a duty not only to recapture Zack but e
ANSWER: Yes, Dindo is justified in killing Zack because he acted

Zack was committing a crime in the presence of theb l when he grabbed the M16
also to recover the loose firearm.
policemen
rifle of Alan and jumped off the police patrol car
Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Zack R
oto escape. By grabbing Mercados M16
has placed the lives of the policemen in grave

anhavethefiredlatter
danger. Thus, Dindo has to use force to place
a r to
under arrest. Had Dindo failed
B
shoot Zack immediately, the latter would

C
inside the police patrol car would have h died.
the M16 rifle and all the policemen
s
l eFacing imminent
Zacks act of grabbing the M16 Armalite clearly shows a hostile intention.
danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. The duty to issue a warning
o b is not absolutely
R
mandated at all times and at all cost, to the detriment of the life of law enforcers. The
n
directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation where several options are still
a a r
and there is no other option but to B
available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances such as this case, where the
threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent,
C hfailure to issue a warning is excusable.s
use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers
l e
b
(SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005)

5. Jimboy pointed an icepick on the neck of Ana and ordered her to strip naked.o
R his penis
Out of fear,
she complied. Jimboy undressed himself and mounted on her. He then inserted
n
a in pain, Ana kept
into her vagina. When she felt the icepick being pressed into her stomach, Ana fought.
Jimboy then stabbed her several times with the icepick. Although she was
C h
silent which made Jimboy stop stabbing believing that she was already dead. After Jimboy

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

left the scene, Ana crawled and shouted for help. A barangay tanod patrolling the area
responded and rushed Ana to the hospital for medical treatment. The wounds inflicted on
Ana were fatal but she survived death. The prosecution thereafter filed an Information for
Rape with Frustrated Homicide. Is the charge proper?

r
ANSWER: No. Jimboy should be charged separately for Rape and for Frustrated Homicide.

B a
There is no special complex crime of Rape with Frustrated Homicide. Under Art. 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, a special complex crime occurs when on occasion of rape or
s
attempted rape, homicide is committed. The crime of homicide must be consummated in
e
b l
order to bring about a special complex crime. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable because the same requires the commission of at least two crimes, but the two or

R o
more grave or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a
necessary means for committing the other. Negatively put, when two or more crimes are

an r
committed but (1) not by a single act or (2) one is not a necessary means for committing

B a
the others, there is no complex crime. In the instant case, Jimboy committed separate

Ch s
crimes of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. Rape was committed because Jimboy had carnal
e
knowledge with Ana by means of intimidation while Frustrated Homicide was committed
l
o b
because Jimboy tried to kill Ana by inflicting several fatal stab wounds at her but the latter
survived death due to timely medical attendance. (See, People v. Uldarico Honra, Jr., G.R.

R
No. 136012-16, September 26, 2000, People v. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9,

an r
2011 and People v. Ermilito Alegre, G.R. No. 184812, July 6, 2010)

6. Eduardo engaged in a sexual congress with Tessa, a 21-yearB


a
C h old woman, at a knifepoint.
s The father of Tessa is
Eduardo is the common
Arturo.
law husband of Tessas
e
biological
l
mother.

a) Is the alternative circumstance of relationshipo


b
aggravating?

ANSWER: The alternative circumstance ofn


R
a relationship a r 15
is not aggravating. Under Article

h
of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative
Bnatural or
circumstance of relationship can be considered
only "when the offended party is the
s
C by affinity in the same degree of theeoffender." Tessa
spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
adopted brother or sister, or relative
does not fit in the enumeration. (People v. Abundio Tolentino, G.R. No.
b l 130514, June 17,
1999)
R o
n
b) Suppose Eduardo was charged for Qaulified Rape because he is the biological father of
Tessa and the latter is a minor 17 years of age, is the a a r
B
alternative circumstance of relation
aggravating?
C h s
l e
b v.
ANSWER: The alternative circumstance of relationship is not aggravating because

o
relationship is already included as an element in the crime of qualified rape. (People
Restituto Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998)
R
n
a no money at that
7. Mira was walking along the street when Alberto pointed a bladed weapon at her side
and ordered her to hand to him all her money. Unfortunately, Mira has
C h
time but she has a check payable to cash already signed and filled in the amount of Twenty

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) so she gave the same to him. Alberto has not travelled far
when he was arrested by the policemen.

a) Is Alberto liable for consummated Robbery?

r
ANSWER: Alberto is not liable for consummated Robbery. The crime is only in the

B a
attempted stage because, although he demanded money and took the personal property of
Mira consisting of a check in the amount of twenty thousand pesos by means of
s
intimidation, he was not able to get anything of value from Mira since he was immediately
e
b l
arrested without him encashing the check. (People v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257,
June 20, 198. See also Gemma Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 concerning
o
the value of a check which was not encashed)
R
an r
b) Suppose Alberto went to the bank to encash the check but the same was not encashed

B a
because Mira ordered the bank to stop payment, is Alberto liable for an impossible crime?
h
C Alberto is not liable for an impossible s
ANSWER:
Robbery was committed. The act cannotlbe econsidered crime because a crime of Attempted

was no inherent improbability of its b


an impossible crime because there

Rowas
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or
ineffective means. In fact, a crime already committed even before Alberto tried to

ar crime)
anG.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 on Bimpossible
encash the check. (People v. Pablito Domasian, et al., G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993. See
also Gemma Jacinto v. People,

8. Valen is in theC
h
business of raising cock-fighting chicken. s
chicken pen or kulungan which is about five meters long,
l e Valen placed the chicken in the
one meter wide and one meter
high made of wooden stilts and bamboo strips as bars,
The chicken pen is located beside his house ando
b and lock the same with a padlock.
near the gate. Upon learning that Valen
R
went to a nearby province to sell some of his chicken, Paul jumped from the gate, destroyed

ten thousand pesos each. What crime ora


the padlock and the door of the chicken penn a r at
and thereafter took three roosters valued

h crimes are committed, if any?


B
C of Theft because he took three roosters e s
ANSWER: Paul committed a crime
Valen with intent to gain and without using force or intimidation upon
b l persons. Only one
belonging to

crime is committed although three roosters were taken because Paul


intent to steal. The crime is not Robbery with Force upon Things
R obecause the chicken pen
has only one criminal

nupon Things under Art. 299 and ar


or cages were not inside the house nor was it a dependency thereof within the meaning of
a taking takes place inside B
article 301 of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery with Force
302 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the
C htounlawful
worship, or inside an uninhabiteds
an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted
house or private building. Moreover, one essential requisite of robbery with force l e
b the
upon

building. If the culprit did not enter the building, as in this case, there would beo
things under Articles 299 and 302 contemplate that the malefactor should enter

R were taken
no robbery
with force upon things. Moreover, the chicken coop where the three roosters
n
a robbery by means
cannot be considered a building within the meaning of article 302. Not being a building, it
cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

of any of the five circumstances enumerated in article 302. (People v. Elias Jaranilla, G.R.
No. L-28547, February 22, 1974)

9. Marcial, Clifford, Benjie and Keneth, all armed with bladed weapons, waited for the night
and when darkness came, entered the house of Lorna through the kitchen door which was

r
then open and they, thereafter, took turns of raping her. After satisfying their lust, they

B a
repeatedly stabbed her in the different parts of her body until she died. They used two
motorcycles to facilitate their escape. What circumstance, if any, aggravated the
s
commission of the crime of Rape with Homicide?
e
ANSWER: The followingl
the crime:
o b are aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of

R
a. Nocturnity
darknessa
n or nighttime because they purposely r sought and took advantage of the
a from being recognized. (People
h B
of the night to afford impunity or to prevent them

C
v. Alfredo Baroy, G.R. No. 137520-22, May
e
9,
s
2002)

b. By a band because the offenders who


b ltheparticipated in the crime were all armed with

Ro
bladed weapons when they committed crime. (People v. Ricardo Cayanan, G.R. Nos.
73257-58 June 16, 1995)

a n
c. Dwelling because they committed the crime inside the dwelling r
a of the offended party
who has not given provocation therefor. It is considered anB
primarily becauseC
h aggravating circumstance
s is more
who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong e
of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He
lNo. 181902, August
guilty than he who
offends him elsewhere. (People v. Edgar Evangelio, b G.R. 31, 2011 and
People v. Arnold Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October
R o 11, 2011)

d. Use of motor vehicle because they usen r v.


aApril a
motorcycles to facilitate their escape. (People
B
h
Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, 29, 2003)
s
10. After trial, the court foundC e
l of judgment.
James guilty of Kidnapping with homicide, an offense

He was 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. b


punishable by death. James was 20 years of age at the time of promulgation

R o
a. May James avail of suspension of sentence?
a n a r
ANSWER: Yes, James may avail of suspension of sentence.
with the Law (CICL) may avail of suspension ofC
h Under the law, a Child in Conflict B
sentence even if he is no longer a minor ats
l eof
bcrime
the time of promulgation of judgment as long as he is below 21 years old. The suspension

committed is classified as heinous, the law allows the CICL to still avail ofo
his sentence, however, is not automatic. He must apply for it. Moreover, even if the

R G.R. No.
suspended
sentence. (see, Section 38 & 40, R.A. 9344. See also People v. Richard Sarcia,
a n
169641, September 10, 2009, People v. Henry Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
and People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

b. If the court pronounces a judgment of conviction, may James avail of indeterminate


sentence? If yes, impose the indeterminate penalty.

ANSWER: Yes. Under the Anti-Death Penalty Law, the penalty of death is reduced to
reclusion perpetua. Since James is a minor, the penalty is reduced to one degree lower.

r
(People v. Florencio Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013 and People v. Asia Musa, et

B a
al, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012) In the computation of penalty, the reckoning point is
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not the death penalty. (People v. Halil Gamboa, et al.,
s
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)[1] One degree lower from reclusion perpetua is
e
b l
reclusion temporal. The minimum of indeterminate sentence is anywhere from prison
mayor which is one degree lower from reclusion temporal. Since there is no attendant

R o
circumstance, the maximum of indeterminate sentence is reclusion temporal in the
medium period. (Cecilia Legrama v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012)

an B ar
11. Francis was convicted of sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, R.A. 9165, the penalty

Ch s
of which is life imprisonment to death. Francis is 16 years old at the time of the commission
e
of the offense. This is the first time that Francis committed the crime involving violation of
l
b
the Dangerous Drugs Law.

R
a. May Francis avail of probation?o
a n
ANSWER: Francis cannot avail the benefits of the probation law. Under
a rthe law, any person
h BSection
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of
C
the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No.
e
968. s
(See, 24, R.A. 9165. See
l
also Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)
b
Ro
b. In the imposition of sentence, is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable? If yes,
impose the indeterminate sentence.

ANSWER: Yes. Under Section 98 of R.A.a


n a r
punishable by life imprisonment to h B that
9165, if the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts

C circumstance, the penalty is reclusion s


death is reclusion perpetua to death. Considering
e
there is no mitigating or aggravating
Taking into consideration the privileged circumstance of minority, the
b lpenalty is lowered
perpetua.

R
anywhere from prision mayor while the maximum of the indeterminate o
to one degree which is reclusion temporal. The minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
sentence is
n
reclusion temporal in the medium period. (See, Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546,
a a r
h when Jake suddenly appeared ands B
July 23, 2008)

C
12. Myrna was on her way home late in the afternoon
dragged her into the grassy area. Jake thereafter inserted his finger into Myrnas l e
b
anus.

o
Myrna resisted but Jake prevailed. Myrna is a ten-year old child while Jake is an adult.

R7610? If not,
what crime or crimes are committed, if any?
a n
a. May Jake be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A.

C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ANSWER: Yes. Jake may be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A.
7610 because he performed lascivious conduct on a child by inserting his finger in the
latters anus. Under the implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610, inserting a finger
or tongue into the vagina or anal orifice of a child constitutes acts of lasciviousness. The
lascivious conduct was performed by an adult on a child while the latter is under coercion.

r
(Salvador Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010 and v. Court of Appeals and

a
Gaspar Olayon, G.R. No. 171863, August 20, 2008)
B
s
b. Suppose Jake had a carnal knowledge with Myrna under similar circumstance, may he be
e
l
held liable for rape under R.A. 7610? If not, what crime or crimes are committed, if any?
b
R o
ANSWER: No. Jake is liable for statutory rape under the Revised Penal Code. Under Section
5 (b) of R.A. 7610, if the victim is less than 12 years old, the offender should be prosecuted

an r
under the Revised Penal Code for statutory rape. (People v. Luis Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299,

B a
October 6, 2008 and People v. Ernesto Fragante, G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011)

13.C
h s
epolice officers arrested Manuel and recovered
Manuel shot Auriel with the use of his unlicensed .38 revolver while the latter was
l
bcommitted, if any?
asleep. Auriel died as a result thereof. The

o
the gun from him. What crime/s is/are

ANSWER: Manuel committedR


a n
qualified by treachery because Manuel shot Auriel while the latter
a r was asleep and
a crime of Murder qualified by treachery. The crime is

h B firearmcircumstance
completely defenseless. The crime is attended by the special aggravating of
C
use unlicensed firearm. Under the law, when the use of an
e s also committed a separatein
unlicensed is inherent
the commission of a crime, the same is aggravating. Manuel
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. Under the law, b l Possession of Firearm is now
Illegal
o 10591)
punished as a separate offense. (See, Section 28, R.A.
R
14. Wilbur abducted Sherry, a 3-year oldn r her.
Thereafter, Wilbur demanded ransom a in the amount of P100,000.00 from theaSherrys
child, brought her to the field and killed

parents in exchange for the latters h B delivered


s
C not able to recover their child. IseWilbur liable for
freedom. The parents of Sherry complied and
the money to Wilbur but they were
b l
kidnapping for ransom? If not, what crime or crimes are committed, if any?

ANSWER: Wilbur is not liable for kidnapping for ransom becauseo


R the intention of Wilbur in
n or deprivation of liberty was ar
abducting Sherry is not to deprive her of her liberty but to kill her. Demand for ransom did
a for ransom. (People v. Estacio, B
not convert the crime into kidnapping because no detention

Ch s
involved as Sherry was already dead when he demanded
G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
e
lcrime
because Sherry is not in the position to defend herself by reason of tender age. o
Wilbur committed the crime of Murder for killing Sherry. Treachery qualified the b
R
n
a of Sherry and he
Wilbur also committed the crime of Estafa under Art. 315 para. 2 (a) since he deceived

C h
Sherrys parents by falsely representing himself to have the living body
has the capacity to free her in exchange of the amount of P100,000.00. Sherrys parents

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

were induced to part with their money on the belief that they would recover back their
child. Wilbur, however, could no longer free Sherry since she is already dead.

15. Roger called Nida on the phone and threatened to burn her car if the latter will not
deliver the amount of fifty thousand pesos within a period of three days. Two days after the

r
demand, Roger was arrested without obtaining the money.

B a
a. Is Roger guilty of attempted Robbery? If not, what crime or crimes are committed, if any?

es
b l
ANSWER: Roger is not guilty of Attempted Robbery because the demand for money was not
immediate or on the spot (U.S. v. Osorio, 21 Phil. 237). In Attempted Robbery the offender

R o
intended to immediately take the money or other personal properties of another by means
of violence or intimidation but the offender did not succeed in taking the same by reason of

an r
some cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance. In the instant case, the

B a
demand for money was not immediate because Roger gave Nida three days within which to

Ch s
deliver the money.
e
l under Art. 282 no. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code since he threatened to burn the b
Roger is, nonetheless, liable for Grave Threats

Ro(People
car of Nida and he demanded for money. The crime of
Grave Threats is consummated with or without the offender attaining his purpose and with

1989)
a n
or without demanding for money.
r
v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257, June 20,
a
hproblem, suppose Roger actually burned BNidas car after the latter
C
failed to deliver the money within the period stated, whate
b. In the above-stated s
any? b l crime or crimes are committed, if

ANSWER: Roger committed two separate crimes R oof Grave Threats and simple Arson. Roger
n
a is also liable for Arson under P.D. 1613
is criminally liable for Grave Threats because
a r
he threatened to inflict harm on the property

1 no. 4 because he burned the car ofh


of Nida and he demanded for money. Roger
B separate
Section

criminal acts were committed onC s


Nida. There is no complex crime because two
e
separate occasions. Moreover, the crime
is not a necessary means to commit Arson and vice versa.
b l of Grave Threats

16. While April was walking on her way home, Rogelio suddenlyo
R pointed a knife at her and
n
dragged the latter to a nearby vacant lot. Rogelio then ordered April to undress herself and
a a r
Aprils cellular phone from the ground B
the latter complied out of fear. Rogelio then forced his organ into Aprils private organ.
After satisfying his lustful desire, Rogelio pick up h
C complex crime of Robbery with rape? Ifs
and ran away with it. Is Rogelio liable for special
l e
b
not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?

ANSWER: Rogelio is not liable for special complex crime of Robbery with rape.o
R of another
In Robbery

n
with rape, the primary intention of the offender is to take the personal property
a evil plan of the
by means of intimidation and the rape was committed on occasion thereof. In the instant

accused but it was an afterthought following the rape.


C h
case, the unlawful taking of Aprils personal property was not the original

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Rogelio committed the crime of rape because he had a carnal knowledge with April by
means of intimidation. Rogelio also committed the crime of theft because he took the
cellular phone of April without using force or intimidation. The crime is not robbery
because the intimidation he employed on April was for the purpose of accomplishing his
lustful desire and not for the purpose of taking her cellular phone. (People v. Rogelio

r
Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002)

B a
17. Lenny was using her cellular phone when Leo suddenly grabbed the same and run away
s
with it using his motorcycle. The police officer who saw the incident chased Leo. While Leo
e
b l
was trying to evade arrest, Leo bumped into the road gutter. Leos motorcycle turned turtle
and hit an old woman. The old woman died instantly. Is Leo liable for Robbery with
o
homicide? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
R
an r
ANSWER: Leo is not liable for Robbery with homicide. In Robbery with homicide, homicide

B a
is committed by reason of or on occasion of robbery. In the instant case, there is no robbery

Ch s
in the first place because Leo did not employ violence or intimidation in taking Lennys
cellular phone.
e
lhe suddenly grabbed the cellular phone of Lenny
b
o upon her person. (People v. Cesar Conception,
Leo committed the crime of Theft when

Rand
without emloying violence or intimidation

2009).
a n
G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012
r
Rommel Briones v. People, G.R. No. 156009, June 5,
a
h Bin Homicide because an old
Leo also committedC s
e in driving his motorcycle.
the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting

b l
woman died as a result of his negligence and lack of precaution
The crime is not Homicide because he did not deliberately intended to kill the old woman.

18. Mark is the manager of a vulcanizing shop. R o


He pocketed P200.00 which he is supposed
n falsified
anumber
to remit to the shop. To avoid detection, Mark the shops logbook to make it r
of customers in the shop. Whata
appear

h
that the vulcanizers attended to a lesser
B crime or
crimes are committed, if any?
C s
etook the P200.00
ANSWER: Mark committed the crime of Qualified Theft because he l
b or intimidation.
R o
belonging to his employer, with intent to gain, but without using violence
The crime is qualified because the same was committed with grave abuse of confidence. As
n
a manager of the vulcanizing shop, Mark was entrusted was with money. His employer
a a r
h Puig, et al., G.R. Nos. 173654-765, B
reposed trust on him. Mark gravely abused such trust when he pocketed the money that he

No. 193479, October 19, 2011 and Anitas


is supposed to remit to his employer. (People v. Teresita
August 28, 2008, People v. Bernard Mirto, G.R.C
l e
b
Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012)

o
because he falsified the logbook by making untruthful statements therein.R
Mark also committed the crime of Falsification of private document by a private individual

n The crime of
a to conceal
falsification cannot be complexed with Qualified Theft because the falsification was not a

C h
necessary means to commit estafa; rather, the falsification was intended
Theft already committed. (Anna Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012)
the

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

19. Bimbo and Carla are married. During the existence of said marriage, Bimbo married
Weng. Bimbo and Weng thereafter lived together as husband and wife. Is Bimbo liable for
Bigamy and for Concubinage at the same time?

ANSWER: Yes, Bimbo is liable for Bigamy because he entered marriage with Weng during

r
the existence of his marriage with Carla. Bimbo is likewise liable for concubinage because

B a
he cohabited with Weng who is not his wife. These two are distinct offenses. The
celebration of the second marriage, while the first still existing, characterizes the crime of
s
bigamy; on the other hand, mere cohabitation by the husband with a woman who is not his
e
b l
wife characterizes the crime of concubinage. The first is an offense against civil status
which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second, is an offense against

R o
chastity and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. (People v.
Rodolfo Schneckenburger, G.R. No. L-48183, November 10, 1941)

an B ar
20. While on board a ferry boat traversing Pasig River, Tantan took the cellular phone of

Ch s
Helen, a co-passenger, with intent to gain and without the latters consent. Is X guilty of
e
Piracy? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
l under P.D. 532. Under P.D. 532, the taking of
b
Rtoopersons
ANSWER: Tantan is not guilty of Piracy
personal property of a passenger by a fellow passenger must be effected by means of

a n
violence against or intimidation
r is passenger in
or by means of force upon things. Tantan is not
a
guilty of piracy under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code because Tantan
h
the vessel. The offender under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code B vessel.
must be an outsider
C
he must not be a member of its complement nor a
e
passengersof the

Tantan committed the crime of Theft because he took b lthe cellular phone of Helen with
intent to gain without using force or intimidation.o
R
a n a r
h B
C e s
b l
R o
a n a r
B
Ch e s
b l
R o
a n
C h

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen