Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41

Rape

Sixteen year old Aliswan prodded Amethyst, his girlfriend, to remove


her clothing while they were secretly together in her bedroom late one
evening. Failing to get a positive response from her, he forcibly undressed
her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the household
who did not know of his presence inside her room, she resisted
him with minimal strength, but she was really sobbing in a muffled
manner. He then undressed himself while blocking- the door. Yet, the
image of a hapless and sobbing Amethyst soon brought him to his
senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did not notice in
his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting
alone on a sofa in the sala, saw him leave his daughter's room naked.
Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan spotted Allesso,
Amethyst's former suitor. Knowing how Allesso had aggressively pursued
Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso. Aliswan immediately
went into hiding afterwards.
Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an
enraged Amante wanted to teach Aliswan a lesson he would never
forget. Amante set out the next day to look for Aliswan in his school.
There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like Aliswan.
Amante immediately rushed and knocked the young man unconscious
on the pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared tarpaulin
reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN. Everyone else in the school
was shocked upon witnessing what had just transpired, unable to believe
that the timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan's identical twin brother, had
committed rape.’17 -Q2
(a) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with
homicide was brought against Aliswan in the Prosecutor's
Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the
Investigating Prosecutor recommended the filing of two
separate informations - one for attempted rape and the
other for homicide. Do you agree with the recommendation?
Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER
I do not agree with the recommendation for the filing or attempted
rape. Intent to have sexual Intercourse is an essential element of
attempted rape. In other words, intent to lie with the victim must
be ~loser. However, this intent is not established for failure to
show that Aliswan had done acts to have sex with Amethyst (Cruz
v.・ People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08,2014, Bersamin); or that
Aliswan had actually commenced to force his penis into the victim's
sexual organ (People v.・ Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December
11, 2013). Moreover, he spontaneously desisted from committing
further lascivious acts after undressing Amethyst which is a
defense in attempted rape. Undressing the victim with lewd design
merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness (People v. Sanico,
G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).

(b) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases
should be dismissed because he was entitled to the
exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct?
Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Since Aliswao 's age is above 15 but below 18, being the
brother of 16 year old Aliswan, the exempting circumstance of
minority shall be appreciated in his favor unless it is shown that
be acted with discernment. The cases are not dismissible since
the prosecution mUst be first given opportunity to present evidence
to establish that Aliswan acted with discernment.

(c) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you
about filing the proper criminal complaint against Amante. What
crimes, if any, will you charge Amante with? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) In People v. Lasala (G.R. No. L-12141, January 30,
1962) which is similar to this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that the crime committed is Less Serious
Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the Revised
Penal Code as the medical attendance is for a period
of ten (10) days only.
Considering, however, that the Less Serious Physical Injuries was
inflicted with manifest intent to insult or offend the offended party
or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, there
shall be an added penalty of the fine not exceeding P500 pesos
(Art. 265, par. 2)

(d) Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante


contended that he had incurred no criminal liability for
lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim
being Aliswan, not Alisto. What is this defense of
Amante, and explain if the same will prosper? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(e) The defense raised by Amante is error in personae.
This defense is not proper because of Article 4 of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a person
committing a felony is liable criminally although
the wrongful act done be different from the
unlawful intent. Thus, under this provision, Amante
is liable for the wrongful act done, and that is child
abuse against Alisto, although it differs from the
wrongful act intended, and that is abusing Aliswan.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON

A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of


X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to
the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered
the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand
grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the
four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or
injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime?
'00 – Q17c
YES. “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” are liable for destructive arson because
of the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive, a hand
grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the
act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised
Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of
Intod v. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52 [1992]), where it was ruled
that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand
grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more serious
crime though different from what was intended.

With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were
staying. F and D died as a consequence. What is the proper
charge against GGG? ’12 - Q56
a) GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder.
b) GGG should be charged with arson.
c) GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with
double murder.
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who
may ne in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is only murder. When the
Revised Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is
murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to
that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder
qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is
an inherent means to commit the former (People vs. Baluntong, G.R.
No. 18206, March 15, 2015; People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485,
June 27, 1994). A single act of burning the house of victims with the
main objective of killing them resulting in their deaths resulted in the
complex crime of double murder committed by means of fire (People
vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008).

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They


learned that Jose won P500,000 in the lotto, and decided to rob
him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s
house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously
gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having
his dinner. Henry found the P500,000 and took it. Henry then took
a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal
the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200
meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods
recovered the P500,000.
Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with
homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling,
and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was
not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed
the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice.
Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit
robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider
the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery
with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering that
he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000. He further alleged
that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance;
dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide;
and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was
lighted at the time he was killed.
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
'05 – Q7
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as
an accomplice is without merit and therefore should be denied. There
was conspiracy to commit the robbery between him and Henry. There
being a conspiracy to commit robbery, the act of one is the act of all.
Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be
liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim’s house, could not
have known what Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose’s) house,
so much so that he was not in a position to stop the same. Mario,
therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what Henry did
inside Jose’s house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective
test to his participation as co-conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s
criminal liability should be aggravated by night time but not by dwelling
or arson.
Henry’s motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise without
merit and should be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with
homicide. His contention that he is only liable for attempted robbery
with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of the
P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control
of the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a
robbery, becomes a component of the robbery, giving rise to the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone committed
the killing of Jose, a fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone should
be convicted of said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in robbery
with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is aggravating
in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of persons.
The burning of the house or arson accompanying is only a component
of the robbery under Article 294(1), RPC. Such burning does
not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide.
Night time is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the
house of Jose was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the
offense.

Alternative Answer:
Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with
homicide because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery.
As a conspirator in said crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an
accomplice only. His motion for reconsideration claiming that he should
be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his contention that he
should be liable as an accomplice only.
On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be
denied for lack of merit. His contention that his liability should only be
for attempted robbery with homicide because they did not benefit from
the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the crime is consummated the
moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the offender was
not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.
The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating to the offender
who entered the dwelling of the offended party. Night time is not aggravating
because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning of the
victim’s house is not a separate crime

Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia


with considerable savings. Knowing him to be "loaded", his
friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a
rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he
was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he
decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered several
bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to
drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to death.
Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of
his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away
but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following
day police investigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the
resort. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor
charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? '95 – Q12
NO, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and
arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation,
as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit
the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry
employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and
Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell
asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought
of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and
not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was
committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended
party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry became liable
for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary
for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he committed.
The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's
crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no
such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of
arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.

Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One evening, during a drinking


spree at his house, Senio told his friends what he intended to
do and even showed them the gasoline in cans that he would use
for the purpose. Carlo, a common friend of Senio and Bal, was
present at the drinking spree. He was still sober when Senio told
them his plans. Before going home, Carlo warned Bal that Senio
would burn his house and had already bought gasoline that
would be used for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the
police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and
proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it
was at that point when he was caught by the police. What crime
did Senio commit, if any? Explain. (3%) ’15-Q20
ANSWER: Senio is liable for attempted arson. He manifested before
his intention to burn the house of Bal to his friends. He then performed
the act of pouring gasoline around the walls of the house to execute
his criminal design to commit arson. This is not just a preparatory act,
because it already ceased to be equivocal and revealed a clear intention
to burn the house. In sum, he already commenced the commission
of the crime of arson directly by overt acts but he did not perform all
acts to execute his criminal design to commit arson by setting the
house on fire due to a cause other than his spontaneous desistance,
and that is, having been caught by the police.

With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the
two-storey residential house of his employer, mostly made of
wooden materials. The blaze spread and gutted down seven
neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire, six (6) persons
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA? ’12 - Q74
a) AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple
homicide.
b) AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c) AAA committed simple arson.
d) AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) AAA committed simple arson.
If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or
edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the
crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed (People
vs. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182601, March 15, 2010l People vs. Cedenio,
G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994).

Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by
setting Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami
commit? ’11 – Q37
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime

CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for
failing in his college courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suitcase
of FEL and burned it together with all its contents. '04 – Q6
1. What crime was committed by CD? '04 – Q6-1
The crime committed by CD is arson under P.D. No. 1613 (the
new Arson Law) which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to
the property of another (Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613).
2. Is CD criminally liable? '04 – Q6-2
CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL 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 332, RPC). The provision
(Article 323) of the Code to the effect that burning property of
small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been
repealed by P.D. No. 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider
burning property of small value as malicious mischief.
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and

Mario Cortez. Later that evening, at about 11 PM, Eddie passed by


the house of Mario carrying a plastic bag containing gasoline,
threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside the house
watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house
started blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith,
Mario poured water on the burning portion of the house.
Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under control before
any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames have
extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was burned. Discuss
Eddie's liability. '00 – Q18c
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It
is destructive arson because fire was resorted to in destroying the
house of Mario which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is
consummated because the house was in fact already burned although
not totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises be totally
burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises
suffer destruction by burning.

Tata owns a 3-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco,


Manila. She wanted to construct a new building but had no money
to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3
million. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consideration,
to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to
its total loss. '94 – Q6
1. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi-commit? '94 –
Q6-1
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson
because they collectively caused the destruction of property by means
of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger the life or
property of others (Article 320, par. 5, RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
7659).

2. What is their respective criminal liability? '94 – Q6-2


Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced
Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
arson which the latter would not have committed were it not for such
reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation (Article
17, paragraphs 1 and 2, RPC).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime could only be malicious mischief as the problem does not
mention that he is carrying a match or a lighter. It was not shown that
Senio was about to light a match or ignite a lighter to set the house on
fire.

WIRE TAPPING

XX. From an extension line, Ricardo overheard a telephone conversation between Julito and Atty. Hipolito. The latter (Atty. Hipolito) was asking money
from Julito in exchange for dropping the extortion charge filed against Julito. Ricardo was charged of violating the Anti-Wire Tapping Act or R.A. 4200.
Under these facts, was there a violation as charged? (1%)
(A) Yes, because the conversation was private in nature.
(B) Yes, because the conversation was overheard without the consent of the parties, Julito and Atty. Hipolito.
(C) No, because what is punishable is intentional listening to a conversation through a wire.
(D) No, because a telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot
be considered as wire tapping.
(E) None of the above.
[Note: there are two choice marked as (D) in the original Supreme Court Bar Examination Questionnaire.] SUGGESTED ANSWER: (D) No, because a
telephone extension line is not the device or arrangement contemplated by the law and the use of an extension line cannot be considered as
wire tapping (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809, October 16, 1986).

Libel
(11) Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y, employing fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed a criminal
action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil complaint for damages was baseless?
(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged. (B) No, since malice is not evident. (C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of
fraud was baseless. (D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.

(13) X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source
from Y's own office who fed him the information. Did X commit libel? (A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and
reasonable care. (B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest. (C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged
communication. (D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.

(27) X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift from one of the
parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the case? (A) No, since malice is self-evident
in the letter. (B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge who has a duty to act on what it states. (C) No, since
malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations. (D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.

(38) Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with libel, can Sam present
proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk? (A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon. (C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon. (D) Yes, since truth
can be a valid defense in libel.

A is the president of the corporate publisher, of the daily tabloid,


Bulgar; B is the managing editor;, and C is the author/writer. In
his column. Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the
BIR-RDO Manila as follows:
"Itong si Xay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste
Tshirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya
ay si A tty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at
ang para sa RP ay 10% long. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO
niya, Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bundat
na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot. "

A, B and C were charged with libel before the R TC of Manila.


The three (3) defendants argued that the article is within the ambit
of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in
law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the acts of
public officials which are related to the discharge of their official
duties do not constitute libel.
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable
for the crime? Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q16
Yes. The crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on acts of public
officers related to the discharge of their duties is a qualified privileged
communication, hence, the accused can still be held liable for libel if
actual malice is shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be established
by showing that comment was made with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Guingguing
v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, 30 September
2005). Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing
their profession, even when writing about public figures or matters
of public interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the
Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be considered as ’’fair” and
’’true” since he did not do research before making his allegations, and
it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles
are not ’’fair and true reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has
written and published the subject articles with reckless disregard of
whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No.
161032,16 September 2008). A, president of the publishing company,
B, managing editor, and C, writer of the defamatory articles, are all
liable for libel. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the publisher,
and editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamations
contained therein to the same extent. The law makes the publisher
and editor liable for libel as if they were the author (Tulfo v. People,
supra).
In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi wrote an unflattering
article about Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation
from his wife. The article portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband
and caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo
charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi countered that she
did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of a
public figure so that even his personal life has become a legitimate
subject of public interest and comment.
Is Gigi correct? (7%) ’13-Q4
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Gigi is not correct. Although wider latitude
is given to defamatory utterances against public figures in relation
to matters of public interest involving them, such defamatory utterances
do not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally protected
speech. If the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a
public figure’s work, the same may give rise to criminal liability (Fermin
v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008).
Any attack upon the private character of the public figure on matters
which are not related to their works may constitute libel under Art. 355
(Saxon v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, March 29,1996).
Here, Gigi was attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and
not his public life as a famous singer.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Gigi is correct. Pablo, a famous singer,
attained the status of a public figure so that even his personal life that
has something to do with his character and integrity became legitimate
public interest. Here, Pablo was portrayed as an abusive husband and
caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts. The article impinges
on the moral fiber and qualifications of Pablo as a famous
singer entitled to respect as a public figure. Subject only to the requisite
that the author has knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard
of the truth, the article, thus, constituted a qualified privileged
communication protected by the freedom of expression. Gigi cannot be
convicted absent proof of actual malice.

Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y,


employing fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed
a criminal action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud
on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil complaint
for damages was baseless? ’11 – Q11
(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.
(B) No, since malice is not evident.
(C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of fraud was baseless.
(D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.

X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official,


as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X
relied on a source from Y's own office who fed him the information.
Did X commit libel? ’11 – Q13
(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith
and reasonable care.
(B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest.
(C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged communication.
(D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the
press.

X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing


to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift
from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused
X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the
case? ’11 – Q27
(A) No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.
(B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding
judge who has a duty to act on what it states.
(C) No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations.
(D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.

Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves
obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with
libel, can Sam present proof that Judge Odon indeed loves obscene
magazines and keeps these in his desk? ’11 – Q38
(A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon.
(C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon.
(D) Yes, since truth can be a valid defense in libel.

Angelina maintains a website where visitors can give their comments


on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive
boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag
shown in Angelina’s website is a fake and that Angelina is known
to sell counterfeit items. What case can be filed against Bettina?
’10 – Q11
I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina
because the imputation made by Bettina is libellous. Whether the imputation
of a defect, status, or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly
tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a particular
person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to
be malicious and this penalized as libel under Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement
against the goods sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of
the law on Unfair Competition (Republic Act No. 8293.)

The statement that “In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense”
is FALSE. ’09 – Q11d
Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible
in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against
the public officer with respect to material facts related to the discharge
of their official duties, and moreover, must have been published with
good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, “truth” as a defense, on
its own, is not enough.

In an interview aired on television, Cindy uttered defamatory


statements against Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman.
What crime or crimes did Cindy commit? '05 – Q15
Cindy committed libel. Defamation made in a television program
is penalized as libel under Article 355 of the RPC. Television falls under
“similar means” in the enumeration as “radio, phonograph, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means” in said
Article (People v. Casten, C.A. G.R. No. 07924 – CR., 13 December
1974.)

During a seminar workshop attended by government employees


from the BOC and the BIR, A, the speaker, in the course of his
lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in
said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following
morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who
attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint
against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the
information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no
crime was committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve
the motion? '03 – Q11
I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons
dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor
such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even
by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed.
Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating
an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a
seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the
statement is not actionable as defamatory

A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive


Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter submitted
to the Commission on Appointments (COA) for confirmation.
While the COA was considering the nomination, a group of concerned
citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a fullpage
statement objecting to A's appointment They alleged that A
was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that
he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties
transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was
unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result
of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the COA.
The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for
libel and damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will
you decide the case? '02 – Q17
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers involved,
from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation
out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice.
Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a
Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the
public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest
of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation
was made; hence, bereft of malice.

If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the


newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute
libel? '02 – Q17b
YES, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article
355 of the RPC punishes libel committed by means, among others, of
radio broadcast, inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public
and may be defamatory.

What is LIBEL and what pertinence has malice in law and malice
in fact in incurring criminal liability therefor. ’85 – Q20
Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or a juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation.
When the imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not prove
malice. The law presumes that defamation is malicious. This is malice
in law.
In a conditionally privileged communication, malice is not presumed.
The prosecution must prove malice in fact for the conviction of
the accused of libel involving qualifiedly privileged communication. This
means that the accused was prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
not in response to the performance of a duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed. Malice in fact is inconsistent with
good motives and justifiable ends.

Robbery
During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old
public utility vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and
Sencio, each armed with guns, hailed several MMDA buses then providing
free transport to the stranded public to stop them from plying
their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses without
allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the
bus to Tanay, Rizal.
Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio
forcibly divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They
ordered the passengers to leave thereafter. Then, they burned the bus.
When a tanod of the barangay of the area came around to Intervene,
Pater fired at him, instantly killing him.
After Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio were arrested, the police authorities
recommended them to be charged with the following crimes, to wit:
(1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct assault with homicide; (4) kidnapping;
and (5) arson.
State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the police authorities
on the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio.
(10%) ’17 – Q9
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Because Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio commandeered
the bus for purpose of robbing the passengers, the crime committed
is robbery (People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10, 1992).
Since the taking of the victims was merely to commit robbery and
not to transport them to another place for purpose of detention,
the crime committed was not kidnapping but robbery (People v.
Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993; Criminal Law Conspectus
by Florenz Regalado). Intent to deprive liberty is not present
since the deprivation of liberty is just incidental to the commission
of robbery.
Since death results by reason or on occasion of robbery, the
crime committed is a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. This composite crime is committed even though the
victim of homicide is a responding Barangay Tanod (People v.
Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967). Even though only Pater
killed the Tanod, Percy, Pablo, and Sencio are also liable for robbery
with homicide since they failed to attempt to prevent the
same (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008;
People v. Castro, G.R. No: 187073, March 14, 2012). Since the
crime committed is robbery with homicide, all other felonies such
u arson and direct assault committed by reason or on occasion of
robbery shall be integrated into the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5,
2016, en bane; People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November IS,
2010; People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v.
Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 03, 2013). Arson shall not be considered
as a separate crime but as a mere aggravating circumstance
of commission of the felony by means of fire (U.S. v. Bulfa, G.R.
No. 8468, August 20, 1913).
The elements of carnapping are: (a) the taking of the
motor vehicle which belongs to another; (b) the taking is without
consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons or by using force upon things; and (c) the taking
is done with intent to gain (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004).
In this case, the accused unlawfully took an MMDA bus
without tbe consent of its owner, which gives rise to ・the presumption
of their intent to gain.
Considering that all elements of carnapping are present, the accused
shall be liable therefor.
Since carnapping is punishable under a special law, it
shall be considered as a crime separate from robbery with homicide
(People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009;
People c. Napalit, G.R. Nos. 142919/143876, February 4, 2003;
People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913, September 2, 2015; People
v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008; People v. Roxas, G.R.
No. 172604, August 17, 2010).

Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bo!os, robbed the
house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing.
While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio
noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He
chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from
the house, but before bringing her back, raped her.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio
commit? Explain. (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(a)
Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since
he raped the daughter of Antonio on occasion or by reason of robbery.
Even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is
still robbery with rape since what is important is the direct connection
between the two crimes (People v. Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, 24
December 1948). Rape was not separate by distance and time from
the robbery.
Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable for robbery by band. There is
band in this case since more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. Under Article 296 of the Revised Penal
Code, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a
robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same, The assault mentioned in Article 296 includes rape
(People v. Hamiana, G.R. Nos. L-3491-94, 30 May 1971). They are not
liable, however, for rape under Article 296 since they were not present
when the victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to prevent
the same. They are only liable for robbery by band (People v.
Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, 8 June 2011).
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification,
killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes,
if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(b)
They are liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are
killed. It is also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Since homicides
are committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes
shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
(People v. Diu, GR No. 201449, 3 April 2011)
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. Dat 10 o’clock in the
evening, with Cas the driver of the tricycle which they would use
in going to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and Aand Bas the ones
who would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As
planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B entered
the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the
master’s bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could
see, while Bentered another room. While inside the room, B saw a
male person and immediately Bbrought out his gun but he accidentally
pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window,
hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened
by the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen
arrived. Aand B panicked and got hold of a young boy and
shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the house
that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse.
Aand B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to
bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they
would release the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the
meantime, Cwas arrested by the policemen while he was about to
flee, while Aand B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit, and what modifying circumstances
attended the commission of the crime/s? ‘14- Q9
A: A, B and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under
paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It is immaterial
that the death of a person occurred by mere accident. As long as
homicide is produced by eason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
crime is robbery with homicide as it is oly the result, without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons intervening
in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.
They are not liable for the detention of the boy as illegal
detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery. The modifying circumstance
of dwelling attended the commissio of the crime. The settled
rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide.

A, in a public place, fired his gun at B with the intention of killing


B, but the gun did not fire because the bullet is a dud. The crime
is: ‘14-Q11
(A) attempted homicide
(B) grave threat
(C) impossible crime
(D) alarm and scandal

A, B and C, all seventeen (17) years of age, waited for nighttime to


avoid detection and to facilitate the implementation of their plan
to rob G. They entered the room of G through a window. Upon
instruction of A, G opened her vault while 8 was poking a knife at
her. Acting as lookout, C had already opened the main door of the
house when the helper was awakened by the pleading of G to A
and B to just take the money from the vault without harming her.
When the helper shouted for help upon seeing G with A and B
inside the room, 8 stabbed G and ran towards the door, leaving
the house with C. A also left the house after taking the money of G
from the vault. G was brought to the hospital where she died as a
result of the wound inflicted by B. Under the given facts, are A, B
and C exempt from criminal liability? If not, what is the proper
charge against them or any of them? ’12 – Q24
a) A, B and C, being under eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, are exempt from criminal liability
and should be merely subjected to intervention program for child in
conflict with the law.
b) There being no indication of having acted with discernment,
A, B and C are exempt from criminal liability, subject to appropriate
programs in consultation with the person having custody over the child
in conflict with the taw or the local social welfare and development
officer.
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A,
B and C are not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged
with the complex crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic
suspension of sentence upon finding of guilt.
d) Under the given facts, A, 8 and C are not exempt from criminal
liability because they conspired to commit robbery for which they
should be collectively charged as principals, and in addition, B should
be separately charged with homicide for the death of G, subject to
diversion programs for children over 15 and under 18 who acted with
discernment.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A, B and C
are not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged with the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic suspension
of sentence upon finding of guilt.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he / she has acted with
discernment (Section 6 of RA No. 9344). The discernment 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 the circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
component and behavior of said minor (People vs. Doqueña, G.R. No.
46539, September 27, 1939). “A”, “B” and “C” are not exempt from
criminal liability since the manner they committed the crime indicates
discernment.
Although the original plan may have been to simply robbed the victim,
the conspirators are equally liable as co-principals for all the planned
or unanticipated consequences of their criminal design (People vs.
Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004). Whenever the commission of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven, all those
who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they
did not take part in the killing (People v. Sumalinog, G.R. No. 128387,
February 5, 2004) unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 14756, April 4, 2003).
“A”, “B” and “C” should be charged with robbery with homicide despite
they merely plan to rob the victim and only “B” stabbed “G”.

Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing


items of jewelry in it. She found, however, that the jewelry were in
a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the chest out of the
shop. What crime did she commit? ’11 – Q1
(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
(B) Theft
(C) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.
(D) Qualified theft

A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the


house while C remained outside as lookout. After getting the
cash, A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any
evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit?
’11 – Q26
(A) Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the
robbery.
(B) Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.
(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
(D) Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.

The crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is


mitigated when the offenders: ’11 – Q33
(A) entered the house using false keys.
(B) although armed did not fire their weapons.
(C) entered through a window without breaking it.
(D) although armed took property valued at only P200.

Christopher, John, Richard and Luke are fraternity brothers. To


protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry gun wherever
they go. One night after attending a party, they boarded a
taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter’s earnings.
’10 – Q23
1. What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the
elements of the crime. ’10 – Q23-1
The crime committed is robbery in a band since there were four
(4) offenders acting in concert in committing the robbery and all the
four were armed.
The elements of this crime are:
1. Unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another
(the earnings of the taxi-driver);
2. Intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings which belong to
the taxi-driver);
3. Violence against or intimidation of person or force upon
things was employed in the taking; and
4. There were more than three (3) armed malefactors taking
part in the commission of the robbery (Article 296 in relation
to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.)
2. Would your answer be the same if they killed the driver?
’10 – Q23-2
NO. The answer would not be the same.
The crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity
brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only
as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were
unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating circumstance
as provided for by Republic Act No. 8294 (People v.
Bolinget, 418 SCRA 85, [2003].)

The statement that “A person who, on the occasion of a robbery,


kills a bystander by accident, is liable for two separate crimes:
robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” is
FALSE. ’09 – Q1d
Only one crime of robbery with homicide is constituted because
the Revised Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one indivisible
offense when a killing; whether intentional or accidental, was committed
by reason or on the occasion of a robbery (Article 294(1), RPC;
People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 [1938].)

While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo were robbing a


bank, policemen arrived. A fire-fight ensued between the robbers
and the responding policemen, and one of the policemen was
killed. ’09 – Q8
1. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? ’09 –
Q8-1
The crimes committed are Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1),
RPC), a single indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted
Homicide, a complex crime (Articles 48, 148 and 249, RPC;
People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 [1934].)
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding
policemen was killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with
Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the offenders’
firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of persons
in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance
(People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19,
2000.)
2. Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the responding
policemen, what charges can be filed against
Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo? ’09 – Q8-2
The crime of which Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo can be charged
is Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1), RPC) because the killing
resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is of no moment
that the person killed is one of the robbers. A killing by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate or accidental, will be
a component of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, a single indivisible
offense, as long as it is intimately connected to the robbery.
3. Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the policemen
arrived, Braulio shot and killed Alfredo following
a heated disagreement on who should carry the
money bags, what would be the criminal liability of
Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo? ’09 – Q8-3
Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1),
RPC) for killing Alfredo, since the killing was by reason of the robbery.
Ciriaco and Domingo having conspired only in the commission of
the robbery, should incur liability only for the crime conspired upon –
the robbery, unless they were with Braulio during the killing and could
have prevented the same but they did not, in which case they shall
also be liable for Robbery with Homicide.
It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers and
he was killed during the robbery (People v. Barot, 89 SCRA 16 [1979].)

Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia
for five years. One night, Nestor and Julia were out having dinner,
Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bedroom
with the use of a false key. They found Julia’s jewelry box in
one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia’s
jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the
box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with
Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala,
pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand
over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just
arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the masters’ bedroom
with the box. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lucas and
Pedro commit? ’08 – Q13
Lucas and Pedro committed Robbery in an Inhabited House (Article
299, RPC) for gaining entry into the house by means of a false key.
Another Alternative Answer:
Lucas and Pedro may also be charged with qualified theft because
Lucas abused the trust and confidence of Nestor and Julia,
which gave him access to the house.
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a
bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to
get any money from the vault because the same was protected by
a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the
customers’ cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they
dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled
the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the
latter’s death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and
Jonathan commit? ’07 – Q3
Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan
committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because
that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed by
them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the
bank’s customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur
liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do
with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian,
aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about such death.
Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall
be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
because it was committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.
Alternative Answer:
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide,
because there was conspiracy among them to commit the robbery andthe death of the pedestrian was caused on the occasion of the robbery.
Even though the death was accidental, it is enough that such death
was caused by any of its robbers’ felonious act and on the occasion of
the commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539
[1984].)

Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They


learned that Jose won P500,000 in the lotto, and decided to rob
him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s
house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously
gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having
his dinner. Henry found the P500,000 and took it. Henry then took
a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal
the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200
meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods
recovered the P500,000.
Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with
homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling,
and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was
not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed
the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accomplice.
Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit
robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider
the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery
with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering that
he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000. He further alleged
that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance;
dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide;
and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was
lighted at the time he was killed.
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
'05 – Q7
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as
an accomplice is without merit and therefore should be denied. There
was conspiracy to commit the robbery between him and Henry. There
being a conspiracy to commit robbery, the act of one is the act of all.
Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be
liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim’s house, could not
have known what Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose’s) house,
so much so that he was not in a position to stop the same. Mario,
therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what Henry did
inside Jose’s house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective
test to his participation as co-conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s
criminal liability should be aggravated by night time but not by dwelling
or arson.
Henry’s motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise without
merit and should be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with
homicide. His contention that he is only liable for attempted robbery
with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of the
P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control
of the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a
robbery, becomes a component of the robbery, giving rise to the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone committed
the killing of Jose, a fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone should
be convicted of said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in robbery
with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is aggravating
in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of persons.
The burning of the house or arson accompanying is only a component
of the robbery under Article 294(1), RPC. Such burning does
not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide.
Night time is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the
house of Jose was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the
offense.
Alternative Answer:
Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with
homicide because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery.
As a conspirator in said crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an
accomplice only. His motion for reconsideration claiming that he should
be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his contention that he
should be liable as an accomplice only.
On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be
denied for lack of merit. His contention that his liability should only be
for attempted robbery with homicide because they did not benefit from
the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the crime is consummated the
moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the offender was
not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.
The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating to the offender
who entered the dwelling of the offended party. Night time is not aggravating
because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning of the
victim’s house is not a separate crime of arson but only a component of
the robbery under Article 294, RPC.
Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered
her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After
taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave,
XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB
and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to
prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and
ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? '04 – Q9b
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of
Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Article 294(1) of
the RPC.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit
robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were
present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator.
Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC
thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator
XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, 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
just a component.
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting
to $10,000 from his daughter working in the United States. With
the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at
midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and
began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely
receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out
from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the
knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A
turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the
pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for.
A took the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were
committed? '03 – Q9
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This
is so because A's primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and
in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery
and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent
being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery,
though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime
of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense
A entered the house of another without employing force or violence
upon things. He was seen by a maid who wanted to scream
but was prevented from doing so because A threatened her with a
gun. A then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of
theft or of robbery? '02 – Q14a
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on
the maid before the taking of the money and other valuables. It is the
intimidation of person relative to the taking that qualifies the crime as
robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-employment of force upon
things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by employing
force upon things but also by employing violence against or
intimidation of persons.

A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a


barangay Kagawad and known to be a bully, while B is reputed to
be gay but noted for his industry and economic savvy which allowed
him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including registered
and unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting B's
riches and relying on his political influence, A decided to harass
and intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands, considering
that the latter was single and living alone. One night, A
broke into B's house, forced him to bring out some titles and after
picking out a title covering 200 square meters in their barangay,
compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to
him for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A
carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of B, who signed the deed
out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B summoned
enough courage and had A arrested and charged in court
after preliminary investigation. What charge or charges should be
filed against A? '01 – Q14
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the RPC should be
filed against A. Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to
defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him
to sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall be
held guilty of robbery.
The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended
to intimidate B and thus, used in the commission of the robbery. If it
could be established that A had no license or permit to possess and
carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating circumstance
to the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
Alternative Answer:
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to
sign, had not attained the character of a "public" instrument or document,
A should be charged for the crime of Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling under Article 280 of the RPC for having intruded into B’s
house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same
Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.

A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his


friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a
bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common
key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends. '00 – Q11
1. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? '00 – Q11-1
A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because
the coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
and broken outside of their home (Article 299 (b) (2), RPC).
2. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of
the RPC for being a brother of B? '00 – Q11-2
NO, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Article 332 because
said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief.
Here, the crime committed is robbery.

Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of


things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their original
plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he
saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim
testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B
watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop
the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? '99 –
Q17
YES, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery
with rape under Article 294(1). Although the conspiracy of A and B
was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed
which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of
robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to
prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he
could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component
of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape.

Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by
different families located inside a compound enclosed by a 6-feet
high hollow block fence. How many robberies did the five commit?
'96 – Q8(2)
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law
because when they entered the compound, they were impelled only by
a single indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as they were
not aware that there were five families inside said compound, considering
that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence.
The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the
same time constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal
impulse.

Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia


with considerable savings. Knowing him to be "loaded", his
friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a
rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he
was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he
decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered several
bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to
drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to death.
Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of
his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away
but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following
day police investigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the
resort. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor
charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? '95 – Q12
NO, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and
arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation,
as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit
the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry
employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and
Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell
asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought
of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and
not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was
committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended
party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry became liable
for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary
for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he committed.
The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's
crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no
such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of
arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007


A bus full of children from the province went to
Manila to have an excursion. Before the children
were able to alight from the bus, here comes X in full
battle gear, with all kinds of guns and ammunitions
and at gunpoint, he told the conductor to open the
bus. X hostaged the children. Thereafter, X posted
cartolinas on the glass windows of the bus. These
cartolinas contained his demands to the government.
Later after 12 hours of negotiation, X gave in and so X
was arrested and was charged based on a valid
complaint with violation of R.A. 9372. He was
however acquitted. Can the State still prosecute X for
the crime of serious illegal detention and for
violation of R.A. 10591 for having in his possession
various unlicensed firearms?
No. Because under Sec 49 of R.A. 9372, it is provided that
when a person has been prosecuted under a provision of
R.A. 9372, upon a valid complaint or information or other
formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain
a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the
case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense
or felony which is necessarily included in the offense
charged under R.A.9372.

HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007


(R.A. No. 9372)
Q: What if there is a bus and the bus is parked at Luneta Park and it was full of children. And here comes X, X had different kinds of explosive all over his
body. And at gunpoint, entered the said bus and told the children to keep quiet. Thereafter, there is a cartolina on the glass window of the said bus.
Written on the cartolina were his demands to the government. His demands were first, that his brother, a member of NPA and who is being incarcerated
by the military be released and his second demand, was that funds be transferred to his account. So these were the demands made by X against the
government. Because of this, the parents of the children arrived, the media arrived, all the cabinet secretaries arrived. Only the president did not arrive.
So everybody was there. They were afraid that the children might die so there was chaos in the entire Philippines. It took the members of the military
and police 12 hours to subdue X. So after 12 hours, they were able to arrest X. What crime, if any, may be filed against X?
A: X will be charged of the crime of terrorism under RA 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007. Under Section 3 of Ra 9372, terrorism is committed
when the offender commits any of the following acts punishable under the RPC:
a. Piracy
b. Rebellion
c. Coup d’Etat
d. Murder
e. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
f. Crimes involving Destruction

If the offender commits any of these acts punishable under the RPC or any of the following acts punishable under special penal laws:

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), a) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
b) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
c) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
d) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
e) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
f) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

or under
If the offender commits any of these crimes under the RPC and any of the crimes under special penal laws, thereby sowing and creating a condition
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand, he is liable of
terrorism and the penalty is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. So it is the maximum penalty
of 40 years. He has to serve it totally. Even if he has already served the minimum, he cannot be given the benefit of parole under the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. So it is necessary that he must commit any of these predicate crimes and after committing these predicate crimes, where lies the
difference? Because his act that sowed and created fear and panic among the populace coupled with an unlawful demand against the government.
Q: So let us say that X was charged with terrorism based on a valid complaint or information a case of terrorism was filed against him before the RTC.
However, after trial on the merits, the judge acquitted him. According to the judge, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt therefore acquittal for reasonable doubt. Since he is acquitted of terrorism under RA 9372, can he still be prosecuted for his predicate
crime of kidnapping and illegal detention because he detained the children for more than 12 hours? Can he still be prosecuted for Illegal and Unlawful
Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives because he was full of firearms and ammunitions and explosives?
A: No more.
Because of Section 49 of RA 9372. Under Section 49 of RA 9372, whenever a person has been charged of terrorism, or any act punishable under RA
9372, based on the valid complaint or information, sufficient information and substance to bring about and thereafter he is acquitted or the case is
dismissed, he can no longer be subsequently prosecuted for any other felony or offense necessarily included in the crime charged. The crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention is necessarily included in terrorism because it is one of the predicate crimes. Likewise, violation of PD 1866, as
amended Illegal and Unlawful Possession of Firearms is also necessarily included in terrorism because it is one of the predicated crimes in terrorism. Or
any of these predicated crimes, he can no longer be charged because they are necessarily included in terrorism. This is known as the ABSORPTION
PRINCIPLE in terrorism.
Q: But what if in the same problem, while X was waiting for his demands to be given by the government, he saw a girl and with lewd design, he touched
the private parts of the seven-year old girl. Therefore he committed a violation of RA 7610 the Anti-Child Abuse Law. He was acquitted of terrorism. Can
the state prosecute him for violation of RA 7610?
A: Yes, because it is not among the predicate crimes. It is not a crime necessarily included in the crime of terrorism.

RA 4200 – ANTI-WARTAPPING LAW


The following acts are punishable:
1.) It shall be unlawful for any person, without securing the consent of all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or
cable, or by using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record such private communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph, walkie talkie, tape recorder, or other similar devices.
2.) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of these private communications or
spoken words.
3.) Replaying these any tape record, wire record, disc record to another person.
4.) Communicating the contents of the said tape record, wire record or disc record, in writing or verbally to another person.
5.) Furnishing transcriptions of these tape record, wire record or disc record whether totally or partially to any other person.

What is foremost prohibited is the act of tapping, recording or intercepting any private communication or spoken word without the consent of all the
parties. Without being authorized by all the parties to the said private communication or spoken word.
Q: So what if A told B to come inside his room and when B entered the room, A started scolding B. In scolding B, A said scandalous remarks against B.
Unknown to A, B was tape recording the private conversation between them. Can B later use the said tape recording in order to file a case of defamation
or slander against A?
A: NO. Because the said act of tape recording without being authorized by all the parties to a private communication or spoken word is inadmissible in
any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative proceedings or investigation.
The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace officer is authorized by written order of the court to listen to, intercept or record any
communication in crimes involving treason, espionage, inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, piracy, mutiny, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition and kidnapping. Only in these instances and provided that the said peace officer is
authorized by a written order coming from the court may he be allowed to intercept, listen to or record the private communication or spoken word.
BAR: TELEPHONE EXTENSION
➢ As held by Gaanan v. People, the one listening, Y, is not liable for violation of RA 4200. The extension line of a telephone is not within the meaning of
a tape recording device and therefore, even if Y can overhear secretly the conversation, RA 4200 is not violated.

Murder/ homicide

On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000 to Shirley,


an orphan and a prostitute and bought her to a motel. He inserted
a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that
she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Shirley was brought to
the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused
by hemorrhage. ’05 – Q11
1. What crime or crimes did Jet commit? ’05 – Q11-1
Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the
death of Shirley, assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the
following question) since the sexual assault was committed without any
of the circumstances mentioned in Article 266-A(1) of the RPC as rape.
It appears that the offender and the offended party went to the hotel for
mutual sexual gratification.
2. If Shirley was a minor when she died, would your answer
be the same? ’05 – Q11-2
If Shirley was a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and
child abuse in violation of R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children
against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other
purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Shirley is not less
than twelve (12) years old. If Shirley was less than 12 years old then,
the crime committed by Matulis is Rape (through sexual assault) with
Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the RPC.

Other frauds

Q: What if the GAA had already been approved by the Congress and signed by the President, there was already a budget for the entire calendar year. In
this budget, the military was given a portion for the blankets. So there was 1000 blankets with 500K budget allocated. Upon the enactment of the same,
the head of the military asked the supply officer to canvass. Upon canvassing, he found that there were blankets that cost 500 pesos each. But the supply
officer connived with the supplier of the blankets and told him that instead of delivering blankets with premium quality costing 500 pesos, he should
deliver only inferior quality blankets costing 300 pesos each, anyway, the people in Mindanao would not know. So the poor quality blankets were
delivered. What crime is committed?

A: The crime committed is not fraud against public treasury but Other Frauds under Article 214. This is because there is an allocation in the GAA and as
such, the treasury can no longer be defrauded because such amount has long been allocated or earmarked for the purchase of the blankets. The fraud is
in the implementation of the budget therefore it amounted to Estafa. Other frauds is committed by any public officer, who, by taking advantage of his
official position would commit any of the acts of Estafa under Articles 315 – 318.

Estafa

BP22
Violation of right to privacy???

Attempted robbery
Q: A went to the house of B. A told B “this is a hold up and bring out the valuables”. Instead of bringing the valuables to A, B panicked and shouted. A
therefore shot B. B died. A also panicked and left the place without bringing his loot. What is/are the crime/s committed?
A: The crime committed by A is attempted robbery with homicide. This is also a special complex crime. Here robbery was attempted because he was
unable to take any of the property. The fact that A was able to announce hold-up and bring the valuables to him means that the original design is to
commit robbery. It was attempted because he was unable to take the property, and in the course of thereof, he killed the owner.
In order to amount to special complex crime, it is necessary that both the robbery and homicide must be consummated.