BY

Luis B. Reyes
(Iudfic, Court of Fint I t t a n c e of Mdniia)
Profossar of Criminal Law and Criminal Law Review
Bar Reviewer in Criminal Law
at the 6
' Colle~eof Law. Ateneo de Manila University
School of Law, Lyceum of the Philimines
Institute of Law. Far Eastern University

Revised Second Edition

19F8

Distvibrited Exclusi.ueZy by

. % PHILAW PUBLISHING
2103 C. M. Recto Ave., Manila, Philippinss
, . .
 " Philippines Copysight 1868,
'< :i i
'~: by
"
LUIS B. REPES

Any copy of this book not bearingr tlie signalure

of the author on this page shall be deemed
as having proeieded from an illegal source.

All Rights Reserved

Piinted 1%

'' R. P. GARCIA PUBLISHING CO.

,311 Quezon Blvd. E*., Quezon City
'r
...,*.'
I

1. When did the Revised Penal Code take effect?

The Revised Penal Code took effect on the

./
of Ja. a r y , 1932 (Art. 1, R.P.C.).

2. B iefly, trace the history of the ILtvised

On Sept,ember 4, 1864, by royal decree, Spain ordere
that thcPenal Code in force in the Peninsula, as amende
in accordance with the recommendation of the code corn
mittee, be published and applied in the Philippine Islands.
The royal order, d?,ted December 17, 1886, directed
,execation of the royal decree of September 4, 1884.
The Penal Code of Spain was published in
Gazette of Manila on March 13 and 14, 1887, and be
effective four months thereafter. The Penal Code of S
took effect in the Philippines on July 14, 1887, and
in force up t o December 31,. 1931.
By Administrative Order No. 94 of the De
Justice, dated October 18, 1927, p committee was cre
composed of Aiiacleto Diaz, as chairman, and Qu
Paredes, Guillermo Gnevara, ,Alex Ileyes and Maria
de Joya, as members, to revise the old Penal Code,
into consideration the existing conditions, the special
laws, and the rulings laid down by the Supreme
The Committee did not undertake the codification
Philippines. What the Committee

e extent of the application of the provision

the Revised Penal Code?
Except as provided in the treaties and Iaws,.,o~fi..
ferential application, the provisions of the Revised”P

1
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine

Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters
and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
. against those who:
;,;:~*,,.?< 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine
:>, ship or airship:
~. committed, as well as the m
,-,

''ti:--. 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin o r currency
note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
..,' ',, 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the intro-
:. '..'duction into these Islands of the obligations and securities
.1., '~ mentioned in the preceding number;
.," ...,
..,-' 4 . While being public officers or employees, should
it an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
. Should comrpit any of tine crimes against national
urity and the law of nations, defined in Title One of
k Two of the Revised Penal Code.
(Art. 2, R.P.C.)
describe the means.
Acts and omissions' punishable by 1
(delitos).
Felonies are committed not only, by means' of
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).,
There is deceit when the aet is performed
, .
erate intent; and there i s ,fault wben t h e W
results from imprudence, negligence, lac

hat eases may the provisions of the Revised Penal f3act done be klifferent 'from th
'be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the Philip.
:pines?
s provided in the treaties and laws of pre-
lication, the provisions of the Revised Penal
enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the
ainst those who:
- '1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship Bn impossible crime is one
an act-which would be an offens
2. Should forge o r counterfeit any coin or currency
te of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities
sued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3 . Should be liable for acts connected with the intro-
ction into these Islands of the obligations and securities What is the duty of the
whieh should be repressed but which are
n the preceding number;
being public officers or employees, should
t. an offense in the exercise of their functions; or Whenever a court has knowledife o f , a n
may deem proper to repress and which .is
2 3
 CRIMINAL
. . LAW kEVlEWEE /' CRIMINAL LAW REVIETVER

, it shall render the proper decision, and shall re-
the Ckief Executive, through the Department of
the reasons which induce the court to believe
act should be made the subject of penal legis-
rt. 6, par. 1, R.P.C.).
le duty of the court when a strict enforcement
visions of the Revised Penal Code would result
osition of a clearly excessive penalty?
Irt shall submit to the Chief Executive, through
felonies are punishable oiiIy' w h e n
with the exception of those:c
(Art. '7, R.P.C.).
12. commit felony and pro
mit felony. When are conspiracy and p
felony pUni5hdble?
A conspiracy exists when two or more p
to .an agreement concerning the commi
and decide to commit it (Art. E, par. 2,
There i s proposal when the person. who h
to commit a fdony proposes its execution to
person or'.persons (Art. 8, par. 3, R.P.C.)."
Conspiracy and proposa,l to comrpit felony
die only in the cases in which the law speoifi
Jides a penalty therefor (Art. 8, par. 1, R.P.

nd define the stages of execution of a felony. State

$2 felonies according to their

ges of execution arr punishable.

the elements neces-

i They are grave felonies, less grave
felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which'the
capital punishment or penalties which
periods are afflictive, in accordance with
Revised Penal Code.
Less grave felonies are those which the law.
"{
,'i witk genalkies which in their maximum period
e will of the per- rectional, in accordance with the above
. . ,. . Light felonies are those infractions of
. , . , , ,;$,,There is an attempt when the offender eohmenees the commission. of which the penalty of urresto
i*
., . '~~'compissionof a felony directly by overt acts, and does fine! not exceeding 200 pesos or both, is pr
: not perform all the acts of execution which should produce .i
!
"" the 'felony . reason of .some cause o r accident other than
. by
I.,:'
.ib_
.,his.
I:. .
own spontaneous desistance. offenses are not subject to the provisions.
.;& (Art. 6, R.P.C.)
~ ~

.,:<

Offenses which are or in the f

, XI., . When , are light
..., feldnies punishable? What is the ex-
'ception?
.:
.A<,+>,'.? , ., . .,.
4
5
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

t way may the Revised Penal Code apply to crimes

d by special laws? exists;
he Revised Penal Code shall be supplementary to Second. That the injury feare
a1 laws, unless the latter should specially provide the done to avoid it.
ary (Art. 10, second clause, R.P.C.). Third. That there be no other practical and less harm-
are the juqtifying circumstances?, ful means of preventing it.
cy are (6 a-1/
self-defense, ( defense of relatives,
efense of stranger, (4) state of necessity, (6) ful-
.fillment of duty or lawful exercise of a right or o€fice, . Any person who acts in obedience to an o
, ,. and ( 6 ) obedience to a lawful order.
q . ._.
++.. . ,., The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on justify-
ing circumstances are, as follows :
I

. . The following do not incur any criminal liability: 7. What are the requisites of self-defense?
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, The requisites of self-defense are:
provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression;
. , . .- First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent o repel it;
T h i r c d a c k of sufficient provocation on the part of
the pe on defending himself.
A n y o n e who acts in defense of the person or rights
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natu- The exempting circum
, or adopted brothers o r sisters or of his relatives by insanity, ( W 6 n o r i t y under
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinitY
urth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next preceding circum- (@--uncontrollable fear, and (7) failure to p
nce are present, aud the further requisite, in case the act required by law because of lawful or insuper
as given by the person attacked, that the
fense had no part therein. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
ing circumstances are, as follows:'
Anyone who acts in defense of t,he person or rights
rovided that the first and second requisites The following are exempt from criminal liabili
first circumstance of this article are 1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless t
the person defending be not induced has acted during a lucid intertal.
ment or other evil motive.
who, in order t o avoid an evil or in- an act which the law defines as a felony,
an act which causes damage to another, pro- court shall order his confinement in one of
owing requisites are present: or asylums established for persons thus ',a?
F_(,..
, ,; . .'
j_

6
,,,.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.
e.
.,
,
1 not be permitted to leave without first obtaining
e permission of the same court.
2 . A person under nine years of age,
3. A person over nine years of age and under fifteen,
. ,'T unless he has acted with discernment, in which case, such
hall be proceeded against in accordance with the
ns of article 80 of the Revised Penal Code.
court, in conformity with the provisions of this
I mitted to the care of some institution or person mentioned
in said article 80.
4. .Any person who, while performing a lawful act
I'
with due care, causes an injury by mere accident with-
.- out .fault or intention of causing it.
5 . Any person who acts under the compulsion of an
. .irresistible force.
6. Any person who acts under the impulse of a n un-
controllable fear o€ an equal o r greater injury.
7. .Any person who fails to perform an act required
plflaw, when prevented by some lawful o r insuperable
CK-IMINAL LAW REVIEWER
3 . That the offender had no intention to commit
grave a wrong as that committed.
4 . That sufficient provocation or threat o n
of the offended party immediately preceded the
5. That the act wa
cation of a grave offense to the one committing the,fel
( d e l i t o ) , his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitim
natural, or adopted brothers or siaters, or .,relatives
affinity within the same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon
as naturally to have produced passio
7. That the offend
self to a person in authority or his agents, :or
had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the.eou
to the presentation of the evidence
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind;
wise suffering some physical defect which thus
his means of action, defense, or communication
felIow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender 3s would d
exercise of the will-power of the offender wi
ever depri i6g him of consciousnes
d, finally, any other ci
natu and analogous to those ab0

(Art. 12, B.P.C.)

Whijhaf nro the mllig?ifing circitnistances?

The following are mitigating circumstances :
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter; when
all, the requisites necessary to justify the act or to exempt
.YY7'
2 . What are the aggravating circunistanees?
The following are aggravating
1. That advantaae be taken by the offende
public position.
2 . That the crime be committed in contemp
from criminal liability in the respective cases are not with insult to the public authorities.
3 . That the act b
That the offender is under eighteen years of age regard of the respect due the offaided
' seventy years. I n the case of the minor, he shall of his rank, age, or sex, or that i t be
ceeded against in accordance with the provisions dwelling of the offended party, if
provocation.
,
., '
,
r:
. .~ . 8 .. .
. . e., .

,,
 e.
.,., ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIZWER
i
., ./= :,:.,,
.,." c. .1

That the act be committed with abuse of confidence
..
.,,,. . . .,, ungratefulness.
6, That the crime be committed in t'le palace of the
ief Executive, or in his presence, or where public au-
thorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties or
a place dedicated to religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the nighttime or
in an uninhabited place, o r by a band, whenever such
circumstances may facilitate the commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors shall
have a.cted together in the commission of an offense, it
. . ,
shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
7. That the crime he committed on the occasion of a
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic, or other
~
..
..,, ,.,,.
~ calami1.y o r misfortune.
.I
8. That the crime be committed with the @id of
armed men or persons who inswe or afford impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, a t the time of his trial for
'., . one crime, shall have been previously convictec! by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the same title
' .I . of the Revised Penal Code.
15. That advantage be taken of superior stren
means be employed to weaken the defense.
16. That the act be committed with tre
There is treachery when the offender commits any Of
the crimes a,gainst the person, employing means, methods,
o r forms in the execution thereof which tend directly
and sneciallv t o insure its execution, without risk, t o .him-
self arising from the defense which the offended p a r t y , .;:.r ,;
might make.
17. That mcans be employed or circumstances brought , ,.a
about which add ignominy to the natural effects of the , ,::.
..
act. . ,. .. ~
18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful ,,...;I
entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance is effected '.
by a way not intended for the purpose.
19. That as a means to the commission of a crime .a :
wall, roof, floor, door, or window be broken.
20. That the crime be committed with the aid of per-
sons under fifteen years of age, or by means of motor
vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
21. That the wrong done in the commission of the

'1
10. That the offender has been previously punished crime c deliberately augmented by causing other wrong
f a r an offense to which the law attaches an equal or not ecessazy for its commission.
more crimes to which it

committed in eonsideratio11 of 21. What circumstances are either

Or, what are alternative circumstances
mitted by means of inunda- A!ternetive circumstances are those which
randing of a vessel or in- taken into consideration a s
ilment of a locomotive, or according t o the nature and e
otlier conditions attending its
ice involving great waste
relat!onsbip, intoxication, and the degree of i
.!",.I ' education of the offender (Art. 1
.,.. ~
'
.,,
I:
That the act be committed with evident premedita-
When shall the alternative e
That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. be taken into consideration?

11
 , ,.I ,. ,
I, ., :::~1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER +q&&&,,
1

,.?".$
.l
A
*
;,,A' .$ -*,,z*,
~. '
- $;/. ?<.$",,
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be are a e / ,<
.,~,. ,.~.~".,
,,~b.*
into consideration when. the offended party is the Accomplices are those persons who, not being' included {:?$I
, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopt- ? in article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. coouerate'in ,the' *
executiowof the offense E/y arevious or'sim&aneous actB i.:if:. ~
::-:<4
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same '

s of the offender (Art. 16, par. 2, R.P.C.). R.P.C.). / / _ '

shall the intoxication of the offender be taken into

consideration as a mitigating circumstance? When shall &cmihes are those who, having
it be considered as an aggravating circumstance? commission of the crime, and without h
. , The intoxication of the offender shall b e taken into
mitigating circumstance when the of-
ted a felony in a state of intoxication,
or subsequent to the plan
en the intoxication is habit- g or destroying the body of the'crime
t shall be considered as an aggravating
15, par. 3, R.P.C.).
liable for grave or less grave felonies? ing, concealing, or a
y liable for grave and less of the principal of the crime, provided
,;:,:,," 1 grave felonies: with abuse of his public functions
crime is guilty of treason,

rt. 16, par. 1, R.P.C.).

are criminally liable for light felonies?
he following are criminally liable for light felonies: re the accessories exempt from crimi@, liability
The penalties prescribed for access0
rt. 16, par. 2, R..P.C.).
110are considered principals?
The :following are considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the execution of
i, :,<"'*
(:$<
:-p..
.. ::. ';?- i 2. Those who directly force or induce others to com-
mit it.
,

,
,+,;
.>
..~.
",,+
/' .
^_j
3 . Those who cooperate in the commission of the of-
.fense by another act without which it would not have
. ,*s..',~'%been accomplished.
As a general rule, no *felony shall be p,u
any penalty not preserihed by law
,;&I ;&,..: hi*-!8'. > ,:,e<,
&.+i (Art. 17, R.P.C.) (Art. 21, R.P.C.).

12 13
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

But Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so The penaltks which may be imposed, accordi
Revised Penal Code, and their different classes,'
included in the following:

pardon by the offended party does not extinguish

erest of the injured party is extinguished by his ex-

to keep the peace.

ts and proceeds of the offense, and .(g

. The'commitment of a minor to any of th

3 . Suspension irom the employment 07 public office and a light penalty?

ipposed as a single or as an
, b e considered an afflictive P
pesos; a correctional .penalty,
pesos but is not less than 200
f it be less than 200 pesos (A

(Art. 24, R.P.C.)

I I .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
unless such person by reason of his conduct or
other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief
as unworthy of pardon.
Reclusion temporal.-The penalty of reclusion temporal
twelve years and one day t o twenty years.
Prision mnyor nnd temporaw disquaZif$cation.-The
duration of the penalties of prision mayor and temporary
disqualification shall be from six years and one day to
twelve years, except when the penalty of disqualification
is imposed as an accessory penalty, in which case, its
duration shall be that o€ the principal penalty.
3.
I 37. In what cases shall the offenders who have undergone pre-
Prision eorreceional, suspension, and destierro,-The
duration of the penalties of prision correceional, suspen-
sion, and rlestierro shall be from six months and one day
to six years, except when suspension is imposed as an
accessory penalty, in which case, its duration shall. be
that of the principal penalty.
Arresto mayor.-The duration of the penalty of ar-
resto mayor shall be from one month and one da
months.
Arresto menor.-The duration of the penal
.;rent0 menor shall be from one day to thirty
Bond to keep the peace.-The bond to keep the peace
shall be required to cover such period of time as the court
ma,y determine.
(Art. 27, R.P.C.)
State the rules for the computation of the term of the
duration of temporary penalties and the term of the dura-
tion of penalties consisting in deprivation of liber
If the offender shall he in prison, the term
duiation of the temporary penalties shall be com
from the day on which the judgment of conviction
have become final.
. ’, If the offender be not in prison, the term of the dura-
’, tion of the penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty
“-‘Shall be computed from the day that the offender is
laeed a t the disposal of the judicial authorities for the
16
enforcement of the penalty. The duration of ..the 0th
penalties shall be computed only from the day on w$ic
the defendant commences to serve his sentence.
(Art. 28, R.P.C.):
ventive iniprisonment not be credited in the service of their
sentences with one-half of the time of their preventive
imprisonment?
Offenders who have undergone preventive imprison-.
ment shall be credited in the service of their sentences
consisting of deprivation of liberty, with one-half of the
time during which they have undergone preventive im-
prisonment, except in the following cases:
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted
previously twice or more times of any crime;
2 . When upon being summoned for the execution
their sentence, they have failed to surrender voluntar
3. When they have been convicted of robh
estafa, malversation of public funds, falsification,
or prostitution.
,
/
What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern
porary absolute disqualification for
The penalties of perpetual or temporary abs
qualification for public office shall produce the
e f f e z p r i v a t i o n of the public offices
ments which the offender may have held,
f e r i - ’ popular election.
The deprivation of the right to vote in
for any popular elective office or to be elec
office.
A d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n for the offices
ployments and for the exercise of any of t
tioned.
17,

& case of temporary disqualification, such disqualifica-
n as is comprised in paragraphs 2 and 3 of this article
11 last during the term of the sentence.
4 . The loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pensfon for any office formerly held.
he effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern-
ial disqualification for pubJic office, profession,
The Penalties of perpetual or temporary special dis-
ualification for public office, profession, or calling shall
roduce the following effects:
1 . The deprivation of the office, employment, profes-
on or calling affected.
2. The disqualification for holding similar offices or
kWnentS either perpetually or during the term of the
e m , according to the extent of such disqualification.
(Art. 31, R.P.C.)
40. '.What are the effects of the penalties of perpetual or tern-
*;. , porary special disqualification for the exercise of the right
, ' of suffrage?
The perpetual o r temporary special disqualification for
the exercise of the right of suffrage shall deprive the of-
fender perpetually or during the term o i the sentence,
according to the nature of said penalty, of the right to
n any popular election for any public office or to be
d to such office. Moreover, the offender shall not he
tted to hold any public office durilig the period of
isqualification (Art. 32, R.P.C.7.
What are the effects of the penalties of suspension from
public office, profession, or calling, or the right of suf-
, . ., / The suspension from public office, profession, or call-
', '. ing, and the exercise of the right of suffrage shall dis-
qualify the offender from holding such office or exercisiw
CItIIMINAC LAW REVIEWSR
such profession or calling o r right of suffrage during
term of the sentence.
The person suspended from holding public office s h
not gold another having similar functions during the perio
o p i s suspension.
/
/
42.1 What are the effects of civil interdiction?
Civil interdiction shall deprive the o€fender during'the
time of his sentence of the rights of parental authority,
1
o r guardianship, either as to the verson or property' .of
ny ward, of marital authority, of the right t o manage
his property, and of the right t o dispose of such property
by any act or any conveyance intar vivos (Art. 34, R.P;C:).
43. What are the effects of bond to keep the p
It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to^
bond t o keep the peace, to present two suffic
who shall undertake that such person
the offense sought t o be prevented, and that
offense be committed they will pay the amoun
by the court in its judgment, or otherwise to deposit
amount in the office of the clerk of the court to y a r
said undertaking.
The court shall determine, according t o its discreti
the period of duration of the bond.
Should the person sentenced fail to giie
required he shall be detained for a period whi
no case 'exceed six months, if he shall have been
for a grave or' less grave felony, and shall not exce
days, if for a light felony.
/
44. What are the effects of a pardon by t h
upon the convict's right to hold public office
suffrage? May a pardon exempt the cdlpri
payment of civil indemnity?
19
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
pardon shall not work the restoration of the i+ght
d public office, or the right of suffrage, unless such
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
Pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the
ent Of the Civil indemnity imposed upon him by the
(Art. 36, R.P.C.)
included in costs?
shall include fees and indemnities in the course
judicial proceedings, whether they be fixed 01un-
le amounts previously determined by law or regula-
rce, O r amounts not subject to schedule (Art.
t are the pecuniary liabilities of the nffender and
order of their paynlent?
In case the property of the offender should not he
sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary liahilities,
the same shall be met in the following order:
1. The 'reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of the consequent.ial damages.
3 . The fine.
4. The costs of the proceedings.
/' (Art. 38, R.P.C.)
What are the rules relating to subsidiary penalty?
If the convict has no property with which to meet the
liabilities mentioned in paragraphs Ist, Znd,
the next preceding article, he shall be subject
..,, personal liability at the rate of one day
and 50 centavos, subject to the follow-
ina rules:
20
CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWIPR
imprisonment shall not exceed one-thi
the sentence, and in no case shall it
than one year, and no fraction or par
counted against the prisoner.
2 . When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine,:
the subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed six months;.
if the cuiprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave'or
less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days;;if
for a light felons.
3 . Wheii the principal penalty i
prision eorreccional, no subsidiary
imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the pxincipal penalty imposed is not to be ex- ' ;
ecuted by confinement in a penal institution, but such
penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period
of time established in the preceding rules, shall continue
to snffer tb.e same deprivations as those of which the'
principal penalty consists.
5 . The subsidiary personal liability which the convict
may have suffered by reason of his insolvency shall n o t
relieve him from xparation of the damage caused, nor
fro1 indemnification for the consequential damages in
f
c e his financial circumstances should improve; but he
all be relieved f?om pecnniary liability as to the fine.
(Art. 39, R.P.C.)
8. What are the accessory penalties of death?
The death penalty, when it is not executed by
of commutation or pardon, shall carry with it
and reelusion temsporal?
The penalties of reclusion perpetua and
porul shall carry with them that of civil i
21
 I
P

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. .
life or during the period of the sentence as the case may Such proceeds and instruments o r tools shall be con: :
a t of perpetual absolute disqualification uThich fixated and forfeited in favor of the Government, unless
r shall suffer even though pardoned as to the they be th,e property of a third person not liable for the
enalty, miless the same shall have been ex- o€fenseybut those articles which are not subject of law-
itted in the pardon (Art. 41, R.P.C.). Eo1 commerce shall be destroyed.
(Art. 45, R.P.C.)
e accessory penalties of prision mayor? . .
.".'
The penalty of prision mugor shall carry with it that 54. When the law prescribes a penalty for a felony in generd
of temporary absolute disqualification and that of per- terms, upon whom is it to be imposed and t o what stage
disqualification from the right of suffrage .of execution is it applicable?
''
ender shall suffer although pardoned as t o The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of
penalty, unless the same shall have been a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the corn- ,, 48
tted in the pardon (Art. 42, R.P.C.). mission of such felony.
&henever the law prescrib
accessory penalties of prision correccional? idgeneral terms, it shall be un
The penalty of prision correccional shall carry with it consummated felony.
suspension from public office, from the right to
follow a profession or calling, and that of perpetual special
disqualification from the right of suffrage, if the duration a t is the penalty t o be imposed upon principals of
of said imprisonment shall exceed eighteen months. The ustrated crime?
offender shall suffer the disqualification provided in this The penalty next lower in
article although pardoned as to the principal penalty, un- by lam for the consummated €el
same shall have been expressly remitted in the the principals in a frustrated
rdon (Art. 43, R.P.C.).
56. What is the penalty to be imposedl upon principal
hat are the accessory penalties of arresto? attempted crimes?
The penalty of arresto shall carry with it that of sus- A penalty lower by two degrees than that pre
ension of the right to hold office and the right of suf- by ;aw €or the consummated felony shall be impos
'age during the term of the sentence (Art. 44, R.P.C.). principals in an attempt to commit a felony (

hat is the provision of the Revised Penal Code on con-

and forfeiture of the proceeds qr instruments the penalty to be imposed upon accomplice
of the crime? consunxnated crime?
,*A Every penalty imposed for the commissiort of a felony The penalty next lower in degr
ry with i t the forfeiture of the proceeds of the by law for the consnnnnated felo
rime and the instruments or tools with whlch it was the accomplices in the commission of a co
ony (Art. 52, R.P.C.).

22 33

_1 . ,:. ._ . . .
?%..,*,
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

t is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the a frustrated or attempted felony, or to be i

<'?,Y
3>
..
commission of a consummated felony? aceoroplices 31 accessories (Art. EO, R.P.C.) . '.

:?,&
e.,&,
'I!he penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed
. .
. '
.. for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon 64. What is the additional penalty to be imp0
to the commission of a consummated felony accessories who should act viith abuse of the
" , . 1. ( ' tions in harboring, concealing, or assisting
i of the principal of the crime?
hat is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in a a Those a.ccessor?es shall suffer the additional penalty
., .
' The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed
of absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal df-
fender shall be guilty of a grave felony, and that of ab-
for the frustrated felony shall be imposed upon solute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of
the accomplices in the commission of a frustrated felony a less grave felony (Art. 58, R.P.C.).

65. In what cases is the death penalty not to be imposed?

to he imposed upon accessories of a The death penalty shall be imposed, in all cases in
which it must be imposed under existing laws, except in
e r by two degrees than that prescribed the following cases:
strated felony shall be imposed upon 1, When the guilty person be more than seventy years
accessories to the commission of a frustrated felony of age.
2 . When upon appeal or revision of the case b y ' t h e
'
, 61. ,What is the penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in Supreme Court, eight justices are not unanimous in the?;
an attempted crime? voting as t o the propriety of the imposition of the death
penalty. For the imposition of said penalty or for the
The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed confirmation of a judgment of the inferior court impos:
by law for an attempt t o commit a felony shall be im- iug the death sentence, the
posed upon the accomplices in an attempt to commit the its decisi 1 per cu iunt
felony (Art. 56, R.P.C.). $.fiWA' +J j*
. ,
. ,*, . 62. What is the penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an
, . ..
attempted felony? 66. Define comples crimes and st
When a single act constitutes two o r more grave
y lower by two degrees than that prescribed less grave felonies, o r when an offense is a necessa
e attempt shall be imposed upon the aeces- means for committing the 0th
ttempt to commit a felony (Art. 57, R.P.C.). serious crime shall be impos
in its maximum period (Art. 48, R.P.C., as am
xceptions to the rules established in articles
Act No. 4000).
ns contained in articles 50 to 57, inclusive, F'i. What are the rules relative t
d Penal Code shall not be applicable t o cases upon the principals when the
law expressly prescribes the penalty for from that intended?
.-24 26
 ,., .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
In cases in which the felony committed is different
from that which the offender intended to commit, the
following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony committed
be higher than that corresponding t o the offense which
the accused intended to commit, the penalty correspond-
ing to the latter shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed €or the felony committed
be lower than that corresponding to the one which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty for the former
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next preceding para-
graph shall not be applicable if the acts committed by
the guilty person shall also constitute an attempt or frus-
tration of another crime, if tlic lam prescribes a higher
penalty for either of the latter offenses, in which case
the penalty provided for the attempt or the frustrated
crime:! shall be imposed in the maximum period.
(Art. 49, R.P.C.)
.:68. What is the penalty to be imposed for the commission
of an impossible crime?
When the person intending to commit an offense has
already performed the acts for the execution of the same
but nevertheless the crime was not produced by reason
of the fact that the act intended was by its nature one
of impossible accomplishment or because the means em-
ployed by such person zre essentially inadequate to pro..
duce the result desired by him, the court, having in mind
the social danger and the degree of criminality shown
by the offender, shall impose upon hini the penalty of
nrresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos
' I
..'. ..,., (Art. 59, R.P.C.).
. . , ,.i,: .., ,,;..*,
.,~
~
/ i
, , * '% I
.. , ' 69.T':tWhat :ire {.he rules for graduating penalties?
I principals of the frustrated felony, or of atte
'.%:For the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
:.,. ,:. ,: ' according to the provisions of articles fifty to fifty-seven,
,',
~ .;..;, inclusive, of the Revised Penal Code, are to be imposed
, . ,. i . I .,',
CEIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
upon persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or ;
attempted felony, or as accomplices or accessories, the I
following rules shall be observed:
1, When the penalty prescribed for the felony is single
and indivisible, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
that immediately f o l l o - h g that indivisible penalty in t h e ,
respective graduated scale prescribed in article 71 of the
Revised Penal Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is com-
posed of two indivisible penalties, o r of one or more
divisible penalties to be imposed to their full extent, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately
Eollowing the lesser of tho penalties prescribed in the
respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is com-
posed of one or two indivisible penalties and the max
period of another divisib
in degree shall be compo
periods of the proper divisible penalty and the maximum
period of that immediately following in said respective
graduated scale.
d.. When the penalty prescribed for the crime is com- '
posed of several pcriods, corresponding t o different divi-
sib18 penalties, the penalty next lower in degree shall be;
composed of the period immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following which shall .be
taken from the penalty prescribed if possible; otherwise
from the penalty immediately following in the above men-
tioned respective graduated scale.
6 . When the law p
in some manner not specially provided for in t h e ,
preceding rules, the courts, pro
impose the corresponding penalties upon tho
mit the same, and upon acc

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
..
,,', ,',
, .
,. ,
70.' What are the effects of the attendance of mitigating or
;:~:.,..'.
..!..i
,'I aggrwating circumstances and of habitual delinquency?
.,
Mitigating 01- aggravating circumstances and habitual
I
delinquency shall be taken into account for the purpose
of. diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity
with the following rules:
1. Aggpvating circumstances which in themselves con-
stitute a crime specially punishable by law o r which are
tuclcded %j the law in ddinmg a mime and prescribing
the penalty therefor shall tlot be taken into account for
t h e purpose of increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect to any
aggravating circumstances inherent in the crime to such
a degree that it must of necessity accompany the com-
mission thereof.
3 . Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his
private relations with the offended party, or from any
other .personal cause, shall only serve to aggravate or miti-
gate the liability of the principals, accomplices, and acces-
sories as to whom such circumstances are attendant.
4 . The circumstances which consist in the ma.krial
execution of the act, o r in the means emp:oyed to accom-
plish it, shall serve to aggravgte 01" mitigate the liability
of those persons only who had Icnawledge of them at the
time of the execution of the act or their cooperation
.''
5. Habitual delinquency shall have the following ef-
(a) Upon a third conviction, the culprit shall b'e sen-
tenced to the penalty provided by law for. the last crime
of which he be fonnd guilty and to the additional penalty
.. of pr<a.lrm coweecimal in its medium and maximum pe-
, ,~
"..?;,;";riods;
j-
.. . (b) Upon a fourth conviction, the culprit shall be sen-
tenced to the penalty provided for the last crime of which
.~, he be found guilty and to the additional penalty of prision
mayor in its:minimum and medium periods; and
28
,5
CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER
(e) Upon a fifth or additional conviction, the culp
shall be sentenced to the penalty provided for the la
crime of aliich he be found guilty and to the additio
penalty of vision mayor in its maximum period to
elusion tempoml in its minimum period.
Notwithstanding 'the provisions of this article, the to
of the two penalties to be imposed upon the offender ''
conformity herewith, shall in no case /exceed 30 year
/
(Art. 62, R.P
71. Who is a habitual delinquent?
A person shall be deeaed to be habitual delinquent, ,.
if within a period of ten years from the date of his
release or last conviction of the crimes of serious o r less '.
serious physical injuries, mho, hurto, estafa, or faasificd
tion, he i s fwiind gnilty of any of said crimes~a third
time or oftener (Art. 62, last par., R.P.C., as amended
by Republic Act No. 18).
72. What are the rules for the application of indivisible pen-,.
alties?
In all cases in which the law prescribes a single in-
divisible penalty, il shall 5e applied by the courts regard:,
less of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that
rnay have attended the commission of the deed.
In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules
shall he observed in the application thereof:
1. When in the commission of the deed there is pref.
sent only one aggravating circumstance, the greater pen- ~:
aliy shall be applied.
2 . When there are ne&er mitigating nor aggravating ' '
circumstances in the commission of the deed, the,.lesser
penalty shall be applied. ... ..i
. ,., .
3. When the commission of the act is attended .:by~~:~?,;i
some mitigating circumstance and there is no:aggravating , -,:.,;:
. , .I
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall he applied. ., ,~ '_
~
, ..
29
. ..

CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER

4 . When both mitigating and aggravating circum- greater penalty than that prescribed by law, in its paxi-
stlfnces attended the commission of the act, the courts mum period.
s all reasonably allow them to offset one another in
onsideration of their number and importance, for the
purpose of applying the penalty in accordance with the
preceding rules, according to the result of such compensa-

/n. (Art. 63, R.P.C.) (Art. 64, R.P.C.) '

73. "bat are the rules far the application of penalties whkh 4. What is the rule in cases in which the penalty is not'
contain three,,periods?
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law con-
'
, fain three periods, whether it be a single divisible pe.nalty
'
I
..: o r composed of three different penalties, each one of
.

which forms a period in accordance with the provisioiis

of articles 76 and 77, the court shall observe for the
application of the penalty the following rules, according
to whether there are or are no mitigating or aggravating
ci rcumstanees :
I . When there are neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstances, they shall impose the penalty prescribed
!, by law in its medium period.
2. When only a mitigating circumstance is present in
the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty
in its minimum period.
3 . When only an aggravating circumstance is present
in the commission of the act, they shall impose the penalty
in its maximum period.
4. When both mitigating and aggravating circumstances
are present, the court shall reasonably offset those of one
class against the other according t o their relative weight.
5. When there are two or more mitigating circum-
~, stances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the In imposing fines the courts may fix any a
.'.6."l+i.c,.court shall impose the penalty next lower to that pre-
.'~ ' ' :.,scribed by law, in the period that it may deem applicable,
in the limits established by law; in fixing
., ,.~.,' ac$ording to the number and nature of such circumstances.

,. . "'6.. Whatever may be the number and nature of the

agirrayating ,circumstances, the courts shall not impose a R.P.C.).
, .

,... ,. , 30
 CkIfMINAL LAW REVIEWER CkIMINAL LAW REY'IEWEB
,'.. .76. What are the rules to be observed as to the penalty to be executed successively or
.__,, , .. '.> i m w e d upon a person under eighteen years of age? a pardon have beezi granted as to the Penalty Or .,
m e n the offender is a minor under eighteen years ,~, penalties first imposed, or should they have been sewed ~..
and his case is one coming under the provisions of the out.
:*
.y - parwraph next to the last of article 80 of the Revised
: ' Penal Code, the following rules shall be observed:
? .
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years
of age, who is not exempted from liability by reason of
the court having declared that he acted with discernment,
a discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower
by two degrees a t least than that prescribed by l a ~ vfor
the crime which he committed.
2 . Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years
of age the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law
shall be immed, but always in the proper period. redo mayor
(Art. 68, R.P.C.)
. . -.
;; ,.. ,What is the penalty to be imposed when the wime corn-
"',-77. disqualification
,<;~, ., mitted is not wholly excusable?
...
, >
disqualificatioll
.. A penalty lower by one o r two degrees than that pre- office, the right to v
: ', scribed hy law shall be imposed if t h e rleed is not wholly and be voted for, the right to fOh%' Profess1
excusable by reason of the lack of some of the conditions
or calling
required. to justify the same o r to exempt from criminal
. liability in the several cases mentioned in articles 11 and
I,'
12. Public censure
'
. . 12, provided that the majority of such conditions be pre- Notwithstanding the provisions of the
:I : sent.. !Che courts shall impose the penalty in the period ing, the maxinrurn duration of the eonl.iet's sentence
,' which may be deemed proper, in view of the number and not be more than threefold the length Of time corres
nature of the conditions of exemption present or laeking ingto the most severe of the aenalties imposed. on
(Art. 69, R.P.C.). N~ other penalty to which he may be liable shall be,',
,?C,
flitted after the sum of those imposed equals tbe"s
1 78. What are the rules regarding successive service of sen- maximum period.
1* such maximum period shall in no case exceed
When the culprit has to serve two or more penalties years.
e shall Serve them simultaneously if the nature of the applying the provisions of this
rmit ; otherwise, the 2ollowing rules of perpetual penalties ( p e m p e m t u a ) shall
a t thirty years.
of the penalties, the order of their
11 be followed so th?,t they m y be
1

i
. . . , i
, , ,, .'. .
. ,, , . ,,, . .
 . .. .
. .,

Ckl&INAL LAW REVIEWER CKIMINAI. LAW REVIZWIER

' 79. What are the.graduated scales from which the lower or
; . higher penalty is to be taken?
.. In the cases in which the law prescribes a penalty
.", . ...
. .'
lower 01 higher by one or more degrees than another
enalty, the rules prescribed in article 61 shall be
ed in graduating such penalty.
he lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the
ted scale in which is comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty,
shall observe the following graduated scales:
Scale No. 1
. Beelusion temporal
81. What is the presumption in regard to th
accessory penalties?
Whenever the courts shall impose a penal
provision of la-#, carries with it other pen
ing $6 tbe provisions of articles 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
Revised Penal Code, it m ~ s tbe understo
penalties are also imposed upon the-eo
2. What is the penalty higher than reclusion perpetua
law does not prescribe the penalty of death? .. ''
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty hi
than another given penalty, without. speeifi
the name of the fonner, if such higher pen
that of death, t h e same penalty and the accessory
of article 40, shall be considered as the
(Art. 74, R.P.C.!.

8. Arrest0 menor 83. What are the rules as regards increasing or reducing
9. Public censure penalty of fine by one or more d e ~ r e e s ?
Whenever it may be necessary t o incr
Scale No. 2 the penalty of fine by one or more d
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification increased 01" reduced, respectively, for e
2. Temporary absolute disqualification one-fourth of the maximum amount pre
3 . Suspension from public office, the right to vote and without, however, changing the minimum.
be voted for, and the riaht to follow x profession The same rules shall be observed with regard t o fine
or calling / that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made pro-"

/
4. F'ublic censure portional.
6. Fine
(Art. 71, R.P.C.)
. ~
,., .. 84. What is a complex penalty?
.:-,t~,;...,~.,80.
,. , . How art! the civil liabilities of a person puilty of two or
more offemes satisfied? A complex penalty is one composed of three di
The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two penalties, each one forming a period; the lightest Of
ore offenses shall be satisfied by following the shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and t
nological order of the dates of the final judgments severe the maximum period.
endered against him, beginning with the first in order Whenever the penalty prescribed does n
f:,time (Art..,72, R.P.C.). of the forms specially provided for in the R
i
, .j
.: , .. ' . 34
 ... .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Code, the periods shall be distributed, applying by 'analogy
the prescribed rules.
(Art. 77, R.P.C.)
85. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code as regards
the execution and service of sentence in case the convict
becomes insane o r imbecile?
When a convict shall hecomeinsane or an'imbeeile after
final :sentence has been pronounced, the execution of said
sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the per-
sonal penalty.
If a t any time the convict shall recqver his reason,
his sentence shall be executed, unless the penalty shall
have :prescribed in accordance with the provisions of the
Revised Penal Code.
These provisions shall also be observed if the insanity
or imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sen-
tence.
(Art. 79, R.P.C.)
86. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on the
suspension of sentence of minor delinquents?
Whenever a minor of either sex, under sixteen years
of age at the date of the commission of a grave or less
.- grave felony, is accused thereof, the court, after hearing
the evidence in the proper proceedings, instead o f pro-
nouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further
proceedings and shall commit such minor to the custody
or care of a public or private, benevolent or charitable
- ' institution, established under the law for the care, cor-
.. rection, or education of orphaned, homeless, defective, and
delinquent children, or to the custody or care of any other
responsible person in any other place subject to visitation
and supervision by the Director of Public Welfare or any
, . , of his agents or representatives, if there be any, or other-
wise hy the superintendent of public schools or his repre-
, ' sentatives, subject to such conditions as are prescribed
. , until such minor shall have reached his majority or for
'I ."".": such :less period as the court may deem proper,
36
I
/ CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER
i df the minor has been committed t o the custody o r
care of any of the institutions mentioned in the first para-
graph of this article, with the approval of the Director
of Public Welfare and xnbject to such conititions as this ?
official in accordance with law may deem proper t o im-
;pose, such minor may be allowed to stay elsewhere under
+he care of a responsible person.
If the rn- has behaved properly and has complied
with the conditions imposed upon him during his confine-
ment, in accordance with the provisions of this article,
he shall be returned to the court in order that the same ,:a*
,::
1.
may order his final release.
In case the minor fails to behav
with the regulations of the institution to which h% has
been committed or with the conditions imposed upon him '.
wheri he was committe
son, or in case he should be fo
eontinu& stay ir, such
he shall be returned to
may render the judg
committed by him.
(Art. 80, R.P.C., as amended
...
ljy Com. Act No. 99 and Rep.
Act No. 47)
l7 . In what cases is the execution of the death senten
suspended?
The death sentence shall not be inflicted upon a wo
within the three years next following the date of the"
tence or while she is pregnant, n o r upon any person
seventy years of age. In this last ca,s
shall be commuted to the penalty 0
with the accessory penalties provide
83, R.P.C.).
88. How is the penalty of destierro executed?
Any person sentenced to destie
mitted to enter the place o r places designated ~
 i: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ce, nor within the radius therein specined, which shall

be n o t more than 250 and not less than 25 kilometers
from the place designated (Art. 87, R.P.C.).

a t penalty may be served in the house of the defendant

The penalty of arresto menor shall be served in the

municipal jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
under the surveillance of an officer of the law, when the
court so provides in its decision, taking into consideration
the health of the offender and other reasons which may
seem satisfactory t o it (Art. 88, R.P.C.).

(Art. 91, R.P.C.)

d woman, as pro-

(Art. 89, R.P.C.)

punishable by a correctional penalty shall pre-

:,, scribe in ten years: with the exception of those punishable
by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.

' 38
 . ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIE

The period of ,prescription of penalties shall commence

, , ,
I
to run from the date when the culprit should evade the
service of his sptence, and it shall be interrupted if the
deieadant shou\d give himself up, be captured, should go
to some foreig country with which this Government has
. 'f
no extradition treatv. or should commit another crime

,. . .
What are the causes of partial extineticn of criminal lia-

Ciimirh liability is extinguished partially :

1. By conditional pardon:

(Art. 94, R.P.C.)

/ (Art. 97, R

W at is special time allowance for loyalty?

A deduction of one-fifth of the period of his sentelice
shall be granted t o any prisoner who, having evaded the.
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned '
in article 158 of the Revised Penal Code, gives himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours following the ism-',
ance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of
the calamity o r catastrophe referred to in said article
(Art. 98, R.P.C.).

100. Who grants time allowance?

Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons

96, R"P.C.).

.. . .
. , . , ,
period of his sentence:
:' I . .
r , . J
40
. . , ~ , ,
L. ,.

. ,
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER .-r

CRIMLNAL LAW REVIEWER ,~,

The exemption from criminal liability established in

nances or some general or special pulice regulation shall . ,,
subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of article 12 and in sub- have been committed by them or their employees.
division 4 of article 11 of the Revised Penal Code does Innkeepers are also subsidiarily Iiahle for the restitution I

not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be

enforced subject to the following rules:
First: In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of article
12, the civil liability for acts committed by an imbecile
of goods taken by robbery or theft within their houses .. i.'. ,
from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the , :;
value thereof, provided that such guests shall have notified :
in advance the innkeeper himself, or .the person represent- . lj~

or insane person, and by a person under nine years of ing him, of the deposit of such goods within t h e inn;;Fd .. ,'t"
age, or over nine but under fifteen years of age, who shall furthermore have followed the directions which such '.,<'
has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those innkeeper or his representative may have given them with,, ,;;;,&
having such a person under their legal authority or con- respect t o the care of and vigilance over such goods. NO .,:A

trol, unless i t appears that there was no fault or negli-
.gence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile,
or minor under his authority, legal guardianship, or con-
trol, oir if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile,
or minor shall respond with their own property, except-
ing property exempt from execution, in accordance witii
the civil law.
Second: In cases falling within subdivision 4 of article
11, the persons for whose benefit the harm has been pre-
vented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit
which they may have received.
liability shall attach in case of robbery with violence ,:$!h
agiiliist or intimidation of persons unless committed by , > ' #
the innkeeper's employees, .,g;'$
(Art. 102, R.P.C.) .:$&
-.x
144. What is the subsidiary civil liability of employers engag
in any kind of iiidustry?
The subsidiary liability established in the next preced- ,
ing article shall also apply to employers, teachers, per- '.
~:
sons, and corporations engaged in any kind of industry
for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, ?
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. j&,*
'

(Art. 103, R.P.C.). .",&

Third: In cases falling- within subdivisions 5 and 6
of article 12, the persons using violence or causing .the 105. ibZlZi.d in civil iiaomty un
fear shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there
the act shall be~liable, The civil liability established in
that part of their property and 103 of the Revised Penal Cod
1. Restitution;
.,.:,. il, .
..I/; , (Art. 101, R.P.C.) 2. Reparation of the damage caused;
.@g;J 3 . Indemnification for consequential damages.
, , : E$. ?.," 103. What is the subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavern-
keepern, and proprietors of establishments?
In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, 106. How is restitution made?
.., . ...in' tavern-keepers, and any other persons or corporations shall
_-
", $'
: ,~&,,;;,:., be civilly liable for crimes committed in their estabIish- The restitution of the thing itsel
...',70:.
,. ' , , , . ever possible, with allowance for an
~~. ' , > ~ ments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordi-
~

',
...,',,., ,,,? diminution of value as determined. by the cour
42 43

?
i i . .,.
"i: ,,q-.; . ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.. '
The/thing itself shall be restored, even though it be
n the possession of a third person who has ae-
it by lawful means, saving to the latter his action
the proper person who may be liable to him.
plicable in cases in which the
'ng has been acquired by the third person in the manner
d under the requirements which, by law, bar an action
/
11
(Art. 105, R.P.C.)
court shall determine the amount of damage, taking
ce of the thing, whenever pos-
ental value to the injured p+arty,
made accordingly (Art. 106,
'khat are included in indemnification for consequential
Indemnification for consequential damages shall in-
clude not only those caused the injured ?arty, but also
those suffered by his family or by a third person by
..
,',. , reason of the crime (Art. 107, R.P.C.).
109. Upon whom devolve the obligation to make restoration,
m, or indemnification for consequential damages
action to demand the same?
The obligation to make restoration or reparation for
mages and indemnifioation f o r consequential damages
volves upon the heirs of the person liable.
f How is the civil liability under the Revised Penal Cade
action to demand restoration, reparation and in-
demnification likewise descends to the heirs of the person
(Art. 108, R.P.C.)
the civil liability in solidum of two
of a felony, without determining
each must respond?
. . .., ,
.. . . ..
CRIIWINAL LAW REVIEWER,
No. If there are two or more persons .civilly liable ',,'
for a felony, the courts shall determine the amount for',,
whic each must respond (.Art. 109, R..P.C.). ' . .
State the several and subsidiary liabili1.y of principals, ac--
complices. and accessories of felony and the preference in
payment.
The principals, accomplices, and accessories, each with;
in their respective class, shall be liable severally (in ~
soliduh) among themselves for their quotas, a
sidiarily for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, firs
the proper1.y of the principals; next, against that
accomplices; and, lastly, against that of the acce
Whenever the liability &z solidum or the s
liability has been enforced, the person by whom payment,
has been made shall have a right of action against the
others for the amount of their respective shares..
(Art. 110, R.P.C.). '
hat is the obligation of a pervon who participated gra-
tuitously in the proceeds of a felony?
Any person who has participated gratuitously in the
proceeds of a felony shall bo bound to make restitution
in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participa-
(Art. 111, R.P.C.).
extinguished?
Civil liability established iu articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of the Revised Penal Code shall be extinguished in
the same manner as other obligations, in accordance with
the provisions of the Civil Law (Art. 112, R.P.C.).
Does service of sentence or amnesty, pardon, or commuta-.,
tion of sentence extinguish civil liability under the Revised
Penal Code?
45 . .
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

No. Except in case of extinction of his civil liability

provided in the next preceding article, the offender
all continue to be obliged to satisfy the civil liability
from the crime committed by him, notwithstand- an accessory to the crime of tresson.
fact that he has served his sentence consisting
(Art. 116, R.P.C.)
of deprivation of liberty or other rights, o r has not been
reqiiired to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence, or any other yeason (Art. 113, 18. How is the crime of espionage cornmitt
vised Penal Code?
Espionage is committed by any person who:
115. How is the crime of treason Committed? I . Without authority therefor, enters a warship, fort,
Treason is committed by any person who, owing alle- or naval or military establishment or reservation to obtain '

o the Government of the Philippines, not being ', any information, plans, photographs, or o
a foreigner, levies war against it or adheres to the ,enemies, confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine
giving them aid or comfort witbin the Philippines or else- ~ ; or
eing .in possession, by ?emon of the public office '

ds, of the articles, data, or information referred to

(Art. 114, as amended by
Executive Order No. 41,
R.P.C.)
,e the crimes of conspiracy and proposal to commit
mmit treason is committed when two
or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commis:rion of treason and decide to commit it.
the preceding paragraph, dificloses i.heir contents to a
representative of a foreign nation. . , ,
(Art. 117, R.P.C.) ,
, .
(19. How is the crime of inciting t o war or givin$ motives
for reprisals committed?
It is committed by any public officer or employee or ,~
private individ,oal who, by unlawful or unauthorized acts,
Philippines or exposes Filipino citizens t o
persons or property (Art. 118, R.P.C.).

of violation of neutrality
Violation of neutrality is committed by anyone wh
(Ark 115, R.P.C.)
any regulation issued by

..,
I
. .. . 46
-5 47
~,.,"
't.

.;
, .
..,
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.~ ,
It is committed by any person who, in time of war,
2. 125. How is the crime of arbitrary detention committed?
, '
shall have correspondence with an enemy country or terri- 4 It is committed by any public officer or employee who, ., ,~

' without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, R.P.C.).
tory occupied by enemy troops, aad khe correspondence
has been prohibited by the Government; or it is carried
an in ciphers or conventional signs; or notice or informa-
'tion is given thereby which might be useful to the enemy
.,. , ., (Art. 1.20, R.P.C.).
. .
122 How is the crime of flight to enemy's country committed?
,. It is comnitted by any person who, owing allegiance
to the Government, attempts t o flee or go to an enemy
1 . country when prohibited by competent authority (Art.
,,, , ~ .z:, . 121, R.P.C.).
..
123. IIoy iri the crime of piracy committed?
'427.
'Piracy is committed by any person who, on the high
.. .
seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not being a member
.- of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole
or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or per-
sonal belongings of its complement or passengers (Art.
"" 122, R.P.C.).
Not@: The mutiny which the Revised Pe~,zlW e punisha is
that which is committed on the high seas.
'.
126. How is the crime of delay in the delivery of detained per-
sons to the proper judicial authorities committed?
It is committed by a public officer o r employee who,
having detained any person for some legal gr
fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
within the period of; six hours, if detained
or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equi-:.
valent; nine hours, for crimes or offenses punishable
correctional penalties, or their equivalent; and eighte
hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive^
capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, R.P.C
Row is the cyime of &laying relase committed?, .
It is committed by any public officer or ,employee
delays the performance of any judicial or executive of
for the release of a prisoner o r detention prisoner,.
unduly delays the service of the notice of such order
said prisoner, or the proceedings upon any petition
the liberation of such person (Art. 126, R.P.C.).
Note: The three farms of arbitrary detention are defined:'
Arts. 124, 125, and 126.

. 124. When is the crime of piracy or mutiny on the high Seas

qualified?
/ 28. How is the crime of expulsion Committed?
It is committed by any public officer OT emvloyee
The crime of piracy 01' mutiny on the high seas is not being thereunto authorized by law, shall expel
'.",,T, qualified when it is committed under an> of the following person from the Philippines or shall compel such person?
circumstances : to change his residence (Art. 127, I1.P.C.).
1. When the offenders have seized a vessel by board-
, ,
ing or firing upon the same: 12s. How is the crime of violation of domicile committed? .,

.r 2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned, their victims It is committed by any public officers or em
withont means of saving themselves: or who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall
*. 3 . Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, any dwelling again.st ihe will of the owner thereof,
homicide, physical injuries, or rape. papers or other effects found therein without the
., (Art. 123, R.P.C.) consent of such owner, or, having surreptitious1

49
48
 I

. ,. . .
'..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRTXMINAL LAW REVIEWER

said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, It is committed by any public officer or employee who
~. shall refuse to do so (Art. 128, R.P.C.). shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies o r mjllifestations'
of any religion (Art. 132, par. 1, R.P.C.).
,, .
. ,

..,
130. How is the crime of search warrants maUeiously obtained,
, .
and abuse in the service of those IegaUy obtained, com-
mitted?
/'
134. When is the crime qualified? ---
If the crime of interruption of religious
% ;~
~ .,;:. .. ~,
It is committed by any public officer or employee who ,committed with violmce o r threats (Art.
.' .. shall procure a search warrant without just cause., or., , R.P.C.).
having legally procured the same, shall exceed his au-
(2''
:'.,
thority or use unnecessary severity in executing the same
.(Art. 129, R.P.C.).
Jdk. Hmitted?
o:v is the crime of offending the religious feelings corn- ~ .

.. ,
It is committed by anyone who, in a place devoted to
131. How is the crime of searching domicile without witnesses religious worship or during the celebration of any religious
'. committed? ceremony, shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the
.*v
, $.
. It is committed by any public officer or employee who,
I
I feelings of the faithful (Art. 133, R.P.C.).
in cases where a search is proper, shall search the douecile, Note: The crimes against religious worship are defined in.
papers, or other belongings of any person, in the absence Arts. 152 and 133.
of thc latter, any mcmber of his family, or in their de-
;. fault, without the presence of two witnesses i'efiiding in 38. How is the crime of rebellion or insurrection committed?
.,'
~

. ., &.$&,.
,,(i_
the same locality (Art. 130, R.P,C.).
,, .. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by
'$ :, . Note: The three P o m s of violation of domicile are defined rising publicly and taking arms against the Government.
. .I in Act& 128, 129 and 130. for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said
Government or its laws the territory of the Philippines
.,. 132. What are the acts punished in connection y i t h peaceful

/
o any part thereof or any body of land, naval, or other
a . .%'; . meetings$, association, and petition?
rmed forccs, o r of depriving the Chief Executive or the
1. By prohibiting o r by interrupting, without legal Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers o r :
. '
groaad, ike holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolv-
ing the same,
'prerogatives (Art. "4, R.P.C.).
9. .:
2. By hindering any person from joining any lawful 37. Who re liable for rebellion?

/ (W3;$
' '
association or from attending any of its meetings. e, following are liable for rebellion:
,. , .
:.
,,.., 3. BY prohibiting or hindering any person from ad- Any person who (a) promotes, (b) m a i n & +
dressing, either alone or together with others, any peti- eads a rebellion o r insurrection; or
. ~ ,'. tion to the authorities for the correction of abuses or Any person who, while holding any
redress of grievances.
. . or employment, takes part therein, (a) eng
7, , :'.
( .. ..<-;.,
(Art. 131, R.P.C.) against the forces of the government, (b) de
erty o r cominiMng serious vio'rence, and (c)
'.::. 133. How is tbe crime of interruption of religious worships'
"
tributions or diverting public funds from th
. .. :, ., committed?
pose for which they have been appropriat
. , , 60 61
,~

1. ''
* -
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
l.l . .
A.ny person merely participating or executing the
. . comman,ds of others in a rebellion.
(Art. 135, R.P.C.)
h 8 . ' When is there conspiracy t o commit rebellion?
There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or
more persons come to a n agreement concerning the com-
mission of rebellion and decide to commit i t (Arts. 8 and
136, R.P.C.).
.
,'":
;139., When is there proposal to commit rebellion?
"
,j ,, .~,. _ . . There is proposal to commit rebellion when a person
I: .. .,'.~,....
: ..: ,. T?:;. who has decided to commit rebellion proposes its execu-
How is the crime of disloyalty of public officers or em-
ployees committed?
', It is committed by public officcrs or employees who
.Xave failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their
power,, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their
-:,offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept
appointment to office under them (Art. 137, R.P.C.).
crime of inciting to sebellion or insurrection
~ ' .
It is committed by any person who, without taking
ing in open hostility against the Government,
others to the execution of any of the acts
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, ban-
ners or other representations tendina to the same end
The crime of sedition is committed by persons who
rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force,
intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods,
any of t.he following objects:
52
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEFYER
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any .'$:
law or the holding of any popular election:
2. To prevent the National Government, or any pro-.
vincial or municipal government, or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its os his functions, or
prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3 . T o inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the
'.. ":,
person or property of any public offices or employee;
4 . To commit, f o r a:ty political 01' xocial end, any act .
of hate or revenge against private persons o
class; and
5 . To despoil, Sor any political or social end, m y
person, municipality or province, os the National Govern-
ment of all its property o r any part thereof.
(art. 139, as amended by Corn;
Act No. 202, R.P.C.)
143. Who are liable for sedition?
The persons liable for sedition are :
1. The leader of the sedition; and
2 . Other persons participating in the sedition.
144. How is conspiracy t o commit sedition committ
It is committed when two or more persons come
a n agreement and a decision to rise public1
tuously to attain any of the objects of seditio
B.F.C.).
145. How is the crime of inciting to sedition eo
The crime of inciting t o sedition is committect in
ferent ways, which are as follows:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of an
the acts which constitute sedition by means of spee
proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.
2. Uttering seditions words or speeche
to disturb the public peace.
53
 3 . Writing, publishing, or circulatin scurrilous libels v(
- CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

;(>nd by any public officer or employees

against the Government or any o f the duly constituted w e the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest
which tpnd to p t u r b the public peace. or search any member thereof, except in cas
w61 au, - (Art. 142, R.P.C.) ber has committed a crime punishable under
Penal Code by a penalty higher than prision
146. Name t i e crimes against legislative bodies and similar 145, as amended by Corn. Act No. 264, R.P
bodies, and state how they are committed.
They are: L. /What are illegal assemblies?
1. .Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress
and similar bodies.
2 . Distukance OY proceedings.
2
T ey are:
Any meeting attended by armed persons for.
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable u
the &sed Penal Code.
3 . Violation of parliamentary immunity.
The crime of acts tending to prevent the 'meeting of
Congress and similar bodies is committee; by any person
,? Any meeting in which the audience, whether a
or not, is incited t o the commission of the crime of
who, b,y force or fraud, prevents the meeting of the Con- rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person
gress of the Philippines or of any of its committees or in authority or hjs agents.
subcommittees, constitutional commission., or conunittees (Art. 146, K.P.C.)
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board o r city
or municipal comcil or board.
{Art. 143, as amended by Corn.
I 149. What is the presumption of law against any person present
at an iUe& assembly who w r i e s an unlicensed firearm?
Act No. 264, R.P.C.) If any person present at the meeting carries an un-
The crime of disturbance of proceedings is committed licensed firearm, it shall he presumed that the purpose
by any person who disturbs the meetings 3f the Congress of said meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is to commit
of the Philippines or of any of its committees or sub- acts punishable under the Revised Penal C
committees, constitutional commissions or committees or shall be considered a leader or organizer of
&visioris thereof, 01' of any provincial board or city or (Art. 146, par. 2, R.P.C.).
municiixd council or hoard, o r in the presence of any such
bodies should behave in such manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it (Art. 144,
I 150. Who are the persons liable for illegal assembly?
They are:
as amndcd by €om. A& No. 264, R.P.C.).
I 1. The organizers or leaders.
2 . Persons merely present a t each meeting. .
147. How is violation of parliamentary immunity committed?
'
It i,s committed by any person who shall use force,
' intimidation, threats or fraud to prevent any member of
the Congress of the Philippines from attending the meet-
ings of Congress or of any of its committees or subcom-
mittees, constitutiona1 commissions or committees or divi-
I 151. What are illegal associations?
They are:
1. Associations totally or partially organized for t$e
purpose of committing any of ths crimes punishable unde
sions thereof, from expressing his opinions or casting his the Revised Penal Code.

54 5s
 CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

2 . Associations totally or partially organized for some 2. By refusing to be sworn o r placed under affirma-
purpose contrary to public morals. tion while being before such legislative or constitutional
(Art. 147, R.P.C.) body o r of€icial.
8 . By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to pro-
152: Who are the persons liable for illeg.al associations? duce any books, papers, documents, or records in his pos-
They are: session, when required by them t o do so in the exercise
i
of their functions.
1. Founders, directors and presidents.
,. .;
i 4 . By redraining another from attending as a witness
2 . Mere members.
in such legislative or constitutional body or official.
;5

153. How are direct assaults committed? 5 . By inducing disobedience t o a summons or refusal
?
;>,. .'. to be sworn by any sucb. body or official.
,.,,
... .' . Direct assaults are committed by any person or per- (Art. 160, R.P.C:)
sons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force
v,.. .
~, , I
~ or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes /
'156.
.
How IS the crime of resistance and disobedience to a
enumerated in defining the c r i m s af rebellion and seaition,
.,:,
.,., ,.
I",
>;l> '
or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or person in antiioriity o r the agents of such person com-
,<$: .. mitted?
,A), resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while
.* >I engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occa- IC is committed by any person who, not being included
sion of such performance (Art. 148, R.P.C.). in Arts. 148, 149, and 15.0, shall resist o r seriously dis-
obey any pers,on in anthority, or the agents of such per-
154. How are indirect a s a u l t s committed? son, while engaged in the performance of official duties
(Art. 151, par. 1, R.P.C.).
Indirect assaults are committed by any person who shall
make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming The penalty is lower when the disobedience to a n agent
' . to the aid of the authorities 01' their agents on occasions of a person in authority is not of a serious nature (Art.
. , of the commission of any of the crimes defined in Art. 151, par. 2, R.P.C.).
_I..
/
-;$
. ~e%, ,-

".
:':.,
..! ,, , .
148 (Art. 149, R.P.C.).

155. How is the crime of disobedience to suntnton~ of the

4. Who shall be deemed persons in auth
persons in authority?
,
: >.,. ,
. .. Congress of the Philippines, its committees, or of the
Constitutional Commission committed?
The crime is committed in several ways, which are as
follo~vs:
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons
of Cengngress, its special ur standing eommitkes and suh-
committees, the Constitutional Commission and its com-
mittees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission
or committee chairman o r member authorized to summon
witnesses. barrio councilman and barrio policemen,

56
 I

*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CLLIMIIYAL LAW REVIEWER

1 ' . who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be 3. By maliciously publishing or causing t o be published *, i.
-7 '
deemed an agent of a persoi~in autliorjky. my official resoluiio~~ or document without proper au-
In applying the provisions of 148 and 151 of the Re- thority, or before they have been published officially;
.,,. vised Penal Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged
with the supervision of publk 01. duly recognized private
4 . By printing, publishing or distributing (or causing
the same) boolKs, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which
'
. . schools, colleges and universities, shall be deemed persons do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified
in authoritv. as nnonymolts.
(Art. 152, as amended by Rep, (Art. 154, R.P.C.)
Act No. 1978, R.P.C.)
160. What are t h e acts punished as alarms and scandals? .
' 158. What are tumults and other disturbances of public order?
They are:
They are:
1, Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or
I, Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, other explosive within any town or public place, (cal-
3
office or establishment; culated to cause) which produces alarm or danger.
2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, 2. Instigating os taking an active part in any charivari ','.
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or preju-
' i s not included in Arts. 131 and 132; dicial to public tranquility.
3 . Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or 3 . Disturbing the public peace while wandering about
,:
,,I
sedition in any meeting, association or public place: at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amuse
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a ments. ..
..
disturba.nce of public order in such place;
5 . Burying with pomp the body of a person who has
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places '."
I .
iuhi.!e intoxicated or othervise, provided Art. 153 js not
been legally executed. applicable.
(Art. 153, R.P.C.)
% '

159. What are the acts punished as unlawftil use of means of
,:.,,. publication and unlawful utterances?
They are:
1. By publishing or causing to be published, by means
.. of print.ing, lithography o s any other mezns of publica-
tion, as news any false news which may endanger the
public order, o r cause damage to the interest or credit
j of the State;
,, .,' 2. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the
, ',. constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or ex-
tolling any act punished by law, by the same means or
by words, utterances o r speeches.
68
161... How is the crime of delivering prisoners from jails C
mitted?
It is committed by any person who shall
any jail or penal establishment any person co
in or shall help the escape of such perso
of violence, intimidation o r bribery, or other
escape may take place outside of the penal establis
by taking the guards by surprise (Art. 156, R.P.C.
162. Mention the different forms of evasion of the service
i the sentence and state how each is committed.
They are:
69

3
 . ,*:.
..,.
I. .c.
. , . '
.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE11

,., 1. Evasion of service of sentence by escaping during It is committed by any person who' shall forge .the
the tern1 of sentence. Great Seal of the Government of the Philippines-or the ,,

. . 2 . Evasion on the occasion of disorder. signature or stamp of the Chief Executive (Art. 161,
3 . Other cases of evasion by violating the condition R.P.C.).
. . of a conditional pardon.
165. How is the crime of using forged signature or counterfeit
Evasion of service of sentence by escaping is com- seal or stamtp committed?
mitted by any convict who shall evade service of his sen-
,. . . tence by escaping during the term of his sentence by
.. It is committed by any person who shall knowingly
make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature. or
' reason of final judgment (Art. 157, R.P.C.).
stanq of the Chief Executive (Art. 162, R.P.C.);
I
.

, j

Evasion on the occasion of disorders is c6mmitted by

a convict who, having left the penal institution where 166. What are the crimes relative to counterieiting coins?
he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder, .,.
resulting from a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or and uttering false coins.
similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has
.. . not parlicipated, shall suffer an increase of one-fifth of
the time still remaining to be served under the original
coins.
and utterance of mutilated
'.,!.'
' 2.I Selling .
of false or mutilated coin, without eon- '",?
sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he nivance.
shall fail to give himself up t o the authorities within ( A r k . 163-165, R.P.C.)

,
forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation
. by the Chief Executive announcing the prssing away of
4
~ " t ~ he . l n.mitated
: CO ~ . may be any ."in: silver coin, any
of the minor coinage of the Philippines, or coin of .e foreid
, ,:'$
', ..
_I such calamity (Art. 158, R.P.C.).
. I that are kcal tender, or those withdrawn from ,'
.,
Other cases of evasion is committed by a convict who, circulation.
.,.: having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Ex- But the coins mutilated must be legal tender coins of the , <r
,: Philippines, not foreign coins and not withdraam from cir- * :.: ,

ecutive, shall violate any of the conditions of such par- dation. 'ir
\ . . .Id!.
.
,..ai
.~.S'

,.<- don (Art. 159, R.P.C.).

167. How is the crime of sellinp of false or mutilated
169. What is quasi-recidivism? committed?
There is quasi-recidivism wheu a person committed a It is committed by any person who knowingly,
;: felony after having been convicted by final judgment, be- though without connivance, shall possess false or mutilated
fore beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually u t k
&*. the same. He shall be punished by the maximum period such coin (Art. 165, R.P.C.).
':$ of the uenaltv urescribed bv law for the new felonv
168. What are the acts punished in connection with treasur
or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer

y
,'Lf.h34.

,
,
' ,.
,__
, ,
How is the crime of counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
. Government. of the Philippines, or that of forging the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive, committed?
They are:
1. Forging or falsifying treasury or ,bank notes
other documents payable t o bearer.

60 61

..,. ,
 I

-:,.
~*e%
,:., ,:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

, ... .,~'
,
' . 2 Importation of such false or forged obligations or 172. %ow is the crime of falsification of legislative documents . ,,
. ._ '.~
note$+pi: . ,. . committed? ._
3 . Uttering such fZlse or forged obli@ons or notes' It is committed by any p a s o n who, without proper. .'
in connivance ivith' the forgers or importers, authority thercfor, alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance .
, enacted 01' apprqved or pending approval by either House&
.. (Art. 166, R.P.C.)
1
of Congress or any provincial board or municipal council;i
Note: If the instrument forpad, imported or uttered is pay-
,. ,. able to order, the crime is pmished under Art. 167. The acts
(Art. 170, R.P.C.).
.. ,
punishcd are the same a8 in Art. 166.
. ,.<,. c
.
,
173. What are the acts of falsifieat,ion that may be committed
What are the treasury or bank notes or other documents on any document?
payable to hearer the fiirging or falsification of which
is punishable?
or imita,ting any handwriting, signa-
They are:
1. Obligation or security of the Philippines. Causing it t o appear that persons have participakd . ;
. i ,,
.,. .\
, .L. 2 . Circulating note issued' by any banking association they did not in fact so
, . .
4 '
. duly authorized by law to issue the same.
I ' 3 . *Document issued by a foreign government. Attributing to persons who have partkip
4 . Circulating note or. bill issued by a foreign bank other than tho
duly authorized to issue the same.
in a narration o f "
How is the crime of illega1:possession and use of false
treasury or bank notes and other instruments of cxedit tering true daten;
committed?
It is committed by any person who shall knowingly
use or have in his possession, with intent to use, any
false or falsified instrument payable to bearer or payable Issuing in an authent,icated form LI document
,?
to order (Art. 168, R.P.C.).

How is forgery
-~ committed?
0.
9**," - Forgery is committed by any of the followin~g,.,meam:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instru- '. Intercalating any instrument o r note relat
ment pa,yable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the issuance thereof in a protocol, I
the appearance of a true and genuine document ; book.'
&p .:. >,'
,.d:
,
2 . By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering
,
.
,,,
~i
by any means the figores, letters, words, or signs con- 1'
' ., &! :, tained therein. 174. Distinguish falsification by public of
., ,,.,~
,...
* (Art. 169, R.P.C.) notary from falsification by private
..
,?.. '
,.
'.i .'i
62 63

t .
 ,
.. i ~ , , '-
. ..'
.

. , CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

C~IMINALLAW REVIEWEE
The act of falsification committed in both crimes is cable, or telegraph, or telephone messlages
I . .,,.any one of those enumerated in Art. 171 of the Revised fictitious wireless, telegraph, or telephone mes
:.
, ., . .
' Penal Code. lsystem or falsifies the same (Art. 173, par.
In falsification by public officer, employee or notary,
.. ,, .,,
. ,
, the offender must take advantage of his official position;
.. +&: 8. How is the crime of use of falsified wireless, cable, tele-
." . 4. in falsification by private individuals, in case the offender graph or lelephone messages committed?
, . . is a public officer, employee or notary, he does not take
~

4 s committed by any person who shall u

. .. advantage of his official position.
j_
. '., !?%+l:
While in falsification by public officer, employee, or
. ' 6 notary the offender falsified a document, without specify-
i.. ing the kind or nature thereof; in falsification by private
individuals, the law states that a private individual should
commit any falsification in any public or official docn-
ment or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial
;,,e.:,. :', :.. document.
(Arts. 171 and 172, R.P.C.)
. How is the crime of falsification of private document eom-
' ' Falsification of private document is committed by any
0, to the damage of a third party, or with the
ause such damage, shall in any private document
commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in
Art. 171 (Art. 172, par. 2, R.P.C.).
How is the crime of use of falsified documents committed4
I t is committed by any person who shall knowingly
introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the
damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such
damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced
I. in Art. 171 or in subdivisions 1 and 2 of Art. 172 (Art.
172, last par., R.P.C.).
~
cable! telegraph or telephone dispatch to the prej- ..,
a third party or with the intent to cause p c h ' .
(Art. 173, par. 2, R.P.C.).
crime of Ialsification of medical Certificates,
f merit or service, and the like, committed?.
who, in connection with the
issued a false certificate.
issued a false certi
or similar circu
a certificate
ing in the classes mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2.
/" (Art. 174, R.P.C.)
/'
180. How is the crime of using false certificates committed?
It is committed by any one who shall knowingly US
any false medical certificates o r certificates of merit 0
service (Art. 175, R.P.C.).
AI. B o w are the crimes of manufacturing and pos
instruments or implements for falsification committed?
The crime of manufacturing instruments o r
for falsification is committed hy any person who

make or introduce into the Philippines any stamps,

177. How is the crime of falsification of wireless, cable, tele- marks, or other instruments or implements i
graph, and telephone messages committed?
be used in the commission of the offenses
It is committed by any officer or employee of the feiting or falsification (Art. 176, par. 1, R.P.C.).
* Government or of any private corporation or concern en- The crime of possession of instruments or implements
., gaged i n the service of sending or receiving wireless, / for falsification is committed by any person who, with:
64 /
65
 CBIMINAL LAW REVIEWEi?
.' the intention of using them, shall have them in his pos-
session (Art. 176, par. 2, R.P.C.).
182. How is the crime of usurpation of anthority or official
functions; committed?
It is committed by any person who shall knowingly
and falsely represent himself to be an officer, agent, o r
representative of any department or agency of the Philip-
pine Government or of any foreign government, or who,
- court. The Code punishes false testimony 'gainst a de-
'. under pretense of official position, shall perform any act
pertaining t o any person in authority or public officer
of the Philippine Government or of any foreign govern-
ment, o r any agency thereof, without being lawfully en-
'-
titled to do so (Art. 177, as amended by Rep. Act 379,
R.P.C.).
183. How are the crimes of using fictitious name and conceal-
. , ing true name committed?
The crime of using fictitious name is committed by
any person who shall publicly use n fictitious name for
the purpose of concealing a crime, evading the execution
t, or causing damage (Art. 178, par. I ,
The crime of concealing truc name is committed by
conceals his trnc namc and other personal
(Art. 178, par. 2, R.P.C.).
A87. Distinguish false testimony in civil cases from false te
184. How is the crime of ille~al use of uniform or insignia
committed?
It is committed by any person who shall publicly and
improperly make use of insignia, uniform, or dress per-
taining t o a n office not held by such person or to a
class of persons of which he is not a member (Art. 179,
188. How- is the crime of false testimony in other cases
85. What a r e the three forms o f false testimony?
66
CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER
d False testimony in civil cases (Art. 162).
&"False testimony in other cases (Art. 183). (People
vs. Bautista, 39 O.G. 1272)
6 . h s t i n g u i s h false testimony against a defendant from false
testimow favorable to the defendant.
In both crimes, the witness who gave false testimony
is liable even if his testimony was not considered by the '1
.'
fendant even if the latter is acquitted. e false testi-
mony favorable to the defendant need not directly in-
fluence the decision of aequieal. It need not benefit the
defendant. It is sufficient that the false testimony was
given with intent to favor the defendant.
As to the basis of the penalty, they differ in the sense
that in false testimony against a defendant the penalty "
depends upon the sentence of the defendant against whom
the false testimony was given, that is, whether he is
convicted or acquit,ted; and in case of conviction, the
.i
,,j
penalty to which the defendant is sentenced. In false
testimony favorable to the defendant, the penalty depends
on whether the prosecution is for a felony punishable .
by an af€lictive peiialty o r it is for other classes of
felony.
mony in criminal cases.
i' In &
fw tcstimony in civil casetr, the testimony
; relate to the issues presented in. the case; wherea
false testimony in criminal cases, it is not required
the testimony be material.
perjury in solemn affirmation committed?
'It is committed by any person who, knowingly m
untruthful statements and not being included i
visions relative to false testimony in crimin
cases, shall testify under oath, or make a n affidayi
67
 . *

,.

,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. any material matter before a competent person authorized

'

,i: to administer a n oath in cases in which the law so re-

/
.
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVER

t Any persor, who sb!l monopulize any merchandise

or object of trade or commerce, 'or shall combine .m$h
'5

*'% quires (Art. 183, R.P.C.). any other person or persons to monopolize said merchan-;
dise or object in order t o alter the price thereof by.
,189.. How is the crime of offering false testimony in evidence spreading b i s e rumors o r making use of any other art;; :
.
committed?
It is committed by any person who shall knowingly
offer in evidence a false witness or testimony in any
1
fice to -estrain free competition in the market. "-
Any person who, being a manufacturer, producer,
o r processor of any merchandise or object of commerce
judicial or official proceeding (Art. 184, R.P.C.). or an importer of any merchandise or object of commerce
from any ioreign conntry, either as principal or agent,.
, -190. Mention the crimes which are classified as frauds and wholesaler or retailer, shall combine, conspire or agree
.', state the manner each is committed. in any manner with any person likewise engaged. in t h
manufacture, production, processing:, assembling or im-
portation of such merchandise or ohject of comm
I

-.
.

d
7
ao?:it:ns in public auctions.
2 Moaopolies and combinations in restraint of trade.
Importation and disposition o€ falsely marked ar-
, ' ticles o r merchandise made of gold, silver or other pre-
. .. eionsjpletals.
. . 4 Substituting and altering trade-marks and trade-
, ~.
, n a m y or service marks.
. . ,
Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of
trade-mark or trade-name, or service mark; fraudulent
designation of origin and false description.
The crime of machinations in public auLtions is com-
mitted by any person who shall solicit any gift or prom-
_' ise as a consideration for refraining from taking part
in any public auction, and any person who, shall attempt
to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats,
:"-gifts, promises, or any other artifice, w t h intent to
'cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
(Art. 185, R.P.C.).
The crime of monopolies and combinatiors in restraint
of trade is committed by:
1. Any person who shall enter into any contract or
agreement or shall take part in any conspiracy or com-
,
. bination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint
,,. .
, , i,i;. : of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means
.' , free competition in the market.
68
with any other persons not so similarly engaged f
purpose of making. transactions prejudicial to
commerce, or of increasing the market price in any pa
of the Philippines, of any such merchandise ' or , obj
of commerce manufactured, produced, processed, assem
bled in or imported into the Philippines, or of a n s a
in the manufacture of which such manufactured,
duced., orocessed.
_ or imoorted merchandise or objec
commerce is used.
/
d e crime of importation an6 disposition of fals
marked articles or merchandise made of gold, silver,
other precious metak is committed by any perso
shall Bnowingly import or sell or dispose of a n y
or merchandise made of gold, silver or other p
metal, or their alloys, with stamps, brands o r marks w
fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality. of
metals o r alloys (Art. 187, R.P.C.).
The crime of substituting and altering trade-m
trade-names, or service-marks is committed by:
1. Any person W ~ Dshall substitute the trade-n
trade-mark of some other manufacturer or dealer;
colorable imitation thereof, for the trade-name or t
mark of the real manufacturer or dealer upon any-articl
of commerce and shall sell the same; :
,;I.
. .~
,:_
69 ::(
,2:
..
I ,.G
.,'
 GRIMINAL LA%’ REVIRWER
2. Any person who shall sell such articles of commerce
or offer the same for sale, knowing that th.? trade-name
nr trademark has he?. f r a d t l . J used such gads
as described in the preceding subdivision,
3 . Any person who, in the sale o r advertising of his
services, shall use or substitute the service mark of some
other persons, or colorable imitation of s w h mark; or
4 . Any person who, knowing the purpuses for which
the trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark of a person
is to be used, prints, lithographs, or in any way 2.eproduces
such trade-name, trade-mark, o r service mark or a color-
able imitation thereof, for another person, to enable that
other person to fraudulently use such trade-name, trade-
mark, or service mark on his own goods o r in connectiun
with the sale or advertising of his service.
(Art. 188, R.P.C.)
The crimes of unfair competition, fraudulent registra-
tion m€ tmde-nnme, trade-mark o r service mark, fraudulent
designation of origin, and false description are committed
. .-- ,by:
1. Any person who, in unfair competition and for the
purpose of deceiving o r defrauding another of his legiti-
~ . x. . mate trade or the public in general, shall sell his goods
giving them the general appearance of the goo& of an-
other manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods them-
selves, or in the wrapping of the packages in which they
are contained, o r the device or words therein, or in any
other Ieature of their appearance which would be likely
t o induce tine public t o believe that the goods offered are
those of a manufacturer o r dealer other than the actual
manufacfmer or dealer, o r shall give other persons a
chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose.
2. Any person who shall affix, apply, annex, or use
in connection with any goods or services, or any container
or containers for goods, a false designation of origin, or
any false description or representation, and shall sell such
goods or services.
70
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent
representations or declarations, orally o r in writing, or
hy other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent
office or from any other office which may hereafter be
established by law for the purposes, the registration of a’
trade-name, trade-mark, or service mark, or of himself
I’ as the owner of such trade-name, trade-mark, or service
mark, or an entry respecting a trade-name, trade-mark,
r service mark.
(Art. 189, :is amended by Rep.
Act No. 172, R.P.G.)
191. What are the crimes relative to opium and other pro-
and sale of prohibited drugs (Art. 192).;
4. I l l ~ g a ipossession of opium pipe o r other parapher-
nalia $dthe use of any prohibited drugs (Art. 193).
d Prescribing opium unnecessarily f o r patient (Ar
194).
192. Define “nrohibited
., drug”.
~. “opium”, “inrlian hemp”,
~~
‘ I narcotic‘ drug”.
/ & g ” includes opium, cocaine, alfa and
beta eucai.ne, Indian hemp, their derivatives, and all p
rations made from them or any of them and such
drugs, whether natural or synthetic, having physiol
action as a narcotic drug.
“Opium” embraces every kind, class, and character
opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes or refu
of the same; narcotic preparations thereof or therefro
morphine o r alkaloid of opium; preparations in:
ogium, morphine, 01’ alkaloid of opium mtcc 33,
71
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

gpedient, and also opium leaves or wrappings of opium 194. What are the. crimes against public morals?
Ieaves, whether prepared or not, for their use. They are:
“Indian hemp,” otherwise known as marihuana, canna- 1. Gambling.
bis Americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, cburruz, and gan-
2. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tick@
jah, embraces every kind, class and character of Indian
hemp, whether dried or fresh flowering or fruiting tops or advertisements.
of the pistillate plant cannabis satival, from which the 3 . Betting in sports contest.
resin has not been extracted, including all other geographic 4. Illegal betting 011 horse races.
..
varieties whether used as reefers, resin, extract, tincture 5. Illegal cockfighting.
or in any other form wkatscver.. 6. Grave scandal.
By “narcotic drug” is meant a drug that produces a 7 , Immornl doctrines, obscene publications and ex-
condition of insensibility and melancholy dullness of mind hibitions.
.
with delusions and may be habit forming.
8. Vagrancy and prostitution.
193. Enumerate the different acts relative to opium and other
nrohibited drugs 195. Wha.t acts are punishable in gambling?
- which are punished under the Revised
They are:
1. Taking part directly or indirectly in-
preparing, administering or other- a . any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form
of lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game,
dog races, or any other game o r scheme the
resort where any pro-
result of which depends wholly or chiefly upon
chance hazard; or wherein wagers Consisti
of a dive or re- gf money, articles of value, or representat
sort where any prohibited drug is used in any manner
of value are made; or
By knowingly visiting any such dive or resort. b . the exploitation or use of any other.
invention or contrivance to determine
By importing or bringing into the Philippines any the loser or winner of m
or representative of value.
selling or delivering to another any
2. Knowingly permitting any f o
place owned or controlled b
any opium pipe or other parapher-
administering, or using opium
n;rlia. f o ~ :smoking, injecting, 3 , Being maintainer, conductor
m anv ixohibited drur, the uossessor not being authorized of :iueteng. or similar game.
4 . Knowingly and without lawful piirpose
ribing opium for any person whose phy- lotte&ist which pertains t u or is used in
oes not require the use of the same, the of jueteny.
nder being a physician or dentist.
-2
73
 . .,,~ . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,
i J ,%+$I
.>A*

1%. What are the acts punished in Connection with lottery 4 . By organizing such cockfights at a phee other than >,*,s
3
;,$,Z

//licensed cockpit. __j

(Art. 199, R.P.C.) s

!

00. What' are the crimes against decency and good customs?

Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and ex-

hibitions.
By selling or distributing the same without con- g d a g r a n c y and prostitution.
nivance with the importer. /
,. . (Art. 196, R.P.C.)
28i. How is the crime of grave scandal committed?
It is committed by any person who shall offend against
197. How is the crime of betling in sports contests committed? decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct .,
not expressly falling within any other article of the Re-
,.. It is committed by any person who shsll bet money vised Penal Code (Art. 200, R.P.C.).
."-.-,: or any object or article of value or representative of value
,.
., .. j
upon f i e remlt of any boxing or other sports contest
(Art. 197, R.P.C.). 'How is the crime of immoral doctrines, obscene publica-
tions, exhibitions committed?
d d m i t t e d by:
;:. . 8. What are the acts punishable in illegal betting on horse
p d o s e who shall publicly expound or proclaim doc-
'

i . races?
trines cpenly contrary to public morals;
, . ?&aziting on horse races during the periods not authors of obscene literature, published with
t h lr knowledge in any form, and the editors publishin

,
P
allowe by law.
2 B y maintaining or employing a totalizer or other
device or scheme for betting on races or realizing profit
such p f a t u r e ;
A. Those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, 0
open to public view, shall exhibit in-
therefrom, during the period not allowed by law.
plays, scenes, acts, o r shows; and
(Art. 198, R.P.C.)
sell, give awa,y, or exhibit prink,
What are the acts punishable in illegal cockfighting? engravings, sculptores, or literature which are offensive
to morals.
(Art. 201, R.P.C.)
money or other valuable things in cock- ,' /

,~.. other than .that permitted by law.

:..s
200. who a m ,&rants?
cockfights at which bets are made, following are vagrants:
.,.~. , J, other than that permitted by law.
Any person having no apparent means of subs'
. * By betting money or other valuable things in cock- ence, who has the physical ability to work and who negle
f + fights hdd at a place other than a licensed cockpit. to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;, '~.,
74 75
.,
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

2. Any person found loitering about public or semi- 4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
public buildings or places, o r tramping or wandering 5 . Derelictiou of duty in prosecution of offenses. . '
about the country or the streets without visible means . 6 . Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor-revela- -
of support; tion. of secrets.
3 . Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses The crime of knowingly rendering unjust judgment is
of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually committed by any judge who shall knowingly render an
associate with prostitntes; unjust judgment in any case submitted t o him for decision
.
4 . Any person who, not being included in the provi- (Art. 204, R.P.C.).
, sions of other articles of the Revised Penal Code, shall be The crime of judgment rendered through negligence
"
found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place be- is committed by any judge who, by reason of inexcusable
longing to another without any lawful or justifiable pur- negligence or ignorance, shall render a manifestly uiljuat
pose. judgment in any case submitted to him for decision (Art.
.. ..?.
G. Prostitutes. 205, R.P.C.).
(Art. 202, I1.P.C.) The crime of unjust interlocutory order is committed
. .
by any judge who shall knowingly render a n unjust inter-
04. Who are prostitutes? locutory order 01- decree; or by a judge who shall have

j$ ' i.n
Women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge
sexual intercourse o r lascivious conduct, are deemed
t o be prostitutes (Art. 202, R.P.C.).
acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly nn-
just (Art. 206, R.P.C.).
&..;
6,;
4.
205.. Who are public officers for the purpose of applying eer-

..
,
t~
ain provisions of the Revised Penal Code?
I_

Any person who, by direct provision of the law, pop-

..
_%':

ular election o r appointment by competent authority, shall

,
The crime 01malicious delay in the administration of
justice is committed by any judge who shall malicious19
delay the administration of justice (Art. 207, R.P.C.).
The crime of negligence in the prosecution, or to1
of the commission, of oifenses
take part in the performance of public functions in the officer or officer of the law
., . ,,. .,. Government of the Philippines, or shall perform in said duties of his office, shali malici
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an ing prosecution for the punishment of violato
employee, agent; or subordinate official of any rank or law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses
class, 'shall be deemed to be a public officer (Art. 203, 208, R.P.C.).
.,/
' <, R.P.C.). The crimes of betrayal of trust by an a
r:B, . solicitor and revelation of secrets are commi
.',' 206. -Mention the crimes under dereliction of duty and state attorney-at-law o r solicitor who, by any mali
the manner each is committed. of professional duty or inexcusable neglige
'+ They are: ance, shall prejudice his client, or reveal any
. , , . of the latter learned by him in his professional cap
1. Ilnowingly rendering unjust judgment.
or who, having undertaken the defense of a clie
2. Rendering judgment through negligence. having received confidential information from said ;

3 1 Rendering unjust interlocutory order. in a case, shall undertake the defense of

.
76 77
, .
,
,.
.~..
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
, party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client (Art. 209, R.P.C.).
207; Mention the two forms of bribery and state the 'manner
. . each is committed.
They are (1) direct bribery and (2) indirect bribery.
Direct bribery is committed by any public officer who
shall agree to perform a n act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duties.
,,., . in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present
received by such officer, personally or through the media-
. .
tion of another; or by any public officer who shall accept
' '
gift in consideration 01the execution of an act which
does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said
'. act, whether accomplished or not; or by any public.officer,
if the object for which the gift was received or promised
.was to make him refrain from doing something which
s his official duty to do (Art. 210, R.P.C.).
...'.. &direct bribery is committed by any public officer
ho shall accept gifts offered t o him by reason of his
2 6 ' '{Art. 211, R.P.C.).
8. How is the crime of corruption of public officials com-
It is committed by any person who shall have made
1's or promises or given the gifts or presents under
circumstances that will make the pnblic officer liable for
1 direct bribery or indirect bribery (Art. 212, R.P.C.).
How is the crime of frauds against the public treasury
committed?
It is committed by any public officer who, in his of-
ficial capacity, in dealing with any person with regard
to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds, shall enter into a n agreement with
any interested party or speculator or make use of any
other scheme, to defraud the Government (Art. 213, par.
1, R.P.C.).
78
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
210. How is the crime of illegal exactions committed? .
It is committed by any public officer who, being en-
trusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and
other imposts, shall be guilty of any of the following acts
os ornissious :
(a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law;
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum of money collected brr him officially;
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a n
different from that provided by law.
(Art. 213, par. 2, R.P.
211. What is the additional penalty for, and whe
imposed upon, a public officer who commitq';~
The additional penalty is temporary speei
tion in its maximum period to perpetual special d
tion. It shall be imposed when the public officer6
any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in A
to 315 of the Revised Penal Code, taking a
his official position (Art. 214, R.P.C.).
212. What are prohibited transactions?
The crime known as prohibited tiansactions'
mitted by any appointive public officer who, dunng
incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested
in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the
territory subject t o his jurisdiction (Art. 215, R.P.C.).
213. How is the crime of possession of pmhibited interest
a public officer committed?
It is committed by:
Any public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall
come interested in any contract or business in which i
his official duty to intervene;
79
 . .

:. , ,
* CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . .

Q
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
and who f d s t o do SO for a period of two months after , ~

+Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in such accwnts should be rendered (Art. 218, R.P.C.).
like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction
$
. '._
~:i
'~ ,.,;...,is
,. connected with the estate or property in 'he appraisal, 217. How is the crime of faihre of a responsible public officer :"

. : ~ . distribution, or adjudication of which they shall have acted; t o render accounts before leaving the wountry committed? ,. ;
Guardians and executors with respect t o the property It is committed by any public officer who unlawfuuy.
to their wards o r the estate. leaves or attempts to leave the Philippines without secur-
(Art. 216, R.P.C.)
. . ,,
ing a certificate from the Auditor General, showing that
his accounts have been finally settled {Art. 219, R2.C:).
. .214. What are the crimes called mahersation cf public funds
. .. or property? 218. How is the crime of illegal use of public funds o r property
,. .
?@ are:
Malversation by appropriating, misappropriating or
permit ng any other person t o take public funds or prop-
committed?
It is committed by any public officer who shall apply .
any public funds or property under hi8 administration to *
.. ' ,.. ' .
rtg ~

any public use other than that for which such funds or '

8" ailure of accountable officer to render accounts.

Failure of a responsible public officer to render I property were appropriated by law or ordinance (Art. 220,
I1.P.c.).

I
before leaving the country.
lXegal use of public funds or property.
to make delivery of public funds or property.
215. How is malversation by appropriating, misappropriating,
or permitting any other person to take public funds OT
property committed?
It is committed by any puhlic officer who, being ac-
countable for public funds o r property, by reason of the
duties of his office, shall appropriate, or shali take or mis-
appropriate the same, or shall consent or, through ahandon-
ment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take
such funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall other-
$i '~
Nota: Darnage o r embarrassment to tlie public service is not
necessary. It only increases the penalty.
219. HOT is the crime of failure to make delivery of public
funds or property committed?
It is committed by any public officer, under obligation
to make payment from Government funds in his possession
who shall fail t o make such payment; or by any pub
officer who, being ordered by competent authority
deliver any property in his custody or under his admims-
tration, shall refuse to make such delivery (Art. 221,
R.P.C..).

wise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation

220, May private individuals be held liable for malversation,

k,,
.. .
of such funds or property (Art. 217, R.P.C.).
'
under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes, the provisions of the Revised 'Penal Code on
versation shall apply t o private individuals who, in
.~ 216. ffow is Uhe crime of failure of accountable officer to render
.r":,! accounts committed? capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provin
&;&; or municipal funds, revenues, or property or t o any a
It is committed by any public officer, whether in the
yt; . ~. service or separated therefrom by resignation of any other ministrator or depository of funds or property attache
seized, or deposited by public authority, even if such pro
cause, who is required by law or regulation to render
accounta to the Auditor General, or to a provincial auditor, erty belongs to a private individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.).
..., I

81
..
 CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER CIIIMIKAL IAW REVIEWER

221. What a.re the crimes classified under infidelity of public &ow is the crime of infidelity in the custody of documents
officers:! by removal, concealment or destruction thereof committed?
They are: It is committed by any public officer who shall remove, ., ~

1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners. destroy, or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted
to him, causing damage to a third party or t o the public. ,
. , 2. Infidelity in the custody of documents. , interest (Art. 226. R.P.C.).

i
3 . Revelation of secrets.
/
22. How is the crime of infidelity in the cnstody of prisonen
by conniving with or consenting t o evasion committed?
It is committed by any public officer who shall con-
sent t o the escape of a prisoner, whether sentenced by
. .
/ . .
227. How is the crime of officer breaking seal committed?
It is committed by any puhlic officer, charged with
t h e custody of papers or property sealed by proper au-
tliority, who shall break the seals or permit them t u be
broken (Art. 227, R.P.C.). , .

:J final judgment or only held as a detention prisoner, in

his custody or charge (Art. 223, R.P.C.).

223. How is the crime of evasion through negligence committed?

It is committed by any public officer who, being
38.
I
/
HOW is
mitted?
the crime of opening of closed documents com-
. ,,
..,:
,..I.

It is committed by any public officer who, without'',,z

i s
'

, . proper authority, shall open o r shall peymit to be opened I- *'

' ' qharged with the conveyance or custodv of a urisoner. any closed papers, documents, or objects entrusted to his"Y
his escape througJ1 negligence (Art. 224,' custody, and t h e act does not constitute the crime of :d
. .. br king ,seal (Art. 228, R.P.C.).
_,.,
..i
, ~ ,
/"
. May a private person be held liable for infidelity in the How is the crime ,of revelation of secrets by an offizer ~I ...-i
, .,j

custody of prisoner? committed? ,, >>;3g

Yes. Any private person to whom the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner or person under arrest shall have
been confided, who shall consent to the escape of the
prisoner or person under arrest, or through his negligence
make possible the escape of the prisoner or person under
It is committed by any public officer
any secret known t o him by reason of his offi
or shall wrongfully deliver papers or copies
which he may have charge and which s

/' arrest, shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than
that prescribed for the public officer (Art.225, R.P.C.).

5. What a r k t h e crimes known a s infidelity in the custody

/ published (Art. 229, K.P.C.).

230. How is the crime of public officer revealing. seer

private individual oommitted?
of docykents? It is committed by any public officer t o wh
crets of any private individual shall become
reason of his office who shall reveal such
emoval, concealment o r destruction of documents. 230, K.P.C.).
fficer breaking seal.
of closed documents. 231. How is the crime of open disobedience c o m d t t e

82 83
Y
I
1 1
,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

It is committed by any judicial or executive officer
' '

~ who shall openly refuse to execute the judgment, decision, office committed?
or order of any superior authority made within the scope
:. of the jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the performance of the duties and powers of any public
':' legal formalities (Art. 231, R.P.C.).
.. or employment without first being sworn in or h
given the bond required by law (Art. 236, R.P.C.). ',
,232. How is the crime of disobedience to order of superior
officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer
. committed? powers committed?
.
'

"
It is Committed by any public officer who, havinq for
any reason, suspended the execution of the orders of his
I

. superiors, shall disobey such superiors after the latter

'
ployment, or commission, beyond the period pro
~*. have disapproved the suspemion (Art. 232, R.P.C.).
law, regulations, or special provisions applicabl
,&e (Art. 237, R.P.C.).
233. Row is the crime of refusal of assistance committed?
:
.. ~ . .' .
from
It is committed by a public officer who, upon demand
cumpetent authority, shall fail t o lend his coopera-
& How is the crime of abandonment of office o
committed?
,." ...
, ,
>$,
"~
. . tion towards the administration of justice or other public It is committed by any public
.,
., ,.. , , '..., service, such failure resulting in damage to public in
~

acceptance of his resignation,

.: ." interest (Art. 233, R.P.C.).
..,,r >
:+.:*,,. , ~

':7-%234. How is l.he crime of refusal to discharge elective office
:,,,
. committesd?
It is committed by any person who, having been elected
.<,* by popular election to a public office shall refuse without
legal motive to be sworn in or t o discharge the duties
of said office (Art. 234, R.P.C.).
235. How is the crime of maltreatment of prisoners committed?
'
It is committed by any public officer or employee who
"
shall overdo himself in the correction o r handling of a
prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge, by the
imposition of punishments not authorized by the regula-
tions, or by inflicting such punishments in a cruel and
humiliating manner; or shall maltreat a prisoner for the
purpose of extorting a confession or obtaining some in-
. , formation from him (Art. 235, R.P.C.).
,. /,?;_ *
84
&When is the offense of abandonment of office or position ;
qualified?
When the office is abandoned in order to evade the\
discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting, or
punishing any of the crimes against national security and
the law of nations or the crimes of rebellion o r sedition'.
,"'and allied offenses (Art. 238, par. 2, R.P.C.).
4' ..
b40. How is the crime of usurpation of legislative powers corn-;:@
mitted? ,.d%*d
> ,scrr
It is committed by any public officer who shall
croach upon the powers of the legislative branch of
Government, either by making general rules or regulations
beyond the scope of his authority, or by attempting t o
repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof (A
239, R.P.C.).
86
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1. Any public officer who shall solicit o r make immoral

Ho+ is the crime of usimpation of executive functions
941.~.
or indecent advances to a woman interested in matters
committed?
-
<.". .
, I t is committed by any judge who shall assume any
pending before such officer for decision, o r with respect
t o which he is required to submit a report to, or consult
c:; . power pertaining t o the executive authorities, 01" shall with, a superior officer:
..-
. . obstruct the latter in the lawful exercise of their powers 2 . Any warden o r other public of:ficer directly charged
.'(Art. 240, R.P.C.). with the care and custody of prisonisrs or persons under
arrest who shall solicit or make immoral or indecent ad-
$42.- How is i.he crime of usuppation of judicial functions com- vances t o a woman under his custody.
1__

',
,-6.
>~
..: mitted?
It is committed by any officer of the executive branch
of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or
3. Any warden or officer who +Ihall solicit or make
immoral or indecent advances t o the wife, daughter, sister,
or relative within the same degree by affinity of any
, , ~ ..,:<. . shall obstruct the execution of any order or decision ren- person in the custody of such warden or officer.
' . ...~ ' dered by any judge within his jurisdiction (Ad. 241, (Art.245, R.P.C.).
R.P.C.).
47. How is the crime of parricide committed?
&45; How is the crime of disobeying request for disqualification ," It is committed by any person who shall kill his father,
committed? mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
. , . " .+1 ,-.-' It is committed by any public officer who, .before the
~
any of his ascendants o r descendants, or his spouse (Art..
:c; question of jurisdiction is decided, shall continue any pro- 246, R.P.C.) ,
.(.,,ceeding after having been lawfully required to refrain
from so doing (Art. 242, R.P.C.). 248. What is the liability, if any, of a legally married person
~ CLT'
.., or parent for death or ,physical injuries inflicted under ,:
244. How is the crime of Qrders or requests by executive of- exceptional circumstances?
.,& :I<, .ficers to any judicial authority committed? Any legally married person who, having surprised his .~
,., , It is committed by any executive officer who shall spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
. . address any order or suggestion t o any judicial authority another person, shall kill any of them or both of them;
. "-~ . , with reapect to any case or business coming within the in the act or immediatcly thereafter, or shall inflict upon
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of justice (Art. 243, them any serious physical injury, shall suffer
R.P.C.,). of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of
245. How is the crime of unlawful appointments Committed? other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
"' It is committed by any public officer who shall know- These rules shall be applicable, under the same circu
' ., 'c...: ingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person stances, to parents with respect to their daughters u
. .~-. lacking the legal qualification therefor (Art. 244, R.P.C.).
' eighteen years of age, and their seducers, while
. . daughters are living with their parents.
' '' ~236.How is the crime of abuses against chastity committed? Any person who shall promote or facilitate th
It is committed by: tution of his wife or daughter, or shall o

86 87
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
consented t o the infidelity of the other spouse, shall not
be entitled to the benefits of this article.
(Art. 247, R.P.C.)
249. What is murder?
Murder is committed by any person who, not falling
within the provisions of article 246, shall kill another,
with any of the following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
3 . By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
,,
,.~
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of or assault
upon a street car or Iocomotivc, fall of an airship, by
', means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin;
4 . On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption
of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly aug-
menting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing a t his person or corpse.
(Art. 248, R.P.C.)
What is homicide?
Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person, which is
neither parricide, murder, nor infanticide (Art. 249,
..
.ii.
"'"I' "
_isyi ' , ,251. May the courts impose a penalty lower by two degrees
<,;* : for the commission of a frustrated felony?
. .
Yes. The courts, in view of the facts of the case,
., may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime
., , 88
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER
'
of parricide, murder or homicide a penalty lower by one
degree than that which should be im.posed under the pro-
visions of article 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Art. 50 provides . .'
t h t a penalty one degree lower than that provided for
the consummated felony shall be imposed for the com-
mission of a frustrated felony. Hence, a penalty lower . ;:'
by two degrees may be imposed upon the person guilty
of frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide.
252. May the courts reduce by three degrees the penalty to be
imposed for an attempted fel'ony?
Yes. The courts, considering the facts of the e y e ,
may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty whlc
under article 51 should be imposed for an attemp
mit any of the crimes of parricide, murder o r
(Art. 250, pnr, 2, R.P.C.). Art. 51 provides that
two degrees lower than that provided for the eonsu,?nm
felony shall be imposed for the commission of an attempt
felony. Hence, a penalty lower by .three degreei'inay
imposed upon the person guilty of attempted p a r n u
murder os homicide.
253. What is the criminal liability of a person or persons
participated in a tumultuous affray for death caused t
in?
When, while several persons, not composing
ganized for the common purpose of assaulting
ing each other xciprocally, quarrel and assault ea
in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the
of the affray someone is killed, and i t cannot be asce
who actually killed the deceased, but the person or p
who inflicted serious physical injuries can be ide
such person or persons shall be liable for death cau
in a tumultous affray.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serio
physical injuries on the deceased, all those who s
used violence upon the person of the victim shall
therefor (Art. 251, R.P.C.) .
jl 83
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

': -258.
..
, What is {,he criminal liability of persons who participated If the Cirearm was not discharged a t or
in a tumultuous affray for physical injuries i,lflicted there- person, but the firearm was discharged' wi
.~
,.. in? or public place and the discharge produced ala? or
' ., . When in a tumultuous affra,y only serious physical in- danger, he is liable for the crime of alarms and scandals.
' '
juries are inflicted upon t h e participants t k r e o f and the
: person responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those 257. If a person Idled a child less than three
~ , '. who appear to have used violence upon the person of the what crime was mmmitted by him and what
, . offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree liability therefor?
'"'
than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted.
The crime committed was infanticide. The penalty
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious provided for parricide or for murder shall be imposed
nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be upon any person who shall kill any child less than three :.
identified, all those who appear to have used any violence days of age.
..:. , ,~ upon the person of the offended party shall be punished
by awesto from five to fifteen days. If the crime of infanticide be committed by the mother
.:., (Art. 252, R.P.C.) of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor,
she shall suffer the penalty of prision correctional in its
255. Is giving assistance to suicide punishable? If So, does the medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be eom-
person giving assistance to suicide incur the same liability mitted for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents
regardless of the nature and extent of the assistance given or either o€ them, the penalty be prision mugor..
'., ' . b y him? (Art. 255, R.P.C.)
., ,. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide
", L .,,i,
,.,, 1: shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor; if such person 258. How is the crime of intentional abortion committed?
.~,.,,'<: lends his assistance t o another to the extent of doing the It is committed by any person who shall intentionally
killing himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion cause an abortion, by using any violence upon the person
' temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated,
t;
,,, . .
of the pregnant woman or, without using violence, by
~

the penalby of arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum acting with 01' without the consent of the woman (Art.
.,~;*-
*)(.i : periods shall be imposed (Art. 253, R.P.C.). 266, R.P.C.).
.~...,
,
.,"
.?
~' .
r i .,
, i'.yp256. When is a person criminally liable for discharging a fire-
259. What is unintentional abortion?
arm?
Any person who shall shoot a t another with any f i r e It is a crime committed by any person who shall cause
arm is liable for discharge of firearm, provided that he an abortion by violence, but unintentionally (Art. 257,
has no intention to kill the offended party, or that the R.P.C.).
act cannot he held to constitute any other crime f o r which
a higher penalty is prescribed by the Code (Art. 254, 260. 1s the woman who suffered an abortio
R.P.C.). Yes, if the woman (1) practiced an abortion
If he had intention t o kill the offended party, he will herself or (2) consented that any other person shou
be liable for frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, so (Art. 268, R.P.C.).
or homicide, as the case may be. Otherwise, she ip, not liable. , '

90 91
 .
d",~
,
,

,
.I_
.
. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRlMINAL LAW REV'IEWBR
. ."
%;..261. When are physicians and midwives more severely punished They are: .!.. >
#?&&. 1. Nlntilation.
*:;.w . ,. ,. .v
for comimitting abortion?
d,.3,:>
, .<.
, , . The .penalties provided for intentional abortion shall 2 . Serious physical injuries.
il .,
.,,*. . ..
,~\!.<"., . - i _ ~
3. Administering injurious substance or beverages.
~,~. ,~.?. be imposed in their maximum period, respectively, upon
. .,
4. Less serious physical injuries.
. any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their
i..
,~
scientific knowledge or skill, shall came an abortion or 5. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
' assist in causing the same (Art. 259, R.P.C.). . . ..
, .
266. What are the two kinds of mutilation?
262. When is a pharmacist liable for dispensing any abortive?
They are:
When the pharmacist, without the proper prescription
,, . .
'i'
1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving
from a physician, shall dispense any abortive (Art. 259,
, . him, either totally o r partially, of some essential organ . '
'.~.i: . .., par. 2, :R.P.C.). for reproduction.
. , 2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is, !
,<.: 263. What are the responsibilities of the participants and see-
$:.&:e
onds in a duel?
.,, ., . , by depriving the offended party of any p a r t o f the human
'.:. *< body, other than the essential organ for reproduction, ' ~ ,
. . The .penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed
upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel. (Art. 262, R.P.C.)
..,. , If he shaIl inflict upon the Iatter physical injuries only,
he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according 267. What are serious physical injuries?
, . to their nature. They are:
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the 1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, '.
penalty of arrest0 mayor although no physical injuries impotent or blind, in consequence of .the physical injuries
, .
. , have been inflicted. inflicted.
. .. . The seconds shall in all events be punished as acconi- 2. When the injured
: plices. 1
or the power to hear or
(Art. 260, R.P.C.) a foot, an arm, or a leg, or (b) loses the us
such member, or (e) becomes incapacitated f o r the
What are the acts punished as challenging to a duel? . -
.,;
; ... $4. in which he was theretofore habitually engaged, in
, ' ' They are: sequence of the physical injuries inflicted.
.; :
':.ii::.i- ' 1. By challenging another to a duel. 3. Wheii the person injured (a) becomes ,deform
' , , I , 2 . By inciting another to give or accept a challenge or (b) loses any other member of his, body, or (c) I
'.,,: ;.' in a duel. the use thereof, or (d)
, ' . 3. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for the performance of the
*, . .. engaged for more than 90 days, in consequence of
..% having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
., .. (Art. 261, R.P.C.) physical injuries inflicted.
4. When the injured person becomes ill or inca
~.. for labor for more than 80 days (bul; must no
.,* , "265.
,~ What are the crimes of physical injuries?

92 93

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
than 90 days), as a result of the ph3sica1 injuries in-
flicted.
(Art. 263, R.P.C.)
'-"' 268. How is the crime of administering injurious substance
or beverages committed?
> , ~ ,,, . It i:r committed by any person who, without intent
~. t o kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical in-
,
. , ~ ,
jury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his
weakness of mind or credulity (Art. 264, R.P.C.).
269. What are less serious physical injuries?
Less serious physical injuries are committed by any
. ,
person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries,
I
. 4 .,,
other than serious physical injuiies, but which shall in-
.
,~
capacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or
, ,
more, or shall require medical attendance for the same
eriod (Art. 265, R.P.C.).
. What are the three kinds of slight physical injuries?
:" They are:
'
'
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended
party for labor from one (1) t o nine (9) days, or re-
quired medical attendance during the same period.
2. 'Physical injuries which did not prevent the of-
fended party from engaging in his habitual work or which
did not require medical attendance.
3. Illtreatment of another by deed without causing
(Art. 266, R.P.C.)
71. How is the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal deten-
tion committed?
It is committed by any private individual' who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive
him of his liberty, provided that any of the following
circumstances is present in the co mission of the offense:
7-
I
...,
CRININAL LAW REVIEWER. . ...~
,. h
.;
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted
.
..:I-:*
..,,
more than five days; ,...
/.I
2 . If it shall have been committed simulating
authority ;
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have bgen .'
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or d
threats to kill him shall have been made;
4 . I€ the person kidcapped or detained shall be a .
minor, female, or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none'
of the circumstances above mentioned were p
the conimission of the offense.
(Art. 267, R.P.C.)
272. What is slight illegal detention?
It is a crime committed by any private individual wh
shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other d
deprive him of his liberty, without the atte
e
any o€ the circumstances enumerated in the article
fining the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal det
tion (Art. 268, R.P.C.).
273, What is the participation of the person who furnished'
the place for the perpetration of the crime of slight d e
tention?
The same penalty provided for the principal shall
incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for
perpetration of the crime (Art. 268, par. 2, R.P.C.).
seems that while his participation is that
l
plice he is pnnished as principal.
i
274. When is t.he penalty f o r slight illegal det
by one degree? ,
J
If the offender shall voluntarily release the per
so kidnapped or detained within three days from the co
96
 I

, ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER , , >.:

. ~.
.
mencement of the detention, without having attained the shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his seririee
purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal (Art. 273, R.F.G.)
proceedings against him (Art. 268, par. 3, R.P.C.).
280. How is the crime of services rendered under compulsion'
in payment of debts committed?
.* ,-i

It is committed by any person who, in order to require '1

or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor
to work f o r him, against his will, as household servant
or farm laborer (Art. 274, R.P.C.).

281. How is the crime of abaiidonment of persons in d a n g a

" .' 276. How is the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a and abaudcniuent of one's own victim committed?
minor committed? It is committed by:
It is committed by any person who, being entrusted 1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any
...3
,*

with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately
fail t o restore the latter t o his parents or guardians
(Art. 270, R.P.C., as amended by Republic Act No. 18).
' 277. IIow is the crime of inducing a minor to abandon his home
Committed?
I t is committed by anyone who shall induce a minor
to :rbandon the home of his parents or guardians or the
278. Is slavery punished under the Revised Penal Code?
Yes. It is committed by anyone who shall purchase,
sell, kidnap, or detain a human being for the purpose
of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning
the offended party t o some immoral traffic, the penalty
shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(Art. 272, R.P.C.)
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place wounded
or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance
without detriment t o himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense; . .
I. 2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance
to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured;
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under
Seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child t o the
authorities or t o his family, or shall fail to take him
t o a safe place.
(AI-$. 275, R.P.C.)
282. How is the crime of abandoning a minor committed?
It is committed by anyone who shall abandon a child
under seven years of age, the custody of which is incum-
bent upon him.
The same crime is committed even if the death of the
minor shall have resulted or even if the life of the minor

i...
"
shall have been in danger, provided that the offender has
P. no intent to kill the minor.
1,'"'I ~;...a, 279. HOWis the crime of exploitation of child labor committed?
*-..W~
(Art. 276, R.P.C
g.:.. ".- ::,~ .
, p/,,,: It is committed by anyone who, under the pretext of
\e,.,,,
.._i reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, 283. How is the erinie of abandonment of minor by per
.y .. : ..< guardian, or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, entrusted with his custody commitl~ed?

96 97
.,
.
:I
.
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
It is committed by anyone who, having charge of the
rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor
. . to a public institution or .other persons, without the con-
sent of the one who entrusted such child to Itis care or,
in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the
proper authorities (Art. 277, par. 1, R.P.C.).
284. IIoiv is the crime of indifference of parents Committed?
It is committed by the parents who shall neglect their
children by not giving them the education which their
stal.ion in life requires and financial condition permits
(Art. 277, par. 2, R.P.C.).
285. Wh80 are liable for exploitation of minors?
They are:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under
sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength, or contortion.
2 . Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-
walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager, or
engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions
of t.hese kinds, children under sixteen years of age who
are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enu-
merated in the next preceding paragraph who shall em,
ploy any descendant of his under twelve years of age
in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person en-
trmted in any capacity with the care of a child under
sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratui-
tously to any person following any of the callings enu-
mer'ated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to Any habitual vagrant
o r heggar.
5 . Any person whg shall induce any child under six.
teen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators, or teachers t o follow any person en-
98
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
gaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2
hereof, or t o accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
(Art. 278, R.P.C.) ''
286. How is the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling com-
mitted?
It is committed by any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will. i?
~' !
It may be committed by means of violence or intimida- -'-:
,...
tion, in which case the penalty is higher. :
287. What are the ahsolutory causes in trespass to dwelling?
The penalty for trespass to dwelling shall not be im-.
posed upon any person who shall enter another's dwelling
for the purpose of preventing some r;erious harm to hi&
self, the occupants of the dwelling, or a third person, nor
shall it be imposed upon any person who aha11 enter 'a
dweiling for the purpose of rendering some service @
humanity or justice, nor upon anyone who shall enter
cafbs, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the
sam,e are open (Art. 280, par. 3, 1L.P.C.).
288. What is other forms of trespass? .
It is a crime committed by any p,erson who shall e
the clcsed premises or the fenced es
either of them is uninhabited, if th
be manifest and the trespasser has
mission of the owner or the caretaker thereof (Art.
R.P.C.).
289. What are the three .forms of threats?
They are:
1. Grave threats.
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
290. How is the crime of grave threats committed?
I:t is committed-
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his
penon, honor or property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or
imposing any other condition, even tl,o?gh not unlawful,
. and the offender attained his purposz;
2 . By making such threat without the offender at-
taining his purpose.
3. By threatening another with t h t infliction upon his
person, honor or property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime which is not subject to a
condition.
(Art. 282, R..P.C.)
291. How is the crime of light threats committed?
Tt is committed by making a threat to commit a wrong
not constituting a crime, demanding money or imposing
any other condition, even though not unlawful, the of-
fender attaining or not attaining his purpose (Art. 283,
R.P.C.).
292. What is bond for good behavior?
In all cases of grave threats and light threats, the
person making the threats may also be required to give
bail not t o molest the person threatened, or if he shall
fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro
(Art. 284, R.P.C.).
I, 293. What are other light threats?
They are:
I. By threatening another with a weapon, or by draw-
ing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense.
r!. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger,
with some harm constituting a crime, without persisting
in the idea involved in his threat.
100
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWl3R
3 . By orally threatening t o do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
(Art. 285, R.P.C.)
294. How is the crime of grave coercion committed?
It is committed by any person who, without authority
of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to
do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong (Art. 286, R.P.C.).
295, Mow is the crime of light coercion committed?
It is committed by any person who, by means of vic-
lence, shall ssize any thing belonging to his debtor for .,,
the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the ~'
debt (Art. 287, R.P.C.).
296. How is the crime of other similar coercions committed?
It is committed by any person, agent, or officer of any
association or corporation who shall force or compel, di-
rectly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer
or employee employed by him or by such firm or cor-
poration t o be forced or compelled, to purchase merchan- .
. dise or commodities of any kind; or by any person who
shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed
by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the'
legal tender currency of the Philippines, unless expressly
requested by the laborer or employee (Art. 288, R.P.C.).
297. How is the crime of formation, maintenance, and prohid
bition of combination of capital or labor through violence
0.r threats committed?
It is committed by any person who, for the purpos
of organizing, maintaining, or preventing coalitions o
capital or labor, strike of laborers, or lockout of emplo
shall employ violence or threats in such a degree
compel or lorce the laborers o r employers in the f r e
legal exercise of thei.1. industry or work, if the act
101
. .
I I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
E:
not constitute a more serious o-Cfense in accordance with
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Art. 289,
R.P.C.)
.X,. :. ; 298. Wha.t arc the three kinds of discovery and revelation of
secrets?
They are:
1. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspond-
ence.
2:. Revealing secrets with abuse of office.
3,. Revealing of industrial secrets.
299. How is the crime of discovering secrets through seizure
of correspondence committed?
It is committed by any private individual who, in order
to discover secrets of another, shall seize his papers or
letters and reveal the contents thereof (Art. 290, R.P.C.).
Tba penalty is lower if the offender does not reveal
the secrets.
. 300. Who are not liable for discovering secrets through seizure
of correspondence?
The parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the
custody of minors, with respect to the papers or letters
of the children or minors placed under their care or cus-
tody, and the spouses, with respect to the papers or letters
of either of them (Art. 290, par. 3, R.P.C.).
Row is the crime of revealing secrets with abuse of office
committed?
It is committed by any manager, employee, or servant
who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his prin-
cipal or master and shall reveal such secrets (Art. 291,
R.P.C.) .
How is the crime of revelation of industrial secrets com-
mitt8ed?
102
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
?$\
'? It is committed by the person in charge, employee,
or workman of any manufaeturicg or industrial establish-
ment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof, shall
reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter (Art. 292,
R.P.C.).
s"
J
303. Who are guilty OP robbery?
.'
Any person who, wifn intent to gain, shall take any
-';
personal proverty belonging t o another, by means of vio-
lence against, or intimidation of any person, or using force
upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 293, R.P.C.).
304. What are the two classes of robbery? ..
.,I
1
. ,
They are: I
1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation o f . '
persons. .i
2. Robbery with force upon things.
305. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal
robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons? "
Specifically, the acts punished as robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons are:
1. By committing homicide by reason or on the occa-
sion of the robbery (taking personal property belonging'
to another).
2. By committing rape or intentional mutilation accom-
panying the robbery; or by committing physical injuries
by reason or on t'ne oc~zairmof the robbery, where th?
offended party becomes insane, imbecile, impotent,'or blind
(Subdivision 1 of Art. 263).
3. By inflicting physical injuries by reason or on.
occasion vi the robbery, where the offended party lost
use of speech or the power t o hear o r to smell, or
an .eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg o r lost the.
of any such member or became incapacitated f o r the
in which he was theretofore habitually engaged
division 2, Art. 263).
103
_.
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
., 4. By carrying the violence o r intimidation employed
".
I
' '
.
in the commission of the robbery to a degree clearly un..
<. ,. necessary for the commission of the crime; or by inflict-
* . b ~ ~
ing upon any person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery in the course of its execution, auy of the
physical injuries in consequence of which the person in-
jured became deformed or lost any other member of his
body or lost the use thereof or became ill or incapacitated
for the performance of the work in which he was habit-
ually engaged for more than 90 days or that the person
injured became ill or incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (Subdivisions 3 and 4 of Art. 263).
5. By merely employing intimidatior. or violence which
does not cause any of the serious physical injuries men-
tioned in Art. 263.
The following are also the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on robbery with violence against or intimida-
tion of persons :
When by reason or on occasion 09 an attempted or
frustrated robbery a homicide is com.nitted (Art. 297,
R.P.C.).
A n y person who, with intent to defraud another, by
means of violence o r intimidation, shall compel him to sign,
execute, or deliver any public instrument or document,
shall be guilty of robbery (Art. 298, R.P.C.).
;306. What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons?
When such robbery is committed-
1. In an uninhabited place.
2. By a hand.
3 . By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehi-
cle, or airship.
4. BY entering the passengers' compartments in a
. train, or in any manner taking the passengers thereof
se in the respective conveyances.
104
..
,a
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER , .
i
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the in-
(
' A
,
timidation is made with the use of firearm.
(Art. 295, R.P.C:)
Note: The qualifying circumstances are not applicable to rob-
bery with hamioide, or robbery with rape or intentional mutila-
lation, qr robbery with serious physical injuries resulting in
the insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness of the victim.
307. When is the robbery deemed to have been committed by
a bend and what is the penalty incurred by the members
thereof?
When more than three armed, malefactors take pa$
in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have
been committed by a band. When any of the arms used
in the conimission of the offense be an unlicensed firearm,
the penalty t o be imposed upon all the malefactors shall
be the maximum period of the corresponding penalty pro:
vided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability
for illeel possession of such unlicensed firearm.
Any member of a band who is present a t the com-
mission 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 t o prevent the same..
(Art. 296, as amended by
Republic Act No. 12)
508. May robbery by the use of force upon things be committed
in any place?
No. Robbery by the use of force upon things may be
committed only (1) in an inhabited house, public building, "
o r edifice devoted to religious worship; or (2) in an un-'
inhabited dace (which must be a building) or in a private
building.
309. How is the crime of robbery with force upOn things in
an inhabited house, or publie buildikzg or edifice devoted:
, ~~.
. I
to religious worshiu Committed?
105
 GRINJXAL LAW REWEWER
It is committed by any person who shall enter the
house o r building, in which the personal property is taken
by him, by any of the following means:
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance o r
egress ;
2. By breaking any wall, roof, OT floor or byeaking
any door or window;
3 . By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools;
4. B y using fictitious name or pretending the exercise
of public authority.
O r if-
The robhery be committed under any of the following
circumstances :
1. By breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
othei- kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of the, robbery.
(Art. 299, R.P.C.)
What are the qualifying circumstances in the crime of
robbery with force upon things committed in inhabited
house, public bnilding, or edifice devoted to religious wor-
ship?
The robbery with force upon things in inhabited house,
public building, or edifice deyioted to religious worship,
if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, shall
be ‘punished by the maximum period of the penalty pro-
vidsd therefor (Art. 300, R.P.C.) .
For the purpose of the crime of robbery with force upon
things, what is inhabited house, public building, or their
dependencies?
Inhabited house means any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even
thowh the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent
therefrom when the robbery is committed.
106
CRXMlWht LAW REVIEWER ..
A11 interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns,
coachhouses, stables, or other departments, or inclosed . :y
places contiguous to the building or edifice, having an ’ ,:
intenor entrance connected therewith and which form 3
part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an :,
inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to
religious worship.
Orchards and other iands for cultivation or production
are not ineluded in the t e r m of the next preceding para-
grzph, even if closed, contiguous t o the building, and :’:,
having direct connection therewith.
The term “public building” includes every building
owned by the Government o r belonging to a private per-
son but used OY rented by the Chemment, although tern-
porarily unoccupied by the sam-e.
- ’
(Art. 301, R.P.C.)
312. How is the crime of robbery with force upon things in
an uninhabited place or in a privati: building c o r n m i t e ?
It is robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in ’
a building other than an inhabited house, public building,
or edifice devoted to religious worshiy, provided that any
of the following circumstances is present:
1, Tf the entrance has been effected through any open-
ing not intended for entrance or egress;
2. If any wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window
has been broken;
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use ~ ’
of false keys, picldoclcs, or other similar tools:
4. If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed
furnitnre or receptacle has been broken;
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, has been removed, even if t h
same be broken open elsewhere.
(Art. 302, R.P.G.
313. When shall the offender in robbery suffer the pe
next higher in degree?
107
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,~, b, I:n the cases specified in articles 294, 295, 297, 299,
300, and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, when the property
taken is mail matter or large cattle, the offender shall
suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those pro-
,~
:
vided in said articles (Art. 302, par. 3, R.P.C.).
When is the robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood to he
punished with a penalty next lower in degree?
When the robbery with force upon things in inhabited
house, public building, or edifice devoted to religious wor-
ship, or in uninhabited place or private building, consists
~ in t,he taking of c&s, fruits, or firewood, the cnlprit
shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed by the Code (Art. 303, R.P.C.).
Hour .is the crime of possession of or making picklocks or
similar tools comniitted?
:It is committed by any person who shall, without law-
ful cause, have in his possession picklocks or similar tools
specially adopted to the commission of the crime robbery:
or by any person who shall make such tools (Art. 304,
R.P.C.).
What are false keys?
The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include:
:L. The tools mentioned in the next preceding article;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner
for nse in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
*
(Art. 305, R.P.C.)
Who are brigands?
When more than three armed persons form a band
of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the
highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of ex-
tortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to
he attained by means of force and violence, they shall be
deemed highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306, R.P.C.) .
108
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER
318. When are mined persons presumed to be highway roblfeers
or brigands?
If any of the arms carried by any of said persons be
an unlicensed firearm, it shall be presumed that said
persons are highway robbers o r brigands, and in case
of conviction, the penalty shall be imposed in the m a x i m m
period (Art. 306, par. 3, R.P.C.).
319. How is the crime of aiding and abetting a hand of brigands
committed?
'It is committed by any person knowingly and in any
manner aiding, abetting, o r protecting a band of brigands,
or giving them information of the movements of the police
or other peace officers of the Governtnent, o r acquiring
or rcceiving the property taken by such brigands (Art. ::
307, X.P.C.).
320. Who are liable far theft? Or, how is theft committed?
Theft is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain but without violence against, or intimidation of,
perisons nor force upon things, shall take personal property
of ,mother without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shaU
fail t o deliver the szme to the local authorities or t o ita ,::
owner; :*, , . I ~
'c
2 . Any person who, after having maliciously damaged,,,.$
the property of another, shall remove or make use of the".,+ . .#
fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and ,..,j
%. .
3 . Any person who shall enter an inclos;?d estate or $
a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs t o i4
another and, without the consent of its owner, shall hunt, ' 4
or fish upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or ..? @9
other forest or farm products.
.
(Ark 308, R.P.C.) ':&
:.g
321. What are qualified thefts?
109
 2, &', ..
' 1
" ..: , >
.,.& I .
A<,%
de.:
.*j,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
!Ute foIlowing are qual%d thefts:
1. If the theft is comn&ted by a domestic servant.
5!. If the theft is committed with grave.abuse of con-
fidence.
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle,
(b) mail matter, (e) large cattle, or consists of (d) coco-
nuts taken from the premises of a plantation.
1. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fish-
pond or fishery.
(Art. 310, R.P.C.)
'. 322. What are the crimes of usurpation?
I.. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
right,s in property.
2!. Altering boundaries or landmarks.
How is the crime of occupation of real property or usurpa-
tion of real rights in property committed?
.,''
It is committed by any person who, by means of vio-
lence against or intimidation of persons, shall take posses-
sion of any real property or shall usurp any real rights
in property belonging to another (Art. 312, R.P.C.).
324. How is the crime of altering boundaries or landmarks com-
I t is cosmitted by any person who shall alter the
boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or
estates, or any other marks intended to designate the
boundaries of the same (Art. 313, R.P.C.).
325. How is the crime of fraudulent insolvency committed?
It is committed by any person who shall
his property to the prejudice of his
110
..
.
. . . .
.* ,:*:~
'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER r4 ;*
i
It is committed by,any person who shall defraud e-
other by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality
of anything of value which the offender shall del
by virtue of a n obligation to do :so, even though such ,'
obligation bc based on an immoral or illegal considera-
tion;
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prej- I
udice of another, money, goods, or m y other personal '2s
property received by the offender in trust o r on eom- ?!
mission, or for administration, or under any other ?
obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or
to return the same, even though such,.obligation be
totally o r partially guaranteed by a bond; or by deny- '
ing having received such money, goods, or other Prop-
erty;
(c) By taking undue advantage of' the signature ',,
of the offended party jn blank, and by writing any I
document above such signature iu blank, to the prej-
udice of the offended party or any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretellses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of the fraud: ?
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending
to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business, os imaginary transactions; OT
by means of other similar deceit$#
(b) By altering the quality, fineness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
(e) By pretending to have bribed any Government
employee, without prejudice to thme action for calumny,
which the offended party may deem proper to bring
against the offender. In this case, the offender shall
be punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing a check.in
payment of an obligation when the offender had n
funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein wer
< not sufficient t o cover the amount of the check. The
111
, ,
 . ...'**
,, ,:r
'S
cmrmib LAW REVIEWER
CR17dIXA1, LAW REVIEWE13
~. the:honor or reputation of another person (Art. 364,
I*.

failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount n , .-

, '.,,'
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days .. \
from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payce 379! What are thc quasi-offenses? ~ . ,
or holder- that said check has been dishonored for lack
01' insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence
They are the offenses committed by means of fault '.,., ,
of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. or d p a , or ot'nerwise known as criminal negligence.
. .
(As amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, The quasi-offenses are committed in four Ways:
1967) 1 . ~y committing through reckless imprudence any St ,':;
( e ) By obtaining any food, nefreshment or amom- which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave :,,
modation a t a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, or less grave felony o r light felony. \ , ,.,i
lodging house, or apartment house ahd the like with-
out paying therefor, with intent to defraud the pro- 2. committing through simple imprudence or ne&- ''
gence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave ..
si:
prietor or manager thereof. or by obtaining credit al.
a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or a less serious felony. ,:~:' __
.A

or apartment house by the use of any false pretenses, 3 . B~ causing damage to the property of another .$%:a e, ,3
or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part through reckless imprudence o r simple imprudence or ., -;i
of his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding
house, Iodging house, o r apartment house after obtain. nee or negligence ,
ing credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation there- sorne which, if done maliciously, would have Consti- ' '"
in without paying for his food, refreshment, or aecom- tuted a light felony.
modation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent nleaus:
(a) BY inducing another, by means of deceit, t o sign
any document:
(b) BY resorting to some fraudulent practice to
., , insure success in a gambling game; xn the imposition of the penalties for criminal ne&:,:$
(C) BY removing, concealing, or destroying, in whole
01' in part, any court record, office files, docoment, %enoe,the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-:;
o r any other papers. "-.revard to the rules prescribed in Article sixty-four 1.
out. _
.o

a (Art. 315, R.F.C.) / (Art. 365, par. 5, R.P.C.).

27. What =e other fornls of swindling?
,'
, , Other forms of swiudling are committed by-
1. .Any person who, pretending to be the owner of any
, ' real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or mortgage
2. Any person who, knowing that real property is en.
cumbered, shall dispose of the same, zlthough such en-
cumbrance be not recorded;
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrong-
fully take it from its lawful possessor, t o the prejudice
,. of the latter or any third person;
112
I 381. In
what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal
negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed?
The provisions contained in Art. 365 of the Revis
Penal Code shall not be applicable:
'1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
t o or lower than those provided in the first two p a r a s
of that article, in which case the courts shall impose t
penalty next lower in degree than that which should
129
 I
.">, . ..
, *:,;q,
_..".,
, '
,:. ,
-;,. ' CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
: .i
imposed in the period which they may deem proper to
auply.
.. .
2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with viola-
,' tion of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall
'.- he caused, in which case the defendants shall be punisxed
prision correccional in its medium and maximum
(Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.)
,,,
Define reckless imp,rudence.
R.eckless imprudence consists ip voluntarily, but with-
out malice, doing or failing to do act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaut.ion
on the part of the person performing or failin'g t o per-
such act, taking into ,consideration his employment
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
ther circumtances regarding persons, time and place
Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.).
efine simple imprudence.
Simple imprudence consists in the iack of precaution
splayed in those cases in which the aamage impending
caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
'est (Art. 365, par. 8, R.B.C.).
. When is the penalty next higher in degree to those pro-
.
aided for in Art. 365 to be imposed?
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided
for in Art. 365 shall he imposed upon the offender who
6 lend on the spot to the injured parties such help
ay be in his hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).
386. In what cases is our Criminal Law mot applicable to per
and explain briefly the main characteristics o€
Criminal Lam and state the provisions of law based on
those characteriqties.
Criminal Law has three main characteristics: (1) gen-
2) territorial, and ( 3 ) prospective.
..
.p
CRININAL LAW REVIEWER .,1v;
, S i %c 3*
,I 2
It has general application, because Criminal .Law,,is ,,!2
binding on all persons who reside or Sojourn in ,?hiliPP@,,.,&a
territory. ., . .,+
It is territorial, in that Criminal Law undertakes b,,,.?+
Dunish crimes committed within the Philippine territory: -;" X,~
~ ',-
*
It is prospective, in that a penal law carnot make an
act punishable in a manner in which i t was not punishable
when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws in
force at the time of their commission.
A S to i t 4 geneVal application: Art. 2 of the Revisd:
Penal Code states that the provisions of this Code shall
be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, including
its atmosphere, interior waters and .maritime zone, with-,
out reference to the person or persons who might viola+'
any of its provisions.
Art. 14 of the new- Civil Code provides that penal
shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in P
pine territory.
As to its territorial application: The same. Art-.:+
of the Revised Penal Code states that the'provisions Of
this Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archi;
pelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and ,
maritime zone, which constitute the Philippine terr
As to the prospectivitll of Criminal Law: Art. 21 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall ,be
punishable 'oy any penalty not prescribed by law
t o its commission.
Art, 366 oC the same Code provides that felonies are
punishable under the laws enforced at the time of their
commission.
. . ~ ~ ~
sons living or sojourning in this coantry?
Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code in effect provides
that the general a.nd territorial applications of its provi-
sions are subject to the exceptions that may be provided
in the treaties and laws of preferential application.
131

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. . .
L
Art. 14 of the new Civil Code provides that the general
application of penal. laws is subject to. the principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Hence, the following persons are not subject to the
operation of our Criminal Law:
.. 1. Those who, according to the treaties between the
Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to
our penal laws.
Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip
pines and the Uhited States, our penal laws shall not
apply when-
(a) The offense is committed by any person within
any base, except (1) where the o€fender and the
offended party are both Philippine citizens (not
members of the armed forces of the United States
on active duty), o r ( 2 ) where the offense is a.gainst
the security of the Philiunines:
(e) The offense committed outside the bases by any
member of the armed forces of the United States
is against the securi.ty of the United States.
2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential ap-
plication, are not amenable t o our penal laws.
Thus, under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o
arrest or imprison any ambassador o r public minister of
any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name
is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and
posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief
of Police of Manila.
3 . Those who, under the principles of public inter-
national law, are not subject to the operation of our penal
such as the sovereigns and other chiefs of States,
:radars and ministers.
132
i-'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .i:
7
387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forci-
ble abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and
continued all the way to Clark Field, a r d i t a r y b m , where
the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the
Court of First Instance of PampangaP
Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Set. 14), in all
criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and
tried in the court of the municipality or province where- .,
in the ofiense was Committed or anyone of the ingredients . ','.:3
1 thereof took place.
1
In the case of Pamlan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was
held that the offenders who kidnapped the victim from
i
Menila and took him to a distant place in Bulacan, where
I the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Court
of First Instance of Manila or by the Court of First ,:-.i
Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance of
I the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction.
The aforementioned rule and ruling may be applied
-.. .~~~
be tried either by the Court of First Instance of P a p -
;$
panga, where the commission of the crime began, or by
the military court of the armed forces of the United States
:,d
, ',i$
... Clnrk Field. where it was continued and consummated. :;!g
in ~~~
Hence, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga may
try the case. . '...*.
.*,
Is our Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a
soldier?
I t depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the.,
Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces:
of the United States. If he is a soldier of the Phi
A m y , our civil court has concurrent jurisdiction w
military court. If the civil court takes cognizance
case first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdictio ,
the offense committed by the soldier of the Philip
133
 CRIMINAL LAW RWIEWER
Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him.
But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed
Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply.
May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this
country be punished by a law of a foreign nation? Ex-
plain your answer.
Yes, when the crime is committed by a Philippine
citizen within a base, provided that the offended party
is not a Philippine citizen or that the offense is not
against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the
Artides o€ War of the United States Armed Forces will
apply.
~390. When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United States
liable for violation of our Criminal Law?
The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Phil-
ippines and the United States of America recognizes the
authority of our civil courts t o exercise jurisdiction over
all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in
certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement.
Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United
States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable
.. by our civil court when the offense is committed (1) out-
side the bases and (2) the offended party is not a mem-
ber of the armed forces of the United States or that
the offense is not against the security of the United States.
Not one of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement
is applicable to this case.
"391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over a n
offense committed outside the base by a member of its
armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member
' .,
thereof or the offense is not against the seeurity of the
United States?
If any offense committed outside the base (the of-
offended party not being a member of the armed forces
,.., . of the United States or the offense is not against the
'
. . ; security of the United States) is committed by any mem-
, . ., ~
134
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. .
ber 01the armed forces of the United States (a) while
engaged in the actual performance of a specific. military :
duty, or (b) during a period of national emergency,.
United States may exercise jurisdiction.
392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time of war over.
a soldier who committed a crime?
Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War
requiring a soldier to be delivered to civil authorities for
trial for an alleged crime except in time of war, the
jurisdiction of military courts over x soldier is not ex-:
clusive of the civil courts even during time of war, if .the
soldier is stationed within the territory
courts are functioning and where no actn
in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356).
But under the Base Agreement, in time 0
United States shall have the right to exercise
jurisdiction over any offenses which may be
By members of the armed forces of the Unit
in We Philippines.
393. A and B, Filipino citi'ens, went to €Ioi%!kong on a pleasure;
trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the
Philippines, B discovered that A sto!le her di
worth P2,OOO while they were in Hongkong
Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an2
swec.
No, because this is not one of the cases where
provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enfor
outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The of@
was not committed while on a Philippine shi
the offense does not involve forgery or cou
any coin or currency note of the Philippines, or obli
and securities issued by the Government of the Phili
the offense does not involve any act connected
introduction into the Philippines of forged o
securities; the offender is not a public officer or empl
who committed an offense in the exercise of his funct'
135
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. ~~
or that the offense is not one of the ciimes against the
., . natimonal security and the law of nations.
' .394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code appli-
'
cable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship
.>., ~~,,., or airship even if the Philippine ship cr airship is outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippines?
The Philippine vessel o r aircraft, although beyond three
miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the
national territory.
E:ut when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the
territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on
said vessel or aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreim
395. A, an employee of the Philippine Government, ivas assigned
to Japan as a clerk of the Reparation Committee. While
in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by an-
other employee of the Committee. .In case A returns or
is brought back to the Philippines, may.he be prosecuted
and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan?
Explain your answer.
No, because although A is a public officer or employee,
he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his
. . function. To commit an offense in the exercise of his
.. functiou, the public officer or employee must have acted
in his official capacity, or that the act committed must
be related to or connected with the peiiformance of his
official duty.
hr are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned
Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal Code
' A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period Of
.'..even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of
Because the commission of any of those crimes may
affect the political or economic life of the nation. .The
i . Crimes against national security may affect the existence
of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins
CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER
. .
or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by
the Government may affect the economic life of the n e
tion. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy
and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and
may he punished by any civilized government.
I
397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect? I*
Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as t h e y .
favor a person guilty of a felony, who is not's habitual
delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not speei-
fically provide that the same shall not be applicable to
pending actions o r causes of actions. ';r
., ."
398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was "
on trial for estafa punishable by paision correecional in
view of the amount involved. Uefore the case was sub-
mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, reducing the penalty for estafa, corn- ". ',
mitted by A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable
to A? Explain your answer.
On the basis of the facts given, A should be given the :
benefit of the new law, it being' favorable to him. Hence,
the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, .,
because a t the time of his trial for estafa he was convicted
by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same
title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing with
crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in two cases,
namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made in-
applicable t o pending actions or existing causes of action;
and ( 2 ) where the offender is a habitual delinquent under
Rule No. 5 of Art. 6% of the Revised Penal Code.
ten years from the date of his release or last convidion~
of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries,
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of
any of said crimes a third time or oftener.
 CRIMINAL LAW RlGVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.. The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: i 2 . That inan is essentially a moral creature with :

1. Basic principles affecting crimina1 liability (Articles an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil,
/ .
1 to 20). thereby placing more stress upon the effect o r result
2 . Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil of the felonious act than upon the man, the crimlnal ,.
,.
, I
liabilit,y (Articles '21 t o 113). himself.
3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) 3. I t has endeavored to establish a mechanical and .

. '. .. . different titles (Articles I14 t o 365). direct proportion between crime and penalty. $3
.. I . . 4. There is a scant regard to .the human' element."
_. .,,
.400. Classify felonies according to their nature. (Basic Principles, Eationale, p. 2, by the Code COP-
I$
.:,?
..
Felonies are classified according t o their nature, as mittee on Code of Crimes)
follows: Positivist theory -
1. Crimes against the national security and the law 1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange: . ~ '
~ OI nations. morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do .,~. .I;,.
, , p
2 . Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. rnronx, in sDite of or contrary to his volition. ,
. ,
1'. ., , ..,,. , . . 2 . That crime is essentially a. social and natural :.
. , . 3. Crimes against public order.
'' 4. Crimes against public interest. phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and. ,.!;
'.... 5 . Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. checked by the application of abstract principles of law; .;
6. Crimes against public morals. and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punish-;, i
7. Crimes committed by public officers. ment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through. .&
8. Crimes against persons. the ellforcement of individual measures in each par tic-^ ii
9. Crimes against personal liberty and security. ular case after a thorough, perSona1 and individual \:

10. Crimes against property. investigation conducted by a competent body of psychia- ,;

11. Crimes against chastity. trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale,;
@%+.!:
DD. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of.
2'
12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. Crimes)
&& ' 13. Crimes against honor:
14. Quasi offenses. 402. On what principles or theory of penalOgY is the Revised'
Penal Code based?
State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from The Revised Penal Code continues, like the old
the other.
Coae, t o be based on the principles of the classical 8
There a r e two theories of penalogy, namely: ( 1 ) the although some provisions of eminel1tly positivistic
classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. encies (those having reference t o the punishment of 1
These two theories of penalogy may ba distinguished possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were inC
by their characteristics: 'uorated in the present Code.

.'
1. The basis of criminal liability ip human free 403. Classify felonies according to the means by which t
will^ and
the purpose of the penalty ia retribution. commit.ted and define each, and according to their
and define each.
138 139
 . _ CRIMINAL LAW XEVIXWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Felonies are classified according to the means by which AI%? When is an act or omission voluntary?
. . ... they are committed into (1) intentional felonies or felonies A voluntary act is a free, +nteZZig& and ilttentiod
, , committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies
or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of act (U.S. vs. Ah Chong, 3 1 Phil. 488). IIence, an omis-
foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.). sion must also be free, intelligent and intentional. This is
the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In
Felonies are classified according to their gravity into culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free
.I:
(1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light and int.dligent, hut instead of intent or malice, which is
~. felonies. necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence,
.. Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
. :,,
I . .
I
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their pe-

. .
-
I..:.
, ,. i, . .,' .
riods are afflictive.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
with penalties which in their maximum period are correc-
j
407. What is mistake of fact and how does it affect~criminal
liability?
Mistake of f a d is a misapprehension of fact, showing
tipnal. j
lack of intent on the part of the person accused of - a
.. , ;. . . Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
1
. . felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because
, ., .
commission of which the penalty of arrest0 1)zeno~or a intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, iS
:. fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided 2ackir.g,
.. (Art. 9, R.P.C.).
,':

. :404.. State t h e elements of felonies as t h q are &fined in the 408 When is mistake of fact available as a defense?
' . .. Revised Penal Code.
'
The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act Of the,. '!
'.
accused would have been lawful had the facts been aS he
As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal believed them t o be. His intention in pel-foming the act '
',
. , Code, felonies have the following elemnts:
. . should be lawful. He should not be a t fault or negligent.
1. There must be an act or omission.
2 . The act or omission must he punishable by law. 409. ~~~sthe mere fact that a <personhas acted under a mis-
3 . That the act must be committed or the omission take of fact mean that he is exempt from criminal Ea-
incurred by means of deceit (dolo) or by means of fault bility? Explain your answer.
(culpa). No, because it is reqnired that t h e . s t and the i&n-
. ., It is not necessary to state that the act or omission
. . tion of the accused must he la&]. Eence, if his act and
.+ ,. , be voluntary, as it is presumed. intention are unlawful, the accused is not exempt from
'1

'" -. 40 What i s the meaning of the term "dolo" as used in the criminal liability, notwithstanding a mistake of fact on , . ,
.' -:/'definition of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised ! his part. '1

. .. $1
Penal Code.
910. A wanted to kill B by shooting him. with a pistol. A,
The term dolo has been improperly translated to "de- 1 thinking that he was B, fired at a person who was walk- ~':;$
ceit". Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent
,to do an injury to another;/It implies malicious inten-
I
ing in a dark alley. It turned out that the person killed
was C, the brother of A. A had no intention t o kill him. ,$ $
..*y
tion. Considering that there was a mistake of fact in this case,., !;:.
;;

140 141
 CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
do you believe that A is exempt from criminal liability?
Explain your answer.
No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his
pistol. He &d w j k m a l i c e , since he had the intent
to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom
he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have
been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised P e n d
Code, he is liable criminally for the death of his brother
C, because when he fired his pistol with intent t o kill B,
A was committing a felony and the death of C was the
direct, natlrral and logical consequence of the felony com-
rgteea.
411. A was awakened by the barking of his dog. Be looked
out of the window of his house and saw a man in his
yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to be
a. robber, shot and killed him in his yard. When he went
down to see the man he had killed, he found out that the
man was his brother who wanted to spend the night in
A's house. Can A successfully invoke mistake of fact as
a, defense? Explain your answer.
NQ,because even if the man was in fact a robber, not
his brother, A would not have been bs6fied in shooting
him to death. There was neither defense of A's person,
defense of home nor defense of property in this case, be-
' cause there was no~~unlawful aggression on the part of
the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A.
Since the act done by A would noLhave been~lawfulhad
the facts been as he believed them t o be, he is liable for
the death of his brother.
412. May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the
commission of a felony? Explain your auswer.
No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused
to another should be unintentional, it being simply the
incident of another act performed without malice (People
vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 55 Phil. 939).
In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it
is necessary that neither malice nor intention to cause
142
CRIiMIN.41, LAW REVIEWER
371. What is th'e Yenue of action in libel?
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of
written defamation shall be filed simultaneously or sepa-
rately with t,he court of first instance of the province
or city where the iibelous article is printed and first
published or where any of the offended parties actually
resides at the time of the commission of the offense:
Provided, however, That where one of the offended parties
is a public officer mhose office is ,in the City of Manila
a t the time of the commission of the offense, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of the City
of Manila or of the city or province where the libelous
article is printed and first. published, and in case such ,
public officer does not hold office in the City of Manila, :
the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance
of the provinre o r city where he held office,at the t i e
of the commission of the offense o r where @e libelous
article is printed and first published and in case one o€
the offended parties is a private individual, the action
shall be filed in the Court of First lnstance of the prov-
ince or city where he actually resides at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous matter
is printed and first published: Provided, further, That the
civil action shall be filed in the same court where the
criminal action is filed and vice versa: Provided, further- *
more, That the conrt where the criminal action or ci$il
action for damages is first filed, shall acquire jurisdic.
tion to the exclusion of other courts. (Grt. 360, par. 3,
K.P.C.)
372. How shall the criminal action for d,efamation which .,on-
s?sstS in tlie impatation of a crime which can not be pro:
secuted de oficio be '&ronght?
-.
It shall be brought at the instance of and upon
plaint expressly filed by the offended party (Art.
par. 5, R.P.C.).
373. What are the requisites f w acqkittal or of def
libel?
3.27
,. ,.,;z
 CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may
be given in evidence and if the matter charged as libelous
ir, true, and, moreover, that it was published with good
. .. motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall he
acquitted (Art. 361, par. 1, R.P.C.).
,374. May proof aC the truth of an imputation of an act or om's-
sion not constituting a crime be admitted by the court?
1 1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omis-
sion not constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless
the imputation shall have been made against Government
employees with respect to facts related to the dischargc
of their dutjes.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
, .
(Art. 361, pars. 2 8z 3, R.P.C.)
-"375.. Is the auth,olr of the libelous remarks or comments wn-
'
.. . . , nected with the matter privileged or the' editor or manag-
i_
. ing editor of a newspaper in which they are published
exempt from criminal liab:lity?
Libelous remarks or comments connected with the mat-
~
t e r privileged under the provisions of article 354, if madl
with matice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor fhG:
editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal
liability (Art. 362, R.P.C.),
376. What a r e incriminatory machinations?
They are :
1. IncQiinating innocent person.
2 . Intriguing against honor.
377.. How is the crime of incriminating innocent person com-
'.*, mitt&?
It is committed by any person who, hy any act not
constituliug perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute
to an innocent person the commission of a crime (Art
863, R.P.C.).
378. What is intriguing against honmr?
It is a crime committed by 'any person who shall make
any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemiskr
128
CRIMINAL LAW KEYIEWER
the honor or reputation of another person (Art. 364, :
R.P.C.) .
379. What are the quasi-offenses?
They are the offenses committed by means of fault . '
i or culpa, or otherwise known as criminal negligence.
i
The quasi-offenses are committed i n four ways:
which, had i t been intentional, would constitute a grave,
or less grave felony or light felony.
2, By committing through simple imprudence or negli-
gence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave
or a less serious felony.
3. By causing damage to the property of another
! through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence 01
negligence.
4. By causing through simple imprudence 'or
some . m ~ n gwhich, if done maliciously, would h
tuted a light felony.
380. Are the courts, in imposing the p a d t i e s for rriniind
negligence, bound to apply the rules prescribed in Art. 64
of the Revised r e n d Code, for the application of penalti-
which contain three periods?
In the imposition of the penalties f o r criminal negli-
gence, the courts shall exercise their sound discretion, with-,
out regard to the rules prescribed in, Article sixty-four
(Art. 365, par. 5, R.P.C.).
381. what cases are the penalties prescribed for criminal..
negligence in Art. 365 not to be imposed?
The provisions contained in Art. 865 of the Revised
Penal Code shall not be applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense
to or lower than those provided in the first two Pa
of that article, in which case the courts shall i
penalty next lower in degree than that whi
129
,.., , ..
I .&*xb: ,:
,<<;.&e:,..
, ~,...,
.I
. ,

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAM' REVIEWER

:: imposed in the period which they may deem proper to
. . apply.
'
2 . When, by imprudence or negligence and with viola-
tion of the Automobile Law, the death of a person shall
.. : be caused, in which case the defendants shaJ be punished
''. by p n s i o n covreccionat in its medium sild maximum
'W ~ periods.
.. . (Art. 365, par. 6, R.P.C.)
382. Define rekkiess imprudence.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but with-
- out malke, doing or failing to do act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing or failing to per-
form such act, taking into consideration his employment
or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other' circumstances regarding persons, t:me and place
It has general application, because Criminal Law is.
binding on all persons who reside or sojourn in Philipphie
territory.
It is territorial, in t h a t Criminal Law undertakes to
punish crimes committed within the Philippine territory,
It is prospective, in that a penal law cannot make an
act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable
when committed. Crimes are punished under the laws
force at the t'me of their commission.
As t o its general application: Art. 2 of the Revised
Penal Code states that the provisiolls of this Code shall .
be enforced within the Philippine Krchipelago, including ,,,
its atmosphere, interior waters anc! maritime zone, with- ' i
out reference t o the person o r persons who might violate
m y of its provisions.
Art. 1 4 of the new Civil Code provides that penal laws ,~, ,

(Art. 365, par. 7, R.P.C.). shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philip- ',

pine territory.
383. Definc simple imprudence.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
displayed in those cases in which the damage impending
to be caused is not immediate nor the dmger clearly
manifest (Art. 3F5, par. 8, R.P.C.).
A; to its terril&io,l application: The same Art. 2
of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions Of ,;
this Code shall be enforced wilhin the Philippine Archi- ,'
pelego, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, which ccnstitute the Philippine territory.
As l o t h c pmspectivitg of C~nvinalLaw: Art. 21 o f :
i

584. When is the penalty next higher in degree to those pro-
vided for in Art. 3G5 to be imposed?
The. cnalty next higher in degree to tllose provided
F
for in it,. 365 shall be imposed upon the offender who
fails to..-lend on the spot to the injured parties such help
be in h:s hands to give (Art. 365, par. 9, R.P.C.).
the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be
punishable by any penalty not pi-escribed by law prior
to its commission.
Art. 366 uC the same Code provides
punishable under the laws enforced at t
commission.

",
_* -3%. In what eases is our Criminal Law not applicable to per-
,.,+385.
.., State and exp!ain briefly the main characteristics of sans living or sojourning in this country?
. .
. , , Criminal L,nw and state the provisions of law based on Art. 2 or the Revised Penal Code
thosc characteristics. t,hat the general and territorial applicati
Criminal t a w has three main characteristics: (1) gen- sions arc subject to the cxoeptions that
.
~.
,
eral, ( 2 ) territorial, and (3) prospective. in the trcatics and laws of preferential

130 131
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Art. 14 of the new Civil Godc provides that the general
application of penal laws is subject to the principles of
public international law and to treaty stipulations.
Hence, the following persons ale not subject to the
operation of our Criminal Law :
1. Those who, according to the treaties between the
Philippines and a foreign country, are not amenable to
our penal laws.
Thus, under the Base Agreement between the Philip
pines and the United States, our penal laws shall not
apply when-
( a ) The offense is committed by any person within
any base, except (1) where the offender and the
offended party are hoth Philippine citizens (not
members of the armed forces of the United States
on active duty), or (2) where the offense is against
the security of the Philippines;
_,
(b) The offense is committed outside the bases, but!
the offender and the offended party are both
members of the armed forces of the United States;
and
(e) The offense committed outside the bases hy any
member of the armed forces of the United States
is against the security of the United States.
2. Those who, by virtue of laws of preferential a p
to our penal laws.
under Rep. Act No. 75, it is even a crime t o
imprison any ambassador or public minister of
.," any foreign State or their domestic servant whose name
.. is registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs and
'.' posted in some public place in the Office of the Chief
of Police of Manila.
3. Those who, under the principles of public Inter-
to the operation of our penal
s and other chiefs of States,
132
CKInlINAL LAW REVIEWER
387. An American soldier committed the complex crime of forc
ble abduction with rape, begun in Angeles, Pampanga, and
eontinned all the way to Clark Field, a military base, where ..
the victim was raped. May the offender be tried by the -1
Court of First Instance of Pampanga?
Under the Rules of Court (Rule 107, Sec. 14), in all
criminal prosecutions, the action shall be instituted and
tried in the court, of the municipality or province where-
in the nf€ense was committed or anyone of the ingredients
thereof tank place.
In the case of Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 Phil. 855, it was
held that the offendera who kidnapped the victim from ,'.
Manila and took him t o a distant place in Bulacan, where, . 2
the latter was killed, may be tried either by the Cou
of First Instance of Manila o r by the Court of F i r
Instance of Bulacan, but whichever takes cognizance
the case first acquires exclusive jurisdiction.
The aforementioned rule and ruling may be appli
in this case by analogy.
The American soldier committed the complex crime of-
forcible abduction with rape. The complex crime of
h1e abduction with rape, being a w n i h u i n w f f e n s e ,
be tried either by the Court of First Instance of
panga, where the commission of the crime began, or b
the military court of the armed forces of the United
in Clark Field, where it was continued and consum
Hence, the Court of First Instance of
try the case.
388. Is 6ur Criminal Law applicable to crimes committed by a
soldier?
It depends on whether the offender is a soldier of the
Philippine Army or he is a soldier of the armed forces:
of the TJnited States. If he is a soldier of the Philippine:
Army, our civil court has concurrent jurjsdiction with the;
military court. If the civil court takes cognizance of the"
ca,se first, then it shall have exclusive jurisdiction ovq;
the offense committed by the soldier of the Philippine
133
 I
... ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
d ,
" Army and our Criminal Law will be applicable to him
-But if the offender is a soldier of the United States Armed
.'2,; Forces, the stipulations in the Base Agreement will apply.
. ,
' , 389. May a Philippine citizen who committed a crime in this
country he punished by a law of a foreign nation? Ex-
plain your answer.
' . Yes, .when the crime is committed by a Philippine
citizen within a base, provided that the offended party
is not a Philippine citizen o r that the offense is not
'
. .against the security of the Philippines. In such case, the
.-< 'Articles of War of the United States Armea Forces will
apply.
When is a soldier of the armed forces of the United Slates
liable for violation of our Criminal Law?
The Base Agreement between the Republic of the Phil-
.~ ippines and the United States of America recognizes the
authority of our civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over
"
all offenses committed within the Philippines, except in
certain cases specifically provided in the Agreement.
Hence, a soldier of the armed forces of the United
States is liable for violation of our penal law and triable
by our civil court when the o€fense is committed (1) ont-
side the bases and ( 2 ) the offended party is not a mem-
ber of the armed forces of the United Sta,tes or that
the offense is not against the security of the United States.
Not o&+of the exceptions provided in the Base Agreement
is applicable to this case.
391. When may the United States exercise jurisdiction over an
offense committed outside the base by a member of its
armed forces, even if the offended party is not a member
thereof lor the offense is not against the security of the
United States?
any offense committed outside the base (the of-
ed party not being a member of the armed forces
e 'United States or the offense is not against the
h. Of the United States) is committed by any mem-
134
CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER
ber of the armed forces of the United States (a)
. engaged in the actual performance of a specific mi
duty, or (b) during a period of national eme
United States may exercise jurisdiction.
392. Do civil courts have jurisdiction during time
a soldier who committed a crime?
Notwithstanding the provision in the Articles of War
requiring a soldier to he delivered to civil authorities for
trial for an alleged crime except in time of war,,,the
jurisdiction of military courts over a soldier is not er-
elusive of thc civil courts even during time of war, if the
soldier is stationed within the territory where the c i s 1
courts are functioning and where no' actual h
in progress (Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356).
But undei. the Base Agreement, in time
United States shall have the right to exercis
jurisdiction over any offenses which may be
by members of the armed forces of the
in the Philippines.
and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hongkong on a pleasure 1
trip. When they returned to, and were already in, the ,'
Philippines, €3 discovered that. A stole her diamond ring
worth 82,000 while they were in 'Hongkong. May ow
Criminal Law be applied in this case? Explain your an-'
mer.
rit
No, because this is not one of the eases where the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced
outside of the jurisdiction of the Philippines. The offense
was not committed while on a Philippine ship o r airship:
the offense does not involve forgery or counterfeiting of
any coin or currency note of the Philippines, o r obligations
and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines;
II the offense does not involve any act connected with the
introduction into the Philippines of forged obligations and
securities: the offender is not a public officer or employee
i who committed an offense in the exercise of his functions;
i
I
135 , .
$?
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
or that the offense is not one of the crimes against the
national security and the law of nations.
394. Why are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code appli-
cable to crimes committed on board the Philippine ship
or airship even if the Philippine ship or airship is outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippines?
The Philippine vessel or aircraft, although beyond three
miles from the seashore, is considered an extension of the
national territory.
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the
territory of a foreign country, the crime committed on
said vessel o r aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign
country.
395. A. an employee of the Philippine Government, was assigned
to Japan'-as a clerk of t h e Reparation Committee. While
in Japan, A falsified the record prepared and kept by an-
. . other employee of the Comntittee. In case A returns or
is brought back to the Philippines, may he he prosecuted
and punished for falsification committed by him in Japan?
Explain your answex.
No, because although A is a public officer or employee,
he did not commit the offense in the exercise of his
function. l f o commit an offense in the exercise of his
function, the public officer or employee must have acted
in his official capacity, o r that the act committed must
be rel.%d to or connected with the performance of his
official duty.
396. Why are the crimes under the circumstances mentioned
in Art. 2 made punishable by the Revised Penal. Code
even if they are committed outside of the jurisdiction of
the Philippines?
Because the commission of any of those crimes may
a B c t tho p e l or economic life of the nation. The
crimes against national security may affect the existence
of the State. The forging or counterfeiting of our coins
136
$ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWISR
,7/;
11, or currency notes or obligations and securities issued by
the Government may affect the economic life of the na-
4 tion. Crimes against the law of nations, such as piracy
and mutiny on the high seas, are against mankind and
may be punished by any civilized government.
397. When may our Criminal Law be given retroactive effect?
Penal 1aw.s shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor a person guilty of a felony, v h o is not a habitual ~
delinquent, and provided that the penal laws do not speci-
fically provide that the same shall not be applicable to
pending actions or causes of actions.
398. A, who had been once punished for the crime of theft, was
on trial for estafa punishable by pirision correcdonal in ,'
view of the amount involved. Before the case was sub- ,:
mitted for decision, Congress amended Art. 315 of the ' :;i
Revised Penal Ode, reducing the penalty for estaf'a, com- ' ;
mitted hy A, to arrest0 mayor. Is the new law applicable
to A? Explain your answer.
On the basis of the facts given, .A should be given the ' ~;$
benefit of the new law, it being favorable t o him. Hence,' .:
the new law is applicable to him. A was only a recidivist, ;
because at tbe time of his trial for estafa he was convicted ,'.,
by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same :
title of the Code. A new favorable statute dealing With *
crimes cannot be given retroactive effect only in tw
namely: (1) where the new law is expressly made in-
applicable to pending actions or existing causes o f
and (2) where the offender is a habitual delinque
Xule No. 5 of Art. 62 of the Revised Penal Code.
A habitual delinquent is one who, within a per'
ten years from the date of his release or last conv
of the crimes of serious o r less serious
robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is
any of said crimes a third time or oftener,
399. What are the three parts of the Ileyised P
137
 . .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

,!, , The three parts of the Revised Penal Code are: 2 . That man is essentially a moral creature with .-?'i'
1. Basic principles affecting criminal liability (Articles an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil,
1 to 20). Y thereby placing more stress upon the effect or result ' ~.

2. Provisions on penalties, including criminal and civil of the €elonious act than upon the man, the criminal ' <'$
.,%
. 4"
liability (Articles 21 to 113). himself. .:+
. .li

3. Felonies defined and penalized under fourteen (14) 3. It has endeavored to establish a mechanical and ' ,I, ?$-
different titles (Articles 114 to 365). direct proportion between crime and Penalty. .4,.
4 . There is a scant regard to the huma
400. Classify felonies according to their nature.
'
(Basic Principles, Rationale, p. 2, by the
mittee on Code of Crimes)
Feloni,es are classified according to their nature, a
follows :
q
Positivist theory-
.. 1. That man is subdued occ:tsionally by a strange
. 1. Crimes against the national security and the law I
1

' .' , of nations. and morbid phenomenon which constrains him to do

2. Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State. wrong, in spite of or contrary t o his volition.
3 . Crimes against public order. 2 . That crime is essentially a social and natU
4 . Crimes against public interest. phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be
5. Crjmes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs. 'checked by the application of abstract princ
. 6 . Crimes against public morals.
and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of
7. Crimes committed by pnbl:c officers. i
. ment, 'iixed and determined a pn'ori; but rathe
the enforcement of individual measures in
. 8. Crimes against persons. ular case after a thorough, personal and indiv
, - 9. Crimes against personal liberty and s.x.urity.' investigation conducted by a competent bod
10. Crimes against property. trists and social scientists. (Basic Principles, Rationale,
11. Crimes against chastity. pp. 2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code of
12. Crimes against the civil status of persons. Crimes)
15. Crimes against honor.
. . ...
',, 14. Quasi offenses. 402. On what principles or theory of penalogy i
Penal Code based?
:;dol. State the theories of penalogy and distinguish one from The R,evised Penal Code continues, like the old
: , tho other. Code, to be based on the principles of the classical s
I . .
_ There are two theories of penalogy, namely: (1) the although some provisions of eminently positivistic
- . ,- classical theory and (2) the positivist theory. encies (those having reference to the punis
..
These two theories of penalogy may be distinguished possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incor
by their characteristics: porated in the present Code.
Classical theory - -403. Classify felonies according to the means by which they are
1. The basis of criminal liability is human free
will and *e purpose of the penalty i3 retribution. committed and define. each, and according tu their gravity
and define each.
138 139
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.. Felonies are classified according to the maans by which
they are committed into (1) intentional felonles or felonies
.’
, ’..
.’
committed with malice or intent and (2) culpable felonies
or those resulting from imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill (Art. 3, par. 2, R.P.C.).
Felonies are classified according t o their gravity into
(1) grave felonies, (2) less grave felonies, and (3) light
felonies.
Grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the
capital punishment or penalties which in any of their pe-
riods are afflictive.
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes
. ,
with penalties which in their maximum period are correc-
tional.
. I Light felonies are those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty of arresto mmnor or a
fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or both is provided
‘ . (Art. 9, 1I.P.C.).
404.’ State the elements of felonies as they are defined in the
.. Revised P,enal Code.
. . ”,
.. As the term is defined in Art. 3 of the Revised Penal
Code, felonies have the following elements:
1. There must be an act or omission.
2. T h e act or omission muvt be punishable by law.
3 . That the act must be committed o r the omission
incurred by means of deceit (dolo) o r by means of fault
(culpa).
It is not necessary to state that the act or omission
be voluntaiy, as i t is presumed.
405. What is the meaning of the term “dolo” as used in the
definiti,on of intentional felonies in Art. 3 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The term dolo has been improperly translated to “de-
, ,. ceit”. Dolo is equivalent to malice, which is the intent
to do an injury t o another. It implies malicious inten-
tion.
140
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW%R
406. When is an act or omission voluntary?
6 A voluntary act is A free, intelligent, and intentional
act (US. vs. Ah Chong, 11 Phil. 488). Hence, a n omis-
sion must also be free, intelligent and intentional. This is
the meaning of voluntariness in intentional felony. In
culpable felony, the act or omission must also be free
and intelljgent, but instead of intent o r malice, which is
necessary in intentional felonies, there is only imprudence, - ~ ,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
407. What is mistake of fact and how dues it affect criminal
liability?
I
I Mistake of fact is a misapprehenision of fact, showing
lack of intent on the part of the person accused of a
felony. It exempts him from criminal liability, because
intent, which is one of the conditions of voluntariness, is
lacking.
408. When is mistake of fact avaikdble as a defense?
The rule is: that in mistake of fact, the act of the
accused would have been lawful had the facts been as he ’:.
believed them to be. His intention in performing the a&
should be lawful. He should not be at fault or negligent.
409. Does the mere fact that a person has acted under a mis-
take of fact mean that he is exempt from criminal lia-
bility? Explain your answer.
No, because it is required that the act and the inten-
tion of the accused must be lawful. Hence, if his act and
intention are unlawful, the accused i s not exempt from
criminal liability, notwithstanding a mistake of fact on
his part.
410. A wanted to kill B by shooting him with a pistol. A,
thinking that he was B, fired a t a perso
ing in a dark alley. It turned out tlhat
was C , the brother of A. A had no inte
Considering that there +vas a mistake of
141

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
'.: . do yon believe that A is exempt from criminal liability?-
Explain YDW answer.
'No, because A had intent to kill when he fired his.
pistol. H e acted with malice, since he had the intent
.to do an injury to another. Even if the person whom
,..
he shot was really B, the act done by A would not have-
.been lawful. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penak
Code, he Is'liable criminaily for the death of his brother
.~
C, because when he fired his pistol with intent to kill B,.
A was committing a felony and the death of C was t h e
'-direct, nat.ura1 and logical consequence of the felony com-
mitted.
4 l y d was awakened by the barking of his dog. He IookeS
out of the window of his house and saw a man in his
yard. A got his shot-gun and, believing that man to be-
a robber, shot and killed him in his yard. When he went
down t o see the man he had killed, he found out that the
man was his brother who wanted to spend the night ia
. A's house. Can A successfully inwlce mistake of fact a s
. , a defense? Explain your answer.
No, because even if the man was in fact a robber, not
....~
his brother, A would not have been justified in shooting-
him to death. There was neither defense of A's person,
'
i
defense of home nor defense of property in this case, be-
cause there was no unlawful aggression on the part of
the deceased that might imperil the life or limb of A.
'Since the act done by A would not have been lawful h a s
the facts been as he believed them to be, he is liable for-
'. . the death of his brother.
F. May malice and negligence or imprudence co-exist in the
commission of a felony? Explain your answer.
No, because in criminal negligence, the injury caused
'. . .
' to another should be unintentional, it being simply the
, -.* ~
. . incident of another act performed without mhliee (People
vs. Guillen, 85 Phil. 307; People vs. Sara, 66 Phil. 939).
In order that an act may be qualified a s imprudence, it
-.. is necessary that neither malice nor interition to cause
142
iK/
CRIMINAL LAW RETIEWER
injury should intervene; where su intention exists, the , .i
act should be qualified by the felony i.t has produced even .. ,
though it may not have been the intention of the actor
to cause an evil of such gravity as that produced (Viada's
comment on the Penal Code, Vol. 7, 5th ed., p. 7).
4t3:'^A, with n i&& to inflict physical injuries on B, threw a
piece of stone at the latter. The stone d i c b o t hit B and ' 1
instead hit and seriously injured C who was standing near. ~ .
13. The fiscai who investigated the case filed an informa- :
tion against A for sPriousphysimtin,luries -ht re&-
Jessimprudence, with C as the offended party. Did the
fiscai properly charge A with that offense? Explain your r .
answer.
No, because when A threw the stone at B, he h&t&
intention to cauge an injury to the latter. Hence, A acted
w i t h a d i c e and his act was unlawful. .& order that a n act
may be qualified as imprudence, i t is ncmsmy that neither
malice nor illtPnllnn t oy- c should intenren
Where an u&ayful act i s x 3 f d l y done, a mistake in the'
blow or a mistake in the identity of the victim caanet-b
cwskkred as r e d s k s d m d s u e (Pe@plevs. Guillen, 85
Phil. 307; People vs. Gona, 54 Phil. 605).
414. What are the conditions that make the act or omission
xk 'voluntary in intentional felonies?
In order that the act or omission in felonies by d d o t
may be considered voluntary or performed with deliberate
intent, the following requisites must concur :
1. Freedom, .
2. Intelligence, and
3. Intent.
i
415. What are the conditions that make the act dr omission
voluntary in culpable felonies?
Thev are:
i
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
3. Imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or 'lack
of skill.
As there is no intent or malice in culpable felonies,
i d t is pat a rxxndith of voluntadness in that class
Of-felo*-
Because the act does not make a person Criminal unless
his mind be criminal. This is the meaning of the maXlm,
actus non facit yeurn, nisi mens sit Tea (U.S. vs. Catolico,
18 Phil. 507).
417. What are the three classes of crimes?
They are:
1, Intentional felonies.
2. Culpable felonies.
3 . Crimes punished by special laws.
418. IIow is criminal liability determined in each class?
I n intentional felony, whether or not the offender acted
with dolo or malice.
In culpable felony, whether or not the offender acted
with imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of
skill.
I n crimes punished by special laws, whether or not
the offender executed the prohibited ,act freely and con-
sciously. Malice or negligence is immaterial.
419. In what cases is malice or intent not necessary to hold
a person criminally Iiable for the crime he committed?
Explain your answer.
In the following, criminal intent is not necessarY:
1. In acts mala prohibita, that is, crimes punishable
by special law.
2. I n felonies committed through negligence or im-
prudence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
144
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWICR
. Malice or intent is not necessary i n these crimes, ,b ',
cause in acts malo prohibita the mere execution of the
prohibited act constitutes a crime; and i n culpable felonies,
intent is replaced by negligence, imprudence, lack of fore-
sight or lack of skill.
420. When is intent necessary in crimes punishable by special
laws?
When the acts or omissions punishable by special law
are inherently immoral, they are mala per 6e and, hence,
for such acts to be punishable, it must be shown that
they were committed with malice. Thus, if the poll cIerk
and the election inspectors in transferring the names of .:
certain vo1,ers from the old list o m k e d . some names '":*:
of voters and failed to record them in the new list, an
omission which is inherently immoral, resulting in the dis- :~.
enfranchisement of those voters, the poll clerk and t h e ' '~
inspectors are not criminally liable for violation of the
Election Code, because the omission was not malicious . " 0.
(People YS. Sunico, et ai., C.A., 60 O.G. 6880).
421. In the prosecution of the offender, must the fiscal prove
that the act or omission of the offender was voluntary? 1:
,i
9
Explain your answer.
No, it is not necessary to prove that the act o r omis- .
sion of the offender was voluntary as it is presumed.
d
422. How is the presumplion of voluntariness of the act or
omission constituting a felony rebutted?
It is rebutted by proof of the fact that the act or
omission was committed or incurred without freedom, or
without intelligence or without intent or negligence on the ,?
part of the accused.
423. In what cases may a person who mnmitted a felony be !
:
exempt from criminal liability becituse he acted v&'h& ,
freedoql?
They are:
146
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

c

1. When he acted under the cnmp&@n of an irresisti- 421. What are acts mala in se? What are acts mala prohibita?
.. i.
ble force; and Acts mala in se are those which are wrongful from
. . 2. When he acted under the ig&ulse of uncontrollable their nature, such as acts constituting homicide, rape or
.,
.,
fear of an equal or greater injury. theft. .^
” . . .”
Acts mala prohibita are those which are violations of
24. In what cases may a person who committed a fdony be
mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more or-
exempt from criminal liability because he acted without
derly regulation of the affairs of society. They are wrong :r
iWir:enceL merely because they are prohibited by the statutes. . .
They are:
1. When the person who committed the felony was 428. How would you classify the crimes punishable by the
insane or imbecile; Revised Penal Code?
2 . When he was a minor under nine years old; and Generally, the crimes punishable by the Revised Penal .,,

. . . 3. When he was over nine but under fifteen years Code are classified as crimes mala in sa, because most ’;‘
,.. . old and he acted without discernment. of the acts defined as mimes in that Code are wrongful >.;
from their nature. , .
425. In what cases may a person who committed a felony be
;,. . exempt from criminal liability because he acted without 429. What is motive and how is i t distinguished from intent? ,
intent‘! Motive is the moviug power which impeis one.to ac-
They are: tion for a definite result. Intent is the ‘purpose to use.
1. When he had performcd a lawful act with due care a particular means to effect such result.
and caused an injury by mere accident without fault or While rn-otive is never an essential element of a crime,’.
intention of causing it; intent is an essential condition of voiuntariness in felonies
4

2. When he failed t o perform an act required by law, committed by means of dolo.

because he was prevented by some lawful or insuperable
. cause; and 430. May a person be held criminally liable even if he has,.a ~

good motive in perpetrating the act. Illustrate. ’ : . ’ ’

3 . When there is mistake of fact.
Yes, as in the case of mercy killing, the painless k&,.
426. Distinguish “intent to commit the crime” from “intent to ing of a patient who has no chance of recovery. The.%
,y
’,,* perpetrate the act.” is still punished as b m e , for which the killer
‘
I . . criminally responsible, notwithstanding his good motive
, ,
.
The term “intent to commit the crime” is used in rela-
, ~,,
tion to crimes Committed by means of dolo, which requires
&When is proof of motive relevant i n criminal eases?
criminal intent. On the other hand, “intent to perpetrate
. , the act” is a term used to determine criminal liability Where the i&&y of a person accused of having
in crimes punishable by special law, where the doing of mitted a crime is iL-te, the mative that may
a prohibited act is a crime, as long as it is done freely imaelled its comrr,ission is very r e l t z n t (People vs
.. and ‘consciously. Intent or malice i s not rewired (U.S. Rosario-Murray, G. R. ‘No. L-4467, April 30, 1960)
vs. Siy Cong Bieng, et al., 30 Phil. 577;. People vs. Motive is important in cases where there is
$$& ~’
Eayona., 61 Phil. 181). as t o whether the defendant is or is not ‘the pe ,
.,.‘f
:’& ~ > ~

.&,.,, ’

146 147
 I

, .
:&. -,: p-,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

' ' , committed the offense. But where the defendant admits injury to another, but the result is different from that
'. ~
the killing, it is not necessary to inquire into his motive which he intended.
. ,
'.
for doing the act (People vs. Arcilla, G. R. No. L-11792,
June SO, 1959). 4" / I f a person acted under any of the justifying circum-
Where there are no eyewitnesses to the crime, and f l f stances mentioned in Art.& the Revised Penal code,^
where s u s m o n is likely to @.llupon a number d - l l a s O a S , and in so doing caused a ' ' lo anather which waa
,, motive is relevant and significant (People vs. Mario, GA- not
_---, intended, did that person incur criminal liability? Ex-
G. R. No. 371-R,July 21, 1947). plain your answer.
No. There are two requisites that must be present
,, 432. Shall wiminal liability be incurred even if the wrongfu~ in order that a person may be held liable criminally for
., act done by the accused be different from that which he the -Aane-which is different from that intended,
intended or the means employed or the aims sought by him namely: (1) that a Scny H L ~ Scommitted; and (2) that
'. are impossible? the wyang.$ane the agguer. T e h p e m n be the direct,/-
Yes. Criminal liability shall be h%med: natural and 1qg-1- e of the felnny cammiited.
1. By %person cnmmitting a f e h y (delito) al- i n justifying circumstances, there is LIQ&&UJY com-
though the wrongful act m e be d m t from that mitted as thcre is & h i n g xnlaxf&l in the d-a the
which he intended. person who aded under any of them is deemed nOtte
h m t r a m c a s e d the-. Hence, the f i r s t r e w i s i t e is':
2. By any person performing an*which would be l&&g and =-fon the first paragraph of Art. 4 .
an offense agakst p g x s ~ ~OP+WPS&&
s vere it not for is not applicable.
the &- 'Mity of its accomplishment or 0%
a i n t of the employmat of in&u& or ineffectual In such case, he is &&&e for the consequence&
m m - ( A r t . 4, R.P.C.). inieded b y h i w .

435. One evening when A entered his house, he surprised B,

icle 4 of the Revised Penal Code prJvides-"Criminal
'- apply to felonies committed by means of culpa? Explain.
No, because paragraph 1 of Art. 4 speaks of wrnngful
&different from that which the offender-
culpable felony, the offender d p d b t e n d la_da. any
yrongful act. The injury caused to another by the of-
fender in culpable felony is simpjy the iwidenk.of_;tnather
act wrfaaned w i d u j maliceorintent;-
Hence, the said provision agpliehoply to %Mescorn;
'
a stranger, in the act of taking jewelry from an open,
wardrabe belonging to A. A approached B from behind
and held the latter by his arms t o prevent him from
carrying away his (A's) jewelry, but B struggled with A
for the possession of the jewelry and in their scuffle A
pushed B who fell through the window. B dropped to the
In ground below, resulting in B's death. A had no intent
to kill B. The death of B was not intended by him. Is,
A criminaliy liable for the death of B? Explain your
answer.
No. A was acting in the lawful exercise of a right
(Art. II, par. 5, B.P.C.), because under the new Civil
Code (Art. 429) the owner or lxwful possessor of a
thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoy- , ~

149

ment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use
.. ... such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
.
.. . or usurpation of his property. A then acted under a
justifying circumstance. Such being the case, A was not
committing a felony when he caused B to fall through
the window to the ground below.Anly a person comfiib
ting a Eelony may be held liable for the result different
from that which he intended.
A cannot be held liable for homicide through simple
or reckless imprudence, because u . the~ cireumstances
he could n_atbe expedal t o take the n mi&& a t l e a s t the felony of &ensatehmurder and the
t o m s i&rsin-B.
b"i.~l
, -
.,
436. What, in general, are the causes that may produce a re-
sult which is different from that intended by the offender?
There are three hypotheses that may be considered in
answering this question, namely:
(1) Abernttio ictus o r mistake in the blow;
(2) Ewer in personae or mistake in the identity of
the victim; and
(3) Praeter intentionem or that the injurious result
is greater than that intended.
In aberratio ictus, the offender i n k x x h g to cause an
injury to one person actually inflicted it on another, a
result which was not inteTided by him, For instance, A,
with intent to kill, fired his pistol a t B; but he missed
B and hit and seriously injured C who was standing Ije-
..hind B. Undoubtedly, A did not intend to cause an in-
jury t o C and, therefore, the result was not intended
by himkevertheless, A is criminally liable for the in-
jury caused to 6, because when he fired his pistol at B
with intent to kill, A . was wmnitting the felony of at-
tempted homicide and the injury caused to C was the
direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony com-
mitted by him.
The hypothesis of error in personae is illustrated in
the case of People VS. Oanis, 74 Phil. 267. In this w e .
150
..,* . , '..,
. .. ,,
CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER
"
the accused fired his gun a t a sleeping person, believing
him to be the notorious criminal named Balagtas, because
the person sleeping was lying on the floor and facing
the wall of fne house with his back towards the door
where the accused were. The person killed was not the
notorious criminal, but an innocent person. When he .,
fired and killed the sleeping person, the accused made a '.
mistake in the identity of the victim. Although the wrong 1
done was different from that intended by the accused, he ' ,
was, nevertheless, liable for the death of that person, be-
causeaHen he fired at the sleeping person he w a s cam-
:
&e& of that innocent person w s the d w , -and
-1 cgmeauenqe of the felnny cm&d 1ys-bim
Praeter intenlionem is illustrated in the case of People
vs. Cagoco, 58 Phil. 524. In this case, the accused did
not have the intent to kill the deceased. He gave the
deceased a fist blow on the back part of his head. When
the deceased fell as a result of the blow, his head hit the
pavement and as a result i t wax fmctured. He died as
a consequence. In this case,/though the death of the
deceased was LoLintended by the accused, he was never-
theless liable f o r tlle reason that v&a> hcxaye a f i s t h l w
oj), the d$;gs.ed the accused was camI&hg the felanr , :,.
~,,
of sl&hf-pbpicaljnjuries, a t a s t , and the death of the ':
deceased was the an& &u?A and lnsical consequence
ofe felm-mmitted. Ob)&
437. When is the result deemed the direcit, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender? :
The rc&f. is deemed the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by the offender when
the Wnw camraitted is the proximahe-cause of the result.
A proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervenin
cause, produces the injury, and With'out which the
would not have occurred (38 Am. Jur. 605; cited
case of 'Villanueva vs. Medina, G. 13. Wo. L-1012
zz, i95n.
161
,
 I

'"Ita

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. ,

438. Give instances where the felony committed is the proximate

cause of the result.
Th,e following cases may be cited:
1. When the offender w t e n e d and chased the de-
ceased with a knife and when he was about to be over-
talcen the deceased jumped into the water and a8 he did *
. not know how to swim he died of drowning. 4'he A struck '.
440. A and B were standing on the bank of the river.
ammiLted, which is t-t, WAS. the .of
death of the deceased (US. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497; B on the jaw with his fist, causing the latter to fall into , ,~,

People vs. Buhay, G. R. L-1003, Oct. 27, 1.947). the water. As the water was deep and B did not know
how to swim, B sznk down and was drowned. Is A liable , '

..., , 2 . Giving fist blows or slightly injuring a person suf-

for the death of B? Explain ynulr answer.
c fering from heart disease or other internal malady, re-
i.
'i.,, sultinp in the death of the victim (People VS. Ilustre, 54 Yes, A is liable, because when A boxed B on the face ..
: ,.
&

i" Phil. !j44; People vs. Rodriguez, 23 Phil. 22; and People A was committing a felony, that is, slight physical in-
i
'. .
i_ vs. Reyes, 61 Phil. 341). In these cases, the fist blows juries or at least ill-treatment under Art. 266 of the
or the physical injuries inflicted were the causes for the Revised Penal Cocle. The felcny d-c by A W W
. , .. acceleration of the death of the deceased. the proximate cawsiegf B's death (U.S. vs. Valdez; People
....~,
,:;
&!%~, h+kvs. Buhay).
p .: ~439. A. an insane. with a bolo in hand came rushing towards
,*?.,, .
*;+;*i; . B who retreated. Finding himself cornered in a place
~

A and B were fighting on a sidewalk of a street. WheR

a' ;$*.
,;:*;
~ ,
~ ,
without exit, B drew his pistol and fired a t A. B did not
&~>
hit A, but the slug fired from B's gun hit and killed C
who was walking several meters behind A. Is B criminally
liable for the death of C? Explain your answer.
No. B was not committing a felony when he fired
his gun at A, because there was unlawful aggression on
the part of A and in view of the fact that there was
an imminent peril to the life of B, the gun which B
used was a reasonable means t o repel the aggression.
And since B did not give any provocatim to A, B was
acting in complete self-defense, which is 8 justifying cir-
cumstance. A person who acts under a jcstifying circnm-
stance does not transgress the law. His act is just and
in accordance with law.
/It is true that B caused the death of C, an innocent
bystander. But under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Revised Penal
Code, which makes a person criminally liable for the re-
sult which be never intended, t w m s must be pre-
A hit B on the face, the latter fell on the street.& the
moment a passing automobile was jn13ta meter from wh
B fell. As a result, B was run over and was Billed.
the time he boxed B, A did not see the automobile.
Iia5le for the death of B? Explain your answer. .:.I
No, because the blow given by A on the f ce of
was &.the proximate cause of M's death. droxima
cause is that cause, which, in natural and' continuous
quence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, p
duces the injury, and without whicb the result would n
have occurred. In this case, there was an efficient inter
vening cause that broke the rdaiic!p of cwS.e
and that is, the running over of B by the pass1
mobile.
Note: An intervening cause is said to be efficient-
broke the relation of cause and effect, the unlawful
the consequence. It is an aotivs ylwdcaZ force that in
between the felony committed and the result.

162 153
 . , ,
" ; )
,.
,,
.
.. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Does iuberratio ictus, error in personae, or praeter inten-
tionem affect the criminal liability of the offender? Ex-
plain your answer.
P m e t e r intentionem affects the criminal liability of the
offender in the sense that it m i t i m a his criminal liz-
bility or lessens the penalty to be imposed on him. This
is covered by paragraph 3 of Art. 13, which provides for
'the mitigating circumstance "that the,,offer.der had no .in-
tention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed.".
Error in personae may lessen the penalty to be im-
posed on the offender when the wrong kiefalls a person
other than the intended victim and which, by reason of
r w z s k i p or m k , c&ifiei the resulling crime. The
penalty for the Issser offense is to be imposed, to be
applied in the maximum-period (Art. 49, R.P.C.).
But when the felony intended t o be committed and
the one actually committed are e-d with the =e-
penalty, error in personae does not affect the criminal
liability of the offender.
Aberratio ictus should result in a comolex crime. The
t o death, the penalty f o r the lesser offense,
eide, should be imposed on A, but the same to
i n its maximum period (Art. 49, B.P.C.
the intended victim and the actual ,victim
t o the offender so that whoever was killed
b e homicide or murder qualified by treache
stance, the mistake will not chance the pen
49 is not applicable. Hence, the penalty
posed in the maximum period.
But if tm-cxiB$F are actually committed, hecause
pfz,w%are affected by the udaxfulact, and crimes
a r e the r&t of ?Le- sg_le aci, the pma& for the
-offense shall be imposed, to be applied in its maximum .i
period (Art. 48, R.P.C.).
/ Thus, if both E and A's fathe~rwere standing ClWe * .!
to each other on the street and A fired his pistol at B
to kill him, hut because of poor aim he hit and killed,
his father, t i e ~ e ~ a l t y _ f o r p a r r i c i dshould
e be imposed
in the maximum period. A is liable for theX - C
crime of parricide with attempted homicide.
,1

p&Ao be imposed is that corresponding to the m r 444. What is an impossible crime? ..,>
oJ&us% to be amlied in the maximum period (Art. 48, An immsible crime is one where the act performed
L_

R.P.C.). by the offender would be an offense against persons or -,

property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its

.' ,.:, 2 What then is the penalty to be imposed upon the prin-
cipals when the crime committed is different from that
accomplishment or on account of t.he employment of in-
adequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, R.P.C.). ,':
for the lesser offense should be imposed, 445. What is the for punishing a person who committed
;
. .. to be applied in its maximum period, if the crime intended an impossible crime?
,'..?
to he committed and the crime actually committed are /According to the positivist thegry, on which' the pro- :.'
, .,, punished with different penalties, hut0-a is vision on impossible crime is based, the community must ,:
a*d by the commission of the unlawful act. be protected from a d h n r ' m 'k, whether a.&ual PP ';
'
Thus, if A wanted to kill B, a stranger, but when 1-, of the m_erhid trrpe of man called socially dan-
he shot a person whom he thought was B and killed him germs person.
It is also the u m e of the law t o suanr_ess criminal
.., he found out that the person killed was his (A's) father,
the crime -i to be committed being homicide punish- pujpeasiy or
.. , fljectively, the offendez
'
,,. :. .
. . . able by reclusion temporal and the crime a m y com- in impossihle crime goes not commit a felony, but sub-
. ,...
. . mitted being parricide punishable by reclusion perpetua jectively he is a crimina!. ~ :
._l ,

,..
*'#.?.,.. ;
,.,
p"
$I
i~ ;.~
%q$: .,
, ,**~.,
'. 154 156
,.
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
446. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act.
performed by the offender would have been an offense.
against persons were it not for the inherent impossibility
of its accomplishment?
Stabbing a dead person on bed, the offender h a v i n g
the intent to kill him and thinking that he was only
sleeping. &e act performed by the offender would have-
been murder, an offense against persons, were it not for.
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, i t being.
impossible t o Bill a person who is already dead.
447. What is an example of an impossible crime, where the act:
performed by the offender would have been an offense
against property were it not for the inherent impossibilitp.
of its accomplishment?
Picking the, pocket of another, without his knowledge
and consent, t o take with intent to gain any personal
property from that pocket which turned out to be empty.
The act performed by the offender would have been theft,
an offense against property, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment, since theft cannot be
committed when there is no personal property that could:
be taken.
448. A picked the pocket of B and succeeded in extracting B’s
wallet. Once in possession of the wallet, A opened it,
but finding it empty, he threw away the wallet. Is A
guilty of an impossible crime?
No, because the wallet has some value and the crime
of theft is, consummated from the moment the offender
has taken possession of the wallet with intent to gain.
Hence, that person is guilty, not of an impossible crime,.
but 01theft.
._
dI,, impossible crime, the a-erformed should natzon-
stitute another offense, specifically punished by law;
449. Give an example of an impossible crime where the means
employed is inadequate.
166
, .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Using small quantity of arsenic to kill a person., The
small quantity of poison is inadequate to kill a person.
Rut the one who used i t to kill another, believing that
it was wf€icient to kill the latter, is liable for impossible
crime, because subjectively he is a criminal.
4 0 . Give an e,xample of an impossible crime ‘where the means
employed is ineffectual.
Believing that a certain white powder was arsenic, A
mixed i t with the coffee intended for B. When B drank
it he was not injured at all, because the white powder
was sugar.
d 5 1 . What is the penalty for impossible crime? What factors ,
must be considered in determining the proper penalty for
impossible crime?
The lienalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or
a fine ranging from P200 to R O O .
The fixtars that the court must consider in deter-
mining the proper penalty are (1) the Social danger and
( 2 ) the & r e e a i t y shown by the offender
(Art. 59, R.P.C.).
/dZ. A fired his revolver at B from a distance of one kilo.
meter. Is A criminally liable?
It is believ d that A shows stupidity rather than dan-
P ’
gerousness. According to the msdkk&h?RW, A should
@ be punished, because there is j&er “social danger”
nor any “degree of criminality” shown by him. Even
subjectively, a man with little common sense wilI know
:I that he cannot hit a person by firing a revolver one.kilo-
meter away.
453. A kicked the Pace o€ B who was lying on the floor of the
latter’s house, believed that he was only sleeping, not
knowina that B was then already dead. The physical’in-
juries k l i c t e d by A on B’s face were
~-
punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exeee
157

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Do you believe that A is liable for impossible crime, con-
sidering that the penalty for that crime is arrest0 mayor
or a fine from F200 to F500?
It ia believed that the provisions on impossible crime
are ugrnd t o those cases where the a d performed would
have been a gpye._or less grave felony. Hence; A is not
liable for impossible crime, because the act performed by
him would have been a light felony only. f i o hold other-
wise would be t o recognize the a b & r g y that to_~ill&t.
sii-g&t-physieal~ injuries on a dead person is a g r a e r - o f -
fense than to inflict them on a living person.
It is a. rule in Criminal Law that there is no crime if
there is no law that punishes the act. What is the pro-
vision of the Revised Penal Code which is based on t h i s
principle?
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it.
may deem proper t o repress and which is not punishable
by law, it shall r s d e r the groper.decision, and shall report
to the Chief Executive, through the ELepartxent of Justice,
the reasons which induce the court t o believe that said act-
should be made the subject of penal legislation (Art. 5,
R.P.C.).
, In such case, the proper decision that the court should
render is to dismiss the case and the defendanf
because the act is not punishable by Isw.
,455. May the court, after finding the accusdd guilty of the
crime ,charged, refuse to impose the penalty provided by
law when the strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e
Revised Penal Code would result in the imposition of a
clearly excessive penalty? Explain your answer.
h o , the Court has to impose the penalty provided b y
law X e d e s s of its opinian as t o the e t y of the
When a strict enforcement of the provisions of t h e
result in the imposition of a clearly excessive-
enalty, taking into consideration the degree of inalice.
158
. . . ,
., ,
.~
CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWE:R
. and the injury caused by the offense, the Court should ,:'
not suspend tge execution of the ser,tence. What.it shoufd ,:'.:;
do is to.~su&it to the Chief Executive, through the De;-
partment of Justice, a staiement of the reasws. which,
induce-t~he-cgurt to believe that the ccrl&ict md%exe&&e
clemency (A& 5 , R.P.C.).
456, What are the stages of the acts of execution in crime?, ''
Are they punishable?
They are: (1) attempted, (2) frustrated, and (3) con:
surmated stages.
Ai+. 6, par. 1, .of the Revised .Penal Code provides
that consummated felonies, as well as those which &e~
frustrated and attempted are punishable.
&
:'h'en the crime is punishable b y a special law,
attempted and frustrated stages of the acts of execu
are not punishable, unless the special law provides lb:,p
aity. th,erefor. Thus, a councilor who offered to furnish
sti-eet lamps t o the municipality is not liable for .violation
of a special law prohibiting members of the m u n i c i d
councils from acquiring any interest in contracts with the
municipality, it appearing that his offer was not accepted
(US. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89). But in the later case,
it was held that the prohibition against interest in m u n b
ipal contracts, includes all the steps .talcen to consummate'.
the contract, that is, frustrated and attempted stages are
included (ionteclaro vs. People, 51 O.G. 2392). '
457. Define preparatory acts and distinguish them from at- :;
tempted stage of the acts of execution. Give two examples.,
of preparatory acts. Are preparatory acts punishable?
i /Preparatory acts are those initial acts of a person who
has c2LEived the idea of committinil a crime but which
Gannot by themselves logically and peces.ga&y_ r i d into
a cSr&e-Qffense. They are pot^ _oULert-gis. and, hence,
they do not constitute the a.!&tq&$-stage-of the acts
of execution.
159 .-.
4
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The examples of preparatory acts are (1) conspiracy
and proposal to commit a felony, and (2) buying or secur-
ing a weapon to commit murder.
Generally, preparatory acts are not punishable, he-
cause the law regards~them as innocent or at least per-
missible, except in rare and exceptiona! cases.
Preparatory. acts consisting in conspiracy to commit
a felony is punishable in treason, rebellion and 3_edition,
and pxoposal to commit a felony is punishable in treason
and rebellion.
Preparatory acts which are considered in themselves,
by law, as ipdependent crimes are punishable, like POS-
session of picIIocks which is preparatory to the commission
of robbery with force upon things (Arts. 229 and 302,
R.P.C.).
Buying or securing a weapon, like a knife, is not punish-
able. But when one buys or secures a f i r e a m and he has
no license to possess it, the mere possession of the same,
although a preparatory act to the commission of murder,
not as preparatory act, but as a
..
is punished by law. But note that i t in punished by law,
. e Without
any relation t o another crime.
458. A and B, armed with a bolo and screw driver, respectively,
went to the house of C. Once in the yard of C, they
proceeded to open the back door of the house of C with
the 1,001sthey were carrying. When they were thus break-
ing :and trying to open the back doos, C and t h e other
perslms in the house were awakened. A and B, without
succteeding in opening the door, ran away and tried to
escape, but were arrested by the policeman who saw them
rnnn#ingaway. When investigated, A and B admitted that
they wanted to enter the house of C to take Rome property
of C!. Are A and B liable for attempted robbery? Ex-
plain your answer.
i . It i s submitted that A and B are not liable for at-
tempted robbery.
160
. ... .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The attempt to commit an offense which the Revis&
Penal Code punishes is that which has a.lo&al relation
t o a particular and concrete offenae. It is necessary
that the beginning of execution, if casried to its complete
termination following its natural course, without being
frustrated by an external obstacle nor by the voluntary
desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
. .
ripe? into a concrete offense.
,'
The acts of A and B, up to the time they tried t o
escape, consisting merely in proceeding and trying to open
the back .door of the house with tools that could break
it open, do not have a logical relation to the crime of
robbery with Eorce upon things. In robbery with force
upon things, it is necessary that the offender, after enter-
ing the dwelling or any other building, shall commence
to take, but without actually taking, personal prop:*
. '
belonging to another with intent to8 gain, in order that
it may be considered as attempted robbery with force
upon things.
/ft is the nature of the external ;act, n o t the i&dQn
alone, of the accused which should be considered in deter- , :'
mining the question of whether o r not the commission
of a particular crime is already commenced directly by
overt acts.
459. A was questioned by a policeman fur acting suspiciously !
near the house of B. When searched, a pistol was found ~:,sj
in the possession of A who had a license to possess it.
When investigated, A admitted that he carried the pistol
to kill B. May A be prosecuted and punished also for ;,i
attempted homicide? Explain your answer.
It is submitted that A cannot be prosecuted and pun-
ished for attempted homicide.
While it is .true that there was the external act of
carrying the pistol and that A. admitted his intention to
kill B, at mast the carrying of the pistol was only, a
t to carry out the iritention to kill B. :A
dici & yet cgmmenceJhe commission of homicide, directl
161
 CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . ,

~.. .., .
,
by overt acts. Had A fired his pistol at E, without hit- ;:
. ...
<. the pistol was f m t @ i r L g and the hullet \vas &d&&ve.
, ' ' ting the latter, or infllcting only a wound which is not The ,lmlELiing of the bullet is an acddent, by a .'$
'1
mortal, he would have commenced the commission of homi- i d e r m t defect of the *or Met.
'
In impossible crime, the means- employed by the offender . ,
. cide directly by overt acts. &e commission of a crime /is either inadequate or ineffectual. The means is ineffectual
is deemed commenced directly by overt acts when (1) ,/ when beenuse of its cannot produce the . ' .
, ,.
1 .. there is an e a l ~ a c and t (2) such external act has intendod result.
direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. /"
~

462. What is an overt act? In what stage of the acts of .:;.:'.

-460. A, for the purpose of raping B in a room occupied by her execution is it important to determine the existence-af
exclusively a s a boarder, used a fake key with which , .
, ,
. . tho overt act? "e.:
.s
. .
he opened its door. Once inside, hut before be could touch An m e r t act is a physical activiky, more than a mere :~; ~

I?, A (changed his mind and went out of 'the room. Is A
criminally liable? Explain your answer.
6 e s , but not for attempted rape, for he desisted be-
fore he could perform all the acts of execution. He was,
however, liable for consummated...trespass to.dwelling, be-
which exempts from criminal liability
which the accused intended .to commit,
and n!)tto .that. already~~committed wh_en_he-desisted.
Note: Desistance made after all the acts af execution have been
planning or preparation, which ev&ee the intentiop of . , -
the offender to commit a particular felony.
The existence of the overt act Is important only in ;
the attempted stage of the acts of execution.
It is not necessary to determine' the existence of overt ' .'
act in the other stages of execution, because in frustrated
stage, as well as in the consummated stage, of execution;
the offender has performed all the ' acts ' of ' exec
which necessarily implies that the offender has done

. .
I .
perlormed, does not exempt the accused from criminal liability.
Thus, the return of the stolen property after the taking was
'
complete, anly-mitigates biliky under Art. 13, par.
10, in relation to its par. 7, Revised Penal Code.
iU B, aimed his pistol at the latter
and puilled the trigger. The bullet jammed and did not
explode. For what crime must A be held liable? Explain
e for attempted bomicide, because he a-
' ' menced the commission of the crime dirertly by ovt-
and if he did not perform all the acts of execution it was
due t o a- c , other than his spontaneous
desistance. When he aimed it a t B and pulled the trigger
of his pistol, A performed the 4-rrertact of h&ide. The
cause or accident which prevented. A from performing
all the acts of execution was the fact that the bullet
jammed and did not explode.
Note: A is not liable for impoisible crime. because the
/
than an overt act. . .~
463. Having been provoked to kill B, A drew his ,pistol from-
his waist, to wbieh it was tucked, but before he could aim
the pistal at B, C held the w,rist of the hand of A holding
the pistol and disarmed A. Is this attempted homicide?
.No. The crime is other light threat in Art-285. In
attempted homicide,, where the offender uses
the overt act is the offender's &Qf..&Xh . .
the opfended part.1 with &.&h-
inflicting a mortal wound on the latter (People vs. Tabago
et al., C.A., 48 0. G. 3419).
464. A raised his bolo, as if to strike or stab B with it.
blow was struck, because C. intervened and stopped'
from striking or stabbing C. Is A liable for attemp
homicide?
No. A was liable only for t ~ t & & a % x 2 k b r , ~, .,~$' ~ i+
i..

employed in this case is bnih a w e and ,e- since a ;Ye_ilg_o_n_(U.S.vs. Simeon, 3 Phil. 688). .,

152 B
163
,,.~
,
 I

, .
'C
' '! . "F
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ;-$
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER , ...?
. ' ' ..::*3
.,:;a
,e. .a,,
Note: In a-txd-homicide where the offender uses a 6ple ,,$
or a. knife, he must-be able to strike a blow with it, aiming a mortal wound on B ig of no moment, because the law.:'.
.. at the offended party and with intent to kill him.. requiry only that the offender performed &the +:&$
J of execution, r5gardless of his belief.
;,;:.x*$* J
with intent to kill, fired his revolver at B but did not
hit him. B cried, asking A not to kill him. Ad-d Suppose after shooting B, A believed that he had inflicted
and left B. Is A w e for attempted homicide Why? a mortal wound and left B, when, as a matter of
the wound inflicted was only sJght, can A be held 1
No. A -tea d t h d perfarming u e &of for frustrated homicide? .
, . . ,, -y, .

., exeukhn. A cpnmenced the of the .L,,.';6

In some cases, the Supreme Court held .tkat~itis n o t ., ~.!?
.:? *!f
f e h y dirrxik and, not h a v h g inflicted a ,
necessary that the defendant a m g&oms all the acta ;.pj
plortald 0 0 which would c a u s his a m i d of execution necessary to producs t h e death of his victim,
'. ! , , n@..-pm&mn a t h e a&& of executiop by of his
,.,,
., .,-. ox,n montaneous desistance.
Note: But if the question asked is, Is A orrminallv liable, the was held that %e stage of execution was frustrated murder,
answer must be in the -tive, because although he is not
$ liable f o r attempted homicide, A already committed becauss there was a full and cAmilete belief on the part
:-:. ,
t p b ,un? Art. 282, R.P.C. &s which of the assailant that he had performed all the acts of
.. . enminal liability-to the crime which the accnsed execution necessary to produce the death of the victim.
intenl?e_d tn-wqmu't, and &-to t&t already committed w& ,It is submitted, however, that in defining frustrate'+
.I felony the law does not mention the &!kcof the o m % . ,

R.
66;' A fired his gun at B who was at a distance of 50 meters
away firom A. B was hit, but was able to run away and
to hide in a vacant house. A looked for B to finish him,
thinking that he did not inflict a mortal wound on B.
Not having found B, A left. But B was seriously.-wounded
in the chest, perforating his right lung. C, who saw B
wounded, took the latter to the hospital and due to surgical
operation performed by a doctor, B did not die. What
stage of execution was reached by A in the commission
of crime of homicide?
~8. It is frustrated .homicide, because A perfowed.al1 the
acts of execution which-would produce the felony of homi-
cide as a consequence but did not produce it by reason
of a cjias-eindependent of the will of the perpetrator.
The wound inflicted being mortal, that is, sufficient to
produce the death of B, A performed the 1.ast.act.neces-
.. wLt.o..pwduce homicide. If the crime is not produced
. . it is because of the surgical operation performed by the
,. ~'. doctor. p d f a c t that A believed that he did not inflict
164
A, a doctor of medicine, shot B who wa!3 daUy-wounded.
The intent to kill on the part of A is shown by the use
of a revolver, a deadly weapon. Bul after having wounded
B, A performed an operation on B and saved him from
death. The injuries of B healed in lrwo months. What
crime was committed by A? Why?
A committed serious physical injuries, because as a "
result of the woun$ inflicted by A, B became$for g.WX
thsi&Llqs. ,-The i & e d d _ k i & which A e&xt&d
at the beinning disappeared. when he pel.formed an opera-
tion 011 B to save his life.
A is not IiabLe. f o r attempted homicide, because the
wound inflicted was martaJ and, hence, he performed all 'i
the acts of execution which would produce the crime of .$
homicide.
A is not liable for frustrated homicide, because t h e
gis~e._o€~homicide was n o t produced by resson ..Of..h.&-~w,:
~.::i
will. In frustrated felony the crime is npt.p~&& by. :
reason of causes@dSperi&&rof the wip of thUmE&zehtor.
165
7. ,,,.,
 CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.-.. $69. Name some felonies which have no attempted and frus- 47,l.'HQW is consummated felony distinguished from the at-
,,.,
trated stages of execution and explain why they do not c' tempted or frustrated felony? . ..
have those stages of execution. In consummated felony, all the elemeztis. necessary for
They are: (1) flight t o enemy country, (2) corruption its execution and accomplishment are present. In attempt-
of minors, (3) formal felonies, like,slander and false testi- ed or frustrated felony, not all the elements of the felony.
. are present.
.~
. mony, (4) felonies by omission, like misprision of treason,
.. .i and (5) treason. Thus, in estafa with abuse of confidence, even if the ' ',I
i.$
1 ~ .

. T'<e first two do not have the attempted and frustrated element of abuse of confidence is present, but there is :,
~o actual damage caused to the offended party, the crime
~*
. .
",
I. , .
-
stages oi +xecution, because in flight to enemy country,
the mere atte& .to fle? or go~.to.enemy country con-
s w ! a t e s the crime, azd in corruption of minors the . m e
is not consummated, because the element of damage is
lackinff. Thes-e of estafa ach
r-e '
,'it
'.
to. satisfy the !u&f another eon- of confidence and ( 2 ) damagg.~or^ Dreiudice capable .of
. In f e e s , there is no at-.
ed stages of e x e c u t h . of e.- :is .Jacking, the crime ;
ated in. one instant by a single ri:t of estafa is in its attempted or frustrated stage. ':

ormal crimes, there is no chain of acp, b W A cut timber without L>ermitfrom the forestry. officer '.
and the d&, thata@ severed A nnd used said timber for building a house. V approached
him and, representing to be authorized by the forestry ,',
$
.-link. In felonies by omission, there is either a felony
when the offender fails to perform an act required by officer. asked and demanded from him the sum of P6.00 "::;
no felony, if the offender performs for the purpose of avoiding the payment of a fine and
n, the o a i n - i t s e l f w@&Kt-%s with a view t o preparing a petition for obtaining a free .,'
ixrmit t o cut timber. A offered to pay only F3.00, but
V refused to receive the <amount (US.vs. Villanueva,':l
Phil. 370). In this case, the element of deceit, consisting
.4,70. What felonies do not have frustrated stage of execution? in the false z e p r e s e n t h n that V was authorized by the.
not have the frustrated stage of forestry officer to ask lor and receive P6.00 from A, wag
present. But the ele_m_ent. of..damage was also lacking.
*E' contest and .1 ' afnublic of- It is, atternptcd estafa.
. .: &', &d.o not have frustrated s t a z c u t i o n . These This case is different from the case of US. vs.
' . felonies which e- the i n k w ni h ~of &&.L persons mingnez, because in this case the offender
to commit them, are r&mummated by s e r e agreement. ?ny money from A and, hence, V did not erf
. The inducement made by one of the parties to the other -
act necessarv to produce the f e l G & k ? % %
. . constitutes attempted felony, if the offer is rejected. If case, the offender who as salesman &the
the offer is accepted, the felony is consummated. from the customer performed the -1 when
Thus if the ofEer of & is # by the public of- not turn it over to the cashier of the store. It i
. ' '. . ficer, the person offering it is guilty of att.emuted cor- trated estafa. There would have bben actual dam
ru tion of mbli W r . If it is auepted by the public the offended party, if it was not dis
&kr, & Ge is of mmummated c&n of m c sold the books and received the procee
out delivering them to the cashier, as

166
 CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWEX

In the case of U.S. vs. Dominguez, had the accused There is conspiracy when two or more persons come '.
mi.sapprmp&ted the proceeds of the sale of the books to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
,.. , which he sold, the crime of estafa would have been con- 2nd decide to commit it (Art. 8, 3L.P.C.).
~~.~~~ i:,
summated, because there wouldbe &ual. .damage caused Consoiracv is a f & o u when the esoecially orovides
to the offended party. The element of damage would a penalty therefoy. In such case, the mere agreement .'!
.i,.:~ have been present. and decision to commit a particular felony is punished '.

/When &&-the element of deceit or abuse of confidence _" law. Thus. Art. 115 of the Revised Penal Code punishes
hv ~

a d that of damage are present, all the elements necw- conspiracy t o commit treason, Art. 136 punishes conspiracy ,.
sary :for the execution and accomplishment of the crime to commit rebellion, and Art. 141 punishes conspiracy to
of estafa are present. commit sedition. Bat if the c?ns&Lcy the offenders
m ~ . c o m m i t t e dtreason, rebellion or sedition, the s-
i.:472. Are light felonies punishable in d l the three stages of s m ceases to be a f e l o n ~ a n dk2-s only a manner
xplain your answer. o€ incurring d o i n a l liability, that is, the &of ,"B I
As a general rule, &&&felonies are punishable only conmiratar is the act of all the other conspirators.
'
when they have been .
Under the general In other crimes, like murder or abduction, the mZ.C
'
rule, attempted or frustrated light felonies are not puunish- agreemenb and w n to commit them is not Dunishable,
as there is n o i n the Revised Penal C&
But light felonies c = m &t or m- s- conspiracy to commit m&?r o r ab
&
e are punishable even if they are o& m the a&@p&d conspirators become liable only when the crime, like mur- ;
S J o a x m . der or abduction, is actually committed. But they are
(Art. 7, R.P.C.) liable for the crime actually committed, not for conspiracy
to commit it. The conspiracy will be considered odY
3. Give examples of light fetonies which are punishable only to make the offenders equally liable, that is, they are ,:
when consummated.
G liable in the same degree and to the same. extent.
4
They are: (1) betting in sports contests, (2) illegal
cock-fighting, and (3) intriguing against honor. 475. What is proposal t o commit a felon:y? Is it p
These light felonies are punishable only when they are There is proposal when the person who has
consummated, because they are not against persons or to commit, a felony proposes its execution to som
property and, hence, they are covered by the general rule. person or persons (Art. 8, R.P.C.).
Nota: Reason for the general rule: Light felonies produce EA& It is punishable o a y in the cases in which the law
&At, such and ~ i n j m & that s && specially provides a penalty therefor. Thus, Art. 115 of,
cg-e issatisfied with p m a lieht nenalt," far their the Revised Penal Code punishes proposal t o commit treas-
consummation.JIi they are not consummated, the wrong done on and Art. 136 of the same Code punishes proposal to
is 8LCght that there is need of providing B penalty at all.
Reason for the exception: The commission of felonies aKains1
commit rebellion. The Revised Penal Code does not punish-
Drmerty ppsu~poscs in the offender s g ~ ~ ? m l the proposal to commit sedition or any other crime. ' ~

476. May a person be held liable for proposal to commit re- ,I

iracy. Distinguish conspirasy aa a felony bellion, if the proposal is reiected by the person t o whom
from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability. the propo%il is made? Why?

168 169
 ...>*. , r,
. .
.,: . .< '.* CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
%,'I
. , ._.,,,.
',,
,..., ., %
....*
... Yes, because what the law nunishes is the mere~nroga2l
.+>,. of a person who kills another in violation of that Law aqd
.... %
, ,.

f o r subsidiary imprisonment in ease of insolvency of the per-

+*:<.<,
_.,.
I . to , m a n 3 rebellion. or treason & one wh? is data s m liable. The Supreme Court amplied Arts. 100 and 39 of
.,

&:. '
--
commit it. The acceutima of such nrang3al is not neceg- Revised Penal Code to supplement the provisions of the Motor
.r .. -
, Vehicles Law.

477.
.,. State the reason why conspiracy and proposal is not punish- State the circumstances which affect criminal liability and ' ,,,
able in common crimes. state the basis of each.
In ordinary crimes, the State survives the victim, and They are: (1) justifying circumstances, (2) exempting .;
the culprit cannot find in the success of his work any circumstances and other absolutory canses, (3) mitigating .,'
impunif.y.+oreover, conspiracy and proposal to commit circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and ( 5 ) al-
a crime 'are o2ly..-preparatory acts and the law regards ternative circumstances.
them a.s iEoc$nt_ or a t least permissible except in ,rare In jyskifyinz ,circumstances, the Revised Penal Code
and exceptional..cases. recoenizes the non-existence of a *by exnresslv stat- 1,
. . But in crimes against the intep-aL.security of the
State, like rebellion and seditior,, or against the external
a in the o M n g sentence of Art. 11'&reof +&$ , th
=sons therein mentioned "do not incurcriminal liability."
s~cecy of the State, like treason, if the culprit succeeds The act of a person under any of the justifying circum- . .
in his critninal enterprise, he would obtain the power and stances is i m x e with lax, so that such person
there€ore impunity for the crime committed. is deemed not to l m e transgressed-the law and is fa ':
478. What i s a soecial law7 Are the Drovisions of the Revised from. both r&minal and eivil 1iabiIi;y.
Penal Code applicable to offenses which are punishable Technically, one who &by virtue of any of the
under special laws? sxempting circumstances commits a &me, although by '
the CD ofW=of the conditions which
A : w i a l Inw is a statute euacted by Congress, & %! ill volnntariness of the a&, ne criminal
or
ju character, which is an mendmeht to the Rfx&& sate
liability a&%.,. .Hence, there is sn*.in the of
&&Code.
the crime m L o f the conditions which make the act
As a general rule, offenses which are punishable by
t s or negligent, There is, however,
special laws are not subject to the provisions of the Re-
vised Penal Code (Art. 10, R.P.C.). Mitigating circumstances are 0
of either the freedom of action, j n l l i g e ~ ,or
The Revised Penal Code is sunplementary to ylch laws,
or on the lesser~.pervers&y. of the odfadelel:
a. the - 1 should specially provide the ec&wy
Aggravating circumstances are on the _$Si?&
(Art. 10, R.P.C.).
Note: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are u- perversiQ of the offender manifested in the commissiolr
plir;rble to the attempted or frustrated stage of execution of of the felony, as shown by (1) the
crimes punishable by special iaws and to mitigating or aggravat- self, (2) the-of commission, (2
ing circumstances that may have attended the eomminsion of employed, (4) the- or ( 5 ) the
crimes punishable by special iaws. of the offendexor of the offended par !&-
9nt when the special iaws & I provisions necessary for the
proper aaministration of jnstice, h
te-ns of the Iievified The of the alternative-circumstances is the
Penal Code are zmlementary t n the special laws, like the and -of the crime and the other conditions
Motor Vehicles Law wsi!r.h does not provide for eivil liability ing its commission.
-
170 171
+.t+.: ,.:>v: ,.I
., _*..
.:'.
I 1 1 .

. .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.,q CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1; 2. .
' ;, 4dO. A, who had entered his room, found B, a stranger, inside
The act, against which a person may make
must be an a c t kokunjustified and sufficient
I
,. .
;
. without any justifiable reason. A s B was reluctant to his life, limb o r right or that, of another
., < :~, .,. leave the room and was acting suspiciously, A drew h i s ,/?t must be unjustified, because the
, ..
knife, brandished it, and approached B with intention to clolthe fulfillment of a duty o r in t
,~
drive him away from the room. But B drew his pistol, of a risht or office.
, ,,'
;>ya;.: the only weapon available to him and shot A, inflicting
Thus, the a d of a peace officer in making an a r r e s t , g
@ .; . serious physical injuries on the latter. When prosecuted done in a violent manner because of the refusal of the..&j
...
,*<+W.;,f
for the crime of serious physical injuries, B claimed self- person t o be arrested to submit t o the arrest, is an - .:.i
.c
i
defense. Did B act in self-defense? Explain your answer. bGt.i$. not unlawful (People vs. Gayrama-n,, cq
&..<,,;:

i-:
.:
' . /It is submitted that B did not act in self-defense. A the case of a husband who. having surprised his wife and
had a ,right t o urotect his b e from a trespasser. another man in the act of sexual intercourse, attacked the ,<
"
-
if the a 2 of A in drawing his knife, brmdishing it, and man with a knife, but the man was able to parry the blow ':A
approaching B are considered as constituting Pmessip, and killed the husband, the act of the husband w u
a v e o n i s w s h d even if tho%'acts of A aggression, b&jugtLudwfful. The husband was t h e n i n !. I

' . constituted an unlawful aggression, B was &-iwtifid the exercise of a lawful right and such act would have.,,'::
in injurinp - A,. because one defendinp himself from an- fallen within the sanction of Art. 247 (U.S. vs. Merced). ."
other's aggression can stand ground ;nlL when he iSin Afingerf;he Civil Code, a personmay force or v i o l g s
the
__ - ~B had n-t-to
rig.& be in the room of A. B to protect his from beinp: taken by another. His
should have l e ~ Xthe room when A was approaching him- act, in 3 of protecting his property -i '
axression, but not- unlawful.
hat requisite of defense is so ipdisDensabk that without
4 p .".
it there IS no justifying or mitigating eircumst.;dce of in- Thus, if A saw B inside his house taking his radio
"

complele self-defense to speak of? Explain. from the table and to prevent B from carrying it away
A used violence and then and there B stabbed and killed

-
g I t is the of vnlawful aemezion. The orin- A, R cannot successfully claim self-defense, because the
.. I ci& of % e l f - d e f m, &.€ense o b x h t i x e or -of act of A, although an aggression, is lawful.
m e r is e ' y+Jthe sit of azo.&-
mce&..~ #L"USt h P su f f i c k t $0 the life, limb o a t
in^ t h e m to oRek life, limb o a t . Such u&l sxisis, of another or ofthe cne makin& a defense.
s . n l ! L w b tilmis aril-ession. Bnhif there D h u s , a- s on the head with the hand cannot j

i u lanba€ul a mession, nothing tQ.@xwqt&r

i 9 a one's life, limb or-or even one's safety from
.to!. As was said by fhe Supreme Court in the case physical injuries. /But a w o n the fixe m a y . ' m i l . +
of PeoyJe vs. Yamang, if t a r e is no unlawful aggression, om's honor or safety from physical injury, because if it ' ,,'
there i13 no occasion to speak of "reasonable necessity of
the means employed" or of "sufficient provocation" on
is not repelled or prevented it waulQ r - t in &&r .
-or -i
the part of one invoking legitimate self-defense, because
both circumstances presuppose unlawful aggression. . ,.
483. In what cases may unlawful aggression. be ' .>:>A
482. What is the _nature of the act which may be considered a requisite of self-defense, defense of r e l a t z i n s e ? i' '!r ;
an unlawful aggression? of stranger? Explain. ...e

173

. .
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

In the following eases: No, it is not essential that there should be abs
and positive danger to the party making the defens
1. When the unlawful aggression h a
da
rl
ead y ceased i s - e t that there was a well-grounded and
t o exj&at the time the one allegedly making a defense -,on the part of the ?adit
injured or killed the former aggressor; a
0-
he was i ~ j n i m i n e n tdanger a
2 . When there was an agreement k f t between the hum-.
accused and the injured party. Thus, the person making a defense, before shooting, is ::
In these cases, even if a person was an unlawful ag- not obliged to wait until the aggressor has obtained corn-. . , j
gressor, because he began the attack er -c plete possession GI. control of' his weapon. Re i s not re- ..
or kill another, the latter c w t claim lwitimate defense, quired to do anything or refrain from doing something ..'
if he injured or killed the former aLa.iime YdXP there which would increase the danger to his person or to the
was unlawful RepressiQn, &ha because the f.Q&L person of another or enhance the opportunity of the ag-
r n n t m o r already ran away or because he- m
a refusal to f u m y IonR'er. The first is illustrated in ---_ -
gressor to accomplish his end.
-4

./
the case of People vs. Alconga and the second is illustrated 485. Is threat an unlawful aggression?
\
.,
in the case of People vs. AIviar. In this last case, the
Supreme Court stated: "In view of the fact that the
deceased was then unarmed, from the loss of his bolo,
--
Bu I 4- -
Mere thre ening a.tt%iZ%
-
&-.unlawful aggression.
e that IS offensive-ppsitivelv
ing the wroncful
strong, show-- ..
t to cause an i n i u r j , that threat I
the use made of the same weapon by the accused was is unlawful aggression, .a

.' unjustifiable." Thus, even though it were true that when the accuSed . , :;
N o t e : But if the aggressor w h o was disarmed by the person appeared, the deceased ai-ose with a knife in her hand and ' .
making a defense -and f ~ to-ain
s & . ~led - his weapon, in a threatening manner asked the accused what had
the latter could use the ,-to disable its owner.
brought her there, w&& u m and materisl
In a fight which was acceptable to both combatants, the fact -a such asitti does not constitute unlawful $,,
that it WBS the deceased who commenced the aggression is of
no moment and, in such case, it cannot serve as a ground
aggression (U.S. vs. Guy-Sayco, 13 Phil. 292). ' ' '. .
for the plea of legitimate self-defense. Rut drawing a weapon f o r the purpose of using it to
But an agreement to fight PIeSUDpOBeS a . & d k W S and- attack another is an outward and material aggression.
-da Hence, if the challenge has r&.X?Lbeen a-W+Q.t&
when the challenger commences the W k , there is utrlawf 1 486. Is the art of taking another's property or of forcibly enter-
n-4 and the person challenged will be $&kd *t
.. 0.p prevent it L e . reasonable means. Again, if there i s an ing another's home an unlawful aggression? Explain y

+
agreement to fight, but the aggression is made ahead of the
stipulated time and place, sue11 aggression i s atently illegal-
The acceptance of the challenge does not place; on the 0 en ed
party the burden of preparing to meet any assault at any
answer.

time even before reaching the appointed time and place.

484. For the existence of unlawful aggression, is it essential

' ' t h a t there should be ab_solute and positive d a n I r to the

party malting the defense? biles, C.A., 45 O.G., Sup: 5, 277)-.

174 175

..
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
487. an attack on the honor or chastity of a w o m q an un.
B make eomparisAand t h o s e _ his weanon.@
lawful aggression?
Yes. An attack upon a woman for the purpose of rap-
ing her or performing an act of lasciviousness on her
person is an attack upon her honor and, therefore, an
unlawful aggression (People vs. De la Cmz, 61 Phil. 344;
People vs. Luague, 62 Phil. 604; and People -18. Jaungue,
76 Phil. 174).
488. A boxed the face of B. The latter immediatdy drew out
his knife a n d attacked A with it. A succeeded in disarm-
ing B, and as B was struggling to recover his weapon, A
. . used it in killing B. Who is the unlawful aggressor? EX-
. .
plain your answer.
B is the unlawful aggressor. When aDerso_n w
insulted, slightly i n i u r d or threatened mslies. stpng
, , . , retaliation, he becomes a@, unlawfirl
. ~. agl%SF& r -(tis. v s .
' Carrero, 9 Phil. 544).
9.:a:X'surprised a thief inside his house at late hour of the
,'' . evening when the latter was taking some personal ProPerW.
X shot, the thief who was seriously injured. Is X criminal-
Since it does not appear that the thief was armed and
.,' ready to make an aggression upon being surprised, X was
not justified in shooting him and, therefore, he is criminally
490. Does the second requisite of self-defense, defense of rela.
tive or defense of stranger, that is, that there be reason.
able n,ecessity of the means employed to prevent or repel
the unlawful aggression, mean that the person making the
defense should employ the same kind of weapon as that
which is being used by the assailant? Explain your an-
No. It is not the indispensable need, but the rational
necessity, which the law requires.&&&@ updert&&Wis
& @ i n g _ m d a of defendin= a- does n d h a v e
176
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
~ mind t o think, to c
sufficient t r a ~ a u i l i tof
emer-' .
gencies where the person orlife of another imperilled,'
' .
human nature does not act us2n m s e s . _ o f fg-n
but in obedience to the instinct of self-nreservation. Usual-
ly, he grabs the first weapon he can reach for and uses it
without regard to the weapon of his assailant. But
- --
is not without ouslification (~1' limita.n.@hus, it has.
been held that although as a general rule a dagger or a
knife is more dangerous than a club, the knife or dagger
used by the person attacked by another with a club must
, be- d that
(1) had no otkr available m e a n p n d (2) couId not e@
m
I 491. A was about to stab B with a knife. C, who was near
them and who saw the attack being mad,e by A against B,
hit A on the head with a heavy piece of wood, causing:
the latter's death. ConsLdering that C could have stNik+
the hand of A only, to prevent him from i n j u r h g B,. do
you believe that there was a reason
means used by C in defending B? Blxplain your answer.
Yes. It is pot nroner to &EBUU
492. An ex.policeman, trained to use all kinds Qf weapon and
to meet an attack with any kind of vveapon, was attacked
by X with a club. The ex-policeman had a pistol and a
clnh with him. In defending himself, the ex-policeman
used his pistol, seriously wounding hrr assailant. Was the
pistol a reasonable meaus to repel the aggression made by
X? Explain your answer.
also armed.
177
I
 6 , ..

-;?v
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIDIINAL LAW REVIEWEIR ..'+ c
.,
,,
493. Supposc, the person defending in the preceding question No, n . in~-plete self-deiense, & m e & gave suffi; :.
is a policeman on active duty, would the answer be the cient provocation.de-t The UiEd r$g&&~&
.~ ~;':,,., $
same? -4, was not mesent.
No. His duty requires him to 0vercor.e his opponent.
The force which the peace officer may exert and the weap- What circumstance affecting criminal liability is present ,,

on which he may use differ somewhat from those which in the preceding question?
a private individual may ordinarily offer in self-defense. Incomplete self-defense. UIlder Art. G9, A is e d
a private individual can only repel or prevent an to a .penalty x r . two deprees.,lz!Z
.~. than the penalty
~ ~ l a peace officer has t o overcome his
k aggression,
i ;.' fw' homicide,
opponent, because the latter represents the law he /
must uphold (US.vs. Mojica, 42 Phil. 784). 497. Suppose, in the same ease, after kissing the wife of B,
A ran away and, tho next day, B casually met A on the
494. G was trying to cuddle his wife but she pushed him street and then and there attacked A. with a bolo, but A
depreciatingly and avoided his demonstration of husbandly killed B with his knife, can A successfully claim self-
affection. Thinking that the couple were quarrelling, S defense?
went upstairs and upon seeing the angry wife warding
off G's advances to her, hit G twice on the forehead with Yes, m e & h ~ & A xave sufficient provocat&n
au iron bar. Whereupon G drew his loaded revolver and to E, it^ mas (&oTFm->to the I_a!;ter's aggression, =e
began zihooting wildly, thus inflicting serious wounds on
_s;
.~, several relatives of his. Considering that there iyas un-
lawful aggression on the part of S, do you believe that ,4& And suppose, A was surprised by B while making love
G acted in self-defense? t o the latter's wife, and then and there B attacked A 7
with a IJOIO, but A killed B, did A act in self-defense? ,
G's act of self-defense was not exerclsed with due-care,
since he did not aim a t his assailant but instead indis- Yes, because even if the act of A, making love to B'S
wife, was provoking, it was not sufficient. Hence, all the .'
criminal.ely fired his deadly weapon at the risk of the lives
and limbs of the innocent persons whom he knew were three requisites of self-defense are present.
./' --I
at the ~ilaceof the occurrence. But absence of intent to
arr kill, although not mitigating circumstance, reduces the 4 9 d W h y is it that when the one defending himself gave suffi-
/ cient provocation to the aggressor, the former is not en-, .,;;
2
, felony to a mere physical injury in crimes against persons
who do not die 3s a result of the assault (People vs. titled to the benefit of the justifying circumstance of self- '(.?~:
defense? ::*
Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027).
If the one defending himself has given sufficient pro- :.;
8 , ,
495. A was living in the house of B.
One evening, A kissed vocation to the aggressor, k,.kih t-bebl;tmed. &
H ;?
the wife of B who saw them. B took a bolo and attacked mt witlioa fault. That is why in such a case, he is :',
A with it. A avoided the hlow, opened his nwn knife and liable for honiicide if he lrills the aggressor. The only B?
:?a
. "' . stabbed B to death. Prosecuted for homicide, A claimed benefit he gets is, instead of being sentenced t o suffer, ; ;
. . self-defense. Did A act under the justifying circumstance the penalty for homicide, he shall be sentenced to a $
of self-defense? ,:$
'

a or two d e m e s Ipl?ler than the penalty for homicide. .%

t
. .
"
178
 I

\.I
'V."
.~
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
500. A picked up a spear and with it tried to wound C, hut
* niisstd. C took out his knife and stabbed A fatally. At
this moment, B, seeing his father A being stabbed by C,
hit the latter with a bolo and, a s a consequence of which,
the latter died. Did B act in defense of a relative?
No, hecause A was the aggressor. T h e e bhg
&fended should &be an unlawful ~ppresl(nr(People vs.
Panuril, C.A., 40 0. G. 1477).
501. A was a M to give a fist blow on B, when the latter
retreated and picked up a piece of wood with which t o
strike A. C, brother of A, held B by the hand as the
latter was about to strike A with the piece of wood, dis-
armed B, and struck him with it on the face, inflicting
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWYER
They are: (1) the spouse, (2) ascendant, (3) descend-
ant, (4) legitimate, natural, or adopted brother o r sister,.
(5) relatives by affiaitjrin the -degree, and (6) those
by consanguinity within the €uukh...civil degree.
A was in love with the wife of B. One day, A, at a dis-
tance of 50 yards, saw B in the act of stahbing c, a
stranger, with a knife. A shot El who waa mortally
wounded. Did A act in defense of a stranger?
It depends. If A killed B only to save C from being
killed by B, A was justified in doing so.' But if A killed
B to enable him t o marry B's wi&, then the third re-
auisite of defense of stranger is k c k n g , A L b X h Z .hSn
i d & k e y i l mutive. ._
/ T h e third reouhite of defense of stranger is that the ;<;, ~

serious physical injuries. Did C act in defense of a rela- resentment or :..,!

tive? Explain your answer.
,/ oDe defending be not induced by . ..~ 2
No. The act of A in commeucinr to give a f i
$i o n B is not only a provocation to B. 2 k n
nw i other evil . m
-

505. What is the provision of the Revised Penal Code under

unlawful aggression. When B picked up a piece of wood which the killing of the foetus in the uterus .may be'
.... with yhich t o strike A, B was merelv trying t o d a d justified because it is necessary to save the life of the
WLf. Such being the case, C was not acting in defense mother?
of a relative. Any person who, in order t o g an evil or injury, ,'

Defense of relatives is a justifying circumstance, even does an @ which causes d m t o another, provided that:
if the relative defended gave provocation, hut not when the following requisites are present:
he appears to he an unlawful aggressor. First. That the a s_ousht t o be avoided actually'
exjsts;
502. But suppose A only the face of B and the latter Second. That the h&Q.&a& be &r than t h a t
-_
took qut his knife and was in the act of stabbing A when
C, bmtlier of A, struck B with his bolo, resulting in the
a to avoid it.
death of B, did C act in defense of his relative? Third. That there be n o r p r a c t i d a&&sl
harmful means of Q~X&L?XZA.
Y I ? ~hecause
, A in $lapping the face of B merely
'''. p c a t i e n t o the latter and C had no part therein. This provision covers the so-called justifying circum-
EIaving & a stronp retaliatbn, B h e c a e an u&w.ful stance of state of necessity (Art. l:L, par. 4, R.P.C.).
*" a
- g g ~ m . The three requisites of defense of relatives
506. A, a married woman who had experienced difficult child-
.+'
d--
, -ti , . are present. birth which almost cost her life, consulted a do,ctor. The
73%: .'
doctor after mature consideration advised her that it wo$d
."$. , 1503. Who a t e the relatives referred to in the justifying circum-
,., .., he better to remove her ovary. By agreement of A and
+y,.- ' ' stanco of defense of relatives?
.:;
2
L. ., 181
I 180
,,~,~.
.;.., . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIiMlNAL LAW REVIEWER
I
. ',.
,,
*. .j

the doctor, her ovary was removed by operation. Can A When he shot the murderer, the policeman was &he .'

. ' . and the doctor escape criminal liability for mutilation under fulfillment of his duty. The injury c:aused to the murderer
the justifying circumstance of state of necessity7 Emplain was the m s , ,of the due performance
your answer. of &isd &
y
. In the case of People vs. Gayrama, 60 Phil.
No, because the &sought to be ava e d did not a$- 796, where the accused had slashed with a bolo the munic-
tually exist, The -d that she mipht die of childbirth ipal president on his arm, the Supreme Court stated that
if she would be pregnant is a mere possibility. The first if the chief of police had been armed with a revdlver
requisite is absent. and had used it against the accused, the act of the chief
of police underthose c i r c u m - k w ~ o d w :
'507. The captain of the vessel loaded it with a quantity of justified. !:
;
.~ cargoes beyond its ordinary capacity. While the vessel Note: Rule i i 3 , Sectiom 1, Rules of Court, provides that,
was in the sea, it met a storm. Sensin,? that the vessel "No unnecessary or unreasonable farce shall be used in making
~I

'.,. wns going to sink because of the strong wind and big an arrest, and the person arrested shdl not be subject to any .,),
... ,, greater restraint than is necessary for his detention." *i
waws and due to its heavy load, the captain of the vessel
ordered that part of the cargoes be jettisoned, which was The Supreme Court believes that shooting a person who :.
,. ,
.-efused l o part with his dangerous weapon and to surrender
done by the members of the crew. Can the captain suc- to s peace officer who was arresting him, after be had at- ,',
cessfully invoke the justifying circumstance of state of tacked another wjth that weapon, is a necessnm and reaaon-
necesr;ity? Explain your answer. able fcvee to effect his arrest, and the peace officer was juati-
No, because the state of necessity was ut ficd in shooting him even if it resulkd in his death.
L
by- his nezlirrence.
The .vil which brought about the state of necessity
509. A picked the <pocketof B, while the latter was engromed ' ':
looking at the pictures in front of a theater, and ran away
-- -
must not result fsam a v a of Am by the actor or
from his nealieence or imarudence.
with the wallet extracted from the pocket of B. A police-
man who saw the stealing of the wallet of B b y A whistled
"
08 A policeman was trying to arrest a murderer who cmm- at the latter, but A did not stop and continued running
,$@
.-
mittell the crime within his hearing. Having gone im-
mediately to the scene of the crime, the policeman asked
away. The policeman fired his gun twice in the ab. h
A continued to rnn away with the wallet of I?, the poxce- ,
2

,
the murderer to drop his bolo and to submit to the arrest man shot him t o death. Is the policeman liable for killing
' being made. The murderer refused to drop his weapon A? Explain your answer.
and r,an away. The policeman shot him, inflicting a mor- Yes. W m the policeman a m - i n the performance '~:
f tal wound which was the cause of death. Was the police of his duty, he exceeded the fulfillment of his duty when
man justified in shooting tlie murderer to death? Explain he shot the deceased. He is guilty of homicide (People
your answer.
vs. Eentres, C.A., 49 0. G. 4919).
It is submitted that the policeman was completely N o t e : S m a thief who -h a danaerous weapon
justided, notwithstanding the fatal consequeme, because t o intimidate a m or to make good he-, is & a
it was demanded by the circumstances. His refusal to ne- and re- -f t o effect his arrest.
. . drop his weapon and to sstbmit to the arrest being made
. by the policeman s
mined, t o
j that the murderer was d a -
for his liberty.
510. Is the guard justified in shooting a prisoner who has e+
caped from jail? Explain your answer.

.. 132
 I j
i'

CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER CIZIMINAL LAW REYIEWXR

.,

Yes. In the cases of People vs. Delima, 46 Phil. 738, less serious physical injuries. Is A criminally liable for.
People vs. Lagata, 83 Phil. 159, and U.S.vs. Magno, et a]., less serious physical injuries? Explain your answer.
3 Phil. 314, the Supreme Court held that when the prisoner
is escaping and in his &ez& t o escape and
/ No. because A d i n the &&bxfxc%' o f a u t
and the caused to B was a necessarv conseauence .
there was no other remedv but t o jh-aLhm
t-mtihim f r-&bgA!za
' in..mder
y, the guard in shooting
-
of the lawful ex- af that righi (Art. 11, par. 6,
R.P.C.). Under Art. 429 of the Civil Code of the Philip
,,
~

the prisoner, even to the extent of killing him, acted in pines, t.he or lawful possessor -of a thing has the
the fulfillment of his duty and, therefore, is not criminally r&.to &u& any person f-thi? eniovment and dis-
liable. posal thereof. cor this nurvose, he may u ~ s u c hforce.
Note: This ruling applies -the
r L L &
e-ine nr i m w is&- a&mity & w o n a b l y necessary to
actual ni. i!xei&&
. a
or prevent an
unlawful physical invasion or nsurua-
t i o n h i s Dropeqty. TJiider Art. 11, par. 5, in relation
511. A prisoner succeeded in leaving the jail and in the yard to said Art. I'L9 of the Civil Code, it is pot necessary that I

of the iail the euard met him. The -

I
guard levelled his gun
- there be an altack on the person of the owner or on the 2
at the escaping prisoner, but the latter grabbed the muzzle person of the one charged with the protection of the '7

of the gun and, in the struggle for the possession of the property.
gun, the guard jerked away the gun from the hold of the Note: Jf the person takins the property is kUkd by the owner, .;
the l&r is criminal1 liable, because the force emnlove9 was
prisoner, causing the latter to be thrown half-way around, not r e a s o n a b l k r 3 . But if the deceased, after dropping
"
3
.,
and because of the force of the full, the guard squeezed the sack of palay drew out his bolo and attacked the owner, >
. trigger, causing it to fire, hitting and killing the pis.
. ., ,.the y and the iattcr killed him, the provision of the Revised Penal
?de apR,lieable is Art. 11, par. 1. There is self-defense, which
oner. Is the guard criminally liable for the death of the $+
prisoner. Explain your answer. includes defense of right to property. .:,

The guard is not criminaIly liable, because he acted 513. When is obedience to an order of a superior a justifyjng ~
'
in the fulfillment of a duty (People vs. Bisa, C.A., 51 circumstance? .~...
O.G. 4091).
When the guard levelled his gun at the escaping pris-
oner, f.he former was acting in the fulfillment of his duty,
au
-,l obedience t o that order is a
because it was his duty to prevent the escape of the
prisoner. "?&-&&I of the prisoner was the -n sac.
Note: Thus, the soldier who tortured to death a private in-
c m s w e n c e of the due pwforman_ce of. It was the dividual in abedienw t o the order of his sergeant is criminally'
act of the prisoner in grabbing the muzzle of the gun liable. because the order to torture tlre deceased was not law-
which made the guard jerk it: away from his hold, thereby
causing the latter's finger to squeeze the trigger. fk&n, the w n who & p m e e s s a r y severity -i :
at -8 l w y d by the court is
A, while supervising the threshing of his palay in his rice under Art. 129 of the Revised Penal Code, because w v the
,-.~' search was ml,the p e a m use& to c
, saw B carrying away a sack of palay. A shouted .order to unlawful.
-o&xLrs m the
a t B to stop and return the sack of palay, hut B continued When the &.&im& does_notknow the-- of
.~ ,.$?., ' . t o run away with it. A picked up a piece of hard. wood order and e d it ,- ha is not criminally lia
.,: ' and threw i t at B who was hit on the right leg, causing because there is no criminal intent.
.. ...~
184 185
,3;*>,'*:".?.
. ,. .. , ,,
,
,. . ;
,
I

1 ~,
 I

-3;
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIL ..

514. A, employee of a prison during the Japanese Occupation, committed the crime. In short,. their acts arc ' ,

. .., was ordered by the Japanese officer, in charge of the pris- t s

1- on, to torture to death an incorrigible prisoner. As A
was reluctant to do it, the Japanese officer threatened to
shoot him if he would not d o so, A tortured the prisoner
who died as a Consequence. Assuming that there was abuse
of superior strength, do you believe that A was liable for
murder? Explain your answer.
No. While it is true that the order was illegal and
that murder was committed, because the killing o f the
prisoner was accomplished with abuse of superior strength,
A is e x d from criminal liability as he acted under-the,
i d of uncontrollable fear o h n 9U.d or &A-
-
jxry. The & f that the & was1-
t w t h a t A h d without freedom and intent and u t
-d &r
is s u f f i c i a t to exempt from criminal I-i.
there is a complete absence of freedom and there
is a n exempting c i r c u m sce. Art. 12, uot Art. 11, of
the Revised Penal Code is applicable.
'-; ~. ,
615. Mention all the persons who cannot be held criminally
Iiable f o r whatever crimes they may have committed and
state the grounds for their exemption from punishment.
They are: (1) the imbecile, (2) the insane, (3) the
:516. At the time of his trial for homicide, A was insane 88
shown by the report of a doctor of She National Mental
HQspital. Must the court declare A ezempt from criminal
liability? Explain your answer.
. . of the accused at the
No, because the rn-dlh
time of his trialt -d in anv wax affact his criminal
It is the mental condition of the accused at the
time of the c e a of the crime which the court has '.
to consider for the purpose of deteImiIiing his criminal
liability. If he was &an$ at the time of the c d i o n
of the crime, he should be aeauitted regardless of the
n-c of his mind at the time of his trial. If he is
insane at the time of his trial so that even with the
mj assibtance of counsel he may not h x e a fair trial, the court
on1 m d the t a a n d -him to the National
=Hospital u-he-1 haved- r his reason.
31'7. If the court, after trial, finds the accused not crimina&'
liable, because at the time of the cummission of the crime
he was insane or imbecile, can the court in dismissing
the case provide in the decision of acquittal that the
offended - uarty. should be indemnified? Why?
Yes, because &exempting circumstances, like insanity , '
"

,. 2: minor under nine years of age, (4) the minor over nine
or imbecility, t m i s civil liability, which must be&.:
years of age and under fifteen, who actcd without dis- the ~ e r hh-t~e ~ n insane or imbecile under his ;
cernment, (5) the person who, while perfofming a lawful
legal authority or control,,g&gs it appears that there
act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident
without fault or intention of causing it, (6) the person was no fault or negligence on his part or that u,
I<
,, insolvent; in 'which case, the insane or imbecile s L U
L

,. who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force,

,i
(7) the person who acts under the impulse of an un-
controllable fear of an equal or greater injury, and ( 8 )
the person who fails to perform an act required by law,
when pi-evented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
The grounds for exemption from punishment are (1)
c o m u l e t f ! a G e of intelligence, (2) complete absence o f
,n-f or (3) complete absence of intent or that there
is no f m l t or negligence on the part of the person who
respond with his own property (Art. 101, R.P.C.).
~518. When may an insane who committed a crime be held
criminally liable therefor?
When he committed the crime during lucid interval.
519. May there be a case where an imbecile can be held e&. .!
inally liable for the crime he Committed? Explain your I
answer.

186 187
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CILIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

because an imbecile lucid interval. without discernmat,. The prosecution who has t h e m
Note: To he from criminal liability by reason of in- of proving the existence of discernment on the part of
sanity or imbecility the accused g&-he. a*&el.v &
d the accused failed toJmxe-&.
of,= at the &t of the eomrnission of t4e crime.
Thus, feeblemindedness, eccentricity (deviatien from ordinary
conduct or manner),, mental weakness or mere depression re- 523. When A committed theft he was m a r
s old. During his
sulting from physical ailment, PI' extreme anger, which makes t u f o r the crime be was 1 6 s old. Is A criminally
a mrson act like a madman, -~ b ~
t a n d a h a d d a9.L b% $sa- liable? If so, can he he given a s-ded sentence? Ex-
sidered embraced in the term insanit , because the person plain your answers.
h x i : such mental condition i s ~ o n w l e t e l yd e n r h d of
reason and freedom of the-. No. It appearing that at the time of the commission '
of the crime A was under fifteen p a r s - o f age and no
520. What is somnambolism and h,ow does it affect the criminal fact is stated showing that he acted with' discernment,
liability of the person who committed a crime in state of he is exempt from criminal liability (Art. 12, par. 3,
somnambolism? R.P.C.).
It is sleep-walking. It is embraced in a plea.of in- It is the age of the minor at the time of the commission :!
$:'
sanity (People vs. Gimena, 55 Phil. 604; People vs. Taneo, of the crime, not his age a t the time of the trial, which
68 Phil. 255). determines whether or not he is exempt from criminal '
liability.
521. What is dementia praecox? fl- e m from criminal liability, A should be' ac-
It is mental illness otherwise called schizophrenia. quitted and the case against him dismissed. The susuended
?*,
When a person becomes affected by this kind of mental -s contemnlakdin Art. 80, R.P.C., presupposes tkat
illness, -1 nrrrantral r -w of h is cats, the is not exempLfam criminal liability.
the p e r i d . o f t (Legal Medicine and Toxicology
by Pcterson, Haines and Webster, cited in the case of
f i v e n if he was @&y, A could :n&be
\ given a u- 1
pended sentence, because only minors under 1G years of
People vs. Bonoan, 64 Phil. 94). This kind of mental a&at the h - of the are e&i&d t o a susuended ,i
illness gned-c
-b
embraced the t e w '&&any,"
the person affected h a completely lost the s r -
--
sentence,
..
& of his will power. 524. A girl 9: years of age pushed her p!aymate into a deep
,. place of the river, with intent to Ell her. The ~&.L!L@
522. In the prosecution of the accused, a boy 13 years of age, kill was -by the prosecution. Is she c r i m i n a
'"F '
the fiscal succeeded in proving the case of theft against
the accused. There was no evidence that the accused, at
liable for causing the death of her p!aymate who died
of drowning? Explain your answer.
the time of the commission of the crime, did not nnder- Yes. The fact that the offender had the intent t o kiI1
stand the consequences of his act. If yon were the judge
trying the case, would you acquit .or convict the accused.
the deceased when she pushed her into the river i s- 4
dence also of discernment, because her intent t o kill her , . .&
Explain your answer.
The accused musthearqiutted ,b m the presumvtipZz
playmate ,shows that she k n w wh- the eon-:'
'
-s of her unlawful act of pushing her'victim into '!
-i a &
m oyer 9 y e a -
s hut under '15 actep deep water and that she knew it t,o be wrong '(Peop!e ~?<
 I
CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,., ..
vs. Nieto, G. R. No. L-11965, April 30, 1958). A minor,
over nine but under fifteen years of age, who acted with
discernment, is criminally liable.
525. I n determining the guilt of a minor under 9 years of age-
charged with a crime, must the court determine whether
or not such minor acted with discernment? Why?
No, hecause a &or under 9 y 3 o f e -u-i
Eively p r w u e d to have acted without disceYllnen t. Proof
of discernme_nt is required only when the d-a is a
minor over
c _ -- 9 but under 15 years ofe.
526. What is accident as an exempting circumstance and how
is it disltinguished from negligence? Give an example of
’accident causing injury or damage to another and an
example of negligence causing injury or damage to the
offended party.
/An --accident is something that m ~&%thes SwaY
of our will, and although i t comes a b %t tlxawh some
act of our dlJ,it lies beyond the of humanlv fore-
seeable consequences.
@If the injury or damage caused is c&&foreseeable,
it is a case of nexlipence.
Example of accident: A man standing on the platform
of a steam roller, which was moving on the street, sud-
denly jumped on the street a t the moment a truck was
passing and landed right in front of the truck which
was running on the proper sidc of the street and at
moderate speed. The man was run over and was killed
as a consequence. The injury caused was not clearlv
,
foreseeable.
Example of negligence: That same example may be.
come a case of negligence, if the driver of the truck
saw the man on the platform of the steam roller in the
, act of jumping and that fact notwithstanding he dkl-nat
slacken h w whkh was not authorized by the traffic
regulation, and when the man dropped on the street the
190
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
truck Lumped and killed him. In this case, the driver
of the truck is crimir.ally liable for homicide through
reckless imprudence. Tlle iniury causgd was clearlv fore-
S a
527. A fired his pistol several times upward in the air on the
eve of a new year here in Manila. One of the slugs fired
by him fell on the head of a boy who was playing on the
street. Is A criminally liable for the death of the boy?
Exlilain your answer.
Yes. This is a t a of p.nre accident, which is
an exempting circumstance under Art. 12, par. 4, Revised
Penal Code. The digcharpe of firearm in such a thickly
populated ulace as the City of Manila beinp penalized
by Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code as a- .and
m s , A_lras_notRerfomd%g a la&LacL (People vs.
Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Hence, the first element
of accident is lacking. In fact, A was at fault. Hence,
the fourth element of accident is also lacking.
528. If a person injured another or damaged the latter‘s prop
erty, because of pure accident, is he civilly liable for the
injury or damage which resulted? Explain your answer.
No, he is not civilly liable, because1 - e-
R m _ E e n a i c o d e toes not mention paragrauh 4 .of
which defines accident, in enumerating the exempt-
ing c i r c u m s t ; w where there is & L W t y . In other
words, this is w f the exempting ci~e&~.skmces whew
there i’s no civil liability.
529. Distinguish the exempting circumstance of irresistible force
from the exempting circumstance of uncontrollable fear.’
When any of these exempting circumstances is present,
how many pers’ons take part in the commission of the
crime? Are all of them exempt from criminal liability?
Explain your answers.
In the exempting circumstance of kresistible force a
person uses. physical forcp to make another commit a
191
. ..
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
crime: whereas, in that of uncontrollable fear, a person
uses threat to make another c o w e.
In both circumstances, there are at least two persons
who take part in the commission of the crime. l b u ? J X A
who USJS the force or makes the is a grinciual
by indi- and the one who commits the crime because
o f force or threat is a principal by direct participa-
-&
t But o&, the princiual hy indmtfp is criminally
liable. The principal by direct participation is t-
from criminal liahil@y, b.s.ause he acts without freedom-
of the conditions that admi the a t vnlun t a p .
EXPLANATION: But thc physical force must be irresistible,
that is, sufficient t o control the will of the person againat
whom the physical force is used. It must produce such an
effect lipon tho individual that, in spite of all resistance, it
redneed him to a mere instrument. If the force is not irresisti-
ble, there m a y be only a mitigating, not an exempting, cir-
cumstance.
The threat which caused the fear must pmmise an evil of
such gravity and imminence that the ordinaw man would have
succumbed to it. The fear must be real, i inent and reason-
able, not speculathe, fanciful or remote.
imminent when the &ugq to o
2 fear is d a " d
m orlimbis st. the point
Qf t a k i n e p k r e The fear of a person that he might be killed
by another if he would not do as he was told t o do so, &
geoeulatiw. fanciful o r a t e .
530. A, ivbo was holding a lighted torch and standing close
to B'B house made of nipa, threatened to burn that house
if B would not stab and kill C who was in the place, and
afraid that his house might be burned, B stabbed and
kill$ C. Is B exempt from criminal liability? Explain
your answer.
/No, because the first requisite of uncontrollable fear
is that the tj.~&&wllich caused- the & a ~
w d an SyiL
g r e a m , or at lea& ~ L Qthat , S B
p i r e d to commit. The threat which caused the fear of
B was of an eyll ' less than that which he was r e a u w
. to commit.
531. A suddenly got up in his sleep, picked up a bolo, and left
the room. Upon meeting his wXe who tried to stop him,
, I
192
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEWEB.
A wounded her with the bolo in the abdomen. Is A cr&
i n 7 Explain your answer.
No. A person who &d while in, a dream W t
have criminal intent. Hence, his a.& were not voluntaq
a&hg&m he i s m k t fgom criminal liability- (People ,
vx. Ianeo, 68 Phil. 255). .io-.
532. T was prosecuted for selling a can of Mennen' Talcum'
Powder for B1.OO when the ceiting price for said article
was only P0.86, as fixed by Executive Order No. 6.2, series
"'
of 1945. The defense contended that the government
agent who arrested T induced the latter to violate the
Iavv by pnrcliasing from him the article and paying for it
in an amount above the ceiling price. Is there instigation
41 this case?
No. The agent did not induce T t o violate the law.
Ne simply discovered the violation committed by T when
he purchased the article. It was 7.' who charged and
collected the price of P1.00 (People vs. Tan Tiong, C A ,
43 0. G. 1255).
533. A policeman saw another person actiing suspiciously inside
the premises of X. The policeman covered himself behind
the stone wall and watched the person as he was taking i
some valuabl~personal property in the premises. The 8'
policeman saw the person carrying away the property 'r
and when h e w a s out of the premises, the policeman
stopped and placed him under arrest and seized from him :
the property stolen, When prosecuted, that person con. ..
tended that since the policeman saw him even before he .'
began to take the property and, thwefore, the policeman
couId have prevented the commission of the crime, he
should not be held liable for theft. If yon were the judge,
would you acquit or would you convict the accused? Ex.
plain your answer.
If I were the judge, I would convict the accused. The
fact that the policeman saw him even before he commenced . ('
the commission of the crime and did not prevent him from
committing the wime is not a defense. There is, in this .
193
 .'.~*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . ..,
- _:i
. *;..<.
.,.
% . ,-. 4. Less serious or slight physical injuries inflicted
ease, entrapment which is&an e e p t i n g circumstance. under exceptional circumstances. L.
~..
-
'-:; ,
,.
In entrapment %
Y
- are -0 by the
'..r public officers for the w
, e of t@miU? and canturinx 5. Exemption from criminal liability of certain re&-
., . . the lawbreaker in the e m n of his ~&&
3;..,,
and.&- tives in the crimes of theft, estafa and malicious Inis- . ..,.
.. .. chief. *
I I

.'$$,34. But suppose that in the preceding question the policeman 6 . Marriage between the offended party and the offl
A$. :.... . , toid the nian to enter the premises and get some valuable fender in the crimes of rape, seduction, abduction or acts4
. . . . property inside and promised that he would not arrest
~
of lasciviousness. , ,

.. .
him and, because of the assurance thus given, the man
I committed theft then and there, and Iater the policeman 536. What are the defenses for acquittal o f the person charged
with the conimission of a crime?
. . . .: arrested the man with the stolen goods, can that man
be punished for the crime he committed? Explain your A person accused of a crime may be acquitted on any
..
. answer. of tiie following Rrounds: ?.
.. No, because the man was %ed to commit the crime 1. That of the essential e m of the crime is
notn2.oved by the prosecution.
,.. .. by the active c d'on and insticratiotlof a public of-
When the other elements proved established the com- ,..>
'. Ticer. A sound uublic nolicv re&s
--
that the court shall
, ' condemn this practice by directinz an acauittal whenever mission oI another crime, necessarily included in the one '' ' -''
i;:*' ' 4,.. '.
' it appe:ars that the public authorities or private detectives charged, the accused may be found guilty of the former.
"; . 2 . That the accused acted under any of the justifying r'
have taken active stem to &xLthe accused into the .Q?Q- *',~

mission of the crime. Instigation is a j.xx to the convic- circumstances. ,. ,

,.
tion of the lawbreaker. 3 . That the accused acted under any of the exempting
a,. .
f
'
...
'I/\ . ,
.. Note: Would the result be lhe same if the instieator is a ~I circumstances, o r that -lt &h&& i!.n &the public
m i t e individual?No, because the- j himself IE.Q!mes officer, which led the accused to & :tc the crime.
, liable as rind ai by inductio In the ease of a public of-
# .,- c z; he
Lh - d
of the &e, but only to&c
to ~ r ~ e the
u ~c&es&n
a record of arrest u r n .
4 . That the act for which the accused is prosecuted . .
falls under any of the absolutorv causes especially prc-
vided by law.
'. , 535. Define and give some examples of ahsolubry causes. 5 . That. the ~ d ofh the accused is not established
Absolutory causes are W e where the ~&c&bd beyond reasonable-.
!., is a c&e but for re,ax).ris of public pnlie;r and sentiment
1- there is n m imm%d. 837. When is an ineoniplete justifying circnnlslance or an in-
.
"/ .
. complete exempting Circumstance an Ordillary mitiga
: The examples are:
j _ . 1. Snontaneous desistame during the attempted stage circumstance and when is it a pTivileged mitigating
of exccution of the act constituting the., crime. 'cumstance? Explain your answer.
.,..',
,- . . , ,
In view of the provisions of Art. 69 of the
. . , 2 . Light felonies are not punishable unless they are
~

. I. . . consummated, except those committed against pWSonS o r Penal Code, it is a privileged mitigating eircu
. ...
..",
L L -property.
L.. . . when the maj'ovity of the conditions required, to: ]u
..'
z i,, ., 3: Accessories are-not liable for light felonies.
I
the act or to exempt from criminal liability is w e

194 195
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVZEWEII

_-
CItIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER

The penalty lower by one or two degrees than that pre- is & a 1-1( Art. 68 izi pot amlicable and
scribed by law shall be imposed. m m is & an ordinary mitigating circumstance..
It il; an ordinary mitigating circumstance if the ?mior- What is not settied is the question of whether the age I

ity of :such conditions is not present, provided that in the
three kinds of defense unlawful aggression is present.
Noto: Even as a privileged mitigating circumstance, an in-
complete self-defense, or incomplete defense of relative, or in-
complete defense of stranger must have the requisite of un-
lawf‘ul aggression. What is lacking is either the second or
thirti requisite of self-defcnse, defense of relatives or defensa
of ctranzer.
hen is the age “under eighteen years” an ordhasy “!ti-
gating circumstance and when is it a privileged mitigating
circumstance? Explain your answer.
There are three ages contemplated in Art. 13, Par. 2,
of the Revised Penal Code, namely: (1) “under fifteen
but over nine years of age, who is not exempt from C r b
inal liability by reason of the court having declared that
he acted with discernment” (Art. 68, par. l), (2) ‘‘over
fifteen” and “under sixteen years of age” (Art. 68, par.
2, and Art. BO), and ( 3 ) “under eighteen years of agb”
(Art. 13, par. 2) but sixteen years or above.
A c c o r d i n g to Art. 68, when the offender is a minor
under 15 but over 9 years of age and h e @ @ &h-.dk~
e m a n t , a discretionary D e w shall be &I!Ji%ed,but
always lower by two deuees at least than that presclebed
b a m h e &e which be committ.?d.
When the offender is a &or a d a n d I
i
m On the other hand, Art. 80 applies only when the &&n~
years of age, there is no question that the penaltv “extl
lower than that prescribed b y k w shall LejmDosed (Art.
_._c
under 18 years but 16 years or above is a privileged
mitigating circumstance or it is an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
In the case of People vs. Garcia, 85 PhiL“651, the
Supreme Court held that the age under 18 years but 16
years or above is a privileged mitigating circumstance.
But in the case of People vs. Perez, et al., G.R. No. L-
3513, Sept. 29, 1951, the Supreme Court considered it
an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
539. A, 15 years and 2 months old, inflicted on B u h t physical
injuries punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceed-
ing 8200. In case A is p m u t e d .for and found guilty:.’;;
of slight 1)hysical injuries, must the court in the decision’ ’‘>?
that. it will render impose a penalty one degree lower t h m , :
that prescribed by law for slight physical injuries? Ex-
plain your answer.
No. Art. 68, which &OE for privileped mitigating :
circumstances by reason of m y,t- says in its opening
sentence: “When the offender is a minor under eighteen
years and his case is one coming under the provisions
of the paragraph next to last of Ai+. 80” of the Revised
Penal Code, the penalty one or two degrees lower than
that prescribed by law for the crime shall be imposed.
comlnitted by the minor is a grave or less grave felanu.
Sinca the felony committed by A is o& a lipht felony,
---

68, par. 2). Art. 80 is not adplicable and t w no room far

In these cases, the age under eighteen years (over 9 agwlication of Art. 65.
but under 15 years or over 15 but under 16 years) is a
p ~ i ~ q & m & i g a l h gcircumstanc because the penalty is
H s e , thee to b e a g d a n A must i?.L,,
minimum.perio+ of-.the m t y fsr the crime b committed,
lowered by one or two degrees. A ‘u t m view of the pro- n s t me degree ]ewer.
vision:; of Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime
committed by the minor under 15 or 16 years of age must 540. Is the age over seventy years a pr&legerlmitig.ating cir-
b6.3-or-m. When the crime committed cumstance? Why?

196 197
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER / CilIMINAL 4AW REVIEWER
.
, , 6 That d f i c i e n t . w v o cation_ar threat on the part
No. The @ article in the Revised Penal Code W L immediately ureceded'.the & : ,.
specifically urn far the privileged mikigating CirCUm- That the& was m d in the immediate en-..:
swe by reason of age is Art. 68,which d o e s t DiW- . . -.-dicatipl?-of a prave offense to the .~~~
~~~~
one commitf.inr
.--..the";
~~~.~~~~
~ -...
*. . the o s r seventy Years. felony, his spouse, ascendants, descendants, IegitiGte, nat-,'
..
"~

' \?
urzl, o r adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affimty :
w i t h i d h e same degrees.
d That of having acted UPO? ane- so uowerfql
as
/---" nat,urally to have pnduced aassion or obfuscatien.
swei'. -#In a, party attended by prominent persons, . A called B
yerL
Evident premeditation and t?&%&LY are h&3.@.
- - - e -
h on t ' d and not upon the a swlndle~'. Being humiliated and Raving lost his rewon
and self-control, B grabbed a chair and.struck A with. it,
o-fs mind of the offender. On the other hand, the inflicting serious physical injuries on the latter. When
mitigating circumstance that the offender had no inten- prosecuted for the crime he committed, I? claimed the
following mitigating circumstances: (1) that suffilient
provocation or threat on the pnrt .of the offended party
immediately preceded the act, (2) Chat the act was com-
mitted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense
' to him, and (3) that of having acted upon an impulse
et al.,, 58 Phil. 536).
. so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or ob-. '

. . ,542. &laythe mitigating circumstance that the offender had
. no iritentjon to commit. so grave a wrong as that corn-
mittcd be appreciated in felonies committed by means of
cul,pa or fault? Why?
NO, because this mitigating circumstance is b & on
the fiiminuh ' U f j n t e n t , whereas in felonies committed
with negligence, imprudence or lack of foresight or skill,
the offender a s.t-w t- Hence, diminution of
intent is not possible in culpable felonies.
Note: This mitigating circumstance is not w be appreciated
also in felonies where the il,tention of the offender is jm;
1-, like in unintentional abortion.
fnscalion. Considering the meaning given to these miti-
gating circumstances, do yon believe that they should all
be considered in favor of B? Explain your answer.
In view of the occasion and peiisons present, the im-
putation made by A was a sufficient provocation to B. ,
A provocation is "sufficient" when it is adequate to ex- ,
cite a person lo commit a wrong and must accordingly
be proportionate to its gravity (People vs. Nabora, 73
Phil. 4341. Insults are held to be sufficient provocation
(US. v Firmo, 37 Phil. 134; U.9. vs. Cortes, 36 Phil.
837).A he ~ ~ f & i n n ,A ~that ~ By was a

, '. .. -..543.
' Wh,& are the mitigating circumstances which are ~.
%the loss of r e a s w and s&.mUtd of the offender.
. . e and
'Of*?
..
as well as freedam

(I
~. They are:
. , 193
198
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The act of ,E in attacking A hy ,striking him with
a chair may alao be considered as having heen done in
the immediate vindication of a grave offense to him.
The remark of A under the circumstances in which he
made if; was highly offensive to B and to any other
person in his place. It is not strange that i t engendered
obfuscalion i n him and impelled him to wt as he did,
in the immediate vindication of a grave offense (People
vs. Rosel, 66 Phil. 324).
Note: In the case of People vs. Rosel, supra, it as held that
there was B grave offense when the deceased said in tho pres-
ence of several persons that the accused was living a t the
expense of his wife,
The same Cause may also give rise to passion or Ob-
fuscation on the part of B who last his reason a.nd self-
control, because! of the imputation made hy A against. him
in the presence of prominent persons. The application
of the mitigatjng circumstance of passion or obfuscation
is justified when the act of the person injured is the
immediate cause of the loss of reason and self-control
on the part of the persan making the attack (U.S. vs.
Esmedia, 17 Phil. 260). This extenuating circumstance is
present when the offense committed was provoked by prior
unjust or improper acts (People vs. Noynay, 68 Phil. 395).
The conduct of A was the natural cause of the indignation
and anger against him which was aroused in the breast
of B.
/But h M - & n fssm o a a n d the same cause, the
. -three n&k?.tiiIg cjrcumstances smmi.h cnnsidered as
three distinct and sagapte circ- es, but should be
1-t a s s n l r n n e (People vs. De 10s Santos, 47 O.G.
5131; People vs. Yaon, 43 O.G. 4142).
... .-
545. A, a woman, gravely insulted B who immediately drew out
.~' a knif,e and a1.tacked A. C, the son of A, tried to protect
his mother, but was fatally wounded, and killed by B.
In the prosecution of B for homicide, may the provocation
made by A be taken into consideratior. as a mitigating
circunistauce in favor of B? Why?
200
CRIMINAL L A W REV1EW:ER
No. The provocatioa m a t orijrinate from , t h e of-
fended party. In this case, the offended party or the
victim was C, while the person mho pave the provocation
W&.
546. Distinguish the mitigating circumstance of vindication of
8 grave o f f w e from the mitigating circumstances of pro-
vocation or threat and passion or pJ)fuscation.
In vindication, there must be a =me offmse cpmmitted
to the me committiw the felony, his s m s e , azendant,
dscendant, brothers, sisters, or rehtives by affinity in
the same degree. In Drovocatiw and uassion ar obfusca-
EQJI, i t is p o t necessary that t b - grave offense
committed by the og.m&d party.
The mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave
offense Concerns the honor of the person who c o w % t e d B
the crime, o r the honor of any of his relatives mentioned
in par. 6 of Art. 13. Provocation or threat and passion
or obfuscation are & -Le& &t the one
giving the provocation or threat or against the one whoso
unjust or improper conduct produced in the offender t h e ' .
passion or obfuscation.
In bath the mitigating circumstances of provocation or ',
threat and passion or obfuscation, the unjust o r improper,
conduct of the offended party rnust immediately precede :',
the commission of the crime by the defendant. In vin-
dication of a grave offense, it is not necessary that the
grave offense immediately precedes the commission of the
crime by the defendant.
647. A had been fighting a losing battle in the courts with
respect to a coconut grove over which he had been assert-
ing ownership. At one time he ;va9 prosecuted for steal-
ing coconuts from the grove, but was acquitted beeawe
the title was in dispute. In an earlier civil action
was declared in default and lost the case by the negligence '
of his lawyer. Then, A was impleaded in a civil acti
and an injunction was issued by the court restraining
from molesting or obstructing plaiintiff in the exerc
201
 *
CRIMINAL
. . ..
LAW. REVIEWER CKlMlNAL LAW REYIEWER
, ..,,
,
',,*,~..3.
,

. . ~ ~,of .the.. rights of ownership and possessi,on over said prop

..* . there, E sat on the seat at the other-side of tlie,womy$$
<: . ., A s a result of these events, &hIUld himself
,, erty. ... and touched her breasts against her will. A, 'Seeing thats*:%3
...- .
e.: ., r a ta m e f
circ , the
S deouxt. temuer and
o f When'a rebellious
policeman 'waS B would repeat another act of 1aseivioubness.on~thepeIW$
of the woman, stabbed B who died. .as a consequent?:
detailed in the property as a precautionary measure, A What mitigating circumstance do you find in. 'this e&?, , .. I..
. ... . .. . . attacked
, and seriously injured the policemall. Is A ell- .~
Exohin vour answer.
~ ,..\.,*
e, .. titled .to the benefit of the mitigating circunlsence of Incomdete defense of stranger. The act of B in touch-',.;
passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer. inrr tine breast of the woman against her will arid at&mL+@ -:
;:
il'

No.. When the -entertained by the defendant &

i to m t atlother act of7bv-S on her is&n,
. .had been d3liberately fomented by him m a considerable unlawful a g g E s a (People vs. Jaurigue). ; But. the -8,:,;;s
'.,:~. period of ti-, it is pot mitigatng (People vs. Hernandez, de-e is not reasonage. It is submitted that A was I
.. - ..43 Phil. 104; People vs. Caliso, 58 Phil, 283). The reason not induced hy ,ep' r resedtment 01 e J i t e , b-eml&Se
..,. ...
, ....for thjs ruling is that the &e committed must. be the his
. .~ mnvose
.-~~
r I ~
in stabbing B was to d&?d.the
~
woman from
of a sudden imnulse natu_ral~uncontrollable an attack u r n her k&r. The mitigating circumstance' .'
._,. of passion or obfuscation c e b e consi-d in favor; :
s nofo -A of A with .the woman 'were:
told that C, his' brother, was killed hy B in a fight. illegitimate (People vs. Holgado, et al., C.R. NO. L4406 .*.,ps ::~.
;,,e..:.,,,
.i .i
A beean to look for B. After one day, A Sound B in front
;+. March 31, 1952). . . .
_.. of a store and then and there killed the latter.. Can A
. . ..
,.., ' properly invoke any of the. mitigating circumstances O f 550. What are the mitigating circumstances which are &&bas4
. . . brovoeation, vindication of a grave offense to his brother, o u h e diminution of any of the conditions which make
and passion or obfuscation? Explain your answer.
the act voluntary? What then is their basis?
No, for the following reasons: (1) M g W t h e
Billin. of A's brother is s j i e n k . 1)r ovocation.I it &-g& They are:
i E w e to the commission of these, 1. That the offender had v a n t a r i l v surrendered him-
i?g elapsed; (2) it cqu@Aot. be a
. . . qne daysax hav-
self t o a person in authority or his agent.
m, , because a grave ofiense is gne. &
: ' the G h o f a person; and (3) Jmsion or obfuscation
w i&es 2. That he had voluntarilv con- his guilt before
the court prior to the presentation of the evidence f o r
cannot be considered in favor of
in the s&it of revenge,- i
. . A, because he
the fact that the
the prosecution.
They are b x d on the lesser depree of criminal I W
i , , c w y h i c h g i v e t o the obfuscation was not immediate
t o the c o m n k s h of the &ne.
1
v e of the offender.
.. onitE- is not mitigating when it arises
,. ,
?.

irom the suirit of r from the spirit

. of .revenpe.
,. ~

. ~ It
_ mnst
c a a f r o m I s i t i m a t e ~feeling, ~?L&QDI a f m
which is v&iom, u e or irnrnord.
. , sufficient irilelligence; (2
also affeet_s i n m e ,
549. A was maintaining illicit relations with a married woman. o-rave offense, and
' '
A and that woman went to a moviehouse. While seated defeet o r -of the o
1

202 203

CRIllIlNAL LAW REVIEWER
&-%
&@n, or communication with his fellow beings or whick
&e
freedom of action.
of his x u = , thereby a f k t i u g his
The mitieating circumstances of voluntary surrender and,
voluntary plea of'guilty &wLinuaLue e t in t h e a d ,
of the b& the nerves, or tho moral faeudty of the 0-q.
They are &d on ,mu&- which -a the conmission
c _ - -~
of the crime. The Isw ehooaes-to be jeuiei?t_to the offender
w&. voluntarilv surrendered himself to a person in authority
or his agent who voluntarily confessed his gUiltbefare the
court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecu-
tion, b m s e such an act &.Es -r and t- & hommckle. Then, he was prosecuted for robbery which he
t & u i t indicates a moral d i s n a s i a in the offender farnr-
a&le to his reform. . entitled to the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of
551. As X was a t large and could not be arrested because hi5
whereabouts were unknown, the fiscal filed an information.
against him for serious physical injuries. The court issued'
a warrant for his arrest. Six months after the warrant
was issued, A presented himself to the justice of the peace
and posted a bond for his provisional release. Is this
voluntary surrender, to be eonsidered as a mitigating cir-
,+ cumstance? Explain your answer.
Ye!;, the fact that the order of arrest had already beem
issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstance,
because the law does not require that the surrender of the
' accused be prior to the order of arrest. Moreover, the
surrender of the accused to post a bond for his temporary
release was in obedience to the order of arrest and was
tantamount to the delivery of his person to the authorities
to answer for the crime for which his arrest was or2ered.
Note: The low specifies tho public officers to whom the sur
render should be made. If the public officer to whom the of-
fender surrendered is not a person in authority or his agent,.
it is not mitigating.
I t is not necessary that the offender should look for a person
in authority or his agent to surrender; i t is sufficient that as
Soon as he meets a policeman, for instance, he gives himself up.
to him.
!Phe offender must surrender himself. Suppose that the of-
fender never presented himsdf to the justice of the peace, hut
only a bondsman with a hail bond for the offender went to the
204
CRl3IIXhL LAW REVIIEIYER
!
justice of the pe6ce n-ho accepted and approved the same,
i
1 filing of that hail bond tantamount to dolivering himself td
authorities? In the case of Peaple 7s. Ye&, the aeeused'
sented himself to post a hond. It seems that thia question'
not settled. But the law requires that he must surrender him-.;.
self to a person in authority or his agent. .,:*I
.'?%
552. A, who was %vag amtcncc by final judgment for homi-
cide, g s m d from the prison. 'While a t large, A com-
mitted &&=. Later, A m m s e l f up to the author-
ities boxye the remaininp Deriod of his e c e for
committed after he had escaped from the prison. Is A
voluntary surrender? Why?
No. A c m t successfdly &b the W t of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, because
he did not surr- &the authorities h y m ~ the f
commission of the c h e for which he was nrosecuted, but
€ahaving cv&& his w e for h d d e (see People
vs. Semahda, G.R. No. L-11361, Oct. 26, 1958).
~
553. Can the circumstance that the accused did not resist arrest
or did not struggle t o free himself after he was taken
to custody by the authorities amount to voluntary sur-
i render?
No. While it is claimed that he intended to surrender,
I the fact remains t h a t the accused was arrested (People
vs. Dimdiman, G.R. L-12622, Oct. 28, 1959).
Note: The offender may have heen actually arrested, but if he
(a) helped in carrying his victim to the hospital, or (a) re-
mained a t the scene of the crime and readily gave himself up,'
and handed to the poiiceman the weapon he used, he should be
given the benefit af this mitigating circumstance (People VB.
Bahiera, C.A., 45 0. G., Sup. 5, 3:U; People vs. Parana, 64
i Phil. 331).
,554. In what cases is plea of guilty not a mitigating circum-
stance?
1. When the plea of guilty is made after the presents-.:,
tion of any evidence by the prosecution.
205
 I

CKIbIINAL LA\V RIWIEWER CIUPlINAL LAW REVIEFVHR

. .
2. CVhen the plea of guilty is made in the Court of required the prosecution to present evidence to prove t&
:. .,. . First Instance in a case appealed from the municipal court. qualifying circumstance. The. prosecution failed to prove
or justice of the peace court. evident premeditation. Considering that the prosecution . .
, . 3. When the plea of guilty is t3 a lesser offense than presented evidence. do you believe that A was entitled ' ,

that charged in the information. to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty? Explain. I

EXF'LANATION: The benefit of that mitigating cimumstance Yes, because although the confession was qualified and 2
is not deserved by the accused who submits to the law only introduction of evidence became necessary, the qualification
after the of s a n e evidence for th9 prosecution,
did not deny A's guilt and, what is more, was subsequently
helictving that in the end the trial will result in his conviction.
Iiut a chansc of plea, from "not guilty" to "guilty" is still justified. It was n o t the fault of A~ that' a qualifying I
circumstance was erioneously allegecl in the information . ,
mitigating, provided that the prosecution has not presented any
evidence. !People vs. Ytumiaga, 86 Phil. 534).
When (he accused pleads guilty on appeal before the Court
of First Instance, he wished neither to acknowledge his crime 557. Why is it that when the offender is deaf and 'dumb, blind
nor t o repent when his fizst opportunity came, that is, during ',
or otherwise suffering some physical defect, such circum-
the trial in the municipal o r justice of the peace Court.
stance is mitigating?
A plea of guilty to B lesser offense is not a spontaneous '
.,'. confession of guilt which the law requires. Because such physical defect m e - his ,means of
.. But when the information is amended so as to charge the ' '
' a&&, defense, or c.mmun'cation with his sellow beings, 2
lesser hut proper offense, the plea of guilty to the offense thereby diminishing his freedom of s n .
ck:irged in the amended information is mitigating.
558. Distinguish insanity from illness of the offender.
...555. A was on trial for malversation after a plea of not guilty.
' .While the prosecution was presenting its evidence by Call-
' Insanity presupposB e- &- of - i
'. ing its first witness and before the direct testimony of a t the -of the eommiss:on of the crime. Illness of
that witness could be finished, A asked t h d the testimOnY the offender only diminishes t h e w h of his;-w
-
. . of said witness be discontinued as he was willing to plead
guilty to the offense charged. The court granted the mo-
i t should not deprive him of e o n s c i n m s s of,u.
Insanity is an gn-e circumstance. s-1 of the
.'. 1 tion of the defendant and ordered the first witness to with- offender is only a mitigating circumstance.
draw, ' A then withdrew his former plea of not guilty and Note: Examples of illness which are eonsidered mitigating cir-
r,.l .. pleaded guilty to the offense charged. Is A entitled to the
cumstance are: (1) mild behavior disorder resulting from ill;
- benefit of plea of guilty? Why? ness which the offender had during'h,is early life; (2) acute
,. . No. Such plea of guilty cannot be given consideration neurosis which makes D person ill-tempered a n d . easily angered;
: . as mitigating circumstance'for it was a t e r e d after the (8) feeb!emindedness; ( 4 ) morbid infirmity, like that one which
., gives the offender the ohsession that the killing of a witch , .
prosecution had presented part of its evidence (People Vs. is f o r public good, because a person suffering from morbid in-
Lambino, 55 0. G. 1565). firmity does not have rea1 control over his wili, although he
,. .. retains consciousness of his acts; and ( 6 ) . k m a n i a , which
. 55F. A was prosecuted for murder qualified by evident pre- is an abnormal, persist.ent imdulse or' tendencv
meditation. He pleaded guilty when he was arraigned, ~~ ., tn.~ rtarl
""ll..
When the illnesr,of the offender completely de~rivesb,.
:' ' ~ but manifested to tlce court t h i t evid,ent premeditation of the oef- his will nowe?, i t is embraced in the tm'.'
did not attend the commission of the crime. The court insanity (People vs. Bonaan, 64 Phil. '87): '.' - ''. -

206 ZOi
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
559. May the court consider, as mitigating, n circumstance not
specifically provided by the Revised Penal Code? Explain
your answer.
Yes, because paragraph 10 of Art. 13 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that “other circumstance of a similar
nature and analogous to those” mentioned in paragraphs
1 to 9 of said Article, is also mitigating.
Note: The other circumstances of similar nature and analogous
ta those mentioned in mzrspraphs 1 to 9 of Art. 13 are:
1. Over 60 years old with Sailing sight, as similar to over
70 years of age.
2. -V restitutjon of stolen property, as -a to
yoluntary surrender of the offender.
3. Extreme poverty and necessity, as s k i & to incomplete
j3stifiention on state of news@.
4 . Any unjust or improper act or eonduct of the,offendad
party which may affect the reason and self-control of the
offender, like the act of tho debtor o f avoiding his oreditor,
causing the latter to injure him, which is of similar nature
and analogous to the mitigating circumstance of passion or
obfuscation.
660. Wiiat are the effects of the attendance of aggravating cir-
cumstances in the commission of the crime upon the lia.
bility of the offender?
They are:
1 , The specific and the generic aggravating c‘ wcum-
stances, ten- by any mitigating circumstances,
to i w e m the penalty w,t- however, exceeding the
m A x a m of the penalty provided by law for the offense.
$!. The i n h e r e d aggravating circumstances shall &
be taken into account for the purpose of increasing the
penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, R.P.C.).
3. The qualifying aggravating circumstances
e, the e&@ its and exclusivo name but also
p&cg the thereof in such a situation as t o dewm
m o t h e r penalty t h m t sQecifieallv mescribed by law
fqf- said crime.
208
CRIMINAL WW REV~EIVER
I 4. Aggravating circumstances which in themselves e&
stitute a crime specially punishable by law’or which are
included hu the law in defining a crime and prescribing
a penalty therefor shall not be taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
5. Awravnting circumstances which arise from the
m.oral attributes of the offender, or from his private rela-
tions with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause. ehall only serve t o aggravate the liability of the
principals, accomnlices and accessories as t o whom such
circumstances are attendant.
6 . The aggravating circumstances which consist in the
material execution of the act, or in the means employed
to accomplish it, shall serve to aggravate the liability of
those persons only who had knowledge of them at the
time of the execut’on of the act or their cooperation
therein (Art. 62, pars. 1, 3 and 4, R.P.C.).
Note: Examples: (1) generic - dwelling, recidivism, nighttime;
(2) specific - ignominy in crime3 against chastity, cruelty or
treachery in crimes against persons, disregard of the respect
due the offended party on account of rank, age or sex, applies
only to crimes against persons or honor: (3) inherent- evident
premeditation is inherent in robberJ; #ex is inherent in rape,
seducticn o r abduction; (4) qualifuing - treachery, evident
premeditation, or price which qualifies the killing of a persou
to murder. Note that dwelling, which is generic in other crimes
-like murder-is inherent in certain crimes, like trespass
to dwelhnp;, where dwe!ling must of necessity accompany the
eammissiorl of the erime of trespass. As murder can be eom-
mitted outside t h e dwelling of the offcended party, dwelling is
not inherent in such crime.
The aggravating circumstance which in itself constitutes a
crime specially punished by law is “That the crime be com-
mitted by means of fire.” I n the crime of arson, such eircum-
stance is not aggravating.
The aggravating circumstance which is included by the law
in defininit a crime is “dwelling” in the crime of robbery in
inhabited house (Art. 299, R.P.C.).
The aggravating circumstance whieh arises from the moral ’
attribute of the offender is evident premeditation.
The aggravating circumstance nhich arises from the private
relation of the offender with the offended party is the relation
of the scrvant with his master.
209
 CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER
The aggravating circumstance which arise3 fyom other per-
sonal cause is recidivism.
The aggravating circumstance which consists in the material
execution of the act o r in the incam ernliloycd to accomplish
it is treachery 01. nighttime.
661. A is charged with murder in an information &??Zing tre-,
-r as the qualifying aggravating circumstance. During
ey
the trial, where the prosecution established the conlmission
of murder by A, the defense pgRed a grivilered mitigating
circumstance of &rity, that is, that A was, at the time
of the commission of the crime, over 15 F a r s but under
16 years of age. Can the privileged mitigating circum-
stance of minority offset the qualifying aggravating cir-
cumstance of treachery? Explain your answer.
No, because notwithstanding the ixivileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the desim&ion &z u&lYLof
the offense committed xemains.to be m m and the
aualifying- a ’ e of treachery c a a o t
be &-by the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority. The &&.&of that privileged mitigating cir-
cumstance is to -the penalty for murder by !?%
d m z
Note: A qualifying aggravating circumstance cannot be offset
even by n privileged mitigating circumstance.
562. A is charged with sin~pleth,eft of a ring belonging to B
and valued at E O O . During the trial, the prosecution
p m d that A was a guest in the house of B at the time
of the commission of the crime. Can the court convict A
of qualified theft committed with -abuse of cun-
fidenee? Explain your answer.
No, because grave abuse of confidence is a aualifying
aggraxating circumstance which must be alleged in the
infarmation. Since A was charged only w i t h x p l e theft,
which i m d e s that there was &legation of grave abuse
of confidence, the d o f abuse of confidence should es-
.’ tablish o& a ge-ggravating circumstance which, if
not offset by a mitigating circumstance, should r&e the
210
CKlllIlNAL LAW IlEYIEiWER
.,.
., “”
i.
! penalty for simple theft, involving the amount of F’600,~’$$
.
only to the n w eriod. ~,
,,,. .
.....’ i ,. .,
,.L.<s’
! 563. A policeman, upon seeing the offended party carrying an.:’?
automobile tire, stopped the latter, charged him with hav- *,
ing stolen it, and threatened him with arrest, unless he 1
would give 85.00, which the person gave to avoid being
molested furt.her. The tire was the personal property of
the offended party. The policeman, in taking the P5.00
from the, offended party with iintimidation, abused his
public position. In case the policeman is charged with,
prosecuted for, and convicted of robbery, must the ag-
gravating circumstance “that advantage be taken by the
offendex of his public position’’ be taken into account for
the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your an-
swer.
No, because in this particular form of robbery, the
taking advantape of the public positio_n occupied by the
offender is i w in the offense (People vs. Calderon,
et al., G.R. No. 35889).
Note:/hhen the threat or intimidation employed by the public
officer to commit @b&ry, consists in threatening. the offended
party with a r m t and prosecution, taking advantage of his
puhlic position is intemal in the offense. Taking advantage
of e b l i c Dosition ic’xso I-i in (1) bribery, (2) f a
f-n
i Art. 171, and (3) malversation. Hence, it does E
have the ef&t uf increasing the penalty in those crimes.
Taking advantage of public position is an aggravating cir-
cumstance and has the effect of increasing the penalty in the
following cases: (1) il councilor who imposed and collected fines
and misaypropriated the same (US. vs. Tornda, 23 Phil. 18S),
(2) a goliceman. in miform who abducted a girl by availing
!,
himself of his position (U.S. YS. Yumul, 34 Phil. 169), and
I , (8) the chief of police who duiing the search of a boat threat-
ened the ere.,, with bodily ham snd demanded money, thereby
committing robbery (People vs. Cerdena, et al., 51 Phil. 393).
564. A attacked the mayor of his town who was in the per-
formance of his duty. Did A commit the crime with the
aggravating circumstance of “in contempt of or with insult
to the public authority”? Explain your answer.
211
 CizInimAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

No, because that aggravating Circumstance requires cumstance would be to give i t double effect (US. vs.
that h&&o is enpaped in the exercise of public fun&n De la Torre. 3 Phil. 516).
should not b e t h e m n against whom the &e is &m- Note: The aceused must have w & l v intended to aftend
.m
- or i?m& the s u a @ . o u a n k of the offended party (People
Mangsant, 65 Phil. 648) ; othenviue, this aggravating eir-
1,s.
cumstance is not present.
565. Classify the aggravating circumstance of “with insult or
in disregard” of rank, age or sex and explain your answer. 567. Explain why it is aggravating when the &me is epm-
It is a c-s aggravating circumstance, because it n&ted in the &yelling of the offended party.
may be taken into account only in u $ - a 9 a i n s t . p l S There are two reasons why it is aggravating when the
or honor. It is not annlicahie to c-s~ a~g&&prK!Wty. crime is committed in the &&ng of the offended party,
Thus, s w %e p& of a w - even with a namely: (I ) when the offender was w b e d in the home
etd- mrpose of offending ber, is not appravating. of the offended party and the former committed the crime
against the latter, t u a a s - ..
- of c o n f L e ; and
~

666. In what cases is that aggravating circumstance not con. (2) when the offender forced his w-into the m g
sidered present, even if the offended party js a woman, of the offended party to e& tke crime therein, there
an old man or a person of high rank? Explain your was violi&bn of the sanctitv 0 - w . ~.
answer. .Note: A combination house and store is not a dwelling (People
In i.he following cases: vs. Magnayc, G.R. L-3510, May 30, 1951),.
1. When the offender committed the crime with p-i--
568. In what cases is dwelling not aggravating?
sion or obfuscation or because of pr-omcation by the of-
fended party. In the following caseo:
A h e n a man is blinded by passion or obfuscation, or 1. When the o f f e n w party in his dwelling mfnf
is provoked, he 1-s his rsason.~.and self-control, and this f w a n d immediate provocation to the o m
beinz a mental condition, he could n & b Y e h a taus 2. When heb- offender and the offended party
t h t his a& was done with disrespect to the offended are occupants of the same dwelling.
p-. 3 . When dwelling is inherent
..
in the crime. such as
2 . When there exists a %elationship nb- the of- in r - y wigl-arce upon thin= and in tresnass tQ
fended party and the offender. .-d
When there exists a relationship between the offended EXPLANATION: In the first case, the offended party
party and the offender, there is norespect dus to the h$ right to.be respected in his- because he ro.
v o e t o the o m . But the provocation contemplated
offended party, e& when the offended party is a rela-
tive of a hh&~$e.aee than the offender. has three repisites, nsmely: (1) i t must be given in
dwellinp: (2) it must be s w n t ; and (3) i t must he h-
a
3 . When the cad&n of being a woman is in& m m . If any a i these requisites is J t i n g , even if the of-
@e in the commission of the crime, such as, in par- fended party g a - p n a c a t i o n , the aggravating cireurnstanee
ricide, rape, abduction, or seduction. of di&iig shall be t h into accoulG for the purpose of
inereasins the pcnaliy l o be imposed on the offender. The
Thus, it was held that the only thing which makes provocation is disregarded.
the offense parricide is the fact that the deceased was the Thus, if A boxed the face of B 01: the road and immediately
wife of the defendant. To allow it as an aggravating cir- thereafter A ran into his house near-by and B followed A

212 213
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE

CRIMISAL LAW REVIEWER
570. Is it necessary for the application of the aggravating cir-
into the latter’s house wherc B killed him, dwelling is still
aggravating in spite of the provocation, because it was not cumstance of dwelling that the offender should enter the
given by A in his house. dwelling of the offended party in committing the crime?
Also, the provocation may be sufficient, like the illicit rela- Explain pour auswer.
tions that the deceased had in his house with the wife of the No, because the .liur m u i r e s only that the &e
offender, but if the commission of the crime was not immediate d- c in the d w e l l a o f the offended partxi, w e
to the provocation, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance
(People vs. Dequiiia, GO Phil. 279). 1- has not given provocation.’’ In committing the
The prosecution must prove that no provocation was given crime in the dwellinE of the offended party, it is not
by the offended party in the latter’s dwelling. necessary that the offender enter it. Thus, the offender
I n the second case, where dwelling i s not aggravating be- on the street who shot his victixn in the latter’s house
I .
cause both the offender and the offended Party are occupants committed the crime in the dwelling of the victim.
of the same dwelling, the offender m a y be a mere servant
in tho house of the offended yarty. Hence, in the case of 571. If the unfaithful wife committed adultery in the conjugal
People vs. Caliso, 68 Phil, 283, this circumstance was not dwelling, is dwelling aggravating?
cansidered against the m’vant who killed an infant i i i the
house of its parents, because the servant was also living there. It depends. If the paramour is in the same
, d t when the offended party is @ - ~ h c of~ the dwelling, dwelling, it is zg-2 even if it is also the dwelling
the iaet that the crime was committed against him while in of the unfaithful wife, because U k s the
another’s dwelling is not aggravating (People vs. Guhiting, e t
al., G.R. No. L-2843, May 14, 1951). The ruling in the GU- pf the E i d p a sh~~w her husbai~d,she and her para-
hiting case is not now authoritative. In the case of People mour v m the resued due ..to the c a ‘ u e a l home and
vs. Base, 83 Phil. 622, it was held that d&k&Was-gL@E!!t- they h a . thereby iniure and commit a v m e offense
inc, although the did n&hJn to the v k i h s who c-2 the h e a d o f the house.
were murdered by the w.u&Cd . Tk22&p&oP ‘&&LS,’
m>ZiiziGiL But if the paramour is a k o Mrg in the same hause,
dwelling is aggravating, because both the wife and the
569. X went to the hqg!% o€ Y in company with two other per- ! paramour had a righL t d . i n the house (People vs.
sons, hound Y with a cord and, after taking him a hundred Destrito and. De Ocampo, 23 Phil. 28).
meters froni his house, slashed his abdomen with a bolo,
672. What aggravating circumstance is present when a father
’ resulting in his death. Considering that the crime was /raped his daughter?
committed outside the dwelling of Y, do you believe that
dwelling should be taken into account for the purpose of In the m e of U.S. vs. Viloria, 27 Phil. 466, it WBS
.. increasing the penalty to be imbposed on X? Explain yunr held that the perpetrator of this h r r i f v i n a crime &IJ&
answer. i - i m w e e r the confjdenee v&h
Yes. It is s m t that the on-c of tCe crime it is natural h b w n daughter s-ld repose in him. In
the case of People vs. Porras, 58 Phil. 578, it was held
was b w i ~ i nthe dwellinn of the victim. The & per- that the a&rnative -
c ~ _ _-
circumstance
~ of relationship e-nr
formed cannot be divided or the U - r e m g ,f.mn~.&
d&ds..he broken UI (US.vs. Lastimosa, 27 Phil. 432). taken into consideration as an aggravatinz cir&mstance.
N01.e: But if the victim was called by the offender and the
victim wont down from his dwelling voluntarily, tho killing
573. When a husband took a man into his1 home, furnished him 4
of the victim outside of his dwelling was not attended by this
with food and lodging without charge, and treated him like tr
agipavatjng circumstance. a son, but the latter committed adultery with the wifeg

214 215
 I
1 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CllIRIINAL LAW REVIEWEli

of the former, what aggravating circumstance attended the
commissi,on of the crime?
A&
e of confidence, not dwelling, because the paramour
also lived in the same house (U.S. vs. Destrito and De
Ocampo, 23 Phil. 229).
Note: It should have been obvious ungratefulness, because the
a w d o a t to be rratefd t o the offelided party i
committing a crime against him.
circumstances attended the commission of the crime of
grave oral defamation? Must all of -them be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty? Ex-
plain your answer.
The aggravating circumstances are: (1) that the a e
%as committed in the w e of the Chief Executive, (2)
M of his oresenqe, and (3) where public a ~ r i t i e were
s e u e d
5

574. Suppose the husband, upon knowing that the man in the
preceding question was in love with his wife, sent him out
of the house and, when the husband left for his office, tha.t
man went to the house and succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with the wife, what aggravating circumstance
would you consider against that man? Explain your an-
. .. swer.
The aggravating circumstance is .&&n$, not abuse
of confidence. The husband h.
.&&&.&J a& his.confidcnce
1 in the dkchaxge of their &ti@.
Only m - o f them should be considered for the purpose
of increasing the penalty to he imposed on A. Like in
1 mitigating circumstances, one a d the same fact c m t
be made the b&g of two or more m-yinp circumstances.
There is great= u n to a& this rule in aggravating
circumstances because they are unfavorable to the w d .
4 676. While the janitor of the Supreme Court was cleaning the
I Office of the Chief of Justice at six o’clock i n the morn-
1

1
P
. . ing, another janitor attacked and seri’ously wounded the
.. . , illhim, a s shown by the fact that he of the
former then and there. Is the fact that the crime was
. .. house upon knowing that the n a n was in love with his committed in the Office of the Chief Justice of the
wife. The of the aggravating circumstance of
Supreme Court an aggravating circumstance? Explain
:. abuse of confidence are: (1) that the offended uarty.had your Rnswer.
. _ . tg&aLthe offender; (2) that the offendera-d-such
- trust by committing a crime against the offended party; j No, because the circumstance that the crime was com-
and (3) that the abuse of confidence facilitated the m-
~
niitted in the office of the public authorities is aggravating
mission of the crime. The first requisite is lacking in that only when the public authorities were engaged in the dis-
case. charge of their duties in their office when the crime was
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was com- committed.
L . mitted in the dwelling of the offended party is present, Note: But the aggravating circumstance that the crime be
committed in a @lace dedicated to religious worship does not
:. : . because the man was no longer living in the house when
.. require that there be a religious ceremony. And note the use
‘-‘;o;: the m’me of adultery was committed by him and, there- of the ward “edicated,” meaning that the &e is evclusively
. ,.’ . fore, he had no right to be there. u s o r re&ious womhig. A temporary altar built at thT
Luneta, even if mass is being said there by a cardinal, i s not
~-
-575. During the meeting of the Council of State in Malacafian a place dedicated to religious worship.
Palace, presided over by the President of the Philippines, Note RlSO that paragraph 6 of Art. 14 requ!!ires that when
A, a member fo the Council of State, utte1e.l serious de- the offender entered any of the places mentioned there, he
. . famatory remarks against B, another member. The fiscal,
,.
:..... who investigated the complaint of B against A, charged
i r a v e the i&,&ipn t o ‘tn a aiae i n that place. The
ruling in the case of People va. Jaurigue should be considered
.’ the latter with grave oral defamation. What aggravating i applicable to other places mentioned in that garagraph 6 of
Art. 14.
1
216 217
 CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
577. When is nighttime, an uninhabited place or by a band an
into account for the purpose of increasing the penalty?
, aggravating circumstance? Explain your answer.
Any of them is an aggravating circumstance- The question of whether or not it was difficult for
1. When it - facilitated
- the commission of the mime; the offended party to receive help must be considered.
*,
. . , 2. When it is easeially sough_t-fo_r by the offender to In the case of People vs. Rubia, 62 Phil. 172; it was
: '
~
insure the commission of the crime o r for the purpose held that the purely accidental circumstances that on t h e .
, . of i s u t y ; or day in question another banca with two persons was about
3. When. the offender t&~~advantage .thereof for the 20 lrrazas from the banca where the deceased was killed
. , .. did not alter the fact. that it was difficult for the victim
, . purpose of j i .
to receive help, the incident having taken place at sea.
'578. When is nighttime not an aggravating circumstance, evert Note: That the crime is committed in an uninhabited place i s
aggravating, because the !solation of jL& rq&.csA
if the crime was committed dnring nighttime? t a g t - the
~ 4 n um ~ e n .
In the following cases:
1. When the crime was the a t of a succession of. 580. Is the aggravating circumstance of by a band applicable
a& which took place within the period of two hours, com- t o crimes against persons?
mencing at 5:OO p.m. and continued up to 7:OO p.m.; Yes. Despite what has been said in some cases to the
2 . When treach-.x!-_v d- w in the effect that it is to be applied only to crimes against prop-
commission of the crime, because -n is a~ ~ ...m erty, i t is equally applicable to crimes against persons,
.. such as murder (People vs. Alcaraz, e t al., G.R. L-9064-67,
in treachery;
April 30, 1958).
3 . When the &ing between the offender and the
offended party a t nighttime yas-casual and t h e m f com- -581. A, B, C and D, all armed with piFjtols, raped a woman
mitting the crime came_mte ' thcmind-of the offender only one after another. What aggravating circumstance, if any,
a t that time. The reason for this is thate-n ms do you find in this case? Ex,plain your answer.
, ~ % not m se- W&. Of course, it None, because "by a band'' is ~ L m R l b k b l eto C Z ~ W S
may be aggravating, if the darkncss f a c i l i b d the %m-
against chastity, like rape (People vs. Corpus, et al., C.A.,
n&sh-of the c r i m M r that the Qffender tQok ta e 43 O.G. 2249). "Abuse of superior strength" ordinarily
O U
is not also applicable to the crime of rape or forcible ab-
Note: Case No. 3 and the rules mentioned therein apply also
t o 1) uninhabited place and (2) by B band. duction&cause the commissior? of the crime of rape or
//'The m e must be C O m m i t t P r l in dcvrknesg. Hence, if there
IS &it .. e in the glace of the commission
forcible abduction, which may be %cxmmEshd b a ,
presupposes suoezioxk-offorce on. the Dart of
of the crime, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime is
prgaent.
__
fenders.
But abuse of silperior strength may be present in the
commission of the crime of coercion or forcible abduction,
5.79. If in an, uninhabited place there were other persons pass-
if the strength availed of is clearly i m 9f t h o
ins by when a person killed another, may the circumstance quired for the realization of the&knsg (People vs. Fer-
that the crime was committed in uninhabited place be taken nando, et al., C.A., 43 O.G. 1717).
218 219
I 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
582. Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code, defining a band com-
-
mitting robbery, provides that “When more than three
armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery,
it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band.
x x x.
. “Any member of a band who is present at the commis-
sion of a robbery by the band, shall be punished a s prh-
cipal of any of the assaults committed by the band, unless
it be shown that he attempted to prevent th,e same.”
Now, then, in determining the ,proper penalty to be im-
posed om t.he members of the band who committed robbery
with homicide, must the aggravating circumstance that the
crime was comniitted by a band be takeu into account for
the purpose of increasing the penalty? Explain your an-
swer.
Yes, because Art. 296 of the Revised Penal Code does
not define a felony. It merely defines a band committing
’robbery and the liability of any member thereof who is
present at the commission of a robbery by a band.
This provision should be distinguished from Art. %6 !,
which &&s hsixandage as.Ltelony. This article pro-
vides that when more than three armed persons form a
band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery
i n M g h w a y , or lddnapping persons for the purpose of
e m o n o r to obtain ransom or for any other purpose
to be atbined by means of f&cg..,apl-v&qce, they shall
be deemed highway robbers o r brigands-whic his m.nn&$d
as an offense. Because of that definition. of brigandage,
g-r that there be the formation of a band of robbers
by more than three armed persons, the aggravating cir-
cumstance of “by a baud” is iahez:gni. in brigandage, to
such a degree that iLrnust of-necessity accompany the
co&iian-thereof (Art. 62, par. 2).
Thus, in the cases of People vs. Sawajan, et al., 53
Phil. 689, and People vs. Uday, et al., G.R. No. L-1979,
Feb. 16, 1950, i t was held that in the imposition of the
penalty for robbery with homicide, the aggravating cir-
cumstance that the crime was committed by a band should
be taken into consideration.
tIi...
, ’~
,,.,,.
>!’~ 220
, .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
553. Why is it aggravating to commit a crime on the occasion $
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake, epidemic or other
calamity or misfortune?
When any of such misfortune occurs, it is easier both
to commit the crime in the midst of the confusion whieh
danger always produces, and to escape from the hands of
justice. It also shows a debasetlferm of cximinality on
the &p of the Qf.&ez who, in&e.ad of renderinp help
to the a=, sn-i their afflictiqn by tm advan-
tage of their midortune to wrong them.
554. A committed theft of government property u p m assurance
by the mayor of the toivn that he would not be arrested
and punished for it, as in fact the mayor saw to it that
no policeman would patrol near the place. What aggravat-
ing eircwustance attended the commission of the crime?
That the &e wv conunittgd with the aid of person
who insored or afforded impunity, “Impunity” means free-
dom from punishment.
585. In what cases is “aid of armed men” riot to be taken into
account for the purpose of increasing the penalty?
In the following cases:
1. When both the attacking party and the party at-
tacked were equally armed;
2 . When one offender, as well as those who cooperated
with him in the commission of the crime, acted under the
same plan and for the same purpose.
586. When is “aid of armed men” absorbed in “by a band,”
and when can it be taken separately a s another aggravating
circumstance?
When the offenders are more than f.hree, all armed, and
they actively cooperated in the commkion of the crime,
“the aid of armed men” is absorbed in “by the band”
(People vs. Piring, 63 Phil. 548). But ,when the offender
secured the services of armed men to commit the crime,
that offender committed the crime with the aid of armed
men (People vs. Ilane, G.R. No. 4590% May 31, 1938).
221
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I 587. May a person convicted of a crime punishable under a-
special 1a.w be declared a recidivist if at the time of h i s
trial he had been previously convicted by final judgment
of the same crime? Explain your answer.
No, because a recidivist is one who, at the time of his.
trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted
by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same.
title of the Revised Penal Code, not of a special law.
Note: But the second eonvictim of the same offense was con-
sidered aggravating in n usury ease. The Usury Law i s a
special law. Art. 10 of the Code was applied (People YE..
HodEcs, 68 n i l . 178).
588. When a person has been convicted of and served sentences
for several crimes and is now convicted of a new crime,
what are the aggravating circumstances that may possibly
be taken into account for the purpose of increasing t h e
. penalty to be imposed on him? To what extent may t h e
penalty be increased?
1. If the f m and the sycond. offenses are emb.?&c$d
in the sa_me title of the Revised Penal Code, he is a red--
u t ~&=c.on of the secanddffense.
2. If the first and the second offenses are not em-
braced in the same title of khe Revised Penal Code, but
the convict Qreviouslm.rv.ed s e n h x e for the f a t offense
.t to which the attaches an e ~ i a lor grecter penalty ,
... for two o r more crimA to which it attaLhes a l k h i g -
'L
=then there is ?&@zw&n or habitnality.
3. When the s&exeaLcrimes for which h.e
."
tences are so-r l ~ s _ s e r i o u s~ h ~ j ~ a l - i n j d rnh-
I,
k y , t&f.t, estafa or f&sWio_n, the semnd and s&
w n t camktions are wifhin.-ten..yw.rs fmm the I&
c ~ ~ Y & L o J ~or r x l ~ e and
, is naw convicted of any of s3.W
crimes the thirrlLime or-_oftener then he is a h a b i b a t
delinquent.
4. When the person oz._tr_iaj,for one crime been
convicted by finaLaudgment of another crime, and t h e
crime for which he is a t r i a l was committed befoE be-
222
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
ginning to serve such sentence or uW~rwringthe same,
there is qu.+s.i,re.cidivism,
Recidivism and reitzracion o r habituality, which are
generic aggravating circumstances, have the effect of in-
creasing the penalty to the maximum period, if not offset
hy a mitigating circumstance.
Habitual delinquency, which is an extra-ordinary ag-
gravating circumstance, usually includes recidivism and it
not only increases the penalty to the maximum, if reci-
divism is not offset by a mitigating circumstance, but also
authorizes the imposition of additional penalty.
Quasi-recidivism, which is a special aggravating cir-
cumstance, serves to increase the penalty for the new felony
to the maximum period, regardless of the presence of any
ordinary mitigating circumstance. In other words, quasi-
recidivism cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating cir-
cumstance.
589. A previouslv served sentence for !%%+-seriousphysical in-
juries, punishable by arrest0 mayor. He is m c o n v i c t e d
of estafa, punishable by prision curreccional. What ag-
gravating Circumstance do you fins in this case? Explain
your answer.
There is m e , became, -it could not be reiteraciolt
r or habituality since the ?aen&L&tWd to t h e & & of-
fense is .r1
- thmA?a& f o r h e m Q
. Bd o & ~ e ;and,
second, it could not be recidivism since estafa and physical
injuries are not embraced in the same title of the Revised
sen-
Penal Code.
es,
EXPLANATIOX: In & ~ b - , o r m t y , the convict
muot hsvo previously served s e w for as-e, t0
which the law a@&@ at ls&t an esual penalty; natlesser,
as in We problem given. The penalty which the convict pre-
.iiously served may be lighter, but he must previously serve
sentences for at least two crimes to which the law attaches
lighter penalty.
$90. A previously served the minimum period of reclusion tem-
poral, as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty, for
223
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
rapc, upon a plea of gnilty. Now A i s couvicted of homi-
cide. Since there is no mitigating circuiastance that at-
tended the c~mmissionof th'e crime of horntcide, €he pen-
alty of reclusion temporal for homicide will have t o he
imposed, in the period higher than the min'mnm. Is there
habituality or reiteracion in this case? Why?
Y e s , there is still reiteracion or habimality, because
the penalty attached to the crime of rape and the penalty
f o r homicide are the same (equal penalty), that is, ye-
elusion temporal.
It is the penalty attached..to the oj%nse that s h d d
he considered, notAhe penalty actually imposed.
after having conceived the idea of killing C, looked
for B the next day and, upon meeting him, offered B
P1,OOO to kill C. As soon as he accepted the offer, R
took a hand grenade with him and when he saw C , B
threw .the hand grenade at him. When the hand grenade
cxplodf!d, C was killed. A gave P1,OOO t o B after the latter
assured the former that C was already killed. What ag-
gravating circumstances attended the commission of the
crime? Against whom must they be considered? Must
each o f them be taken into account separately ils a dis-
tinct aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increas-
ing the penalty? Explain your answers.
The aggravating circumstances that attended the com-
mission of the crime are (1) that the crime was committed
in consideration of a price, reward or promise; (2) that
the act was committed with evident premeditation; and
(3) that the crime was committed by means of explosion.
There is evident premeditation in this case as regards
A, because the time when A determined to commit the
crime was known. A had conceived the idea of commit-
ting the crime the day before he offered E P1,OOO to kill
C. A performed acts manifestly indicating that he clang
to his determination to commit the crime, when he offered
P1,OOO to B the next day after be had conceived the idea
of killing C. Hence, there was sufficient lapse of time
224
CRIRllNAL LAW REVIEWER
between the determination t o commit the crime and its
execution during which A could $&e@* the eonae-
quence of his act. Th.e aggravating'cireum~anceof evi-
dent premeditation, which arose from the r n d a e t e
of the offender, being a&endant to A only, should senre
to aggravate his liability, but it will riot aggravate the
liability o i E, because evident premeditation was not at-
tendant t o him (Art. 62, par. 3, R.P.C.).
qsfar_a,S_A..~-c.~~cer!led, the a c 4 w d i R g circumstance
of
i.~g~i~&&?n. It may be CQQ&%! %-.
BNnqd o r .ixomis-e. i W&illSd&&a-
as cQ&
:L
i@%!
ond _element of evident- prenieditation. But prim, reward
the see-
or promise is aggravating as against 5 , because he earn-
mitted the crime in consideration thereof.
The aggravating circumstance that the crime was com-
i ~ t e de e a n s . . o € .explosion (the use of hand grenade)
should be comidered agcdnst-B, he h&&! the o s w_ho
u-y&$-ns. It c m be taken int.0 aceaunt for the
purpose of i n c w i n g the penalty to be imposed on A,
if the latter had lmaq&dge that the hand grenade would
be u s e d h p B . But from the facts stated in the question,
there is n a d k a t i o n that A knew th.at B would use a
hand grenade, as they n-exer..t&Ced about the W w Y&h
which B would kill. .C. Aggl'avating circumstances which
consist in the material execution of the act, or in the means
employed to accomplish it, shall serve t o aggravate the
liability of those persons only who had kwxledge of them
a t the time of the exe.cution-of the & or thAL3DR-B
therein (Art. 62, par. 4, R.Y.C.).
592. When is the aggravating circumstance of price, reward or
promise to be considered against the person who gave or
offered it, and when is it to be taken into account only
against the offender who received or accepted i t ?
When it is alleged as a qiJalifying aggravating circnm-
stance of murder and there is an allegation of conspiracy,
i t being an elemeiit of that offense, it shall affect both
of them. In case of conviction both of them will be liable
for murder, qualified by price, revard or promise.
225
l i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
But when it is not alleged in the inforniation or, even
if alleged, it is_pnly a generic aggravathg circumstance,
it shall affect Znly the principal by direct participation:
because he was the one who committed the crime in con-
sideration of price, reward or promise,
593. Art.. 14, par. 12, of the Revised Penal Code, providing for
another aggravating circumstance states, "that the crinte
be committed by means of inundation, fire, po:son, ex.
plosion, stranding of a vessel or intentional damage there-
to, derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any other
artifice involving great waste and ruin." Now, then, when
is this aggravating circumstance qualifyittg, inherent or
one which in itself constitutes a crim,e or which is in-
cluded by the law in defining a crime? State the effect
of each upon the criminal liability of the offender.
It is qualifying when t!le crime committed is against
persons and the offender uses inundation, fire, poison, ex-
plosion, or any of the other means mentioned in paragraph
12 of Art. 14, to kill his victim. In this case, the killing
of a person is qualified to murder. The penalty is that
one provided for murder.
Once any of the means mentioned in Art. 14, par. 12,
is considered to qualify the killing of a person t o murder,
it becomes an inherent aggravating circumstance in murder
o r included by law in defining a crime and shall not be
taken into account again for the purpose of increasing the
penalty (Art. 62, par. 2, or par. I, R.P.C.).
When any of the means mentioned in Art: 14, par. 12,
is used to commit a crime against property, like arson,
crimes involving destruction, or special cases of malicious
mischief, it in itself constitutes a crime specially punished
by law or which is included by the law in defining a crime
and, therefore, it shall not he taken into account for the
purpose of increasing the penalty (Art. 62, par. 1, R.P.C.).
.~. If there is no intent to kill on the part If the offender,
F; but inundation, fire, poison or explos'on is wed as a means
;$.:'to commit a crime, and a person is Billed as a consequence,
226
I
!
?
CIIiMIKAL LAW REVIEWER
the use of such means does not qualify the crime to mur-
der. It is a compiex mime, either (1) of crimes involving
,i destruction with homicide under Art. 48 in relation to
Arts. 3 2 i a n d 219, when explosion or inundation is used,
or (2) of arson -with homicide (U.S. vs. Burns, 41 Phil.
418). The penalty to be imposed is the penalty for the
mose serious offense, to be applied in the maximum period.
594. A decided to kill B on May 29, 1959. On May 30, A killed
13. Is there evident prenieditation in this case? Explain
your answer.
No, because these was n g _ e x t m a L a t between t h e
time A determined to commit the crime and the time he
actually committed the crime.
The premeditation must be h;iseri on e
mLww.zm& from &time.
en & mdfe.stlW&in.g- that the d p i t has clung
to his d&exmination to cnmmit the crime.
595. Is evident premeditation aggravating in aherratio ictus?
No. Fhick- ' ion m s h b e properly_takpn
i g u c s u t when the person whcm the defendant in-
tended to kill was d s f r a m the one who became his
victim. In such^ case, the. a&aL.u- '-tim was mLw&np
plated in the s?r_emdihkion.
P
EXPLANATION f l ident premeditation may be considered a5
present, even if person other than the intended victim was
killed, if it is shown that the offendem were &exnu&' t e k i y
nataaly the intended victim but also a- who
,It& p& n vi&RJLw- and tho actual victim was one
who would have helped the intended victim put a violent resisL
ance (People vs. Ubina, G.R. No. L49G9, Sept. 1, 1955).
It is not necessary that there be a plan to kill a particular
pei2mi (CS.vs. Manalinde, 14 Phil. 77; U.S. YS. Zalsos and
Rogmac, 40 Phil. 90).
Zvident premeditation is i d & in r u y (People v a
Daos, 60 Phil. 143), especially where it is committed by various
Perso1is, became they must have an ng.reernent, they have to
meditate and reflect on the manner of carryins out the crime
and they have to irct-cudpa ' tely i
lL ed (.Peop!e
vs. Valeriano, et al., G.R. No. L - z l S g m ) .
227
 l i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Known premeditation is inherent or implied in estafa, adult-
ery and other similar crimes (US.VS. Blaneo, 10 Phil. 298;
U.S. v i . Hermosilln, 31 Phil. 406).
596. A courted the maid of the house of B to enable him to
enter the.t house. During the second meeting with the
maid in the house and when the maid had already con-
fidence in him, A stole money and jewelry of B. What
aggravating circumstance attended the cornmission of the
crime? Explain your answer.
C d t , because A r m to i ? & d m w and
cvnning to induce the m a i d t o ni- the house
T of B.
Note: It cannot be &bus* of confidence, bec%&%eBd b &
wQ
. =- ' eejnit.
697. How is the aggravating circumstance of employing fraud
in the commission of the crime distinguis5ed from that
of craft?
or
a manner as to make it easier for the offender t o commit
the crime.
Thus, if in the preceding problem, A told the maid
that he was an employee of the Meralco and that he wanted
t o get inside the house t o read the meter and because of
his said representations, which were false, ne was allowed
to enter the house and once inside, A at the point of his
revolver succeeded in taking money and jewelry from the
wardrobe of B, the owner of the house, the aggravating
circumstance that fraud was employed in committing the
crime of robbery with intimidation would be present.
Note:
-
Craft U.9. vs. Gampona, 36 Phil. 817-inviting the vic-
tim to n distant mountain to see a tree of peculiar virtue and
once there killed the victim; People VS. Daos, et al., 60 Phil.
143-pretending to be a passenger and once in the taxicab
a t a certain place robbed the driver of the money in his pos-
' session: People vs. Timbol, C.A., 41 O.G. 1869 -assuming posi-
228
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER
tion of outhority to gain entrance into the liouse where offender
committed acts of Issaiviousness.
5 F m d - U.S. vs. Vnndal, 3 Phil. 8!3 - inducing victim to go
down to the lower story of his house, pretending to be buying
wine stored there and when victim went down then and there
killing him.
Diaguise - by resorting to any devise to conceal identity be-
fore committing the crime,
f i e eggravating circumstance of disguise is t-
when the offender is reragnized 1 - u the d w e .
598. A, a big and husky fellow, in the heat of anger attacked
B, a small and weak man, causing upon the latter serious
physical injuries. Is the aggravating circumstance that
advantage was taken of superior strength present in this
case? Extplain your answer.
No, because A attacked B while he was in the heat
of anger and, therefore, he could not have taken advantage
of his superior strength. . n o -t e of superior
strength means t o puruosely excessive force o w .
pLpMrtian to tlie m&n&o.f uraih& to the person
attacked.
599. Is the mere fact that the offender is a man and the vic-
tim is a woman an aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior 8trengt.h in murder?
No. The aggravating circumstance of abuse o f superior
strength should not be taken into account just because
the defendant is a man and the deceased is a woman, inas-
much, as this aggravating circumstance is inherent in the
crime of m w d w (People vs. Mangsant, 65 Phil, 548).
Note: When the crime committed is murder qualified by abuse
of superior strength, it having qualified already the crime, i t
shall not be taken into account to raise the penalty to the
maximum. If murder is qualified hy trcaehery, abuse of super-
ior strength is absorbed i r treachery.
But the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength is present when a man attacked a woman with B
weapon and the charge is homicide 01' physical injuries, be.
cause his sex and weapon save the offender snperiority of
strength and it is not inherent in the crime.
229
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

600. A and B, helping each other, attacked and iajdred C with of a m t -a by the accused was deliberately rho=
fist blows. Is the aggravating circumstance of abuse of by him with a sgecial view to tine accomnlishment of the
superior strength present in this case? act withoEsisk.to himself arisinp from the defense which
the person attacked might make.
Therebeing uuhmymz ' of the d a i i q e plqisiealstrength
b e b e s n - h and B, on one hand, and C, on the other, their 602. A, who wanted to commit acts of lasciviousness on B, a
e x r-i doesno& nec@sa& impLr abuse woman, suddenly and unexpectedly approached her from
O f . 3 L p X i W h. behind, grabbed her by placing his two arms around her
Note: But the greater number of aggressors, if armed, may waist, and then held her breast and her private parts.
point to abuse of superior strenpth. Must treachery be considered i n this case? Explain your
Nighttime, craft or fraud and abuse of Superior strength answer.
are inhe.r.4 or rbsnrhed in ts%~!%rY, No, beause -t agnlies o n k t o crimes against
Abuse of su,perior strenglli, ordinarily, is not aggravating
in coercion, rape or forcible abduction, because these crimes
p, not to a C r h e & cf?a&, like acts o f s -
presuppose the employment of force v1j-s theresist- civiousness. Art. 14, par. l G , in defining this aggravating
i u - of the offendehllarty, but when the abuse of superjor circumstance, states that t u t - r e r y u-
'
strength is great1v.h e x ~ ~ s . . o f c t b armshd
t t w' the fender commits &=of the crimes a b t the uerso_n, etc.
. . O&JW, it i s aggravating. .
... Thus, abuae of superior strength .was considered by the 603. May the aggravating circumstance of treachery be present
,. Supreme Court in the commission of rape by four men who even if the assault was made face to face?
employed force and intimidation (U.S. VS. Camiloy, 3G Phil. Yes. The fact that the attack was made face t o face
767), and in the commission of forcible abduction by several
abductors (People VS. Fernando, 44 O.G. 177). does not necessarily imply that there was no treachew.
When the a&aAk was sudden unexpected, there is
601. A was found dead with a stab wound in the baclc. Accord. treachery if the offender puruoselv - ad&e_d that method
ing to the doctor who performed an autopsy, that stab or form of attack, as when it was done under the auiqe
v o u n d was the cause of death. B was suspected and in- pf friendship. Bat when the offender Qted nuon a&
vestigated. B confessed to the authorities that he stabbed &e whj& prodiiced passion ?r obfuscation, there can be
n-achery, becaiise the method o r form of attack could
A in the back. Did B kill A with treachery? Explain
mLha~% h.e.en m - y adouted, h.e having & I his m-
your aitswer. , s ~ , . a n dself contl.01 ~ ~ ~ . s ~ , o y ~ o h f u s c a t i ~ .
~-
The mere fact that the deceased had wounds in the
back does not necessarily show that the accused attacked 604. A killed I3 by shooting the Iatter_suddenIy and-unexpeetedly
him from behind, giving the deceased no chance to defend immediately after B Itad gravely insdted A. Is there
himself, so as to bring the offense within the definition treachery in this case? W y ?
of the crIme of murder qualified by treachery (People No, because when the accused committed a crime veith
vs. Embalido, 68 Phil. 152). In the case of People vs. passion orshfuscation, the offender e dd.i&p
Cafiete, 44 Phil. 478, the deceased received a~fatal thrust ately chosen that method of attack.
with a knife in the hack, and yet treachery was not con-
sidered against the accused. 605. A, in the heat of anger, shot at a woman with a child
h e f o r e treachery can be found to be present in the in her ann. The child, who was hit, died as a consequence.
killing of a person it must d a r l v muear t h a t t h e w
Is there treachery in this case?

230 231
I 1 ' I
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIlEWER

While it is a rule that killing a child is characterized him. In this case ignorr.iuy was considered, although t
by treachery, because the weakness of the victim due to crime was against persons.
his tender age results in the absence of any danger to (2) Embracing and kissing a ysoung woman '
the offender, yet when the offender, as in this case, com- &many ,s-o is unjust vexation or
mitted the crime in the .heEf..anger, he c~?@d.~_npt have r s c i o n , hut -icny was considered.
-. of the defenseless condition o f the child.
been conscious (3) Less serious physical injuries is qualified and the
I .
Requisites of t r s u c k w : penalty is made higher by the attendance of i m n y .
1. !rhat the crime committed is a-t mers0ne. such as kill-
ing or injuring a person &hut iustifiahlaaw; 609. In what crimes is the aggravating circumstance of nnlaw-
2. 'Chat when the victim is attacked, he must be defenseless, fnl entry inherent? Why?
ihat is, he is n& in a oositiox t o make a defeng; and
3 . That the-!, method or-ef attack must be-&&&: In (1) qualified trespass to dwelling by passing through
chosen by t h e f e n d e r . the window (W.S. vs. Barberan, 17 Phil. 609) and (2) rob-
bery with force upon things committed in inhabited house,
606. Can treachery be considered in aberratio ictus? Explain because in these crimes unlawful entry is the specific and
your answer. essential element.
Yes, because when there is treachery, it is ,impossible. , N o t e : There is unlawful entry whcn entrance into the house
f o r s h z r the e d e d victim or the @at.l victim t u l e - where the crime is committed is effected through an opening
fgden-himmself against the aggression. not intended for the purpose.
The aggravating circumstance of breaking of a wall, rcuf,
607. When is the circumstance of ignominy present in the com- floor, door or window is inherent niso in robbery with force
upon things and in qualified trespirss t o dwelling.
mission of a crime? Illustrate the circumstance of ig-
This aggravating circumstance is present in rape or murder,
nominy. or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons if
The circumstance of ignominy is present when GI it is committed in the house of the offended party after break-
are employed or circumstances brought about, tending tp ing a part of the house. This aggravating circumstance is not
-nr the oe-f the crime-nr or to & inherent in those crimes.
the offended party to shame.
Raping the wife in the presence of her husband (US. 810. May the aggravating circumstances of nnlawful entry and
vs. Iglesia, 21 Phil. 6 5 ) ; raping a woman in front of her dwelling be taken separately?
.' betrothed (US. vs. Casafias, 5 Phil. 377); and removing Yes. Where it appears that the accused made his en-
5,:. '. the drawers of an old woman to compel her to confess
I.'
trance into the house of another bj. forcibly opening a hole
to the theft of clothes (People vs. Fernando, C.A., 43 in the wall of the kitchen thereof, and then and there shot
'i,. O.G. 1'71'7).
t:.
and wounded a person inside, the circumstances of unlaw-
ful entry and dwelling may be properly taken separately
' 608. Is ignominy as an aggravating circumstance applicable only against the offender (People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-66,
to crinies against chastity? September 30, 1959).
No. In other crimes, ignominy was considered:
.: (1) A with a pistol in hand made E, a rich and promi- 611. Explain why it is aggravating when the crime is committed
ihent person, kneel in front of his servants and then killed with the aid of persons under 15 years of age.

232 233
 1
1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

The purpose of the law is to.repress,so far as possible, I long the suffering of his victim, is mLm€fi&nt fbrdaking
the frequent practice resorted t o by professional criminals I this
'
simxnda.nce i-muidwdion (People
t o avail t.hemselves of minors takins adva!&a&e of their 7 vs. Dayug, e t a1.j.
-__--
jrresponsibility. Note: The first requisite of cruelty is lacking.

612. Explain why it is aggravating when the crimc is committed I ,616. What aggravating circumstances are those which cannot

'\
by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar exist if the offender lost his reason and self-control due
means. to provocation or passion or obfuscation? Exp!ain your
The purpose of the law is to &emaat the w e d - answer.
f a e 3 -Em by m n d m r i m i n a l s in saLmeans to eom- They are:
mit crimt-and flee and abscond OB the same is c m - 1. That the crime be committed with insult o r in dis-
mjtted.- , / regard of the respect due the offended party on account
o f his rank, age or sex;
613. A, who hired and used a taxi and while inside thereof
with his girl friend, stabbed and killed her. Is the use 2 . That advantage be taken of superior strength;
of motor vehicle an aggravating circumstance in this case? 3. Treachery ;
Yes. Tile crime was p e r n e t r a t d i n a LaLwhich was 4 . Cruelty.
hirehandxsedh&A (People vs. Marasigan, 70 Phil. 583). These aggravating circumstances casMtexls ' t if the

offender 10s.s~ his r-n.and s&&&due to pwryacil-

614. Define cruelty and state its requisites as an aggravating ! tion os passi.?n o_r obfuscation, because in disregard of the
circumstance. respect due the oifended party, the offender must_delibec-
1 There is cruelty when the culprit &mr&and-delights at& insult,.or d h e g a d t h e m age. or rank. of the of-
in making his victim s ~ s ~ . s l o w anbxadually,
ly causing fended narty : in abuLof-.auxerbLS.krn&.h,
-~ the offender
him unnecessary physical pain in the e
criminal act.
~

The ~,&iLes o f cruelty are:

mation of the

! ._-
must &p&-
uortion to the
malie use of excessive. force put
means.-pf d e ~ i
party; in t m k e x y , the offender must eg5s-w
k t o k
the
uco-
offended
adoDt
1. That the injury c a ~ & be deliberately i n m a d articular+means,
p__-- >rn-d_or f o m a f attack that would
by c m i g other_wrong; .-insure the e e u $ o n of the crime without risk to himself
2. That the other w a n p be unnecessary for the execn- arising froin the defense which the offended party might
tion of the purpose of the offender. make; and in c_r?Jey, the a i f a d e r must- i
Iong-the suifesing of the victim.
615. A repeatedly and without let-up stabbed B with a knife, I
On the other hand, if the offender I m h i s reason and
inflicting various wounds on the different parts of the self-control due to provoca.tion or passion or obfuscation,
latter's body. Is there cruelty? he c-at h x t - & d deliberately, gurnosel,~,consciously,
The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds f oi-n&g.a&.
upon a person in order to cause his death, map.px&c.a&le
time i n t g v r v p g e e s p the infliction .of one-xamd and i
I 617. What are the alternative circumstances? Why are they
t h a t o f a d k - t o show that the offender wanted to pro- called alterriative circumstances?

234 235
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
They are relationship, intoxication or -of m-
-
tion and education of the offend&(Art. 15, R.P.C.). They
are called alternative circumstances, because they are &&r
mitignting o r w a v a t i n g circumstances, acedins+ to. the
.w
natureand effect of the crime and the o
attendirg its commission.
618. A s a e the ring of his nephew who was then living with
him. When prosecuted for theft, A contended that in view
of his relationship with the offended party, he should be
given the benefit of the alternative circumstance of rela-
tionship which, in this case, was mitigating because he was
a relative of a higher degree than the offended party and
that th,e crime comnlitted by him ivas against property.
Is the contention of A tenable? Ex'plain your answer.
No, because the alternative circumstance of relationship
shall be taken into consideration when the offended narty
-
is the i m , ascendant, descendant, legitimate, naturai,
or adopted- brother^ or sister, or relative .by af€inity in the
same degrees &-the affender The relation of uncle and
nephew is n o t e d by any of the relationships men-
tioned.
Note: The relationship of stepfather a r stepmother and step-
son or stepdaughter is ic&&d by~.analogy, as sHl&r to that
of a s a t - a n d descendant.
The relationships of adopted father or mother, adopted ?an
or daughter, and adopted brother or sister are also included.
619. When is relationship neither mitigating nor aggravating?
Relationship is neither mitigating nor aggravating when
it is &herent__in the crime, such as in r)arric!ide, adultery,
or :on.c.!bj.n,?ge w_here._the o f f e n M m & y is the.3-e.
620. When is relationship mitigating and when aggravating?
Relationship is mitigating in erimes-.against property
by ag&sy to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
(Art. 332) which exempt from criminal liability certain
relatives who qomlxted theft, swjhdling or malicb.n.s_mis-
c h z ag@t--a.n?&er.
236
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,I Relationship is mitigating in crimes against property,
1)
whether the offender is a relative of a higher degree or
he is a ieir.tive of a iower degree than the offended party.
Relationship is aggraraating in crimes a p i n s t m
-
in cases whcre the offended party is a r&t~.e-of-a-kigher
I dzgree than the offender or when the offender and the
offended party are relatives of the same level, as killing
a brother o r brother-in-law. The exceptions are (1) when
the deceased contracted adulterous relations with the wife
of his brother-in-law mho killed him, and (2) when the
cause of the maltreatment which resulted in the death of
his brother-in.iaw was the desire of the accused to render
service t o his relative. In these cases, relationship is miti-
gating, even if the offender and the deceased a r e relatives
of the same level, because of the conditions attending the
commission of the crime.
The fact that the offend& party is a relative of a
I?w>r-depree than the offender is mitigating in crimes
against persons only when the crimes committed a r e &
gc!e.or less grave felonies. Thus, if the serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon any of the persons mentioned
in the definition of the crime of parricide, such as the
child of the offender, relationship is aggravating. Also,
the killing of a step-daughter by the step-mother is ag-
gravating, even if the deceased is a relative of s lower
degree than the offender.
621. Ie what crimes is relationship a&s.aggravating? Why?
// Relationship is always aggravating in crimes against ,.I'
_chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative ,,
of a higher degree or he is a relative of a lower degree .I
l than the offended party, becawe..o:€K thenature.and_e#ect . '
of the crime.
i F22. The father stole the money of his Son, which was the
latter's salary as an employee. Is relationship in this case
mitigating? Why?
No, because under Art. 332 of thc Code, Y.!.-.
c&& and no criminaldiakiLity, when the crime committed
237
 CIIIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER CIIIMINAL'LAiW REVlEWIIR

G.R. No. L-11568, March 30, 1959). Hence, intoxkation

fsther agginst his-~son,or vice versa, is either&& in this easa is a mitigating circumstance.
626. A, vue intoxicated and with uasshn nr obfuscation,.at-
an exempting CireUmStance? tacked and seriously injured B. What effect have the h-
R m p is an e_xempting circumstance when the toxication and the passion or obfuscation upon the criminal
&me of &&, -S or malicious mischief is c a b
-
m:tted or caused mutually by the following JEX~E:
1. S
&
-o ascendants and - d , or r&&i.xe$.
liability of A? Explain your answer.
The intoxication of A is -.&
that is, not habitual; there being no evidense
to be accidental,
i u
bz affinity in the same line; h&*t or intentional.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the QZQi?ZtY The circumstance of passion o r obfuscation c . be
'. which b&&d to the deceased saouse -the Same
shall have passed into the -- - d e r ; and considered separately and indeuendently from drunkenness,
since drunkenness n e c e s s a r i l y m i - a disorder i n h e
3. B x o w a n d and brothers-in-law a n d d - qentalfaculties of a person (People vs. Baterna, 40 P h i l
in&, if livlna tozether. 996; People vs. Austria, 50 Phil. 5 3 5 ) . Hence, the two
(Art. 332, R.P.C.) c i m a n r e s of -oin and pasion or o b f u s c a G
should be c o e e d as --e circumstance &.
-_
624. When is intoxicatm a mit.igating circumstance and when
is it an aggravating circumstance? 627. Does the that a person who committed a crime
Intoxication is mitigating (1) when it is n o t habitual is h t e establish a low degree or l a m i o n
or- (2) when it is -subsequent to the.J?&&to GQlBBi$ so as Eo his criminal liability?
r
;
c
ir
m
iIntoxication
e is e g (1) when it is lah
- or
No, because n-acv alone, b-. lack of suffi-
' c@t intelli~ence, are necessary to b e e the of
(2) when it is intentional, that is, subsequent to the plan the alternative circumstance o f lack of instruction.
to commit the crime. Note: A person able to sign his name but so donsely ignorant
Note: When intoxication is hahitux!- The fact that the accused and of such low intdligenee that he does not fuliv ' e the

had heen drinking liquor for seven months and that he had heen
drunk once or twice Q m o n t h does not show that the intoxication
is habitual. But it is not necessary that it be continuous OX
of daily occurrenee (People YS. Amenamen). I t would seem
that the offender must be intoxicated most of the time.
625. The trial court found that the two defendants were drunk
at the time of the commission of the crime. Is intoxica-
tion an aggravating circumstance in this case:
Drunkenness is an alternat've circumstance which can
be considered as aggravating ifm habitual
consequences-of a criminal act, may still he e-ti this
mitigating circumstance.
/.ow dep.rekor lack of instrueti n is not rnitiaatiria in crimes
against pr&, like arson, and in crimes n e a i u t a ,
like rape or acts of lasciviousness. In treason and homicide
or murder, the ~ u l eis not settled.
628. Is lack of instruction a mitigating circumstance in the
crime of murder or homicide?
In the case of People vs. Talok, et al., ti5 Phil. 696,
and People vs. Mantala, et al., G.R. L-12109, October 31,

-
mitigatigg if n-td
~ . ~ . i or
-
b sintentional, ~it o f ,
e n c e . ~but

presumG 'that the drunkenness in this case was

1959, it was held that lack 'of instruction is mitigating
in murder. In the esse of People vs. Hubero, 61 Phil. 64,
but accicknt& (People vs. Dacanay, e t al. it was held that it is mitigating in homicide.

238 239

CHIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
But in the case of People vs. Mutya, G.R. L-11255-56,
' n and
September 30, 1959, i t was held that l & k X & d u d K
i-kion cannot mitigate the a o f the offender who
committed murder&-se t o i s forbidden bv natural
--law which every rational being is endowed to&!!
c _
aAd
feel.
629. Who a.re criminally liable for felonies? Explain why ac.
cessories are not liable for light felonies.
Principals, accomplices, and accessories are liable for
and less -a ' . Principals and accomplices
are liable f 'w (Art. 16, R.P.C.).
& c m are M e for I&ht felonies, because
the gcial wrong as well as the u-di urejudice
--
small that penal sanction is deemed g&L.WSW&
630. If a corporation violates a criminal law, are all its officers
criminally liable? Explain your answer.
As a general rule, the president or manager, or the
directors of a corporation are criminally liable for their
acts though in their official capacity, if they participated
in the unlawful act either directly or as aider, abettor or
accessory, but are not liable criminally for the corporate
a d s performed by other officers or agents thereof. Thus,
if an agent of a partnership in his official capacity caused
the death of a person because of his negligence, only he
is liable, but not the manager of the partnership (People
vs. Montilla, C.A., 62 O.G. 4327).
Note: Corporation could not have committed a crime in which
a vilfull ~urmpseo r malicious intent or nediiaence is reymired.
631. A, B, and C forcibly abducted a girl, in consideration of
a sum of money given t o them by D, using a car driven
by E, said car being the only available means of trans-
portation in the place of the commission of the offense.
What kind of principals are A, B, C, D, and E? Why?
A, B, and C are principals by direct participation, be-
cause they took a direct part in the execution of the act;
240
,,' ,
' I'
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWEI(
D is a principal by inducement, because he directly in-
duced others t o commit it: and E. is a principal by in-
dispensable cooperation, because he cooperated in the com-
mission of the offense by another act without whic,h it
would not h m . k @ a a - d (Art. 17, R.P.C.).
'
632. A made a bet of 85.00 with B on a cockfight. The latter
havinp refused t o pay the amount thereof which the former
Claimed to have won, il dispute arose between them which
resulted in a fight. When the fight began, A held B
by the hand. C , son of A, seized the front p r t of B's
shirt and D, another son of A, came upon the scene and
with a pen knife gave B a thrust In the abdominal re-
gion, causing B's death sometime thereafter. Are A, G
and D principals in the crime committed? Explain your
' I
answer.
No, only D is principal by direct participation in the
crime committed which resulted in VS death. A and C
are not responsible for the consequences of the wound
inflicted u ~ o nthe deceased by D, because there are no
facts stated showing -A, C and D had a e r s d UJ
g; but on the contrary i t a r s $j& A and C h a n o t
k3- t h a w o u l d stab B when they held the latter.
There was po conspiracx among A, C and D, because
the f%t. was brouzht abo& by B's refusal to Day A, and,
tinerefore. the three c u hDe PI agreed and
decided to kill B.
EXPLANATION: A and C are not principals by direct partici-
pation in tho crime committed by D, because there was no
unity of purpose and intention among them, as the mere act
of holding tlic hand and the front part of the shirt of B,
without knowing that D would stab 11, does not indicate on 'I
their part an intention to kill (People vs. Ortiz and Zauza, ' 1
65 Phil. 9 3 3 ) . Hence, A and C did not share the guilty pur-
pose of D. To be liable for the criminal act of another, a
person (1) must have the same criminal purpore as that of
the other and (2) he and the other must he united in ita
ezeeulion.
6.333. But suppose, in the preceding question, D was about to
~
stab B when A and C held B for the purpose of enabling '_
241
 I

CFIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER ’

’ . D to kill B without any risk on the part of D, are all the place and without waiting for A, started burnbg the
: of the three principals by direct participation? house of the mayor and, as they were running away, they
. .
Yes, because A, C and D a a 7-
,w,& + . .L k L B ;and when 4 held B by the hand,
were arrested by certain policemen. When A reached the
place to help B and C, he saw that the Bouse was already
burned. What is the liability, if any, of A in the crime
C by the front part of B’s shirt, and D stabbed . .B, thCY
w s L &
l %d- ’ of the cqmmanrwnunalpur- of arson actually committed by B and C? Explain your
m e . In this case, the effect is the same as that when
answer.
there is anterior conspiracy. The act of one is the act None, b m e e
was a consairator; and e-
I of all. Thev have the same criminal liability and the same C e , w a t the E m o n p f ’ i t s ayrpose, &
penalty shall be imposed on all of them. There is collec@Je
--I_

-n R u n i s m e b,- w e p t in treason, rebellion

C & g l + S d W Y. or sedition, a_nd the c r i w thev c o m k d to commit imt
.- . . Not02-e persons are liable 8s principals by direct one of them, A is : - - e.
.. .
participation when -
(1) They participated in the criminal resolution, that is, 636. A killed B in a fight. provoked by A. After kiUing B,
(a) there was anterior consm . a n o n s .&em,. or (b) there
was ; % o m . a n d intentiw a t the moment of the com- A went to C, his friend and the mortal enemy of B, and
mission of the offense; and informed him that B was already dead and narrated b,
@)&of them osrried outn-ht and C the manner he killed €3. C was very happy about it,
’
part in its execution, by -te&X 2qthe s d : expressed his satisfaction, and gave A a .sum of money,
thereby concurring in the criminal purpose of A. Is,C,
634. Is a conspirator Liable for the acts of another conspirator, criminally liahle,for the crime committed by A? Explain
., -which are radically and substantially different from that
, ,
your answer.
which they agreed to commit? Illustrate and explain.
NO, because particination in another’s criminal es U-
, .
Yes. F o r instance, A, B, and C, all pclicemen, agreed
and decided to extort a confession by mcan8 of violence
&& mt g U be odor to or & simi~2tn~n%csl~ -!+-wt&
,~~
~~

from X, suspected of having Billed Y. LI subjecting x the c eo f a e . In this case, C c o n c u K d ,

to maltreatment, known as “third degree,” C hit X with
an iron bar on the head, while being he14 by A and B,
causing the latter’s death. In this case, A and B are also
. . liable for the death of X, because the killing of X was
an incident and a consequence of the agreement among A,
B and C to commit an unlawful act (see People vs. Enri-
qnez, 58 Phil. 536, and People vs. Rosario, 68 Phil. 720).
635. A, B and C @ and d
ot- burn the house of the
mayor of their town as an act of revenge. When they
went out t.o go to the house of the mayor for the purpose
of burning it, A told B and C to proeeed and to go ahead
and that he would follow later. B and C, upon reaching
.. .
242
in the criminal i i u r n m of A @the latter h a m -
mitted tine crime,
637. A and B, who were together, were captured by C, D and
E, the mortal enemies of B. One of them gave A a
dagger while the others had their guns levelled at both
A and B. C, with the concurrence of D and E, told A
to choose between killing B with the dagger and himsell
being shot t o death. To avoid being shot, A stabbed B
with the dagser, causing the latter’s death. After B w a s
killed, A was released by C, D and E. What kind of
: principals are C, D and E? Was A a principal? Explai,+
:, your answers.’
i 243

c, D and E are princiwl$ by &ig.&!?n, because tl1eY
directly fa& eto CO- the &.%e of m,r- of which
iCiD&
was the victim. A was a pQ!@.&.hY d b d Dart
tion, because he t in the e&!xuh of the
’ ‘ , for h a d
a%. p i t A ia m t from- c ’
&hout f m & m and intent, which are the IWO elements
of voluntariness.
~ ~ Theye
t is ~individual
: criminal responsibility in this case,
there being no conspiracy or unity of purpose between C, D
and E, on one hand, and A, on the other. A did n o t agree
with them as he was only fareed to do the act which he did.
Of course, among C, D and E, there is collective criminal
responsibility, there being, at least, B unity of criminal purpose.
638. A went home wit11 injuries in the different parts of his
body. When B, A’s father, asked him how he got wounded,
A repliell that c attacked him without cause. B became
angry and said, “That fellow C ought to be killed.” After
cleaning and dressing his wounds, A armed himself with
a bolo, looked for C, and upon seeing him, hacked the
latter to death. Is B criminally liab2e for the death of
C? Explain your answer.
No, because the .aiards utterehby, E, W a@UX&k?
that they constituted an inducement, were n o t d e &
r z t l v with the intentian that - h should kill C. A
’oughtless e m r e s s i p u t , w m any exnectatiqn or
that it would nroduce the result, si-a .&-
icient inducement to c a m $ a d j - n e . Moreover, such
inducement was not the determining cause of the commis-
sion of the crime by A, since A had a reason af h m to strike each other, although each was waiting for an
taSnmmit these, having been injured by C w&hat
any justifiakle r w n .
. 639. Is the acquittal of the principal by direct partieipation-
p
a ground for the acquittal of the principal by induction?
It depends upon the cause of the acquittal of the prin-
cipal by direct partieipation. If the acquittal of the prin-
cipal by direct participation is based on reasonable-dmb1
or that ke&d-,n-@. commit, the^ crime, there is no basis
244
....~
... .
<.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
for convicting the alleged principal by induction. One
cannot be held guilty of having instigarted the commission
of a crime without it first being shown that the crime
was actually committed by another (People vs. Ong Chiat
Lay, 60 Phil. 788). But if the m a l by ..1-
p a t m is a a e d because of lack of intent, & m
f or
intelligence, the crime having been in fact commitkd, the
principal by induction is criminally .liable.
Thus, if P gave f a k e facts to an employee in the
treasurer’s office who wrote them on the blank spaces
of a residence certificate, the employee not knowing their
falsity, P i q liahle for a a a o n l-,q u-
d m n e\.enf the e m is n L W , ‘because the
e-e is a mere innncent w e n t of P in the p e m -
a 2 of the g constituting; t h m g (People vs. Po
Giok To, G.X. L-7236, April 30, 1955). The employee
acted without malice or intent.
040. When the crime is committed in consideration of a price,
reward or promise, how many principals take part in the
crime? What are they? What is the nature of their
criminill responsibility?
There are two principals: (I) principal by direct par-
ticipation, and ( 2 ) principal by indacenient. There being
an agreement and a decision t o commit a crime between
them, there is cnnspiracy and, hence, there is collective
criminal responsibility,
641. A and B, who were bnth armed with iboloes, were about
opening before striking the other. C, who was present,
said, “Now B, hit him!” And B struck A with his bolo,
wounding and killing A. Is C criminally liable for the
death of A? Explain your answer.
The question whether a person present upon t h e occa-
sion of a homicide but who takes no direct part in the act,
can be held criminally liable for inciting and encouraging
another with expressions such as, “go ahead,” “hit him,”
246
 i

causiug his death. Is C a principal or an aceompfiee?~

<'there have him," "now is the time," etC., - d . .
Explain yuur answer.
u,n g,dkr q x h words a m u n m W S . .
It is submitted that C i s a princiaal - b
w-xe
the min$ of the
a direct and d m r n i n a t i v e influence W P
bv direct participation. -
cooperation. It is -t & the &a* of the knife
le
submitted that since B was about to strike A to A, that C desired o r wishe4 the killing of B. Under
the circumstances, the g o-f thehnifeta-8
C uttered the words. "now B, hit him," !hQSC %!I&% i_ndiJpensable cooperation, -b W m an &. w
-.&&,ut
did not -h a direct %nd determinative i d s & c e ~ 1 1 w&h tne cornin- of h o u d e would not have' been
t s d o m arcomvlislwl hT- ;L He is .n&an ascpIice. because the
<s>Ly&&v: <!- s:: .$?< ,"'qq&i. i+
$"*?&%Q$~V,
642. A paid 13 p1,000 t o hill C . 'ti went t o the plncr \\.here &&
he expected to meet c. AS it \ Y ~ S a dnrlr evcnitw. 11
a stranger for c and billed that stranger. C was
_zI --
IWINNO :is iii L)U c(is<>,
Noto: J n a crimc aminst property, the indispensable coopera- .,

not there when B shot the stranEer. Is A CriminallY liable

tion of a principal is shown in a case where the o m e ? of a
house, which is very close to another building, allowed the
f o i the crime committed by B? Explain your answer. thief to pass through his house in going to the other'huilding ,.
where persona! property was stolen. "he owner .of the h o r n
No, because the aimed-c was nL-ed was a wincipal by indispensablc cooperation.
in the inducement, and in such case i t was held that the
,, ..
. ,
i&ement is not material and is x t the cg@zuPing 644. Certain andit clerks, together with the paymaster, of the
c m e of the c e i o n of the &e %&& the fitr a n e r .
Bureau of Public Works were charged with the crime of ~

Nota: This is similar to the ease of People vs. Lawas, et al.
Lawas ordered his home guards to fire at the men ill the
ground floor of a house, but in the course of the melee that
followed some of the home guards of Lnwas fired at the
malversation. The charge against the audit clerks ,+.,:
that, through their recklessly negligent participation h.ini.1 'i
tiding the falsified payrolls, without verifying the .cor-
.

women and children who were in the second floor of the house.
It was held that Lawas was not guilty of murder for tl1e
killing of the women and children, because his order to fire
a t the men in the ground floor of the house could not imply
or include an order to go up the house and massacre the
innocent end defenseless womm and children.
Inducing another to commit d e r , w w -
&&& is got a f elow. Proposal to commit a felony is punish-
able only in proposal to commit treason or rehellion. Eence,
since merely iz&sinz r-a to &t a &me is n u accomplished may be held guilty of the offense as a prin-
f Z i w p r i n c i o a 1 bvinducemen t is not liabkfor thea:
salt different frpm_tha..intended, under Art. 4, par. I, Revised
Penal Code.
643., Whih A and B were having a fistic fight, C was an on-
looker. Seeing that his friend A was getting the worse
~' of the fight, C opened his knife, approached .A, and handed
it to him. A, using the knife, stabbzd B in the chest,
reetness thereof, they had, in effect, cooperated with their$
eo-defendants in the commission of the crime of mal:
versation of public flunds. May those audit clerks, whose: 1
negligence made possible the actual ammission of t h e ?
crime by their co-defendants, he held liable i ~ sprincipals
by indispensable cooperation?
One who cooperatss in the commjssion of a n offense
by acts of negligence without which it could not have been'
cipal. The audit clerks could be held liable as principals
of the crime of malversation of public funds through falsi-
fication of public documents by reckless negligence, for
while they are not public officers entrusted with Govern-
ment funds, lilrc their co-accused paymaster, it is obvious
that they cooperated in the commission of that crime by
acts without which the crime could not have been per-

246 241 ,.
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER

homicide, the -on c b e d as -,ICC B@
-, <.+?

petrated (people vs. Javier, et al., G.R. Nos. L-11670 8z

T..11708.
I .~.
Anril 30. 1959). &I& a mprtal wound.
f l o t e : It would seem that the audit clerks were not liable 88 647. The third kind of principal is one who cooperates with
principals by indispensable cooperation, because they were not the ,principal by direct participation in the commission
with having conspired with their co-defendants , in
malvorsing public funds. To cowerate means to wish a t h w of the crime. HOIOW is the principal by cooperation dis-
in ln view of the meaning of the word "cooperate", tinguished from an accomplice?
with due to the SuDremc Court, it is believed that when The u r n i o n of the principal Q indisaens&Ie to the
one or defendants merely acted with negligence, One m o-n of the crime, that is, without the cooperation
..L
".'J "Y ....". - in common with the defendants who
a thine
of the principal who performed another .act the commission
the crime with malice.
.. of the crime would not, have been accomplished by the
645. May the persons who took part subsequznt to the com- principal by direct participation. On the other hand, the
mission of the crime be considered as aecumpliees? Why? cooperation of the accomplice is only necessary.

. . No, because- a are those persons who, not be- 648. Mar a person be considered a principal even if the as-
ing principals, c-te in the ezecutio,l of the offense sistance he rendered to the other offender is only neces-
by w w i o z u or simultaneous & (Art, 1% R.P.C.). sary? Explain your answer.

646. Distinguish an accomplice from a principal. -_

A principal is one who takes a direct part in the execu-
tion of the act; one who directly forces or induces others
to commit it; or one who cooperates in the commission
of the offense by another act without which it would not
have been accomplished.
An accomplice is one who, not being anyorle of the
three kinds of principal, cooperates in the execution of
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Among principals, except that who directly forces an-
other to commit the crime, there is anterior Conspiracy
or unity of purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime. An accomplice merely C E S S
with j;he criminal &sign of the principal. He is ?&S
conspiracy Gith the principal.
-.
But even if only one of two indiviEuals originated the
intention to kill the deceased while the other merely as-
sisted the action of the initiator of the crime in its execu-
tion, but-bot11 inflicted mortal Wounds, the &Q-.Ll& be
considered as cg-r)rinciuals- ( U S . vs. Zalsos, et at., 40 Phil.
I-
96). Hence, in crimes against persons, like murder or
Yes, if there is conspiracy b e t w e e n u t . When there
is conspiracy, the no-f the c%eration that o e e s
--
to another i s not import&, since the act of me is eon-
sidered the act of all.
Note: An accomplice does not have previous agreement or
understanding. with the principal by direct participation. Ie
there is conspiracy, none of the conspirators can he eonsidered
an accowlice. All of them are principals, regardless of tho
nature of their participation.
649. In what respect is the accomplice simi1:rr to the principal?
In what way does one differ from the other?
What di&bg&hes the principal from the accomplice
is that the pzincioal originates tine criminal design and
--
the a m i c e merelv concurs with f i m in his criminal
purpose and that the accomplice cooperates in the execp
t.n-of the 9 n - by ixevious o
%
r-
- , o w
t h m t h a t _ ) v h i e hwould char- the o w r a m a r i n -
c u pursuant to Art. 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

248 249
 I

1 CKII\IINAL LAW REVIEM'RR

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Thus, when the participation of a person in the com- The driver was an accomplice, because
the criminal d e s i q of A, B and C, for he saw the forcihln
e
mission of a crime is not shown, but he lcnows the criminal taking of the girl, he concurred with them i w r &-
~......
purpose of the principal by direct participation, he is only
an accomplice and should not be Considered a principal, inal purpose by driving the &to their destination.
because to be considered a principal under Act. 17 Of the
&\++d p e d c d e . the act of the offender must either
(1) be direct, that is, it is t h RCI which p ~ hth.1,t C*IW
~ ~
6 5 2 . May a person who m A d y concurred in the criminal desisn
01%which tends to the same end, or ( 2 ) be illdispensable to of the principal by direct participation be held liable 88
the commission of the crime; or (3) that it induces the principal, and not nicrely a s an aceom,pIice?
commission of the crime by another.
Yes, the - J n f I ~ d is_ m~&& or the
650. X was the m p t a l eneuu of A and B. There existed a wound inflicted contributed-materiallx to Q2&th of the
c m a e on the part of A and B to kill X. One \e (People vs. Aplegido, 76 Phil. 571; People vs. As-
cona, 59 Phil. 58C; People vs. Ragmaa and Zalsos, supre).
.~~.,
dav. A. without knowing that B w a s following X to kill
~ I

Note:
- .
In crimes against persons where the death of the victim
the latter, went to an alley where X used to pass by
for the purpose of shooting him. When, X was coming musl take place to coxsummate the crime, tho --sa
fJ&S o&zij,r~_wcunds. His act should not.mkibute _ma-
towards the place where A was waiting for him, B, who t e a k to the death of the victim.
.. was following X, shot him. X died. What is the criminal
of A. if any? Explain your answer.

-
liahilitv
.... ~

653. How is moral aid given by an accomplice?

A yis- n ,-I e.&&E as a PXiIldRal or a s x n Moral aid is -by an accomplice throuzh advice,
accomplice. A is &a of aml,iXbe, because his encouragempt or agreement, but not nrevim s agreement
&of -or X in an alley, even for the purpose of to commit the cgme.
killing him, i-m.an overt so as to . e k e h4m 1

EXPLANATION: The moral aid' of the accomplice

li&& -7. He is &-an acs.Qnl$ce e
~~~

m or ~2 the princimal to commit the eriqe. It must,

in the crime committed by B, because there is no relat' n be moral aid i n t h e erect&?% 0: the c r i m e
nb,- the cdminal act of B and the act of w -8

enoughthat a a e m n an identical criminal desigll
of the Drinciual (People vs. De la Cruz, et al.,
61 Phil. 162). iY.&&a A nor B k&sX that the other
would kill X. Hence, there was no community ofn.
.
651, A, B and C forcibly abducted a girl. placing her in a
jeepney which was parked to get passengers, and then c
told the driver to proceed to another town. Tlie driver
saw the forcible takinx a w s of the girl, but he naer-
! If the three defendants were also eonqirators, they would
tm,drove his @epney with the girl and the cu1prit.s.
What is the participation of the driver in tbr crime of
forcible abduction committed by A, B and C? Explain
your answer.
In the case of People 7s. Ubina, e t al., G.R. No. L-6969,
September 1, 1065, W e have an illustration of moral aid ren-
dered by the accomplices. The participation of the three de-.
fendants in the killing of the victim was limited to being p r e e n t , i
and stayine around the premises, while the otllers fired at the:.+
victim and carried out their plan. The three deiendants were. i
not among those who had conspired to kill the victim. They',.;
joined the conspirators only on the way to the place where the .:
victim was killed. The three defendants were heId Iiahle only.'
as accomplices. . ..
be liable as principals.
In the case of People 7s. Siivestre and Atienza, 66 Phil.
363, Silvestre knew that Atienea would commit arson and &e 8:
was present when the crimes was cbrnmitted, hut the Snpmmi:);

250 261
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REYJEWER CRIMINAL LAW REYIEVVER

courtheld that her mere presence and silence, while they are
simultaneous acts, do not appear that they encouraged or
nerved Atienza to the crime of arson. Her failure to
being a subsequent act (not previous or simultaneous),
did not make her liable as accomplice.
654, When t,here in no conspiracy or there is no community
of what is the nature of the criminal respon.
sibility of two or more persons who take part in the
comiuission of a crime? Illustrate and explain your an-
. '
, ,
.~"' .
could steal in the customhouse. B and C, with the4
truck driven by D, proceeded t o the customhonse, stole:
~..'
certain goods then lying in the cilstomhouse, and lo&;
ed them on the truck. D received from B and C some':c
stolen goods. Later, A took delivery of the stolen goods
in his warehouse and paid for them. The four were
' arrested and prosecuted f o r theft. A contended that
since he only e1-d and assistegl B and C to profit
by the effects of the crime, he should be held liable ils
accessory. Is the contention of A tenable? Is D, the

-
driver, criminally liable? Explain your answer.
No, the contention of A is not tenable.
~~.
~
hrrsnsr. fn,.
~

I '--"-_-"
inducing B and C t o s&l the goods,
by inducemeLt. &n accessory h L e ULhD, a p m a l
-1-
artic-
O&i&dl?.
assisting the olender to b-y the effccls of the -e.
, naranspiwsy ~ between A and C to kill B,
$'.;
~ k ~ ~ Since A already u a r w d in the commission of' theft'$
as the fight between A and I3 was p m , &.E&ed. as 1-, his taking part subsequent to its commission
They not h a previously agreed and decided to kill by profiting or assisting the offender to profit by the ef-
B. A did not know that C would stab B when he boxed fects OS the crime cloes not make him onJy an aceessw; .:.
him. Hence, there was not community of design on the He is a .princilsd in the crime of theft.
part A and C . Such being .
. . the case, A and c h a i n -
--
dividnal c m
t ~suppose
~ ~ )But : that
Y.
c was the one wl-3 started the assault
If D, the driver of the truck used for hauling the good{:;
from the customhouse to the warehouse of A, e d a
by stabbing B and then A kicked the body Of B ,?hen the some of the goods as his e,-s knaxeing from the begin- !
latter was lying on the ground, and sometime there- ning that the goods would be m, that driver is not
after B died, what is the liability of A" an a c m m by profiting by the effects of the crime,
..
A is liable as an aec~m,pli~licein the crime of homicide com-
mitted by C.
for he already e d -a accomalice. But if h e .
came to know that the goods he received were prop
erty o & l a he yp.s receivme . . t& IP,but not when he
was hauling all the goods from the customhouse. he WSR
-, -__;
Q& an ay
-, because he U etp- as an
accomplice.

657. A, B and C saw X slaughtering a cow in the farm. X

gave each of them a quantity of meat worth P10.00.
When the owner of the cnw complained to the author-
ities about the disappearance of his animal, X was ar-

252 253
 ~.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE12

house, placed cans of gasoline with fuses connected,with*,g

rested as a suspect and when investigatdd he admitted an electric wire in the warehouse a n d , set it on firey.3
' that he stole the cow which he later slaughtered. x After the fire, which destroyed the warehouse and the
named A, B and C as the persons who also profited by
the stolen cow. May A, B and C be he!d liable as ac-
;i goods, inside, and before any investigator could get in-
side the burned warehouse, A told his servant to remove,
cessories? Explain your answer. all the empty cans from the burned warehouse and all
No, because there is n o t h d s stated in the question that traces of the conmission of arson, which' the servants
t h e y a w - that the cow had been stolen. The ETSiQW i did. Is t h e servant criminally iiablr? Explain your an-
@+,must Lave knowIe@ of the commission of the crime and
I/>., swer.
t h n p_ro€it by its effe&. Yes, because k z o a that the warehouse and the goods
inside were intentionally burned by A, which is arson,.
658. E A, 13 and C that the cow had been stolen and
the servant c-kd - ... or e-d
. .~ the hadu.of the a
notwithstanding that fact they accepted from X the meat
frum the stden cow without paving. for it, would thcy
-~
of arson by r m n g the &e t k m f t o m v e n t ib
1m l i n h l ~as accessories? Why? Suppose they paid for &wry. In other words, the servant made it app&
to be an accidental bYrning of the warehouse, thereby
".._... pn
-g the authorities from m w g the crime.
Yes, because they b yp
- t h e m f thesc.b%. Such act of the servant made him liable as accessory
/ff t M r f o r the meat, they would be accessories, .!X under the 2nd. paragraph of Art. 19 of the Revised Penal
-
a s s i s t i l u h e o m r to arofit by the effecf,?&
Noto: Effffeots of the w i r n e are
.!i-of
the stolen property in the
Code.
Note: The discovery of the crime may be prevented also by
crime of theft; or the money or property miswpropriated in concealing or destroying the effects (the stolen prope*) or
estafa. Hence, the money given as s. reward for locating a the instruments thereof (the pistol or knife used in killing the
stoim jeep is not the proceed 01- effect of the crime.
victim). In such ease, the pelson who, knowing that a crime
had been committed, concealed or destroyed the e f f E t s or in-
659. Are A, ~3 and C in the preceding question accessories strument of the crime is an accessory.
to the crime of simple thect or to the crime of qualified Either one of the following is destroyed o r concealed by
tho accessory:
(1) Body of the crime (the fact of the commission of the
crime) ;
(2) Effects of the crime; or
( 3 ) Instrument of the crime.
The PurPose Of the accessory is to @revent the diseoveN
of the crime (Art. 19, par. 2, R.P.C.).
46 Phil, 245).
661. When may a yrivale individual who liarbored, concealed,
The reason for the ruling in the Valdelion ease is t h a t
an aggravating ciroumstanee arising fram the .&v'ai*n or assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime
.of the offender with the offended party and which w!ali&s
4 be held l i a h l ~as nn accessory?
the offenso shall affect...$file
,the principals, accomplices and
accessories to .whom it is attendant (Art. 62, R.P.C.)
Whenever the -of the crime is &of treason,
I $ parricide, m g or a n --
to take of the
660. A, after obtaining an insurance policy for an amount 4 Chief Executive, or is known to .be habituallv +I&
some other crimes.
of
much bigger than the value of the goods inside his ware-
4
254 255
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
662. A saw the commission of murder by B and C and the
concealing of the body of the deceased by them, and
afterwards joined their company until the following day,
without denouncing the crime i o the local authorities
when he had the opportunity to do SO. If A was not in
conspiracy with the killers or if there was no community
of design between him and the Billers, can he be held
liable a s an accessory? Explain your answer.
No, because his failure to denounce the crime to the
local authorities, knowing the commission of said crime,
aside from the fact that i t is an omission, is not one Of
the acts which make a person liable as a n accessory. A
did not profit or assist the offenders to profit by the
effects of the crime; he did not conceal or destroy the
body of the crime, the effects or instruments thereof in
order to prevent its discovery; and he did not harbor,
conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of the
crime.
N o t e : But if a person, who knows of the cornmission Of the
crime, say murder, by another, volunteered false information
which tended affirmatively to deceive the prosecuting authorities,
thereby enabling the offender to escape, he i s liable as an
accessory under pararmph 3 of Art. 19 ( U S VS. Romulo,
15 Phil. 408).
663. May dereliction of duty by a pnblic officer make him
an accessory? Explain your answer.
Yes, when the public officer, like the municipal mayor,
failed maliciously to move the prosecution of the culprit,
after having been informed of the commission of the crime,
and such malicious refusal to perform his duty made pos-
sible the escape of the principal of the crime, the public
officer is liable as a n accessory under paragraph 3 Of
Art. i!) (U.S.vs. Yacat, I Phil. 443).
664. A lost his watch. As A did not know that it was s t O h
by U, no criminal action was filed agaiuat B. One day,
A s a v the watch in the possession of C. Being in POS-
session of the lost watch of A, C was prosecuted for
theft. During the trial, it appeared thlC C bought the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWE11
watch from B, knowing that i t had been stolen by B.
At the time of the trial, B was already dead. Can c
be held liable as accessory?
Yes, because the prosecution and conviction of the
principal is not an essential condition before the accessory
can be held criminally liable, for while the principal may
still be unknown or at large, the accessory may be held
responsible, provided that he had knowledge of the com-
mission of the crime and that he participated therein
after its commission by any of the acts mentioned in
Art. 19 of t h e Code.
I
I 6F5. Is the accessory criminally liable if the principal, after
trial, is acquitted? Explain your ansn-er.
I
It depends on the ground of the acquittal. If the facts
dleged in the informatior. are not proved o r that they
do . c o n s t i t u k a crime, no- legal mounds ex&
not for con- "'
L--
I _ -
,
victing a defendant as an accessory for a crime n-e.:.
p-e-d. The responsihility of the accestsory is
to that of the principal in a crime and his m i l t is di- ..
rectly reiated to that of the principal in the punishable
act.
But if the crime was in fact committed, but the prin-
cipal was not held crimimlly liable, because of any exempt: , ,
ing circumstance, such as insanity or minority, conviction
of the accessory is possibk notwithstanding the acquittal
of the principal.
The, reason for this is that in exempting circumstances
there is a crime committed, only that the perpetrator
of the crime is not a criminal, in view o f the complete
absence of any of the conditions that make the act volun-
tary.
666. A, knowing that B and C had killed a person, assisted
in the escape of 8, who, together with C, was later
accused of murder. After trial, B was found guilty :
only a s an accomplice in the crime of rnnvrle,. r m r l c ,
~~
as principal. Is A, a private individual, liible as an
...I ~ -
accessory? Why?
257
 I
’<
,:
,.C ~.,,
.,

CllIMINAL LAW REYIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

the effects
-. of the crime, o r (2) aj!d the of&&&
No, the law mentions only the “author” and the “prin- W& by the &&&s of the& (Art. 20, R.P.C.),.:
&pal” of the crime, whom the accessory harbors, conceals, Note: Only accessories under paragraphs 2 and 3 of AT^. -1s
or assists in his escape (Art, 19, par. 3, R.P.C.). It is
are exempt from criminal liability if they m e related to th&&
! ’ submitted that the _ - “ e r ” and “ p m r ’ d w t .principal. Thus, the father who buried the dead body. of the“i
i d e accomplice. victim murdwed by his son, to prevent tho discovery of the,:
crime, or assisted in the escape of his 13011 who committed treason
I

667. A. assisted in the escape of his first cousin, knowing that is not erirninallv lkbie, h m the neither nrofited
d-1 the offenderto -by the e m s of t u .
the latter committed murder. Is A criminally liable as
an accessory? Explain your answer. 669. A, who had killed his wife, went to his adopted brother
. Yes, because the penalties prescribed for accessorfes
shall’not be imposed upon those who are such, only with and asked the latter to hide hint in his house. The
adapted brother harbored and coneealed A, because the
respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendds, legitimate,
latter gave him his diamond ring worth P1,OOO. rS the
natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by
affinity within the same degrees (Art. 20, R.P.C.). & adopted brother criminally liable? Why? .
first cousin is &,one of those &&k&b, e-b h u No, the diamond ring which.hed- from
I .

by consanauinity in the third civil dearee. A- W an effect of the crime o€ parricide.

a: he profited, the adopted brother did not p r o f i t b y the II

e u o f the xim.
668,. A stole a carabao and brought it to his home. B, a
policeman in that locality, C, and D are all A’S brothers Note: But if A killed his wife to &the -Iwith intent
who knew that the carabao had been stolen by A. C a n , and she acquired said &w& before the m n e ,
and the diamond ring was one of the pieces of her said

-
hid the carabao under their house surrounded by Stone jewelry, such ring is an effect of the crime.
walls. B, the policeman, helped in the escape of A, be-
cause the chief of police might discover the crime and 670. What is the j-srjof the _State in punishing crime.97
and arrest him. Later, D sold the carabao and spent Ihe
proceeds of the sale. Are B, C, and D accessories? Are To secure justke,. The State has ane-e o m .
own to maintain, a coe- of it?: own ta assert, and
they criminally liable? Explain your answer.
They areall accessories, because B , a s s i s t d i n the S & P e moral principles to be . Penal justice must there-
fore he exercised by the State in the service and sa&-
of A with a b u s e ~ ~ & @ & ? L d b ! 2 l E - , C doc- the f a & o n o f y , and rests urimarilrjon the moral righht-
carabao to prevent the discovery of the crime, and 2, of-f the W k h m e n t inflicted.
profited by the e f f e c t of the crime.
But is criminally liable, because the &l&l 671. What penalties may be imposed for the commission of .
(A) being his brother, he is & from criminal lia- a felony?
bility. C is not also criminally liable, for the same reason.
Only is as m y , because he Only that penalty prescribed b y l a w ]xior to its com-
mission may he imposed for the commksion of a felony
pr&&d by the mf the crime. An accessory i s B t
-
exempt from criminal liability even if the DLi.QGiIlal is
his Spouse, a w t , d e e n t , lepitimate, n a m r
(Art. 21, R.P.C.). Felonies are punishable under the laws
in force at the time of their commission (Art. 366, R.P.C.).
But the penalty provided by a penal law enacted aftex,
ad-xbrother or sister, or a r a b y af=-w@- the commjssion of 8 felony may be imposed upon the person
in the Same degrqs, if .such acces- (1) profited by
258 259

guilty of that felony, in so far as it favors him, provided
he is not a habitual criminal or that the new law does
not expressly provide that it shall not apply to pending
action or’ causes of action.
liote; D~ not this question with the question calling
for the classification of penalties under Art. 25.
. , ..
672. May a favorable penal law apply to the Case of a coon-
viet w ] l ~ is already serving sentence?
Yes, because Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code says,
“a]thoul:h at the time of the publication of such laws a
final has been pronounceit and the convict is serv-
.. . ing the same.”
673. If a penal law is repealed by another penal law, chaw-
ing the penalty for the crime and thereby alfectinr the
I ’
jurisdiction of courts, which law determines the juris-
diction of the court in case the crime was committed be-
fore th.e repeal? Why?
. . The jurisdiction of the court to try a criminal action
.. /:
. . is determined by the law in force a t the time of instituting
the action, not by the law a t the time of the Commission
of the crime (People vs. Pegarum, 58 Phil. 7x5).
674. What is the threedold purpose of the penalty under the
Revised Penal Code?
Tht! penalty under the Revised Penal Code has three-
fold purpose:
...
1. Retribution or expiation-the penalty is commen-
surate with the gravity of the offense.
2 . Correction or reformation, as shown by the rules
which regulate the execution of the penalties consisting
in deprivation of liberty.
3 . ,yociaz defense-as shown by its inflexible severity
to recidivists and habitual delinquents.
677. State the classification of fines.
675. What is principal penalty? Enumerate all the principal
penalties and their different classes. . .
260
Principai pendty is that penalty which. is express$. ,....
imposed by the court in the judgment of conviction. .:;&
The Principal penalties and their diflerent classes
Capital punishment-death; afflictive penalties-(1) re;’:
elusion perpetus., ( 2 ) reclusion teniporal, (3) perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification. (4) perpetual or tem-
porary special disqualification, and (5) prision mayor.
Correctional penadties-(i) prision correccional, (2) ar-
resto mayor, (3) suspension, and (4) destierro.
Light penalties-(]) arrest0 menor and ( 2 ) public cen-
sure.
i the three preceding claSses-(i)
t ’ i n u l f i c s r o i i i i ~ ~ o i.to
fine and ( 2 ) bond to keep the peace.
67F. What is an accessory penalty? Enumerate all the acces-
sory penalties.
An accessory penaity is that penalty which .is,deemed
included in the imposition of the principal penalty.
The accessory penaltics are: (1) perpetual or tem-
porary absolute dispalification, ( 2 ) perpetual or tem-
porary special disqua.lification, (3) suspension from public
office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession
or e a l l i n ~ : (4, civil interdiction, (5) indemnification,
(6) forfeitwe or confiscation of instruments and proceeds
of the offense, and (7) payment of costs (Art. 25, R.P.C.).
N o t e : The f i s t three above are either principal or accessory
penalties, because they are mentioned under principal penalties
as well as under aceessxy penalties in Art. 25, R.P.C.
In Art. 236, the penalty for assuming the merformanee of
the duties and powers of any public office without first being
swoin in o r having given the bond required by law, i s SUS.
pension and fine from P200 to P500. The suspension here ia
a principal penalty.
In Art. 22G, the additional penalty of temporary special dia-
qualification in its maximum period t o perpetual special dis.
qualification i s irxposed far infidelity i s the custody of docu-
ments. Here, the disqualification is ii principal penalty.
A fine shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it
exceeds P6,OOO; a correctional penalty, if it does not exceed
261
 ''I'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
p6,000, but is not less than PZOO; and light penalty, if it
be less than P200 (Art. 26, R.P.C.).
678. the classification of fines under Art. 26 of the Revised
penal Code as afflictive, correctional, and light applicable
to fin,e imposed with another penalty? Explain your
answer.
No. Art. 26 of the Revised Penal Code providcs that
'6% fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative
penalty, shall be considered an afflictive penalty, if it ex-
ceeds pfi,oOo; correctional, if it does not exceed f6,009
but is not less than PZOO." Hence, that classification is
not applicable when the fine is imposed together with
.another penalty.
Thus, the Supreme Court did not apply that classifica-
tion in a case where the penalty provided by law is v i s i o n
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,OOO. In imposing the
penalty next lower in degree, the Supreme Court fixed a
fine of p50 (a light penalty) and imposed it together with
mg.wh correcoional, a correctional penalty (People vs.
r . .-- - . ~
Quinto, 60 Phil. 311).
.. .
They do not have fixed durations.
A convict sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties
is pardoned after undergoing the penalty f o r 30 Years, - @:
cept when he is not worthy of pardon by reas011 Of b S
or Some other cause. If he is not pardoned, the
maximum duration of his sentence shall in no case exceed
: forty years, as may be inferred from the provisions Of the
Revised Penal Code on the three-fold rule (Art. 70, R.P.C.) .
262
. , . I
The duration of suspension, a.s a priucipal penalty,. is
! from six months and one day to six years. But when it is
i imposed as an accessory penalty, its duration shall
that of the principal penalty. ,<$3+<
,,,<*,,
1
681.
A was prosecuted for homicide, pmnishable by reclusion le
*,,
'
;
temporal. Pending his trial, A was detained in jail since
May 10, 1968, because he could not post a hail bond.
After trial. A was convicted on November 10, 1958, and
was sentenced to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal as the maximum of the indeterminate penalty.
Since A had been detained for six months before judg-
ment was rendered and not having appealed therefrom,
from what day must the duration of his penalty be cow-
1 ' puted? , E m your answer.
i
~~
.=e duration of his penalty must be computed from
the day on which the defendant commences to serve his
sentence.
2t'fiere are three rules provided by the Revised Penal
Code for the computation of the penalties, namely: (1) If
the offender is in prison., the term of the duration of the
t e m p o m q pendkies is computed from the day on which
the judgment of conviction shall have become final; (2) if
the offender is not in prison, the term of the duration
of the penalty consisting in deprivation of liberty shall
he computed from the day that the offender is placed at
the disposal o f the judicial authorities for the enforcement
of the penalty; and ( 3 ) the term of the duration of other
penalties is computed from the day on which the defendant .
commences t o serve his sentence.
~ ~~
The first rule is not applicable, because it applies only
to temporary penalties, not t o those consisting in depriva-
tion of liberty, like reclusion temporal. The second rule
is not applicable either, because it applies only when the
offender is not. in prison. Hence, the third rule anolies.
-
A should be credited with one-half of the time of the
~ ~~~
preventive imprisonment of six months.
263
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
: 682. A was prosecuted for a crime punishable by arrest0 mayor
or a fine from 8200 to P2,OOO. Pending the trial of the
... case, A was detained because he ,could not put a bail
bond. JJe was detained for 6 months. The court Ten.
dered a judgment of conviction and sextenced him t0
pay a fine of 8500. Must A be credited with one-half of,
his preventive imprisonment of six months? Why?
No, because a person who underwent preventive im-
prisonment shall be credited with one-half of his preventive
imprisonment only when the penalty imposed consists in
deprivation of liberty. The penalty imposed, which is a
fine of P500, does not consists in deprivation of liberty.
683. A, having surprised his wife in the act of sexual inter-
course with another man, k5lled her. Prosecuted for
parricide, a crime which is not bailable, A was detained
pending his trial which lasted for one year. After trial,
__
A was . sentenced to destierro. Must he be credited with
., .. one-half
~.~ ~
of the time of his preventive imprisonment O t
one ye:ar? Explain your answer.
yes, because the penalty of destierro also COnSiStS in
. . depriva,tion of liberty, since the convict is not free to enter
the prohibited area. Offenders who have undergone Pre-
ventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of
their sentences consisting in deprivation of liberty. More-
Over, this is not one of the cases where the convict is not
credited in the service of his sentence with one-half Of the
time during which he has undergone preventive imprison-
ment.
684. May a convict sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua be . The persons not entitled to be credited with one-half of
credited with one-half of the time of his preventive mi-
prisonment? Explain your answer.
Yes, because the article of the Revised Penal Code govern-
ing preventive imprisonment does not make any distinctiorl
betwecn temporal and perpetual penalties, Moreover, the
duration of perpetual penalties is to be computed at 80
years.
264
CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.~
685. A served sentence for slight physical injuries twent&
Years ago. Now, he is on trial for homicide and during?
the pendency Qf the w e , he has been detained for one
Year. If he is convicted of homicide, is he entitled tn
No, because he i s a recidivist and a recidivist is not
entitled to be credited with one-half of the time of his
preventive imprisonment.
686. Who are not entitled to be credited with one-half of the
time of preventive imprisonment?
The following offenders are not entitled to be credited
with one-half of the time of preventive imprisonment:
1. Recidivists O r those convicted previously twice or
more tjmes of any crime.
2 . Those who, upon being summoned for the execution
of their sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily.
3 . Those convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, malversa-
tion, falsification, vagra,ncy and pro:ititution.
Note: Habitual delinquent^ and those declared in reitemcion
or habitually, if the latter are previously punished for two 01
more offensrs, are not entitled to be credited with one-half of
the time of preventive imprisonment.
68'7. Are those 'persons who did n.ut surrender voluntarily
after the commission of the crime entitled to be credited
with one-half of their preventive imprisonment?
Yes, if they are not recidivists or are not convicted pre-
viously twice or more times of any crime, and the crime
committed is not robbery, theft, estafa, malversation, falsi-
fication, vagrancy or prostitution.
their preventive imprisonment are those who, upon being
summoned for the execution of their sentence, fail to sur-
render voluntarily.
688. What is the purpose of the law in imposing the penalty
of disqualification for the exercise of the right of s,,f-
frage?
266 . .
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The manifest purpose of such restrictions upon this
right is to preserve the purity of elections. The pre-
sumption is that one rendered infamous by conviction
of felony, or other base offenses indicative of moral turpi-
tude, is unlit to exercise the privilege of suffrage or to
hold office. The exclusion must for this reason he ad-
judged a mere disqualification, imposed for mere protec-
tion and not for punishment, the withholding of a privilege
and not a denial of a personal right (People vs. Corral,
62 Phil. 945).
689. A, who was a government employee for 35 Years and
already a t the age of 69, was prosecuted for and convicted
of a crime and was sentenced t o 8 years and 1 day of
prision mayor, as the maximum of the indeterminate
penalty, with the accessory penalty of temporary ahso-
lute disqualification for mpnblic office. After service of
sentence, can he get his retirement pay? Explain your
answer.
No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification for public office is the loss of right
to retirement pay or pension for any office formerly held,
and such effect lasts even after the term of the sentence.
690. Supporie A was not yet retireahle, can he be reinstated
after service of sentence? Explain your answer.
No, because one of the effects of perpetual or temporary
absolute disqualification is deprivation of public office or
employment, even if conferred by popular election and such
effect lasts even after the term of the.sentence.
691. What effects of temporary absolute disqudification shall
last only during the term of the Sentence?
They are: (1) the deprivation of the right to vote in
any election for any popular elective offize or to be elected
to such office; and ( 2 ) the disqualification for the offices
or public employments and for the exercise of any of the
rights mentioned (Art. 30, last par.).
266
CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,692. What are the effects of pardon by the Chief Executive?
Can the offended party in a crime legally pardon. the :'
offender? Explain your answer. .,:,
A pardon by the Chief Executive shall not work the
restoration of the right to hold public office or the right
of suffrage. unless such rights be expressly restored by
the terms of the pardon. A pardon by the Chief Executive
shall in no case exempt the culprit from the payment of
the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
No, the offended party cannot legally pardon the of-
fender so as to extinguish criminal action. Even pardon
nnder Art. 344 only constitutes a bar t o criminal prosecu-
tion. The reason for the rule is that a crime committed
is an offense against the State. But civil liability with
regard t o the interest of the injured party is extinguished
by express waiver.
693. A was convicted of estafa and was sentenced to suffer
4 m ~ n t h sand 1 day of arrest0 mayor, with the accessory
penalty of suspension of the right .to hold office and the
right of suffrage. After service of the sentence for two "
months, A was granted an absolute pardon by the Pres.
ident and was released from jail. Can A vote during
the election held six months after he was granted a
pardon? Explain your answer.
No. While it is h u e that the accessory penalty of sus-, .;,,
pension of the right to hold office and the right of suf-
frage lasts only during the term of the sentence (Art. 44,
R.P.C.), and that it is not necessary that the same be:!!
expressly remitted in the pardon, under See. 99 of the:;+
Revised Election Code, A is not qualified to vote, havinp?;
been declared by final judgment guilty of a crime against',:!
property.
Note: The other accessory penalties of perpetual absolute din- :,
quaiification, perpetual special disqualification, and temporary ,'::
absolute or speeisl disqualification must be expressly remitted 2
~.:
in tho pardon in order that the ex-convict can vote or hold public,
office. This is true even if the convict sentenced to life h-+*
prisonment had already served 30 yeers when he was granted
267
 ' v
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
absolute pardon. Unless expressly restored by the terms of t h e
pardon, he cannot exercise the right of suffrage.
l'he exception is when the absolute pardon is granted after
the convict has served his sentence and the penalty imposed
is lower than reclusion temporal. It is deemed that the pardon
is intended to restore to him the right to vote or to be elected
to public office.
-i: ,' -694. What are included in costs in criminal cases?
They are: (1) fees, and (2) indemnities in the course
of judicial proceedings.
, , 695. Enumerate the pecuniary liabilities of a person giiilty
.. of a crime and state whether the court .can order their
payment indiscriminately.
The pecuniary liabilities of the offender are: (1) repara-
tion of the damage causedi ( 2 ) indemnification of con-
sequential damages, (3) the fine, and (4) the costs of the
proceedings.
In case the property of the offender should not be
sufficie,nt for the payment of all his pecuniary liabilities,
the same shall be met in the order in which they are
enumerated in Art. 38 of the Revised Penal Code.
Note: Where the proceeds of the sale of the property of the
offender are not sufficient to cover the damages adjudicated
to the heirs of the deceased and the costs of the proceedings,
i t is error to apply part of the proceeds to satisfy t h e costs;
the damages should ho satisfied first (People vs. Maeaso, 39
0. G. 1504).
Reparation of the damage caused is the pecuniary liability
in climes against property, when restitution is not possible.
Indemnification of Consequential damages is usually the pecuniar3-
. . liability in crimes against persons.
696. What iri subsidiary penalty? Is it deemed imposed in
case t h o convict could not pay certain pecuniary Babili-
ties by reason of insolvency? Explain your answer.
Subsidiary penalty is a subsidiary personal liability
t o be suf€ered by the convict who has no property with
which to meet the pecuniary liabilities for the reparation
of the Camage caused, indemnification oE consequential
268
1
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I
! damages, and fine, at the rate of one day for each e,
subject to the rules provided by law.
. , . ..
No, subsidiary penalty must be expressly imposed ~b$
the. Court in order that the convict may be required . , ~
serve it. It is not an accessory penalty. It is imposed ,:
upon the accused and served by him in lieu of certain
pecuniary liabilities which he fails to pay on account of
insolvency.
Note: From the definition of subsidiary penalty, it will be noted
that the offender cannot choose to serve subsidiary penalty,
instead of paying the Pecuniary liabilities, if he has property
with which to pay them. The offender has to serve subsidiary
penalty, only if he has no property with which to meet the
pecuniary liabilities.
697. I n what cases is there no subsidiary penalty, even if the
offender cannot pay the pecuniary liabilities by reason
of^ insolvency?
1. When the penalty imposed is higher than p r k i o n
corwccional, such as prision mayor, reclusion t e m p o r d ,
and reclusion pemetua, there is no subsidiary penalty.
2. For failure t o pay the costs o f the proceedings,
there is no subsidiary penalty.
3 . When the penalty imposed is fine and a penalty
not to be executed by confinement in a penal institution
and has no fixed duration, there is no subsidiary penalty.
Note: Subsidiary penalty is possible only when any of the fol-
lowing penalties is imposed: (1) prision correccional, ( 2 ) sus-
pension and fine, (3) destiewo, (4) w r e s t o meyor, ( 5 ) awesto
menor, and (6) fine only.
Even if ths penalty imposed is not higher than pdaion cor-
reccional, if the accused is a habitual delinquent who has to
suffer an additional penalty, and the total penalty is higher
than G years, there is n o subsidiary penalty (People vs. Con-
eepcion, 59 Phil, 518).
698. What is the ma.ximum duration of the subsidiary penalty?
If the penalty imposed is prision correccional o r UT-
resto and fine, it shall not exceed one-third of the term
269
',>*
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
of the sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more
.,than one year.
::/. , ~if the
~ penalty
t imposed is fine only, it shall not
."'&ceed six months, if the offender is prosecuted for grave
_. less,
. nave felony; and not more than fifteen days, if
I
' prosecuted for a light felony
,....."I-__ . ~
. . I€ f,he penalty imposed is prision correccional or arrest0
'and fine, the subsidiary penalty shall consist in imprison-
ment. [f the penalty imposed is destierro, the subsidiary
n.,noltv i s also destierro. If the penalty imposed is sUS--
Y".Y.",, _I
pension, the subsidiary penalty is also suspension.
700. A convicted of a crime for the commission of which
the law provides a fine not exceeding 81,000, and Was.
sentenced to pay a fine of P200. In case A cannot pay
the fine of P200 by reason of insolvency, what is t h e
duratbon of the subsidiary penalty. Explain your answer.
~~ ~~
Two months and twenty days.
When the penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary
pena1t.y shall not exceed 6 months, if the culprit shall have
been Drosecuted for a grave or less grave felony; and shall
not exceed 15 days, if for a light felony (Art. 59, par. 2,
R.P.C.). Since the fine provided by law is not exceeding
PI,OOQ, it is a correctional penalty (AI*. 26, R.P.C.) Less . cnniary liabilities. When released from prison, A w n e d
'grave felonies are those which the law punishes with pen-
n l t i e s which in their maximum period are correctional
.."(Art. 9, R.P.C.).
. .
.
i. . p.200 + F2.60 = 80 days or 2 months and 20 days, which
is less than 6 months. Hence, the duration Of the sub-
idiary penalty is 2 months and 20 days.
, . N o t e : The crime committed by A is not a light felon)., be-
for light felonies ''a fine not ezoeedins 200 pesos X x X i s
ed" by law (Art. o, R.P.c.). In the problem given the.
fine provided by law is not exceeding P1,OOO.
It is lhe fine pvmided bv law for the offense, not the fine
ased by the court, which must be considered in determining
liether the felony is grave, less grave or light.
210
ir CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.~? i_
701. A was prosecuted for rebellion punishable by priaio&2
nlayor and a fine not exceeding P20,OOO. A surrendered !.
volnntarily to the mayor of hid town and during the'
arraignment he pleaded guiltv to the charge. No ag-
gravating circumstance wns alleged in the information.
It appears that A could not pay the fine, because he was
insolvent. Can A be required to suffer subsidiary im-
prisonment for non-payment of the fine? Explain your
answer.
Yes, became there are two mitigating. circumstances
without any aggravating circumstance and, since the pen-
alty of prision mayor is divisible, the penalty should be
lowered b? one degree (Art. 64, par. 5, R.P.C.), which is
Prision cor?eceionnl. Since the penalty actually imposed
is not higher than prision correccional, A can be required
t o serve subsidiary penalty.
Nota: When the penalty Drovided by the Code far the offenee
is imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed, riot the
penalty provided by the Code, which should be considered in
determining whether or not there should be subsidiary penalty.
702. A was tried for a crime, was convicted, and was sen-
tenced to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision cur-
reccional. He could not pay the reparation of the dam-
age caused in the amount of PZDO, the indemnification
of consequential damages in the aroonnt of 8150, the,
fine in the amount of 8100, .and the costs of P32. A
served subsidiary imprisonment for the first tluee pe- , .;
a fortune. What pecuniary liabilitia must he pay, not-
withstanding the service of subsidiary imprisonment?
He must pay the reparation of the damage caused a n d ,
the indemnification of consequential damages.
Note: He is relieved from pecuniary liabi!ity as to fine, once
he served subsidiary penalty therefor.
Although, there is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment
of the costs, he may be required t o pay them when his financial
circumstances shouid improve.
i 703. Is subsidiary penalty unconstitutional as an imprison-
/ .
ment for debt? Explain your answer.

CRIMINAL LAW RRVIEWEK
No, because the constitutional provision which prohibits
mprisonment for debt relates to the imprisonment of
debtors for liability incnrred in the fulfillment of con-
tracts, but not to the cases seeking the enforcement of
penal statutes that provide for the payment of money as
a penalty for the commission of crime or for damages
,arising in action e r delictu.
A is sentenced to 6 years and 1 day of imprisonment by
the court, as the maximum term of the indeterminate
.: penalt,y. While serving sentence, A wanted to sdl his
" ' 'house and lot to realize the amount necessary to pay the
"'lawver mho handled his defense. Can A legally sell his
real property? Explain your answer.
Yes, because A was sentenced to the penalty of prision
m y o r , 6 years and 1 day being the minimum of that
penalty. The only case where a convict cannot dispose
of his property by any act or conveyance inter u<,uuos is
when he is suffering from civil interdiction, which is
an accessory penalty only in (1) death, when not ex-
ecuted by reason of commutation or pardon, (2) reclusion
p e r p ~ l u a ,and (3) reclusion temporal.
. Aandwasoneconvicted of theft and was sentenced to one year
day of prision correccional, its the maximum
term of the indeterminate penalty. After service of
sentence, A was released from prison. A now consults
you and asks for your legal advice whether or not he
can vote in the coming election. What will be your
advice? Explain your answer.
N y advice is that he cannot vote. While it is true
that the duration of imprisonment imposed on him did
not exceed eighteen months and the only accessory penalty
inhercmt in the principal penalty is suspension from public
'ce, and from the right to follow a profession or call-
under See. 99 of the Revised Eiection Code, A is
qnalified to vote, having been sentexiced by final judg-
nt to suffer one year or more of imprisonment, and
t...
272
*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
such disability not having been removed by plenary par-
don.
I 706. Is subsidiary penalty an accessory penalty?
No. Subsidiary penalty is a personal penalty pre-
scribed by law in substitution of the pecuniary liability.,,
when the latter cannot be satisfied because of the culprit's,',
insolvency. Hence, subsidiary imprisonment cannot be :
served unless the judgment condemns the accused to suf-.:
fer the same in case of insolvency (People vs. Fajardo,::
65 Phil. 539, 541-542).
Do accessory penalty and subsidiary penalty
the jurisdiction of the court? Explain your
Accessory penalty, like subsidiary penalty, does no
determine the jurisdiction of the court, beca
not' modify or alter the nature o€ the penalty
hy the law. What determines jurisdiction in
cases is the extent of the principal penalty w
law imposes for the crime charged in the info
complaint.
708. X was prosecuted for illegal possession of a fire
Upon a plea of guilty, X was sentenced to
indeterminate penalty of not less than one ye
maximum term. The fiscal presented no ev'
cause X pleaded guilty. Can the court leg
the confiscation and forfeiture of the firea
possessed by X? Explain your answer.
If the firearm was in the possession of
tion, it being a party in the criminal case,
legally order the confiscation and forfeiture of the fire-"::
arm. In the case of U S . vs. Filart, et al., 30 'Phil. '80, :;
it was held that when the automobile which was the ob-:
iect of the lottery and the money which 'was obtained"
from the sale of the tickets were not in the possession
of any party to the action, the court cannot legally order
their confiscation. In this case, it is assumed that the
firearm was in the possession of the prosecution, one;<.
of the parties in the criminal case. lj ~.
273

,
.",
,, ,
" , CRIMINAL :LAW REVIEWER.
r
en'may the property used in the c
d not snhject to confiscation and fo
'Property of a third person not liable f
ot subject to confiscation and Sorfeiture.
Thus, the money 'of an innocent third person used
. ,"bv
.~. . . ~ " the accused in bribing a public officer should be re-
~~ ~
', :'~.:turned t:o the owner thereof.
. ''
ii' i
710. 'In , what crimes is death imposed as the maximum of
.: -. the penalty? What is the justification for the death
penalty?
. . I n the following crimes : (1) treason, ( 2 ) correspond-
ence wit.h hostile country when it contains notice or in-
. formation useful to the.enemy and the intention of the
...... , "offender .is to aid the enemy, ( 3 ) in certain acts Of
. .
, .
espioiiage under Commonwealth Act No. 616, ( 4 ) certain
.. . . violations o l the Anti-Subversion Act ,( 5 ) qualified piracy,
. . ~.(6) parricide, (7) murder, ( 8 ) kidnapping and serious
.illegal detention, (9) robbery with homicide, and (10) rape
with hoimicide.
Tho justification for the death penalty is social de-
! ' fense and exemplarity. A convict, because of the nature
o€ the crime he committed, may prove himself to be a
dangerous enemy of society. The death penalty imposed
on him is a warning to others.
711. In what'eases shall the death penalty not he imposed?
Car? the court refuse to impose the death penalty, even
if the t:ircumstar.ces of the case justify the imposition
.. . of that uenalty? Explain your answer.
. The death penalty shall not be imposed in the (follow-
1
I _
ing cases: (1) When the guilty person be more than
seventy years of age; ( 2 ) when upon appeal or revision
of the case by the Supreme Court, eight justices are not
unanimous in their voting as to the propriety of the
imposition .of the death penalty.
The court cannot refuse to impose the death penalty.
,
...
. ~ . . ,because +he Revised Penal Code provides that "the death
3 penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be
j. .i
214
;,,;,,. ~ , . .,. ~ ,.,,"
. ., .. .
CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
imposed under existing laws" and, a!3 stated by t h e %
Court, 'ks long as the death penalty rem2ins in the
books, it is the duty of the judicial officers to
and apply the law regardles$ of their prjvate
712. What is the purpose of the review by the Supreme Court- ,,,
of a case in which capital punishment has been imposed
by the sentence of the trial court?
The requirement has for its object simply and solely
the protection of the accused. He is entitled under the ' :
law to have the sentence and all the facts and circum- '
stances upon which it is founded placed before the highest
tribunal to the end that its justice and legality may be . .
clearly and conclusiveIy determined. Such procedure is. ";
merciful. It gives a second chance for life. . ,',
.
, :.
. i
713. What is a complex crime and what is the penalty there-
for?
A complex crime is one where a single act constitutes
:I two or more grave or less grave
ofsense is a necessary means f o r
Thc penalty for the more or most, serious crime
be imposed, the same t o be applied
714. What are the requisites of the
crime?
They are:
1. Only oue act must be performed by the" offend
2 . The felonies produced by the single ac
or less ginve felonies.
715. Ls the penalty for the complex
defendant?
Ordinarily, the peualty for the complex crime is fay
able t o the defendant, because instead .of sufferi
or more penalties he shall be sentenced to one
only. But if the graver offense earties .with it t
alty of death as the maximum, it may be said t o
favorable to him.
275
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .
CRIMINAL LAW REYIIEWER
'. 716. What is the reason fpr the benevolent spirit of Art.
,
It cannot be a complex crime of the second .form,-,
. . 48 of the Revised Penal Code? because one offense is not necessary means for. commit;
When two or more crimes are the result of a single ting the other. ..
; , ' ~ 'act, tho offender is deemed less perverse than when he
. ., commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts. 719. A driver of a bus with 35 passengers drove it in a reck-
.:'. ,. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently less and imprudent manner. The bus fell into a ravine:,
. ..~<~+<,&~,..
~ ~ 1 . ; . from each other, he must suffer the maximum of tXe
:, Five passengers were killed and the rest of the pas: .,
+$*$;.penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that s e w e r s mere slightly injured. Elow many crimes were.,
.i.r ,= -.it ' is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties committed by the driver of the bus? Explain your:
' ., ,, '. . for each offense (People vs. Hernandez, et al. 52 O.G. answer.
. , ? .: _.
. , 5506). Thirty-one crimes were committed, because the five
..-
L. ,717. A woman was found dead with stab wounds. The doetor
. .,'. - .who examined her dead body found that she was also
, . raped. .Later, X, who was suspected, was investigated
'~ . by; the police. X confessed to the police that he raped suffered slight physical injuries are the offended p
the woman and that he also stabbed her to eliminate a in the thirty different, separate and distinct cas
witness against him. Can X be held liable for a complex
crime of rape with homicide? Explain your answer.
Yes, X can be held liable f o r a complex crime of rape juries, cannot form a complex crime.
with homicide. It is not necessary to determine whether
!' one offense was a necessary means for committing the 720. The mayor of a town, while in the performance of
other, 01. whether the two felonies, which are both grave,
.
. . . were the result of a single act, because Art. 48 of the
Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Art. 335,as amended, plain your aaswer.
! . of the Revised Penal Code defines and penalizes a special Only one crime of direct assault was committed
complex crime of rape with homicide, when the homicide
' ' , is comm.itted by reason or on the occasion of the rape.
718. A, while cleaning his revolver with several persons around
; him, accidentally pulled the trigger. It exploded and
" ' the slug fired from the revolver hit and killed C and
. . the same slug that passed through and through the hody
, .. of C also hit and injured B, who suffered slight physical
. . injuries, a crime punishable by arrest0 menor. Did A
' ' commit a complex crime? Explain your arswer.
....: ., ., ',. , ~ No, because the crime committed as regards the in-
', jury caused to B is only a light felony and a li,ght felony Yes, because the single act of shooting B
- ,.
~@.:
F. . cannot form a complex crime of the first form;
;- .
i . ' 276 277
i
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. . I I
gun a t . As regards B, Note: This case of - P e w l e YS. Desiarta is.'lfkelg to be -,d&&
was iLttemuted h&d&e. a understood, becawe there was a s j b - a c t
punish&le by grision GOT- tkigger. The reason for the ruiiup that %e
&s of homicide as- t persona killed hy
e committed against C vma.-gmxe is that in firing a Thompson sub-machine gun t
use it is punishable by reclzlsion. kzwaal. a&uually €iring s v e r 1 ot which may he
for the complex crime of h m wB-& a&&- It is nnly be:au$ f, its &a1 mechanism that the:?
- person firing i t ha3 to m s the trigger
finger pressed 011 the trigger to make the ,gun fire con-
.and keep his

kill a certain person, placed a .!&!& tinually. ' !

der a building where the intended vic-
er persons were working. When tlie 724. A burned the house of 8 to kill the latter who was .'
building WAS & s h ! ? e d , killing twenty then inside, as in fact B war lulled as a consequence.
ly injuring thirty-one otl-er persons. Since arson ,was the means med t(P kill 'B, ' i s A liable
were committed by A? .How many for the couiplex crime of murder with arson?' Why?
imposed. Explain yonr answer. Mo. The crime is plain murdey, because there w a s .
There is only &me committed by A. Although, intent t o u and'& was psed as a means to accomulish
there were twenty murders committed for killing twenty his criminal uuruose (Art. 248, R.P.C.). ..
. . persons by means of explosion and thirty-one attempted as a means of killing a person is .a m n g
1. ~, . , murders, since they w s e & g m . y e felonies and t h e r e s u l t s
.' ~ cjrcumstance of murder and although arson also resulted
:~ of a single acL-of exploding a bomb, they constitute a it c m t be taken into a& to f s p the csmplex crime
c m m e p f murders with attemnted murdqxs, and of murder with arson (People vs. Villaroya, et-a]., 64
only oue penalty should be imyosed, that is, the O.G. 3488).
zor mnr<eFr, which is the graver offense, t& aQp.Led This is not the second form of complex crime, because
in its maximum period. There were thirty-one attempted aithough the commission of one offense (arson) was neces-
, ' murders, resulting from a single act, e a the thirty- sary to kill the victim, since the Revised Penal.Code speci-
one other persons were only s&& l injnred, because A rically defines murder as the killing of a person by means
,
had the ~TT to kill them.
,.
of fire (among other means), it should not be governed
by Art.. 48.
.' -723. A pulled the trigger of, and fired, his Thompson sub. tr,m
',,,
., ~.:
. machine gun at a group of many persons, -EW -
Note: But if there was no .intent and the purpose
house and 13 died,8s a consequence,
-1 the m. Several shots were fired and five
of A was only t o %he
the answer is either (1) lain arson or (2) a comalex crime
persons were killed. How many crimes were committed of a m i with homicide (geople YS. Paterna; US. VB. Bum?,
Explain your answer.
- --
Five crimes of de- were committed, because &
there was only one act of pulling the t a r per-
41 Phil. 418).
The reason for the first is that honiicide, which is punished
with reclusion temporal, is ahsorbed in arson which carries
r d h i t the higher penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion
formed by A, each death caused corresuonds & a tcd- pevpetua. The reason for the second is t h a t the single act
and separate shot fired by A, who 'thus made himself of hurning the house where the deceased wa3 killed produce+,
criminally liable & many offenses 2 i h s a i two crimes, arson and homicide. ,,.

't:;'from the single that produced the same (People VJ. When in the question there is no mention of intent to k W l
#;merto,
ii C.A., 46 O.G. 4642). on the part of the offender who burned the house of another,

278 279
 ..
. ,
. , ':' , ..
I,.,
' .'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,
resulting in the death of a person, use the rulings given in
the tam canes of People YE. Paterna and US. vs. Burns, and
then ,give your opinion based on either of them. r None. A &b=
In the case of U.S. vs. Burns, whieh states the better
ruling, the Supreme Court stated that while the law on arson
prescribes a Bevere penalt in view of the &K?L k d i k
which id involved in the s&ng of fire to a building, known
to be occupied at the time by human beings, it does not follow
h t IL resuitina homicide is t o he consideroh as &l.WSlt in
the clime of arson. The -f that is there a m d is
the danger to life, a t h e attendant homicide that may in fact
ensue.
727. Is there a complex erime of rolbbery with attempted
rape? Explain your answer.
is& a "'ems to c&t anst-
tempted rape, w a n &tempted Tape cannot be a meam
tncommit a robbwy. N o r can both crimes b .g the result
of o&e s w .
There is an indivisible complex m e ofrobberv a h
r m konsummated), defined and penalized in Art. 294,
par. 2, K G g d T e n a l Code (People vs. Cariega, C.A.,
54 O.G. 4307).

5. ' A was arrested for posessing a firearm without license.
During the investigation by the police, A admitted that
he came into the possession of the firearm because he
stole it from B, the person who had license t o possess
,:'it. Are there two separate crimes of theft and illegal
.possession of firearm or do they constitute a complex
.crime? Explain your answer.
Theft of firearm and the illegal possession of it are
two dislhct and separate crimes. The crime of illegal
possession of firearm is not committed by mere tra%sie%t
possessiom of the weapon. There must be intention to
use, which is not necessarily the case in every theft of
'- firearm. Moreover, the crime of illegal possession of
firearm, being punishable by a special law, is not a felony.
A complex crime of the compound type 'requires that a
single amctshould produce two or more grave or less grave
felonies. A felony is an act or omission punishable by
the Revised Penal Code.
p&.:
&'2&
.",,.~, 'IS them a complex crime of attempted rape with theft?
&&; ..'+- None. If a person, who failed t o consummate the rape
I<
. +.
~ because the woman kicked him, snatched her vanity case
%' from her hand a s she was running away,& executed two
728. Is there a complex crime of grave coercion with mur-
der? Explain your answer.
None, If a person compelled another to do something
against his will and because of the refusal of the latter,
the formcr killed him, such person executed two distinct.
acts and not only one, and one offense cannot be a ncces-
sary means to com it the other (People vs. Ang.,Cho I%:,
60 O.G. 3536). -rt"
e can compel the victim to do
thing against his will without murdering hm;:*a
can murder him without compellin,g him t o do'some
against. his will.
729. What are the requisites of the sccond form of .compl
crime?
They are:
1. That two or more crinles are committed by
same individual;
2 . That one or some of them is o r are necessary
commit the other;
3. That all the crimes are puiiished under the
statute.
730. Is it a complex crime where several crimes were 00

-acts and the attempted rape mitted tu commit another crime?

Yes, as in the case of People vs. Gallardo
C.A., 52 O.G. 3103, where the offenders had to
seventeen falsifications on seventeen money orders

281
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER , .:..
‘732. The treaJurer of a municipality m h r o p r i a t e d Weti:
.,‘<qg
at thesame time to commit estafa by presenting all of
them at the post office for cashing on only one ocoasion. anwunt of P1,COO in his official c u s t o h and then ma.&%
a l k r d o n s in his books to make it appear that, t h e
nmount of 81,000 was la.vfulIv disbwsul. & . t h e treas-
731. A, purchasing agent of a private company, bought for . , ,:.,,
the company office supplies worth E 0 0 and paid it out urer liable’ for a complex crime? Why? . .

of the PGCO he bad received from the treasurer, but No; he committed two seuarate and ri :
in the receipt issued by the store from which the office The treasure]; an accounMe Z b l-i-c .nfiirrr committed
~.,’ supplies were purchased, A erased the figure “5” and malversation f o r misappropriating the 81,000, a public
wrote in its place the figure “6” and made other altera- fund. The o-nf of his book, an official -document,
tibns to make it appear in the receipt that the price was poJ.i~ necessary m e u s to commit the crime of mal-
of the office supplies was P600, and then spent the versation, bse- h s the mmev in his n c m e s i t n
. . .difference of 8100. Did A commit a complex crime, only The t m could m&atse &or a~~v-o€the funds io
one simple crime, or two distinct and separate crimes?
Explain your answer.
Only &e-el o f s t & with abuse d . a . ? k
-
his possession w h t t h e m of falsifving a&&
ment., But since damam o r m t o _cause d m g e &
not necessary in falsification of an ojificial document, it,
m ~ seuarate crime.
a
QtIence was . -c
It cannot h e a comtllex rSime of estafa
.&. through falsi-
-733. The mayor, the treasurer of a municipality,’ and X, a
I , fication, because the dncllmPnf: was & & f%hLXms-
?I!&
private individual, signed an official payroll for 8473.70
S W t# t h e , u b s j the money to the effect that certain persons worked as laborers .in<
.. . iZlhispnsso and it would not be necessary f o r him street projects, vvhen in fact no work was done and
<.,,i ,, , ,..to falsify the document to get the difference of ?lo0 and
spend it. The falsificatiPn was wlnmfk ’ ed to c o a a l & e
those persons were not entitled to pay. The amount
corresponding to their Supposed wa,Ses were taken and
crime of estafa. Moreover, the receipt being a private misappropriated by the three offenders. How many
. . document, a complex crime a-0f h-t iaM&&on crimes were committed by them. Explain )*our answer.
is not le&ly_passihle. There is n o h complex crime
The mayor, the treasurer o f the niunicipality, and X
:
. .
m
of estafa t k l d falsificatipri of a private nt, &e-
committed t m and independent offenses of ml-
.,. .
-,’ m a the eaudulent w i n obtained, in the c o e o n of versation and falsification. They were in constliracy and
,. ’ ,,
e&fa is the v m $ . a l U d - by the tXsXbtion uf all are guilty of malversation (US. vs. Ponte. 20 Phil.
the private docnment.
. ! . ,Ah-
’.
379). The first two committed falsification of a w a n d
ey ‘are not two distinct and separate offenses, be- official document with- a ’ ‘d and, ae-
ocument is falsified to conceal the cord-ing to Viada, the private individual whod-oc with
and the falsification will be dis- them is m e f o r the same offense. skt the falsification
was not a necessary means to commif; malversation, the
if ‘the offender bad to
t o obtain theaoney,,goods or other
fm -
treasurer having had i& possession the m m mid-
appropriated (see Regis vs. People, 68 Phil. 43).
rom another person and tkx~U-
e crime would be xddp falsification 734. A was forcibly and with intimidation taken from hh
document and the will be absorbed. house by B and C, placed in a jeep, and in a secluded

253
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
place one kilometer away from his house A was shot to
death. lis this a complex crime of kidnapphg with naur-
der? Explain your answer.
No, it is plain rmvder, & a w e n&ng w d d z
d m J 3 and C showing that they had the i s t i o n .
to.deprive A of his liberty or to &eamd rwuxp f a
.e-r In this case, the forcible taking of A by B and
C was solely for the e- of Icillina him (People vs..
Camo, et al., XVII, L.J. 371; People vs. Remalante).
N o t e : When it is -that the -of the taking of the
victim was to detain him ille,?dly for any IenRth o f e
or t o obtain ransom, and later the victim was killed when
mnmm is not paid, then it i s a camolex crime of in
with m u r k (Parulan vs. Rodas, 78 !?hi]. 8.55);.
In complex crimes, whether of the first or second form.
each of the two crimes can stand by itself. It must have
all the element8 or, a t least, the elements necessary to eon-
atitutc the attempted stage, like attempted estafa, which may
be co-lcxed with falsification.
-
" 735 A shot I3 with a pistol without license. R died as a
, .. . , /result. Did A commit a complex crime of homicide through
illegal possession of firearm? Explain pour answer.
No, because the offender cQmmitted two different acts
with t w o w e criminal intents, u t , tlhL&i&
take unlawfully t h e m o f a =, and the willful viola-
tion of which penalizes the possmsioc of a I h -
' arm w i t b u t the required permit. M ,er- the b!lp
" -are not punished !g!d.fz the Same st& te. Homi-
cide is punished under the Revised Penal Code, while
illegal possesion of firearm is punished by a special law.
, I u n ' w , WLQone offense is nesessuy to
.I,
e_ommit the other, it has ben a t h a t the b crimes.
. -m punished under the Same statutwf
736. In what cases may, a person who committed multipls.
6..
<.?&~~ crimes be punished with one penalty?
3;: A person who committed multiple crimes may be pun-
gished with one aeiialtv in t h e following cases:
'XIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1. When the offender committed any of the
crjmesunder Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code;
2 . When the @ecificalk f h a penalty
for two or more offenses, such as robbery with homicide;
3. When the offender committt!d a continuing crime.
737. What is the difference between a continued or continuing.
crime and plurality of crimes?
There are two forms of plurality of crimes to be dis-
tinguished from continued or continuing crime.
The formal or ideal plurality of crimes, which covers
the two fornis of complex crime, is distinguished from
continued o r continuing crime in the sense that the of-
fender in continued or continuing crime does not perform
a single act, but a series uf acts, and each of the series
of acts is not a necessary means for committing the others.
The real or material plurality of crimes and the continued
or continuing crime are similar in that in both there is
a series of acts performed by the offender. But while in
real or material plurality, each act performed by the of-
fender constitutes a separate crime, because each act is
generated hy a criminal impulse; in continued 01- continuing
crime, the different acts constitute only one crime, be-
cause all of the acts performed arise from one criminal
resolution.
738. A, B, C and D entered a oompound where there were
six houses, each occupied by a family. When they en-
tered the compound, the culprits had the intention to ran-
sack the different houses and take personal property
therefroni which they djd after passing through the
windows. How many robberies with force upon things
were committed by A, B, C and I)? Explain your an-
swer.
They c0mmitte.d Q&L o u e x d h e q -w thiqps,
because the ssveral ads .of g- the different houses
were not uncounectsd and entirely d l from o n e a n -
other. They f&ccmponent pari$ of the general &
285
 i' 1
I CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. 742. Art. prnvides that "if the penalty prescribed for thr., .s
.. to despoil AIJ-those within the comnou&. (See People v s
felony c m n ! be liigliec than that corresponding to the
.
.. ~ u z et ai.,
, G. R. L-1746,May 23,4950.)
offense which the a c a i n t e n d e d to c<;mmit, the penalty
:,, .,. .. :
corresponding to the latter shall be imjposed in its maxi.
739. ,Suppose the six houses were standing on different lot%.
I

.' ' each lot ha.ving its own fence, and A, B, C and D en-
'
mum period." Now, suppose that A ivanted to kill B, a
;k$%l. tered each and every one of them throngh the window slranger, and upon seeing him aimed and fired his gun
,,.>;:. and took therefrom personal property, how many crimes. I
a t him, but he failed to hit him and instead he hit and
..,.: ., killed his father who was passing behind B. The penalty
_/r

j . , . were comm,itted by them? Why? 1 for parricide, the crime A actually committed, is reclusion
-.::i~ , . , There would be six different robberies with force won.
perpetua to death. The penalty for h<omicide, the cvime
.:.' ' t h i n g s , b s a i s e the six houses are e&elv distinct &
fm ~

! A intended to commit, is reclusion temporal. Which

one another and the culnrits have different criminal r a & k penaity should be imposed ?,nd in what period? Exmplain
,.:; " w a s they &d e&and m r k 2 m of the six houses your answer.
r'..
/ There was no general Dlan to e r & b z in the six
In this case, two crimes were actually committed: (1)
' . houses.'. (See People vs. Enguero, et al., 64 0. G . 8230-
parricide, of which A's father was the victim; and (2) at-
8231.)
tempted homicide, of which B was the oEfended party, :
740. A and B a common motive to run amok. They The two crimes being the result of a single act, A com-.
' . k.&d e&!n persons and seriously wounded t&&J!.Akr-
.
mitted a complex crime of parricide with attempted homi- ' ,
,:.;!:, persons. l,t appears that the killing and the i n j u r h g cide, and the penalty for the graver offense shall be im-
posed in the maxhnum.
~

of other persons were the =It of a single imDulse b

rim amok and ~.that A and B did -~
n o t & x r & i n mk m Note: A d @-a when there is >&&,e in_tha_identitv '
.~~~
'... '., ' , any particular individual. How nmny crimes were com- of the
-f
m (errov in -e) and 0;dy 0-n u-
hy the unlawfd a c t of thcqffendtr. Ezample: A, thinlr- I .,
'

mitted by A and B? why? ing that the p z - x n g in a dark alley was B, a stranger,
The ldlilof eleven persons and the injuring of twenty fired at him who was killed 8s a result. It turned out that
other pemons should be consideEd as resulting a that person was C, A's father. 8 we there. In such case,
s u e c3ninal impulse &nd constituting a sine'le offense only msr,mn was &&ed.. by t h G d the offender and.,,.i
.
..
., .
*(People vs. Emit, C 13477-R, Jan. 1956). , therefore, only 0-e. was &d. There could 4
con? lex crime when onlv one crime.is_nmdueed, because a :
.. - Qresuuposeg, the s p m r m.s.i
- ~nn of atJe&
l ~ ; .
- c & I
741. X entered a church and began firing with his .45 caliber crimes.
pistol at a crowd. Tyo persons were ki.kbmd.another Art. 49 does to izberratio ictus, because in this
seriously injured. One r m ~ t h r e bull&
e woJlLdS; t h e hypothesis there is a complex crime end Art. 48 applies. It
'other, two; and the third, one. How many crimes were does not ap@a-sol to p-aete? &&ticwm~, because in this '-
committed by X? h y p o t h x - l h e crime bef&.&e same person, whereas Art. 49
X committed tJwee crimes. Since the three victims has no application t o cases where a more serious consequence
not intended by the offender befalls the Same person (P-1.
were nptot by and the ggdldkk the three crimes 7s. Alburquerquue, 55 Phil. 150).
were not nroduced by a single act (People vs. Basarain,
.G;R. L-6690, May 24, 1956). 143. Art. 249 provides: "Any person who, not falling within
the provisions of Article 246 shall kill another without ':
the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated.,;

286
287
 ., ,,..
>+*:>?
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,z CRI&IIINAL LAW REVIEWER
p:....'in 'the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of '.,'<

.''. homicide and be punished by reclusion .temporal." Upon by one degree the penalty which under Art. -51 sl?ould b?,
. ,,.; whom is that penalty of reclusion temporal to be im- impose2 for an attempt to commit the crime of pa:ricid'e, ..x
, "posed? To what stage of execution of the crime of ~ - - homicide, it is elear that the court can mpose
rnnrder or
:'. "homicide Is that penalty applicable? .. nenaltv lower by three degrees.
a
.. , The penalty prescribed by law for the commission of Note: The rules referred to in the two prweding questions
R?8werg are true only in three crimes, namely: (1). Parri- ,"
';i
: a felony shall be imposed upon the principals in the com- &de, (2) murder, and (3) homicide.
" ,:,I,

;';
.., mission of such felony. Whenever the law prescribes a
, ,,,

penalty for a felony in general terms, it sLall be nnder-

__
The annlieation of the rules is not mandatory. Their aP&-
cation is discretionary to the court.
';', stood as applicable t o the consummated feiony (Art. 46,
.' R.P.C.). 746, What is a degree in relation to the peUdtieS Provided
by the Revised Penal Code?
;744. May the court impose a penalty lower by two degrees A degree is one unit penalty or one of the Penalties
, .
than that prescribed by law for t h e consummated felony enumerated in the graduated scales in Art. 71 Of the Re,
upon the principal in a frustrated Pelony? vised Penal Code. Thus, Scale No. 1 of said article men-
Yes. The court, in view of the facts of the ca,se, may tions the penalties in the following order:
impose upon the person wilty of the frustrated crime of 1. Death,
parricide, murder, or homicide a penalty lower by one de- 2 . Reclusion perpetua,
gree than that which should be imposed under the .pro- 3 . Reclusion temporal,
visions of Art. 50 (Art. 250, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. 4 . Prision mayor,
60 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the penalty 5. Prision correceional,
next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the 6 . Arrcsto mayor,
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal 7. Destierru,
. in a frustrated felony, and Art. 250 provides that the court 8. Arresto menor,
may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that which 9 . Public censure, . ,
..
10. Fine. .'t
should he imposed under Art. 50, it is clear that the court
can impose a penalty lower by two degrees. One of them is a degree in relation to the other. P?'%Oe;$
. ,~*.
745. May the court impose a penalty lower by three degrees
mayor is one degree lower than reclusion temporal. PvkiOrr $$
correcciod is two degrees lower than reclusion tempor
+?;
,
2
,~, .I
~
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
upon the principal in an attempted felony? 747. For what purposes are the penalties provided by the
L,
I
,
-. Yes. The court, considering the facts of the case, may Revised Penal Code lowered by one or more degrees?
'.
likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under Art. The penalties provided by the Revised Penitl Code are
51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of lowered by one or more degrees, for any of the follow-
such crimes (Art. 250, par. 2, R.P.C.). Inasmuch as Art. ing purposes :
.. 1. For graduating the penalties to be imposed upon
51 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees than that
prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or attempted
imposed upon the principal in an attempt t o commit a fdony ; d

&:.felony,
"--,
and Art. 250 provides that the court may reduce 2. For graduating the penalties to be imposed u p,. p
I accomplices or accessories (Art. 61, R.P.C.) ;
288
289
290
291
,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
to prision, mayor in its minimum and medium periods:
It is also the penalty for the accessories t o the commis-
sion of a consummated murder.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to death is; the penalty for the principals in a consummated
murder (,4rt. 46, R.P.C.).
Art. 5:1 provides that a penalty lower by two degrees
, than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principals in a n attempt to com-
mit a felony. Art. 53 provides that the penalty lower
. by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the con-
summated felony shall be imposed upon the accessories
to the commission of a consummated felony. Hence, in
both cases, the penalty is lowered by the same number
of degrees.
Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 3 provides that when the
penalty prescribed for the crime is compose? of one or
', . two indivisible penalties and the maximum period of a
divisible penalty, the penalty next lower in degree shall
be compos,cd of the medium and minimum periods of the
.' proper divisible penalty and the maximum p z i o d of that
,.immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art.
71. Applying the same rule in lowering tht penalty by
another degree, because we have to lower the penalty by
I
two degrees, we shall obtain the penalty of prision cor-
reccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
, , minimum and medium periods.
751. The crime of maltreatment of prisoners is punished by
the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision corireccional in its minimum period. A, who com-
mitted this crime, pleaded guilty when he was arraigned
before the court and proved that hem had no intention to
, ,.. . commit so grave a wrong as that eommitked, without
an aggravating circumstance attending the cammission of
the crime. What is the proper penalty t o be imposed on
. ~ A ? Explain your answer, stating the rules for graduat.
t> .ing the penalties.
..,
;:., . 293
292
. ,.,
;,.,.
~<,:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEVVER
The proper penalty to be impos,:d on A is either
tiewo in its medium and maximum pirriods or arresto
in its minimum period.
Art. 64, par. 5 , provides that when there are,.tw
more mitigating circumstances, there 1s no a
circumstance, and the penalty is divisible, the
lower in degree shall be imposed. In this ea
two mitigating circumstances, without any
circnmstance.
Art. 61 in its paragraph No. 4' provides that
penalty prescribed for the crime is composed
periods, corresponding to different divisible pe
penalty next lower in degree shall be compos
period immediately following the minimum prescri
of the two next following, which shall be taken from
penalty prescribed, if possible; otherwise, from the
immediately following in Scale No. 1 prescribed in
The penalty prescribed f o r the crime of maltre
of prisoners is composed of several periods correspondi
to difPerent divisible penalties (arresto mayor and P
correccionnl) . Since destierro is the penalty follo
arresto mayor according to Scale No. 1 prescribed in
71, the penalty next lower is either wrresto mayor minimurn'ij
or destierro in its medium and maximum periods, because :
it is impractical to require the convict to serve two penalties -$
of different nature which are not specifically imposed by. '
law.
752. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
for the erinie is composed OC three periods corresponding
to different penalties, how many periods must the pen-
alty next lower in degree have?
When. the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal
Code bas three periods corresponding to diflerent penalties,
the penalty next lower has three periods also, starting from
the period where the higher penalty ends.
753. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
for the crime has two ,periods, how many periods must
the penalty next lower in degree have?
 I C

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/Two periods also.

/
754. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
for the crime has one period only, how many periods
must the penalty next lower in degree have?
/ One period also.
What is a complex penalty? Is it the penalty for com-
plex crime? Give an example of complex penalty?
A complex penalty is a penalty prescribed by law, com-
posed of three distinct penalties, each forming a period:
the lightest of them shall be the minimum; the next, the
medium; and the most severe, the maximum period.
,. It is not the penalty f o r complex crime, because the
penalty f o r complex crime is the penalty for the graver
offense, to be imposed in the maximum period.
Example of complex penaltg: Eeclzcsion temporai to
death. The minim'Jm is reclusion tenzpord; the medium No, when the penalty for the crime is composed of two
is reclusion pepyetua (which is in-between r e o l d o n tam- indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. .
poral and death); and the maximum is death. if there is 110 mitigating and no aggravating. circumstance -I

!At. 63, R.P.C.).

/ oi
/
Note: The rules in Art. G4 a@pIy when the penalty prescribed
bv Inw for the crime is a complex penalty, composed of threo
morl? distinct penalties.
/
7jS. In what cases are mitigating alld aggravating &e&.
'
stances not considered in the imposition of penalty?
After committing robbery with homicide, A surrendered
to a and when arraigned he pleaded guilty. In the following cases:
There was no aggravating circumstance that attended 1. When the penalty is singIe and indivisible, because
the commission of the crime. . The penalty for robbery
with homicide is reelnsion perqetua to death. There
Art. 63, R.P.C., so provides. .!
2. In felonies committed through negligence, because *
being two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating Art. 365, R.P.C., so provides.
circumstance, what is the proper penalty to he imposed 3 . The penalty to be imposed upon a Mohammedan in- ,";
on A? Explain your answer.
habitant of Mindanao, because the Administrative Code h
Reclmion perpet?ra, because the penalty for the crime of Mindanao and Sulu so provides<. ,J$.'
he committed is composed of two indivisible penalties and .ii
according to Art. 63, paragraph No. 3, when the commls- 4. When the penalty is prescribed by special law,
sion of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance3 cause the provi8ions of the Revised Penal Code are
and there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser pen- applicable.
alty shall be applied. The presence of two or more mlti- 5. In deterniining the minimum term of the indete
gating circumstances without any aggravating CircUmsbnce minate penalty.
1
294 295
 I
I
/ !
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
how many pen-
alties must the court determine and what are they?
he court must determine two penalties, called the
the indeterminate
/" penalty.
0. What is the rule for determining the indeterminate pen-
alty for the crime Ounishable by the Revised Penal Code?
The indeterminate sentence shall have a maximum term
.'/
. . which shall be that which, in view of bbe attending eircum-
nces, could be properly imposed under the rules of the
evised Penal Code, and the minimum term shall be with-
in the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed
..~
. ...:,;,:., .
b y the Code for the offense.
~. 461. What is the purpose of the law in requiring that the
court should fix a minimum term?
The purpose of the law is to release the convict after
service of the minimum term, unless his conduct is
such that. he is not entitled to be released on parole; in
which case, he shall serve the full term of the sentence.
62. When the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code
for the lelony is. reclusion temporal in its full extent,
what is the maximum term ana what is the minimum
term of the indeterminate penalty, if th,ere is neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstance. Explain your
answer.
, ... The maximum term is reclusion tempord in its medium
period and the minimum term is within the range of prision
magor, without reference to the periods into which it
,. .<
may be divided.
The maximum term is the medium period of reclusion
temporal, because according to Art. 64, which applies
....- when the penalty is divisible, when there is neither miti-
,
..
gating nor aggravating circumstance, the divkible penalty
should be imposed in the medium period.
:'., ..._.... , The minimum term should not be computed from re-
elusion temporal medium bnt from reclusion temporal in
296
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
*,.
,, its full extent, it being the penalty prescribed by th4
c Code for the crime. According to the rule in paragrapli"
No. 2 of Art. 61, when the penalty prescribed for the,
crime is composed of one or more divisible penalties to
be'imposed to their full extent, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be that immediately following the divisible ,,(:
penalty or the lesser of the penalties (in case there are ;!.
more than one) in Scale No. 1 prescribed in Art. 71. The .:
penalty immediately following the divisible penalty of r e ',
clusioit temporal is prision mayor, also in its full extent.
But the court has the discretion to impose the penalty next
lower in any of its period or without regard to the periods
into which it may be divided.
Nota: Mitigating or aggravating cireumstanees are not con-
sidered in determining the minimum term of the indeterminate
penalty. It is only in fixing the maximum term that the court
will eon.;ider the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
763. The penalty for illegal possession of firearm is 1 year
to 5 ,years in case of small firearm. What is the rule
for determining the indeterminate penalty for that of-
fense?
Illegal possession nf firearms is punished by special
law. When the crime is punished by a special law, the
minimum term should not be less than the minimum pre-
scribed (1 year) and the maximum term should not be
more than the maximum prescribed (5 years). The court
may impose 1 year, as the minimum term; and 2 years,
as the maximum term.
764. If the penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for
a felony is reclusion temmporal what is the longest period
of imprisonment that the court can impose for the mini-
mum term of the indeterminate sentence? What is the
shortest period of imprisonment for the minimum term?
Explain your answers.
f Twelve years, bemuse the minimum term of the indeter-
minate penalty is the penalty next lower from the penalty
prescribed by the Code for the crime, and in this case the
penalty next lower is prision mayor, which the court can
/
297

CHIMINAL LAW REVIBWEIZ
.,?
jmpose .in ' i n y of its periods or without regard to arty
of its periods. Since the maximum duration of prision
mayor is twelve years, the court has the discretion to im-
pose twelve years, the longest period of imprisonment that
it can impose for the minimum term of the indeterminate
/'
penalty.
The shortest period of imprisonment that the court can
impose as the minimunl term of the indeterminate penalty
is six years and one day, i t being the minimum of the
minimum period of prision muyor.
765. X, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, threw a hand
- grenade at his grandfather and grandmother, because the
~
latter refused to g2ve him money. When the hand
grenade exploded, both of the grandparents were killed.
The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death.
What is the proper penalty to he imposed on X, in case
after trial he is found guilty and while in the reforma-
t o r s institution he becomes incorrigible? Explain your
answer.
X should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of
from piision mayor in any of its period or anywhere with-
in its range without reference to the periods into which
it may be divided, as the minimum term, to reclusion
temporul in its.maximum period, as the maximum term
of the indeterminate penalty.
The offender, being a minor over 15 but less than 1 6
years of age, is entitled to a privileged mitigating circum-
stance. When there is B privileged mitigating circumstance,
and this may be the only exception to the rule, the penalty
next lower should be the starting point for the determiua-
tion of the minimum term.
One degree lower from reclusion perpetua to death is
reclusion temporal. To determine what penalty should con-
stitute the minimum teim, consider the penalty next lower
from reclusion t~mporal,and this is prision mayor. After
obtaining the penalty next lower in degree for the purpose
of the minimum term, fix reclusion temporal in its proper
.,
period i n view of the attending circumstances. The crime
298
.&'
CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWER
.,,.
committed being a complex crime, reclt&on.temporal sho
be imposed in its maximum period.
Note: In the ease of People VS. Fulgeneio, G. R. No. L-KSh
November 10, 1952, the Supreme Court disregarded its nrl
in the case of People YS. Ganzalez, 73 Phil. 549, which is
better ruling. In the Fulgencia caiic, the penalty of mcZus~on
p e r p e t w to d a t h was first a.pplied in the maximum (death) ,
/
and then lowered it by one degree. The result is redugion
serpetun.
766. When the accussed is found guilty of a complex crime
under Art. 4R of the Revised Penal Code in relation to, ::
other articles of the same Code, from what'penalty must
the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence Lm ,'
computed? Illustrate.
There are two principles 011 the matter when the crime,,.,.
involved is a coniplex one. One is that the penalty im-
mediately lower is the next below the penalty set for the.:
gravest crime. The other is, the maximum peri
ing an independmt penalty, the next lower is the pe
immediately below which, by analogy, becomes also
independent penalty.
The first principle should be used, it being more favor
able to the accused.
Illusirntion: A is found guilty of discharge of
arm (Art. 254) with less serious physical injuries
265). The penalty for the graver offense (discharge
firearm) is p i s i o n correceional in its minimum and med
periods. The minimum term of the indeterminate sente
should be arrest0 mayor in its medium and maximum
riods (People vs. Caburao, C.A., ti4 O.G. 8261).
I 767. A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, committed
der, without any other mitigating circumstance or
gravating circumstance. He was found guilty
in the reformatory institution, he became in
The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in
' * mum period to death. 1s A entitled to an indet
I penalty? Explain yvur answer.
D 299
CRIMINAL LAW REVEWER

. ~. . . .. . ...-
 . . .
ClZIrMINAL LAW NEVIEWEIZ
sentenced to the penalty o f destieiro or sus-
pension. p*.
is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable
penalt:v of destierro and suspension?
Because the law applies to “a prison sentence”, and
of the law are expressly granted t o those who
are sentenced bo imprisonment exceeding one year.
the circumstances relating to the persons
participating in the commission of the crime from the
circumstances consisting in the material execution of the
act or in the means employed t o accomplish it, as t3
the extent of their effect upon the criminal liability
of the offenders.
. The former do not affect all the participants in the
commission of the crime, but only those to whom they
particularly apply, like aggravating or mitig6ting cireum-
74. Suppose, in the preceding question, A and B were h ’ ~
stances- which arise from the moral attributes of the of-
fender, or €rom his private relations with the offended
arty, or from any other personal cause; ttie latter have
/
a direct beming upon the criminal liability of all the de-
fendants who had knowledge thereof at the time of the
commission of the crime, or of their cooperation therein.
775. May treachery or nighttime aggravate the criminal liabd-
73. A, servant of C, and B, a stranger to C , were accused
of stealing the ,property of C-A as principal and B as
accomplice. The value of the stolen property is 8250.
The penalty for simple theft is prision correccional in
its minimunl and medium periods, if the value of the
property is more than 8200 but does not exceed B6,OOC.
What penalty will be the maximum term of the inde-
terminate sentence for A and for B? Explain your
answer.
For A, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty
is prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
For B, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty
’.’
. is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum ,periods.
The ‘maximum term of the indeterminate penalty when
302
-.-
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
D
the crime is punishable by the Revised Penal Code i s ~ t
pergctlty which, in view of the attending circumstafice
should he imposed according to the rules prescribed,by
A, being the servant of the offended party, is guilty
of qualified theft punishable by a penalty two degrees.
higher than the penalty for simple theft (Art. 310, R.P.C.). , J:
€3 is an accomplice in the crime of simple theft, because r<
aggravating circumstances which arise from the private ,;
relations o€ the offender with the offended party shall ;
serve to aggravate the liability of the principals, accom-
plices or accessories to whom they are attendant (Art. 62,
ar. 3, R.P.C.) , Such private rela.tion existing between
C (servant and master) is not attendant to B who
i s a stranger.
conspiracy, what would be the crime committed by B?
would he liable as principal for simple theft only,
se the relation of master and servant existing be-
C and A at the time of the commission of the
crime was not attendant to B. The rule in paragraph 3
of Art. 62, R.P.C., still applies, notwithstanding the fact ,?
that there was conspiracy between IL aud B. .~%
ity of the principal by induction who was never at the
‘scene of the commission of the crime? Explain yollr
answer.
Yes, iP the principal by induction had knowledge at
> t h e time of the commission of the crime that the principal
by direct participation committed the crime with treachery~’
or that he purposely sought nighttime to facilitate t h e
commission of the crime, because they consist in the mate-
rial execution of the act or in the means employed to.:
accomplish it.
Under Art. 62, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code;
offender is not affected by the aggravating circumsta
of nighttime unless he knew that it would be’availed
303
.u-
. .-
~- ~ ,.

, I

CRIMSNAL LAW REVIEWER

A committed theft. <>*,-
In 1951, he
.1
779.
by the other offender in accomplishing the offense (People
195.2, he was prosecuted for
vs. Villanueva, 52 O.G. 5865). an information alleging only tho commission of &&gi .s.,.a+
' /
of fakification in 1952. During the trial, A , aainit *'"-
is a habitual delinquent?
.". on cross-examination that he committed theft in I@
A habitual delinquent is one who, within a period of and estafa In 951. After trial, A was convjcte_&&
ten years from the date of hi8 release or last conviction f a l s i f i c a t i o n . d A a habitual delinquent? ', Explain your
'.
of the crime of (1) serious or (2) less serious physical answer. *;;;
.,
,~, . .I.
, , ' , injuries, (3.) robbery, (4) theft, (5) estafa, or (6) falsi- .~.I

/me
,' or ofkner.
fication, is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
' N o t e : R,Emember the six crimes specified in the, dafinitian.
Slight physical injuries is not inchtded. Homicide 1s not also
included. The stage of execution of any of those crimes need
not be consummated. The offender may he only an accomplice
or neces:;ory in any of those crimes.
NO, because when he committed the cril;l$of
*. y&ifi&&:
tion he Was not yet convicted of the crimes of thefta~andj
estafa. Moreover, since he only admitted-the co&'ssio$
' of theft and estafa on cross-exanination and. there 'gap
no allegation of habitual delinquency in the i i x f o F t i $ n l
he is not a habitual delinquent.
Note: In order that a person may he a habitual de '.''''_'+;.
. *'.:., ,. ,:!g
, ,,;<>a

it iS necessary that the second crime was committed

7. How many penalties are imposed on a habitual delin- after conviction of, or .after service of ,sentence for, t
quent? Illustrate. crime; the third crime was committed by him after 6
.. q'wo pcinalties: that is, the penalty for the crime Of of, o r a f t e r service of sentence for, the second crime,
which he is found guilty and an additional penalty for The reason for this rule is that the additional.
fixed by law for habitual delinquency are reformatory in
'' being a habitual delinquent. acter and that their agplication should he gradual, and
~&&i-~tio?t: A was previously punished for theft and can be carried out only when the second crime is'co
' , within ten years; and five years after his last re- after conviction of the first crime or after service of
lease, &- committed falsification. If after trial and with- f a r the first crime etc.
in ten years from his last conviction or release, A is found The information must allege: (1) the dates 'of th
guilty of falsification, he shall be sentenced to the follow- mission of the previous crimes: (2) the date af the la
victim or release; and (3) the dates of the other
', ing penalties : convictions o r releaser.
" . (1) p&ion coweccional and fine, for falsification The ten-year period is complted from last conviction or
(Art. 172) : and release.
,
( 2 ) prision correctional in its medium and maximum The law does not require that all the three or mom:
, periods for being a habitual delinquent for the first time victims should take place within & lperiod' of ten years.,:
the period hetween each eonvietion or release and the.:
,.. . (Art. 62, par. 5 ) . conviction should not exceed ten yevears.

..,
. In&, determining the proper period of the additional pen-
are aggravating and mitigating circumstances to be
The ten-year period is not counted in relation to the
of commission, but to the date of conviction, of subs;
crime.
considered by the court? Why? In other words, the ten-year period should be e
. Yes, hedause it would be arbitrary to apply it in any tween convictions or hetween release and convieti
tween conviction or release and commission of su
:of its periods without regard to the attending circumstances. last offense.
:.:(See
.. ' People vs. De Jesus, 63 Phil. 761.)
304 305

/ '
f
 I

,.:.w

,"
,... ..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWIER . ,.,.I. ..:..>x*
1
<'
,
L

780. In the preceding question, can A be declared a recidivis{? '' ,.?.,.>$, ~#+
. ....^I_. The medium pericd: the maximuq of the min@$.
No, because even in recidivism, the offender at the period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such m @
i$?
time O f his trial for one offense must be convicted by plus 1yr., 3 mas. & 1 0 das., as the maximum of the medmmi
; :
final judgment of another crime embraced in the same period. =;;#
title of the Code. Moreover, his previous crimes of theft ' The maximum period: the maximum of the rnedi*a
and estafa and the crime of falsification for which he was
on trial are not embraced in the same title of the Code. period plus 1 da., as the minimum; and such minimum$
Theft and estafa are embraced in the title of crimes against plus 1 yr.) 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum of the max-.y
'property, while falsification is embraced in the title of imum period. . .
crimes against public interest.
782. A minor 13 years old who acted with discernment cum-.
;&l. What is the duration of each of the three periods of mitted the crime of slight physical injuries, punishable
;.'F, prision correecional maximum to prision mayor mkimum? by arresto menor. May the court which tried him and.-./
,*ST,
Make and explain the computation. found him guilty impose a penaltY two degrees lower
,,:,~
.. %
than arresto menor? Explain your answer. ,..:.
.~
Min. - 4 Yrs., 2 mos. & 1 da. to 5 yrs., 5 mos. g,
P. 1 0 das. It is submitted that the court cannot., impose a penalty
lower than arresto menor. Art. 68 which provides for
j

. i.~ .
-
...:',,.,i;, , Med. 5 yrs., 5 mos. & I1 das. to 6 yrs., 8 nios. &.
20 das. a privileged mitigating circumstance applies only after
-
Max. 6 yrs., 8 mos. & 21 das. to 3 yrs. the minor was proceeded against under Art. 80 and while.'
in the reformatory institution such minor became incor-
I. Computation: 6 rnos. '& 1 da. to 6 yrs. is the d u r a rigible. R u t Art. C0 applies only when the minor under:
tion of pTision correecional. 6 yrs. o r 5 yrs. & 16 years of age committed a Brave or less grave felony.
-
12 mos. 6 mos. (eliminate "1 da.") = 5 rrs. Br
In this case, the minor committed only a light felony, in :
G mos: + 3 = 1 yr. & 10 mos.
-
Min. 6 mos. & 1 da. to 2 yrs. & 4 moa.
view of the penally provided for slight physical injuries.
-Med. 2 yrs., 4 mos. & 1 da. to 4 yrs. & 2 mos. 733. A minor 15 years and 6 months old committed homicide,
-Max. 4 yrs., 2 mas. & 1 da. to 6 yrs. a grave felony. If after trial, the court found him guilty
11. COVLputation: 6 Yrs. & 1 dn. to 12 yrs. is the dura- of the crime of homicide, can the court sentence him
tion of Prision mazJo?. 12 yrs. - F yrs. (eliminate in 1.he decision to be rendered in the same proceedings
"1 da.") = 6 yrs. + 3 = 2 yrs. to a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed for
Min. - 6 yrs. & 1 da. to homicide? Explain your answer.
-
Med. 8 yrs. 83 I da. to 10 JTS. No, because a minor under 16 years who is convicted
of B grave or less grave felony is entitled l o a suspensi
Max. - 10 yrs. & 1 da. to 12 yrs.
of the sentence. If he is found guilty after trial, no pen-
-
111. Computation: 8 yrs. 4 yrs. & 2 rnos. = 3 yrs. & alty is imposed as the sentence is snspended. He will be
1 0 mos. + 3 = 1 yr., 3 mas. & 10 ~ Z S .
~
committed to a rcformatory institution until he rea
The minimom period: the minimum oP the maximum the age of majority o r f o r such less period as.the court
of prision coireccional, as the minimum; and such minimum may deem proper (Art. 80, R.P.C.).
plus the quotient of 1 yr., 3 mos. & 10 das., as the maximum
'. of the minimum period. It is orJy when the minor becomes incorrigible in €h
reformatory institiition that he shall be returned to th
306
 CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWEK
court for the imposition of the proper penalty. In such
, . ,... case, the court will consider the privileged mitigating cir-
::r'
cumstance of minority and will impose the penalty one
de ree lower than ?eelusion temporal. In other 'words,
rt. 68 is not immediately applicable.
.. .. .
, T 8 4 If a minor stayed in the reformatory institution f5r 5
months and while there he became incorrigible so that
'
he .had to be returned to the court, is that minor en-
titled to be credited with one-half of the time of his
stay in the reformatory institution? Why?
.< No, because his stay in the reformatory institution is
not preventive imprisonment which is the period of deten-
tion of the accused before and/or during the trial. The
confinement of the minor in the reformatory institution
Ces place,afte? the trial.
?.;f
5 78 What is the meaning of the threefold rule?
,@ The three fold r i beans that the maximum duration
.,..., ..
, , ,
,..., .:.
of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold
the length of time corresponding to the most severc o f the
.i
, :. penalties imposed upon him.
786.- Does the threefold rule apply to, or does it regulate,
the imposition of the penalty on the offender?
,' ' No. It is error for the trial court to impose a penalty
,"'
in accordance with the threefold rule, since Art. 70 can
:y '
he taken into account, not in the imposition of the penalty,
u t only in connection with the service of the sentence
imposed (People vs. Escares, G. R. No. L-11669, Jan. 29,
1958).
N o t e : Hence, all the penalties f o r all the crimes of which th-
offender is found guilty must be imposed by the coun. Thus,
if A was convicted of 60 estafas, for eaeh.of which he was
. sentenced to one year imprisonment, the court had to impose
60 years imprisonment for all the crimes ,of which he was
convicted. It is only in the service of the penalties that-%
' ' threefold rule shall be observed. . ,
' ..
The threefold rule applies even if the several penalties am
imposed by different courts at diiferent time3, because the RuIsj
I. . ,
,'
308
CRIMINAL LAW REVIIdWEll
of Court do not permit the cliarging of more than one
in the same information.
787. X was convicted in eight estafa eases. He was sentene
in the eight eases, 83 f o l l ~ w s :(1) 6 months, (2) 2 Yqt's,
(3) 6 months, (4) 1 year, ( 5 ) 1 Year, ( 6 ) 2 y&m
(7) 2 years and ( 8 ) 5 years. Row long will the total ',;
.:
period of his imprisonment be? Why? . ,
Only 14 years, not 15 years whic
6 years multiplied by 8, because the 1
limit of iiot morc than threefoId the length ,.of,,fime
responding to the most severe of the penalties ilh
If the sum total of all the penalties impose
the most severe multiplied by 3, ail the penalti
must be served.
7R8. The fiscal filed six informatioua for theft
The amount involved in each case was P45.
for theft inrolving an amount not exceeding 85
& resto mayor. X was convicted in the six e83
regular trial and was sentenced to 2 months and
4
of arrest0 mayor in each ease. As he could not ret
the stolen properties, he was required to indemnify
.,
offended parties in the total amount of P270. . If x'
insolvent, what is the total period of imprisonment th
.he has to serve? Explain your answer.
m a s to serve ten (IO) months and twenty-four (
days of imprisonment.
Under the threefold rule; the maximum
the convict's sentence shalI not be more than
the -length of time corresponding to the most
; :' th2 penalties imposed on him, Two months an
multiplied by 3 equals 6 months and 63 days
'~ ' total of thc penalties after applying the t h
does not exceed 6 years, the subsidiary penalty- for
payment of the reparation of the damages ea
computed by dividing F270 by P2.50 a n d t h e
:p ,108days o r 3 months and 18 days. But the
i
pen& shal! not exceed one-third of the penal
909
 I

CRlI\IINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I./j,-,,
.,_,
&$;,..'. a.nd in no case shall it exceed one year. Hence, the sub- There is only one penalty for complex crime, .coutiUU
;,;!+.*,:. .sidiary penalty shall not exceed 2 months and 21 days. crime, and specific crimes, like robbery with .homicicI
.. ..
.,. . Adding 2 months and 21 days to the total of the pena1t;es kidnapping and serious illegal detention with serioua
~.,, .
'. imposed, which is 6 months and 63 days, we have 8 months sical injuries, because the greater penalty absorbs the 1
:.., , , . penalty.
and 84 days or IO months and 24 days.
Note: When the tlireefold ride is applied, hecsuse the convict

:/
l>.

has to servo several penalties, lhe basis of the subsidiary penalty
is the maximum duration of the convict's sentence, not the
total of the penalties imposed.
9. game and explain the different systems of penalty. Are
, ",
all of them applicable in this jurisdiction?
The different systems or penalty are: (1) the material
accumulation system, (2) the juridical accumulation sys-
tem, and (3) the absorption system.
They &e applicable in this jurisdiction. although the
material accumulation system is made subject to the limita-
.tion fixed by the juridical accumulation system.
Under the material accumulation system, all the pen-
alties corresponding to several crimes must be served even
if their sum total reaches beyond the natural span of hu-
man life,
Under the juridical accumulation sgstem, the service of
the several penalties imposed on one and the same culprit
'
is limited to not more than threefold 'he length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed
and in no case to exceed 40 years (par. 4 to 6, Art. 70,
R.P.C.).
Under the absorption system, the lesser penalties are
absorbed by the greater penalties.
The material accumulation system is followed in para-
g r a p h ~1, 2 and 3 of Art. 70, which provides that when
the culprit has to serve two or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the naturs of the penalties
will so permit (par. 1). The order of severity shall be
followed, .so that they may be executed successively (par. 2).
F o r the purpose o€ the successive services of sentences,
"' the respective severities of penalties are stated (par. 9).
790. What is the penalty following arrest0
order of their respective severity?
Arrest0 mens; (Art. 70).
791,. What is the penalty next lower in
mayor?
. Destiewo (Art. 71).
Note: Dcstierro mag be imposcd by the Municjgal or J
of the Peace Court (People vs. Santos).,.
The reason for the order in Art. 7-i~
the mrnnlties by degrees, the classification of
considered, n o t their respective aeveritr. Desti
mayo? must bo close to each other, because
88 correctional penalties.
It is not proper to place orresto men
and dsstiewo because awesto menor is
In Art. 70, rwresto menor is immediately below
and dsstiwvo follows awesto meno?, hecsuge in
their respective severity, w e s t 0 m6n01 is mor
destiewo.
The severity of penalty is judged not by the duratio
the penalty, but by the degree of deprivptian of liberty hv
792. A, as principal, B, as accomplice, and C, as
were convicted of B crime punishable by a
P200 to P2.000. What amount of the fine sho
posed on A, B and C? Explain your answer.
For A, the fine of from F200 to 82,000 should be
posed, because the penalty prescribed for the crime is
penalty for the principal (Art. 46, R.P.C.).
For B, a fine of from ?ZOO to F'1,500 should b
posed, because he is an accomplice and t&e penalty s
be lowered by one degree (Art. 5 2 ) and whenever
necessary to reduce the penalty of fine by

310 311
, ,
e i
 , ., , , .
1~ .: :,
..
I ;. .

xc
$~::-shonldbe reduced by one-fourth of the maximum amount
!:"-prescribed by law, without, however, changing the minimum.
I/''
/ prudence.
CRIMINAL LAW REQIEWER
The amoimt of the damage was.8200.
the law, the penalty is a fine from an amount eq
''
For c, a fine of from 8200 to P1,OOO should be im-' the ralue of the damage to three times such vah%
posed, because he is a n accessory and the penalty should What is the proper anionnt of the fine to be imposed;
be lowered by two degrees than that prescribed by law \;r
on A? Explain your answer. a:>".'

for the principal of a consummated felony (Art. 53). To
get the proper amount of the fine for the accessory, which '
is to be reduced by two degrees, we have to reduce, for
each degree, by one-fourth of the maximum amount pre-
scribed by law without, however, changing the minimum
(Art. 76, R.P.C.).
111 determining the specific amount of the fine which
should be imposed on A, B, and C, their wealth and means
o r their ability to pay should be considered. But under
no eifcumstance may the fine be less than €200. If A
is a poor man, the least amount of the fine which may
Since the offender is .a minor. I5 years and 6 mane?
old, in case he becomes incorrigible in the reformatow'
institution, the penalty to be imposed on him, should G '
one degree lower.
A fins not less than P200 and not more than P460,:
should be imposed on A, because the same rules shall'be
I observed with regard to fines that do not consist of a fixed
amount, but are made proportional (Art. 76, par. 2, R.P.C.). '
Three times P200 equals P600. One-fourth of P600 is
P160. F600 - P150 = F450. The minimum of ,?ZOO is not
changed. ?.*.

be imposed on him is P200. If B is a rich man, the big- t

gest amount of the fine which may be imposed on him 795. How about when the fine has no minimurn? I ,

i s Pi,600. In the case of C, the biggest amount of the
fine which may be imposed on him is 81,000.
, Note: The second reduction should be based on the maximum
of PZ,OOO, not on 81,600, because the law provides that in making
the reduction for each degree, the reduction is one-fourth of the
: *:
ma%imumamount pvesc*ibed by law. In the problem given, the
mtinimnm amount prescribed by law is P2,OOO.
?93.: Suppozie A, in the problem given, wmmitted the crime
1 grave felony, is accused thereof, the court after hearing,, :,!
. .. with grave abuse of confidence and that under the Ian
., punishing the crime the penalty has to be raised by one
It is discretionary to the court to impose any amount
not exceeding Ihe maximum of the fine provided by law
(Art. 6 6 ) .
796. What is the provision of the law governing the procedure
for the trial of minor delinquents?
Whenever a minor of either ,sex, under 16 years of
age at the date of the commission of a grave o r ,less
instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall su& :' ~

;,~.. degree, what amount of the fine should be imposed? Ex- peud all further proceedings and shall commit such miq
" ' plain your answer. to the custody o r care of a public. o r private, benevole
<..
ii The fine should be from P200 to 82,600, because when- or charitable institution or to the custody or care of
ever it is necessary to increase the penalty of fine by one "other responsible person subject to the visitation and su
if.'
. / .

:.,
,
or more degrees, it shall be increased, for each degree, by vision by the Commissioner of, Public Welfare, :until
one-fourkh of the maximum amount prescribed ' b y law. minor shall have reached his majority o r f o r such
without, -however, changing the minimum which, in this period as the court may deem proper.
.'' . "case, is B200 (Art. 75, R.P.C.). fj
If the minor has behaved properly and h&
I with the conditions imposed upon him during his
'94.'-A, a minor 15 years and 6 months old, was convicted 1' men$ he shall be returned to the court in order.
, ..",
of the crime of damage to property through reckless im-
p.<: same may order his final release. . ,.
,~.. ,,,
:;(.7.; I.,
~

,,,,
">:,>,,>:.'<d ,,
I ~

!
.
,,?. ,
,,
312 313
?;ryp;::: ; ; .
'
'
1 1
.., .,
,-.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I ,
. . , In case the minor fails to behave properly or to com-
, .~ ply with the regulations of the institution or with the
conditions imposed upon him when he was committed to
the care of a responsible person, or in case he should be
:~',: (.
found incorrigible, he shall be returned to the court in
.:%_ . ~
order that the same may render the judgment correspond-
ing to the crime committed by him.
(Art. 80, R.P.C.)
Note: The minor should be under 16, not only a t the time of
the commissipn of the crime, but also at the time of his trial.
Art. 80 is applicable only to grave or less grave felony.
The minor has the right to nppeal in ease he is foound
guilty. Hc has the right to bail,
797. Does the suspension of his sentence under Art, 80 of
the Revised Penal Code relieve the minor of civil liability?
No. The suspension of the sentence under Art. 80 of
the Revised Penal Code does not wipe out 'his guilt, but
merely put off the imposition of the corresponding penalty,
in order to give the delinquent minor a chance to be re-
formed. When after he has observed good conduct, the
.. criminal case is dismissed, this does not mean that he is
exonerated from the crime charged, but simply that he
will suffer no penalty. Nor does such dismissal of the
criminal case obliterate his civil liability for damages
(Magtibay vs. Tiangco, 74 Phil. 576).
, en death or serious physical injuries is or
798. May the court, in the same proceeding where the minor
''
is found guilty hut the sentence is suspended, impose his
civil liability?
No. 'The imposition of the civil liability is not fe@ble
without judgment of conviction (People vs. Bakil, et al.,
1 , C.A., 40 O.G. 102).
. . .. ~ Note: The offended party has to file B separate civil action
to recover damages from the minor or from his narents or guard-
iws,
1 ; -:799. What provision of the law is applicable when the convict
: -becomes insane after final sentence of death has been
... , pronounced?
314
CRIMINAL LAW .REVIEWER
When a convict shall become an insane o r a
after a final sentence has been pronounced, the
of said sentence shall be suspended only with reg
personal penalty (Art. 79, R.P.C.). This provision is a$
plicable to persons sentenced to the death, who becom
insane.
800. Art. 47 of the Revised Penal Code pmvide8 &at th
death penalty shall not be imposed when the guilty person-'
be more than 70 years of age. Art. 83 of t h
Code provides that the death sentence shall not
flicted upon any person over 70 pears of age,
death sentence shall be commuted t o the pen
clnsion perpetua. In what proceedings is Art. 47
plicable and when is Art. $3 applicable?
Art. 47 is applicable in judicial proceedings when
penalty of death may be, but should not be, imposed4
the judgment of conviction by the trial court. Art.
is applicable when the death sentence is t o be eze
that is, after the Supreme Court affirmed the decis
the lower court imposing the death penalty and the co
R4
f origin already designated the day f o r the execution 0
the death sentence.
8 1. I n . wha cases is the penalty of destierro imposed?
I the following cases:
F
inflict under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, R.P.
W en a person fails to give bond for good behavlo
* (Art. 4, R.P.C.).
a penalty for the concubine in the crime of co
cubina e (Art. 334, R.P.C.).
When after lowering the penalty, destierro is t
proper penalty. ..
802. A, as an act of revenge, embraced and kissed B,
young unmarried girl. Upon complaint of B, the fis
filed a criminal action against A. After trial, the eo&
convicted A of the crime he committed asainst B.
315
 I
.~ ,
,..
.. ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVVIEWER
appealed from the decision of the court. While t h e
appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, A married
B. Do you believe that the criminal liability of A is
extinguished by the marriage of A with B? Explain your
r ' answer.
No, because the crime committed by A against 3 was
oily uniust vexation (Art. 287, R.P.C.), nst acts of lascivi-
ousness, rape, seduction or abduction. It id only when the
:,-',.
-. .
.~,. crime committed is any of them that the marriage of the
si. ,
~
offender with the offendeci party shall extinguish the crim-
,.
"
.
inal action or remit the penalty already imposed on him
(Art. 344, last par., R.P.C.).
'803. What i,s prescription of crime?
8 6. The penalty for simple trespass to dwelling is arr
Prescription of crime is the forfeiture or loss of the
'~
right of the State to prosecute the crime after the lapse
.., of certain time.
804. What is prescription of penalty?
Prescription of penalty is the forfeiture or loss of the
'~ right of the government to execute the filial sentence after
the lapse of certain time.
4/05. A was arrested by a ,policeman for theft on June 28,
1958, the very day he committed the crime. In view of
.' the amount involved, the crime is punishable by arrestir
' ' menor. On August 27, 1958, an information for theft
.., ,\vas filed by the fiscal in court against A. Had the
crime prescribed before the fiscal filed the information
: in court? Explain your answer.
No, it being a light felony, because it is punishable by
: . arresto menor, the crime shall prescribe in two months
o r GO days. A month is computed as the regular 30-day
month. In the computation of the period of prescription,
the first day should be excluded and the last day included.
807. When does the periorl of prescription of crime commence':
Hence, the running of the prescriptive period should com-
mmce from the day fallowing the day on which the crime
i was commilted. The information was filed on the 59th
day.
* . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Note: June has SO
31 days. From June 28 to 30, there are 3 d
to 31, there are 31
27 days. All in all
information was fil
prescribed. But the rule id exclude the day
was committed and include tho day when the
filed in court. If June 28 i s excluded, the e
start on June 29 and it will be exactly 60 d
And if we consider that n month, is cornput
,30-day month, only
will he only 69 days.
d/
mayor and a fine not exceeding P3,000? What, is
prescriptive period of that crime?
Ten years. When the penalty fixed by law is a co":
pound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis
of the computation of the prescriptive period (Art. 90,
last paragraph). Crimes punishable by arresto m y o r
prescribe in 5 years and crimes punishable by other cor- '
rectional penalty prescribe in ten year. A fine of '81,000. ~,'
is a correctional penalty. It being the higher of the com-
pound penalty, the fine should be made the basis for classify-
inglhe crime for the purpose of determining the prescriptive
period of that crime.
Noto: The same rule shouid 5e observed in the ease af au
alternative penalty, like that one provided in- Art. 319 of the
Revised Penal Code, which is arrest0 mffor or a fine double-
the value of the property involved (People YS. Basalo). Hence,
if tho value of the property involved in thE commission of the.
crime of removing o r selling any personal property mortgaged.
hder the Chatlei Mortgage Law is PZOO, the fine doubl
/ amount is B correctional penalty, which is higher than aTTeatg..
nmyeynr.
to run?
It commences to run from the day on which the
mission of the crime is discoyered hy the (1) offe
party, (2) the authorities, or (3) their agents.
311
 I
qt+
..,, %
:,p::~.:
. ,.
,.
1 .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
';. 808; A, in connivance with the policeman of the town, com-
mitted theft in an establishnient in that town. The
policeman got a share in the hot. Nobody else knew
the coniniission of the crinie o f theft by A, but t h e
policeman. The crime committed is punishable by prision
eorreccional. After eleven years, A was prosecuted Cor
the crime he committed. Did the crime prescribe? Ex.
plain your answer.
No, because although the commission of the crime was
known to the policeman, an agent of the authorities, since
he took part in the commission of the crime and himself
criminally liable, the crime may be coiisidered as not having
., been discovered by the authorities or their agents. The
period of prescription o f the crime never ran for eleven
years. When A was prosecuted after eleven years, t h e
- . % ' . . crime did not yet prescribe.
~.
.1. ,.> Note: The fact that the offender IS unknown is immaterial,
as long ,as the commission of the crime is known to the (1) of-
fended party, (2) the authorities, or (a), their agents, in xhich
,+/ case the period of prescription of crime commences to run.
,
9. If the psriod or prescription of crime has commenced
to run, because the crinie was discovered by the offend-
ed party, or the authorities or their agents, when is it
interru,ptcd?
It is interrupted by the filing 01' the complaint or in-
€ormation.
,
810. With what authority or psblic officer must the complaint
or information be filed to interrupt the running of t h e
:~ .prescription of the crime?
The complaint or information must be filed in the
court which has jurisdiction over the offense, such that
the proceedings can terminate in the acquittal or conviction
of the accused. But there aye cases here the Supreme
Court held that the filing of the compiaint with the justice
of the peace court for crimes not triable by that court
" ''- interruptcmd the running of the period of prescription of
the wine.
,,.<,I.~
. ,
,.,,x.L', 318
,,
.;:, .,: I
CRIhllNAL LAW REVIEWER
Note: In the case of People "8. Tayc:o, 73 Phil. 609, it w ~ d
held that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office '
does not interrupt the runnirlg of the period of prescription '?
of th8 crime.
In the case of People YS. Parao, 6% Phil. 712. it v a s held
that the preliminary investigation or examination conducted by
the municipal president (now m*micipul mayor) is a judioial
function or that it partakes of the nature of x judicial proeeed-
ing. The Supreme Court said that "judicial proceedings having
been taken against the accused and his arrest having been or-
dered, vvhich was not carried into effnct, because he had ab-
sented himself from his residence, hiding in the Province of
,/ toyte, the crime has not prescribed."
8 1. A attacked and inflicted on B slight physical injuries
f on February 24, 1964. The next day, B filed a complaint
with the justice of the peace and within two months
the justice of the' peace held a preliminary investiga-
tion. As the complaint of €3 was for serious. physical,
~
injuries, after the preliminary investigation, the case .
s
was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The
fiscal filed an information for serious physical injuries
ten months after February 24, l9G.2. After trial, the
Court of First Instance found A guilty of slight physical
injuries only. Had the crime prescribed before the fiscal
filed the infomiation ten months after the commission
of the crime? Explain your answer.
Nb, because B immediately filed a complaint for serious
physical injuries with the justice of the peace court. Pre-
liminary investigation was conducted by the justice of the
peace within two months. The filing of the information i;
by the fiscal ten months after the commission of the crime' S
is of no consequence, because the period of prescription '
of the crime never ran from the time the complain was
filed with the justice of the peace. (see U.S. vs. Lozada, ' "
9 Phil. 509).
dote: The preliminary investigation conducted by the justice ' :"
/of the peace was considered "criminal proceedings" in this ease. ri
:#
. ..:,
r
On December 27, 1963, A committed simple slander.'ql
against R. The next day, B denounced the act to the&&
 I
.,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
justice of the peace who immediately conducted prc-
liminary investigation. On February 18, 1964, the com-
plaint was dismissed for lack of midence. On March
15, l!)G4, B filed a new oomplaint against A, now in
the Court of First Instance which referred the ease
to the justice' of the peace of the provincial capital
for proper preliminary investigation. Having found mer-
its in the complaint, the justice of the peace of the
provincial capital forwarded the case to the Court of
First Instance, eltarping A with grave oral defamation.
'. After trial, judgment was rendered convicting the ac-
cused of simple slander, punishable by arrest0 menor.
Did the crime prescribe? Explain your answer.
No, the prescription of the crime commenced to run
only on February IS, 19134, when the justice of the peace
dismissed Bs cornplaint. Simple slander prescribes in two
months. Only about 25 days elapsed when B filed a new
complaint in the Court of First Instame on March 15,
1964.
The running of the period of prescription of the crime
was interrupted on the day when B derounced the act to
the justice o f the peace.
813. On Angust 1, 1952, Demetria Somod-oug filed a com-
plaint in the Justice of the Peace Court, charging the
accused Juliana Uba and Calixta Uba with the crime
of serious oral defamation said to have been comitted
against her on or before July 25, 1052. Finding probable
cause, the court elevated the case to the Court of First
Instance where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corres-
ponding information. However, by mistake, Pastora
Somod-ong was designated the offended party, instead of
Demetria. Because of this, the trial court dismissed
the case. The government appealed to the Supreme
Court. On May lS, 1956, the Supreme Court affirmed
the order of dismissal, but ordered the Provincial Fiscal
to fill! a new inforniation. On June 12, 1956, the
Provincial Fiscal filed a new information. Did tho
crime prescribe? Explain your answer.
320
CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER
No. From July 25, 1952, when the crime was com-
mitted, until Augnst i, 1952, when the complaint was filed
in the Justice of the Peace Court, only seven days had
elapsed. The filing of the complaint on the latter date
suspended the running of the prescriptive period. Said
period commenced to rcn again at most frgm May 18,
1956, the date of the Supreme Court's decision, when the
proceedings may be said t o have been terminated. . From
that date until June 12, 1956, when the second information
was filed, less than a month had elapsed. Adding this
perind to the seven days which had already run, there is
only about a month, which is certainly much less than
six months prescriptive period provided for the crime of
serious oral defamation (People vs. Uba, et al., G.R. L-
/;3&, October 16, 19.59);
A committed serious physical injuries pnnishable b r
prision correcclonal and soon thereafter succeeded in
leaving for Japan where he remained for 20 years. Dur-
ing that time there was an extradition treaty between
the Philippines and Japan. Did the crime prescribe? Ex-
plain your answer.
No, the term of prescription of the crime does not run
when the offender is absent from the Philippines, and the
fact that we have an extradition treaty with the country
to which the offender fled is of no consequence.
Note: Extradition treaty is important only in prescription of
penalty, not in prescription of crime.
After the filing of the complaint or information, when
does the period of prescription of the crime commence
to run again?
When tine proceedings (1) terminate without the ac-
cused being convicted or acquitted, or (2) are unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to the accused.
NOt5:. The proceedings terminated without the accused being
convicted or acquitted, when the ease was dismis;ed upon ma-
tian of the accused, based on the failure of the prosecution
to present its evidence because its witnesses could not be 10-
eatcd, and the court dismissed the ease.
321
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
~
The proceedings are unjustifiably stopped for. any reason.
not imputable to the accused, when the trial of a criminal eaae
did n o t proceed, because the prosecution neglected to mow f o r
the trial and the case remained pending for several years.
But when the proceedings stop f o r a season imputahle to,
the accused, as in the case of Pewpie YS. Para", et ai., the period
of prescription of the crime does not commence to run azain.
816. A was convicted of a crime and FYHS sentenced to pay
a fine of P200, which he could not pay by reason of
insolvency. He had to serve the subsidiary penalty of
2 months and 20 days. While serving 1 month in prison,
he escaped and remained at large for 1 year. After
1 year, A was captured. What is involved in this case,
prescription of crime or prescription of penalty? Did
it prescribe? Explain your answers.
Prescription of penalty is involved in this case, because
A commenced to serve his sentence and, therefore, there
is a final sentence. No, it did not prescribe. The fine
of F200, having been imposed in a final sentence, is a
correctional penalty and prescribes in 10 years. Since
only one year elapsed from the time A had escaped, the
penalty did not prescribe.
The fine of E200 is a penalty imposed by a final sen-
tence. Under Art. 26, a fine of less than E200 is a light
penalty, and prescribes in one year, and if not less than
P200, as in this case, it is a correctional penalty, which
prescribes in ten years. The subsidiary penalty for non-
payment of the fine should not be considered in deter-
mining the period of prescription of the penalty of fine
(People vs. Salazar, 52 O.G. 1941; People vs. Yu Hai Q
Haya, 52 O.G. 5116).
- ,
Note: When the fine is exactly W O O , apply Art. 9 when the
issue is prescription of the crime; and Art. 26 when the issue.
is prescription of lho penalty.
817. A, a m,inor 15 years and 6 months old, committed the
crime o,f less serious physical injuries punishable by ar-
resto mayor. The information for less serious 'physical'
injuries was filed by the fiscal six years after the au-
thorities came t~ know of the commission of the crime..
322
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
A was tried and found guilty and later the
9 proper pen-
ally had to be imposed, because he became incorrigible.
He wi?s sentenced to a penalty one degree lower, which.'
is destierro. Did the crime prescribe? Why?
Yes, because the crime being punishable by awesto
mayor prescribes in five years. The information against
him was filed after six years from the discovery of the
crime. In prescription of crime, as in this case, it is the
penalty prescribed by law for the offense which must be
considered, not the penalty that may be imposed after
considering the attending circumstances.
818. A was prosecuted for theft punishable by prision correc-
cional, in view of the amount involved. I t appears that
A voluntarily surrendered to a policernan when he learned
that the court had issued a warrant for his arrest and
during the arraignment A pleaded guilty. There being
no aggmvating circumstance, the court imposed 2 months
and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving the sentence
for one month, A escaped. What is the prescriptive
period of the penalty? Why?
Five years, because the penalty imposed is urresto
mayor.
In prescription uf penalty, it is the penalty imposed
i ' by final sentence, not the penalty prescribed by law for
the offense, which should be considered in the computation
i
of the prescriptive period.
819. When does the prescription of penally commence to run?
It comrnefces t o rim from the day on which the con-
vict evaded the service of his sentence.
4
820. A was convicted of theft, and was senltenced to 4 months ..
and 1 day of arrest0 mayor. While serving sentence for
1 month, A was convicted of serious physical injuries,
i conimitted before he was convicted of theft, and was
sentenced to 1 year of prision correecional for the crime
of serious physical injuries. A did not appeal. The
penalty for serious physical injuries was to be served
323
 CIZIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER
by A after the service of the penalty for theft, While
serving the sentence for theft for 2 months, A escaped
and, was captured after 17 years. Did the penalties for
theft and serious physical injuries prescribe? Explain
your answer.
As regards the penalty for theft, there is no Guestion
that the penalty prescribed, it being only urresto mayor
which prescribes in 5 years. But the penalty of 1 year
of prision correceiona.1 did not prescribe, because when A
escaped he evaded the service of the sentence for theft,
and not the sentence for serious physical injuries which
he would serve only after service of the sentence for thelt.
I-Ience, since he did not evade the service of the sentence
for serious physical injuries, the term of the prescription
of the penalty for that crime did not commence to run.
Evasion of the service of the sentence is an essential condi-
tion for the running of the period of prescription of pen-
alties.
821. What are the causes that may interrupt the running oE
the period of prescription of penalties?
.. .._..after evading
When . ~
the service of hi3 sentence, the
I
culprit (1) gives himself upJ (2) ,d- (3) should
wn to a foreign country with which this Government has
~
I
no extradition treaty, or (4) s m o m m i t another &,e,
before the expiration of the period -fo
N0t.e: It is believed that when the crime Committed is not one
of those covered by the extradition treaty it is a3 if there i s
no extradition treaty between the Philippines and the country
t o which the offender fled.
822. A, while serving for one month his sentence of four
months and one day of imprisonmert, escaped. Four
years, eleven months and twenty-nine days from the day
he escaped, A committed rape punishchle by reclusion
temporal and remained at large for nineteen years since
he committed rape. He was captured. Can A be re-
quired t6 serve the remaining three months and one day
impri!ronrnent? Can he he prosecuted and punished for
\ rapc? Explain your answers.
324
CILli\llNAL LAW I~EYIEwEI<
Yes, A can be required to serve the remgining period
of 3 months and 1 day of his sentence of 4 months and
1 day, because although the penalty of urresto mayor (4
months and 1 day) prescriben in 5 years, yet he committed
the crime of rape before the expiration of the period of
prescription.
A can be prosecuted and punished for rape, because
rape is punishable by reclusion temporal and prescribes
in 20 Years. Since A was captured 19 years after the
commission of rape, the crime did not yet prescribe when
he was captured. If the information is €iled in court with-
in the remaining one year, the court can try and punish
A for the crime of rape.
823. What is the usual condition imposed in conditional par.
don? How long will that condition be operative?
In conditional pardon, the condition usually imposed
upon the convict is that “he shall not again violate any
of the penal’laws of the Philippines.”
The condition of the conditional pardon is limited to the
remaining period of the sentence, unless an intention to
extend i t beyond that time is manifest from the nature
of the condition or the language in which it is imposed.
Note: lllu8tmtion- A was sentenced to 12 years and 1 day
upon a plea of guilty to the charge of homicide. After serving
8 years, he W ~ Sgranted a conditional pardon, the Condition
being that he should not commit any crime in the future.
After five years from the time he was released by virtue of
the conditional pardon, he committed the crime of coercion.
Prosecuted for, he was convicted of, coercion. Can he be prose-
cuted and punished f o r violation of the conditional oardon?
No, because when he committed coercion, the condition of
the pardon was no longer operative.
But if the condition says, “that he should not commit any ’
crime as Ions ns he lives” ur somethins to that effect, then
he can be prosecuted and punished for violation of the eondi-
tional pardon, because the Condition is operative 8 s long as
he lives.
824. What is commutation of sentence? In what cases is
commutation of sentence provided by the Revised Penal
Code?
325
 .
s,, CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Commutation of sentence is a change of the decision
of the court, made by the Chief Executive, by reducing
the degree of the penalty inflicted upon-the convict, or
by decreasing We length of the inlprlsoment or the amount
of the fine.
In the following cases. the Code prcvides for com-
mutation of sentence:
1 . When the convict is over 70 years of age, the
death penalty is commuted t o life imprisonment (Art.
83. R.P.C.).
2 . When the Supreme Court fails to confirm the
death penalty imposed by the lower court. (Art. 47,
R.P.C.).
825. What is parole and how is it distinguished from eon-
ditional pardon?
Parole is a suspension of the sentence or a conditional
release of a convict who has served the minimum term
.,:-.
of the indeterminate penalty.
Conditional pardon, which may be granted at any
time after final judgment, is granted by the Chief Execu-
tive under the provisions of the Administrative Code;
parole, which may be given after the prisoner has served
the minimum penalty, is granted by the Board of Pardons
and Parole under the provisions of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. F o r violation of the conditional pardon,
the convict may be ordered re-arrested and reincar-
cerated by the Chief Executive and/or may be prosecuted
' ~ under Art. 159 of the Code; for viola,tion of the terms
'
, " of the parole, the convict cannot be prosecuted under
?p9 Art. l!59. He can be re-arrested and reincarcerated to
!g@ serve the unserved portion of his original penalty.
:I
,826. Distinguish allowance for good conduct from special time
' , ~ allowance for loyalty.
In allowance for good conduct, the prisoner does not
evade the service of his sentence; in special time allowance
:for.loyalty, the prisoner evades the service of his sen-
.tence under certain circumstances.
326
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
.
In the first, the deduction is granted in consideration
of good conduct shown by the prisoner during the service
of his sentence; in the second, the deduction is granted
because of the loyalty of the prisoner who gives himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours following the
issuance of the proclamation by the Chief Executive,
announring the passing away of the calamity or mutiny.
The deduction in allowance for good conduct is gradual
and based on each month of good behavior; that in
allowance ?or loyalby is fixed at one-fifth of the period
of his sentence. The granting of allowance for good
conduct is disc.retionary to the Director of Prisons; the
deduction in case of loyalty, wlien all requisites are
present, is a matter of right of the prisoner.
d'
27. How would you distinguish them from deduction of one-
half of the time of preventive imprisonment?
The time of preventive imprisonment, 1/2 of which
is deducted from the penalty consisting in deprivation
of liberty, is that period of detention hefore conviction
or before service of sentence and the deduction is nof
based on the good behavior or loyalty of the prisoner.
One-hrilf sf the time of preventive imprisonment is de-
ducted from the penalty, except in certain cases, re-
:'1
gard ess of the conduct of the prisoner during temporary
de ntion.
828. A was convicted of theft of jewelry which the police-
man recovered from him when he was arrested, but
which was suhsequently lost, because someone in the
office of the police stole i t from the safe. As the jew-
elry could not be returned, may the court order A to
pay the value of the jewelry?
Yes, because the rule is that a person criminally
liable for a felony is civilly liable and in crimes against
property he is responsible to the owner, either for the
payment of its value if it cannot be returned, and this
is whether the property is lost or destroyed by the act
327
 I
I I
i
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
of the malefactor himself, or that of any other person,
or is the result of whatever other cause.
829. What are the rules governing civil actions arising from
offenses?
Except as otherwise provided by law, the following
rules shall be observed:
1. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for recovery of civil liability arising from the
ofrenss charged is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action, unless the offended party expressly waives the
civil action or reserves his right to institute it separately;
2 . Criminal and civil actions arisizrg from the same
, ~
offense may be instituted separately, but after the crim-
inal action has been commenced, the civil action cannot
be ins1,ituted until final judgment has been rendered in
the criminal action;
3. After a criminal action has been commenced, no
civil action arising from the same offense can be prc-
secuted; and the same shall be suspended, in whatever
stage it may be found, until final judgment in the
criminal proceeding has been rendered;
4. Extinction of the penal action does not carry
with i t extinction of the civil, unless the extinction pro-
ceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist;
5 . A final judgment rendered in a civil &ion ab-
solving the defendant from civil liability, is no bar to
criminal action.
(Rule 107, Sec. 1, Rules of Court)
830. Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “evezy
person criminally liahle for a felony is also civilly liable.”
Does iit mean that a person must first be declared
criminally liable in a criminal prosecution before ‘ h e can
be held civilly liable? Explain your answer.
.. No, because Sec. 1, Eule 107, of tilie kules of Court,
expresslly permits the institution of a civil action to
328
CRII\IlNAL LAW REVIEWER
demand civil responsibility arising from a crime before
the criminal prosecution. e
d! 1. May the prosecution prove, over the objection of the
defense, damages resulting from the commission of the
crime, when the information does not allege them? Ex-
plain your amwer.
Yes, because every person criminally liable for a
ffrlony is also civilly liable. Allegation of damages is
ot necessary.
, 8J Suppose, the fiscal alleges in the information that as a
result of reckless driving by the one of the
passengers of his jeepney ,&€ere- ’ injuries and
damages in the amount of Pl,OOO, but fails t o allege
the damage suffered by the o v o s e prop-
erty loaded in the jeepney was 4 estruyed, can the pro.
secution prove the - d ffrrell by the other
passenger?
In criminal prosecution where the intervention of the
aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for the
prosecution, the civil liability of the accused should not
extend only in favor of the person o r persons mentioned
in the information. Unless the record shows that an
omitted party has waived the civil liability or has re-
served the right to file a separate civil action to recover
the same, it is impliedly included in the criminal action.
833. In a case of frustrated homicide, with the aggravating
circumstance of nighttime, there was no allegation in
the information and no proof off damages. May t h e
court sentence the acLvsed to indemnify the offended
party in the sum of F’2,000?
Yes, because civil liability covers not only actual or
compensatory, but also moral, exemplary or corrective
damages in criminal offenses resulting in physical in- :
juries. No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary to prove :j
moral damages, it being left to the discretion of t h e ~ r
court. ...d%?
329
 I
/ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
-8 4. In what cases may a person, who is acquitted of the
crime with which he i s charged, be held eivilly liable
for the same act?
Civil liability may still be enforced, despite the acquit-
tal or defendant in the criminal case, in the following
cases:
1 . Acquittal on the ground that the guilt of the de-
fendant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Art.
29, Civil Code):
2 . In any of the cases referred to in Arts. 32, 33 and
34 of the Civil Code. which permit a separate and inde-
pendent civil action.
3 . Where the judgment in thc criminal case does not
contain any declaration that the fact from which civil
liability may arise did not exist (Rule 107, Sec. 1, par. (d),
. Rules of Court).
4. Responsibility for fault or negligence under Art.
2176, which is entirely separate and dis%nct from the civil
liability arising from negligence under the Revised Penal
Code (Art. 2177, Civil Code);
6 , Exemption from criminal liability established in Art.
12, except pars. 4 and 7, and justification under Art. 11,
par. 4, which according to Art. 101 of the Revised Penal
Code do not include exemption from civil liability: (a) of
imbecile or insane person; (b) of minor under 9 years of
age; (c) of minor over 9 and under 15 years, unless he
acted with discernment; (d) by reason of irresistible force;
(e) by reason of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greatsr injory; and ( S ) for acting under state of necessity.
/
83 . cover
In a case where the civil action was instituted to re-
the amount misapprnpriated by the defendant en-
trusted with it, the case was dismissed, absolving the
defendant from civil liability. The judgment became final.
May lhe plaintiff file a criminal action for estafa based
on the same act of the defendant?
Yes, because Sec. 1, par. (e), Rule 107, provides that a
final judgment rendered in a civil action absolving the de-
fendant from civil liability, is no bar to a criminal action.
330
/
/ CKINIKAL LAW REVIEWEh
836. If a person charged with criminal offense is acquitted,
can the offended party institute a chi1 action hased on
the same act of the accused? Explain your answer.
Yes, because extinction of the penal action does not
I carry witii it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction
proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the
tact from which the cly&might arise did not exist.
Note: Thus, in the case of Tan vs. StandaEd Vacuum Oil Co.,
et al., 48 O.G. 2745, it apmearing that the trial court in the
criminal case stated in ita decision that “the accused cannot
in any manner he held responsible for tho fire,’) there was B
declaration that the fact from which the civil might arise
did not exist and, hence, the civil action for damages hased
on the same act of the accused cannot prosper.
In this case, while discharging gasoline at the garage of the
Rural Transit Co., the gasoline caught fire. The driver drove
the trailer t o the middle of the sl.reet and abandoned it there,
but the trailer continued mcving to the other side of the street,
eaoeing the building there to he burned. When prosecuted for
~ m o nthrough reckless imprudence. tho driver was acquitted.
1
Subsequently, a civil action was filed in court to recover dam-
ages. This civil action was dismi:;sed, because of the dedara-
tion of the court in its judgment in the criminal case that the
fact from which the civil might arise did not exist.
837. A, who is charged with estafa with abuse of confidence,
is acquitted because there is no misappropriation or con-
version of t.he jerelry which A received from the of-
fended party. May the offended ‘party bring a civil action
i against A to recover the jewelry or its value? Explain
j o u r answer.
Yes, since i t appears that -4 received the jewelry from
the offended party, the fact from which civil liability
might arise exists (De Guzman. et a]. vs. Avila, e t al., 61
O.G. 1311).
d38. May the court, acquitting the accused in a criminal case,
sentence the accused in the same proceedings to return
the property belonging to the complainant?
It depends upon whether the ljabjlify to return the ,,
property arises from contract or it arises from the proof
331 . .~
J
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
of the right of the offended party, not based on contract.
to recover his property.
Thus, if the accused who is charged with estafa appears
to have received the jewelry but the evidence shows that
he did not misappr0priat.e it, all that the court can do is
to acquit the accused, but not 60 order the return of the
jewelry, because the liability to return the jewelry arosp
from contract, not from a criminal act.
Restitution may be ordered, even if the accused was
. acquitted, when the identity of the thief was not estab-
lished, provided that the offense wus proved and it was.
’/
shown 1.Ilat the stolen jewelry belonged to, and was formerly
in the possession of, the complainant and the accused
denied having pawned it in the pawnshop from which it.
was recovered (People vs. Alejano, 54 Phil. OX’!).
839. In what eases may the civil action be tried notwith-
.standin:: the pendency of the criminal action?
In Ihe following cases:
1. In cases of independent civil actiohs (Arts. 32, 33,
& 34, new Civil Code).
.I
1,
2 . When there is prejudicial question.
3 . When the civil case is an action based o n quasi-.
delict (Arts. 2176 & 2180 of the new Civil Code).
40. A policeman was charged with the crime of violation,
of domicile in a criminal case. B, the offended party.
filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial of
the civil case be suspended until the criminal case is
decided?
No, because the civil case involves an independent civil
action, based on the violation of a fundamental right under
bhe Constitution (Aft. 32 of the new Civil Code).
41. A was accused of homicide for having killed B.
While,
the criminal case was ‘pending trial, the surviving wife.
of I1 filed a civil action for damages. Must the trial:
of :the civil action be suspended until the criminal case
. .., s .aecial?d?
’-: i
. .
. I * 332
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
No, hec.ause this is an independent civil action. The
term “physicai injuries” in Art. 33 of the new Civil Code
has been construed to mean bodily injury, not the crime
of physlcal injuries, and includes attempted, frustrated and
even consummated homicide (Carandang vs. Santiago, et
al., &.R. No. L-8233, May 25, 1955).
Note: The term “defamation” includes slander and libel. The
term “finud” ineliides estafa. Hence, civil actions based on
,’ the crimes of libel, slander and estnfs’ean proceed notwith-
1 standing tho pendency of the criminal actions therefor.
8 2. What is a prejudicial question? What are its elements?
A prejudicikl question is one based on a fact distinct
and sepamte from the crime but so intimately connected
with it that i t determines the guilt. or innocence of the ac-
cused.
Its elements are:
1. The prejudicial question must be determinative of
the case before the court.
2. Jurisdiction t o try said question must be lodged in
another tribunal.
84.3. A, who was entrusted with the Torrens title of B,
forged the sixnature of B on a siipposed deed of sale
and sold the property t o C. B filed a civil action with
the Court of First Instance of Manila against A and
i C, the latter as vendee of the property. Later, a
criminal action at the instance of B was filed in the
same court (Coart of First Instance of Manila) against
A for estafa through falsification of a public document.
A now claims that the trial of the criminal case should
be suspended and that the ciyil action sltould be. tried
first, there being a prejudicial question. Is the claim
of A tenable? Ezplain your answer.
No, because there is no prejudicial question, as both the.,
civil and the criminal cases are predicated upon t
same ground, that is, forgery; and that both the ciy
and criminal cases are lodged with the same tribunal.’
333
 I
I /
J
CKIMINAL L 4 W REVIEWER
This case does not f,t the definition of prejudic:al
question and the second element of prejudicial qnestiom
is lacking (People vs. Garde, C.A. 54 O.G. 399).
844. A, a s driver of a bus, was 'irosecuted for homicide
and damage to propert? throngh reckless iinprndencc
in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan. While the
criminal case was pendiug trial, the owner of the
damaged car filed a civil sction in the Court of First
lnstanw of Kim1 to recover damages from the owner
of the hns. Must the trhJ of the civil case be sns-
pended until the criminal ehse is decided? Explain your
answer.
No, because the civil cas,! involves an action based on
quasi-delict under Arts. 2176 and 2180 of the new Civil
Code. 'The action is entirely separate from negligence
under t.he Revised Penal Code and cannot be classified
as a civil action arising from the criminal offense. Such
civil action may proceed independently of the crj.minal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter
(Chan YS. Yatco, G.R. No. L-11163, April SO, 1958).
845. In what cases may a person be held subzidiarily liable
for wstitution, reparation or indemnification for con-
sequential damages resulting from crimes committed by
another'?
In the €allowing cases:
1. When the innkeepers, tavernkeepers or any other
persons or corporations who uwn the establishments com-
mitted R violation of municipal ordinance or some general
or special police regulation, and the person who Committed
a crime therein during such violation cannot be found or
is insolvent, the innkeepers, tavernkeepers, or the persons
or corporitions who own the establishments are civilly liable.
2. When the guests notified the innkeepers or their
representatives in advance of the deposit of their goods
within the inn and they iollowed the directions of the inn-
keepers or representatives with respect to the care of, and
,. vigilance over, such goods, the innkeepers are civilly liable
334
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
i/ r the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft with-
in the inn from guests lodging therein, or f o r the payment
of their
, , evalue.
0 . When the employers, teachers, or corporations are
engaged in ally kind of industry, and their servants, pupils,
workmen, apprentices, or employees committed felonies
while in the discharge of their duties, and the latter could
not pay the civil liability, the formzr are subsidiarily liable
therefois.
4 . Persons who acted under the compulsion of irresisti-
ble force or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear are
civilly liable, if the persons who used violence o r who
caused the feay are insolvent or cannot be found.
5. Those persons having under th-ir legal authority or
cor;trol an imbecile o r insane person or minor who com-
mitted the crime and i t appears that those persons are at
fault or negligent.
6. The persons for whose benefit the harm was pre-
P
vente are civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which
the may have received.
Y hile operating the car of a doctor, the 'driver who
was driving it in a reckless and im'prudent manner' ran
over a pedestrian who was killed as a consequence. If
the driver is convicted of homicide throngh reckless
imprudence and appears to be insolvent, may the doctor
he held subsidiarily liable for damages?
The doctor is not subsidia.rily liable for damages, be-
cause he was not engaged in industiy. "Industry" is any
department or branch of art, occupation 01- business; espe-
1
cial one which employs much labor and is distinct branch
rade. There is nothing stated in the problem that the
octor was negligent in the selection of his chauffeur.
H e x e , even nnder the Civil Code the doctor is not liable
for the damages caused by his driver.
847. A deposited his goods in an inn. A notified the inn-
keeper of such deposit and followed the instruction of
535
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the innkeeper as to the care of and vigilance over the
goods. B entered the room of A and burned the goods
of A a s an act of revenge. D was prosecuted, convicted
and sentenced to the corresponding penalty and to pay A
the value of the goods. B was insolvent.. Can the inn-
keeper be held subsidiarily liable for the value of the
goods?
No. Innkeepers are subsidiarily liable only for the
restitution or payment of the goods taken by robbery or
theft. The crime committed is arson.
848. What does civil liahility in criminal cases include?
The civil liability in criminal cases includes: (1) resti-
tution, (2) reparation of the damage caused, and (3) in-
demnification or consequential damages.
849. May thc! court order the restitution of the property
involved in a charge of estafa pending the trial of that
criminal case? Why?
No. The restitution of the property involved in a crim-
inal case may be ordered only after trial and the court is
convinced that the offended party is the owner thereof.
850. The courrt in the judgment of conviction ordered the
defendant t o pay the offended party the value of the
jewelry stolen by him, although the defendant admitted
during the trial that he had the jewelry in his pos-
session. Was the court in error? Explain your an-
swer.
Yes, because the first remedy granted by the law to
the offended party is restitution of the thing taken away
by the olfender. It is only when restitution is not possi-
ble, because the offender or his heirs cannot return it,
that reparation should be made,
S51: A sold t o B a pig whicli the former had stolen from
C. Can A gi5-e to C another pig of the same size and
weight in case the court orders the restitution? Why?
336
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
No. The law (Art. 106) says "the restitution of the
thing itself must be made whenever possible." The pur-
pose of the law is to place the offended party as much ,
as possible in the same condition as he was before the
Doffense was committed against him.
. .
852. Suppose that in the preceding problem, B, after buy-
ing the pig from A, without knowing t h a t . i t had been
stolen, slaughtered it and consumed the meat, is B
civilly liable for the value of the pig? Explain your
answer. /
No, beiause the law (Art. 105) merely provides for
the restoration of the thing by the person who acquired
it by lawful means. The reparation (Art. 106), in case
the restitution is not possible, should be made by the of-
fender, not by the person who acquired by lawful means
and consumed the thing. Indemnification (Art. 107) 'is
also to be made by the o€fender, not by the person who
acquired by law€ul means and consumed the thing.
But if B participated gratuitously in the proceeds of
the felony (Art. 111), he shall be bound to make restitu- '
tion in an amount equivalent to the extent of such par-
ticipation.
N o t e : It would seem that B n a y be held liable for the value
of the pig, if he received it gretuitousfy from A. However,
there is an opinion that the person who participated gratuitously
in the proceeds of the lelony may be held liable civilly only
when tl:e proceeds of the felony enhanced his fortune. Accord-
ing to this opinion, if that person did not sell the pig or its
meat but only ate it, he is not bound to pay for the pig.
853. If a person is unlawfully and feloniously killed, what
damages are recoverable by the heirs of the deceased
from the defendant?
In the case of People vs. Tan, CA..G.R. No. 12578-R,
Oct. 23, 1956, the Court of Appeals held that the award
o f damages to the heirs of the deceascd in the sum of
(1) P3,000 for moral damages, (2) P6,OOO for the death
of the deceased, (3) P10,OOO for the loss of the earning
capacity of the deceased, and (4) P1,000 for exemplary
,.,
337
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER C l l l h l l h A L LAW REVIEWER

I
damages made by the trial court is authorized by law,
taking into consideration the occupation, educational attain-
,merits, and age of the deceased and the ages of the orphaned
children.
4. What damages may be recovered in criminal offenses
resulting in physical injuries?
They are: (1) actual or compensatory damages, (2)
moral and exemplary or torrective damages, especially
when the clime is attended by one or more aggravating
circumstances.
Note: No proof of pecuniary loss is nceessary in order that
moral or exemplary damages may bo adjudicated, for the assess-
ment of such damages is left t o the discretion of the court. Hence,
even if there is no evidence that the offended party who suffered
multiple wounds inflicted by the accused sustained a loss amount-
ing to P2,400, that amount was not unjustly awarded to fie
offended party (People YS. Gerodias, C.A., 51 0.G 4614).
damages may be recovered by the offended party
in libel?
"_
They are: (1) genemi da?nages - those that the law
&., .
9. Piracyand m u t h y ,
857. Wh a Filipino citizen, was prosecuted for treason
dJdgedly committed during the Japanese occupation, the
eGidence of the prosecution disclosed that A wanted to
aid the Japanese army, by buying trucks and other means
f transportation to he delivered ta them, as he wanted
/"
them to win the war. Several witnesses testified to the
foregoing facts. On the basis of those facts, can the
court properly and legally cunvict A of treason? Why7
No. There are two ways of committing the crime of
treason, namely: (1) by adhering to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort; and ( 2 ) by levying war against the
Government of the Fhilippines.
A cannot be held liable €or treason by levying war against
the Government of the Philippines, because this form of..
treason requires two things, namely: I v / a d w . l a s ~ g e
of men, and (2) t h e purpose of the
a greasonabie-design byforce. Not one of these
was preserit. A cannot be held liable for

to the enemy.
actually purchased
them to the Japanese Army, there is
There must be
delivering them
They are: to the enemy to constitute the crime of treason by adher-
ing to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort. Intention
1. Treason
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.
alone is not enough.
3. Misprision of treason, Elernentr df baason:
."
1. That he offender owes allegiance to the Government of the

d
4 . Espionage, i
i Fhili ines;
5 . Inciting to war or giving motives for ieprisals, 2. Tha there is a war in which the Philippines is involved,
6 . Violation of neutrality. S. Th the offender either-
7. Correspondence with hostile country,
.,
,., . . .
I 8. Plight to enemy country, / .
a levies war against the Government, o r
A, adheres to tho enemies, giving them aid or comfort
338 339
 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
858. Assuming that a foreign country has the intention to
invade the Philippines in the near future, and a group
of Filipinos in sympathy with that country has been
' . sending financial help 'to its government, thereby giving
aid and comfort to that country, do yon believe those
Filipinos are liable for treason?
No. Although t , w s an oy&actLof.aid DL c o ~ & ~ r t
given to the foreign copntry, and because ,of their sym-
pathy to its government those Filipinos maniPested adher-
ence the~eto,they c E n n t b e held liable for reason because
the crime of treason can be com-mji@&.only in .ti=~.of
War. That treason can be committed only in time of war,
was definitely decided in the case of Laurel, vs. Misa.
859. Supposing that those Filipinos, together wit!i others, aet-
1 861. A group of Filipino citizens and some Chinese have been
ually assembled and gathered together for the purpose of
: '
overthrowing the government to pave the. way for the
enemy in, the event of invasion, would they be liable for
treason?
It is submitted that they are not liable for treason.
Even in treason by levying war against the Governnient
, . , of ,the Philippines, it is necessary that the levying of war
should take place in time of war. In the first place,
, h a s o n is a crime against the national security which
involves danger from wit&&. Hence, there must be a
wai'.
Those who would levy war against tlie Government
to overthrow it for the purpose of delivering the country
in whole or in part to the enemy are traitors and there
are no traitors until war has started.
Note: The element of treason which is not lpresent in the t w o
preceding pestions is: That there is a war in which the Philip-
pines is involved.
S60: In treason, the offender mnst be o a - l g i a n c e to the
Government. What kind of allegiance is contemplated in
' the crime of treamn?
BQth !&a1 allegiance and temporary allegiance are
:.contemplated in the crime of treason.
340
CRlWINAL LAW REVIEWER
.Although the law (Art. 114) provides that treason is ,L
committed by any person who owes allegiance t o the Gov-
I ernment of the Philippines, not being a loreigner, it is _,>
likewise committed by an alien, residing in the Philip- :$$
pines. y!hnmary allegiance is the obligation- of fidelity
andobedience which a resident alien owes to our Gov-
ernment.
Note.: Art. 114, R.P.C., as amended by Executive Order No. 44,
punishes an alien, residing in the Philippines, who commits act8
of treason.
residing in Japan for ten years. Siippose war breaks out
between tlie Phili'ppines and a foreign country a n d diiring
the existence of that war, those Filipino citizens and
Chinese nationals send financial contribution to the enemy '
country from .Japan and after the war, with the eo-
operation of the Japanese Government, our NBI agents
succeed in arresting them and later they are brought here,
can all of them be punished for treason? Explain your
answer.
No, 0-nly the Eilipino citizens can be punished for
treason. While it is true that treason can be committed
in the Philippines or elsewhere (Arts. 2 and 114), only ,
aliens. _'esiding in the Philippines can be held liable for
treason.
Note: 'The element of treason which is not present is: The
offender YY.CS allegiapkg to the Government of the Philippines.
Aliens who are not residing in the Philippines do not owe
allegiance to OUT Government.
862. During the Japanese occupation, A, a Filipin,o, was always
entertaining Japanese army officers in his house and was
I giving them parties on special occasions. A, however,
managed to avoid talking with them or with anyone else
about war and the countries at war. Was A guilty of
treasun? Why?
I No. The fact that a Filipino is friendiy with 0r-sy-g-
pathetic to the enemy is not necessarily a n act. of trea>on.
To beCtreasonous, the egtent of aid- and comfort given
4
341 ,.
. I
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
to the enemies must be to Xender assistance to them as
enemies and not..merely as individuals and, in addition,
~~
be directly in furtherance of the enemies‘ hostile designs.
Note: Thus, to give^ mpney to m enemy soldier ~s ~a ~f&ld
or o!it of charity to him so that ha may buy peraonal neces-
sities is to assist him as an individual.-.But if the money iS
given to enable him to, buy arms t o m e them in piaging war
against the giver’s country, the givci. is yuilty of treason.
In the first ewe, the element of treason by giving aid or
comfort which is not ,present is: Giving tho enemies aid or
comfort, or adhering t o the enemies, or bnth.
$3. IC during the war, a citizen made speeches critical to
his own government, or opposed its measures, or engaged
in profil.eering or headed and promoted strikes in defense
plants, thereby diminishing the strength of his own eoun-
try, is that citizen liable for treason? Why?
No, because &id or c o m w t x!!bhguJ adll:rence..ip not
treason. Thus, in the case of Cramer vs. U.S., it was said
that “a citizen may take actions that do aid and comfort
to the enemy, as making speeches critical to the govern-
ment, or opposing its measures, profiteering, staging strike8
:/
in defense plants or essential works and other things which
.: impair our cohesion and diminish our strength, but if
there is no adherence to the enemy, if there is no intent
to betray, there is no treason.”
Note: The element of treason by giving nid or comfort, which
is not present is: The offerider adheres to Lhc enemies.
86 . What the usual form of aid and comfort that constitutes
is
treason upon proof of adherence?
Furnishing the enemy with arms, supplies, troops, in-
formation, or means of transportation is the usual f o r m
of aid and comfort.
.i
i
865. During the invasion of the Philippines by the Japanese,
/
a group of Filip’ o citizens whose weapons were in-
adequate gathered together in the plaza of the town for
the purpose of a tacking the officials and policbmen in
the municipal b ilding and, if successful, to turn the
342
I :
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
*
territory over to the advancing Japanese troops. Before
they could carry out their purpose, they were surrounded
1 by the, policemen and arrested. However, the Japanese re-
lease$ them when they obtained control of the place.
Wh ’n prosecuted for treason aftcir the liberation, they. ,
l-
con ended that they could not have levied war against
the government at that time, because their weapons were
inadequate and it was impossible for them to succeed.
They further contended that assumling that they commit-
ted a crime against the national security, it was at most
*.
conspiracy to commit treason. IIow would you dispose
of these contentions if YOU were the judge trying them?
If I were the judge, I would convict them o f treason.
It is not necessary that those attempting to overthrow
the government by force of arms should have the -a
=ex, to succeed in their design in .whole or in part (U.S.
vs. Lagnason). ~ ~ ~ ~ a I . . c l a s h ~ aisf n~-ssa~rym s . in
treason by lwying war. Actual assemblage .~ of men which
is present in the case isLYicient. Moreover, their .wry
PO+. if to_Eeecute a trsscnable desip>x force.
Ole: The two requisites of treason hy levying war are present:
8 1 ) actual assemblage of men; and (2) the purpose is to
execute a treasonable design by force.
866. ,/’ hat in your opinion is the justification for punishing
, /
resident alien who commit treason against the Philip-
pines?
/ Resident aliens have the gbliaatiog of fidelity and obedi-
ecce-to our Government under which they live. While they
are here under the pro:ection o t OiiFGovernment, they
should reir-in from taking active part in any attempt to
to weaken the power of this coun-
I
or t o attack the enemy.
with treason for giving,aid and comfort
! hy assisting the soldiers in the capture of
named X. B and C are witnesses
that he saw A with a nnmber ,~
Japanse soldiers on their way to the house of X on ;.
4
343
 I
I I

'
C R I ~ I N A LLAW REVIEWER

Augost 13, 1942.' C testified that on the same day he

I CRIMINAL,,LAW -REVIEWER

a complex crime of treason with murder or serious

.
gaw A in the house of X, while A was tying the hands - 1 physical injuries? Explain your answer, giving. a n iE
of X. Can A be convicted on the basis of the testimony ! lustration.

4
of B .kd C?
0, because the two-witness rule requires t h a t there
must tie twq~xitnessesto each-part ,of the overt act.
No. In a case, the accused was a Japanese spy. He
also took part i n the execution of some of the guerilla
suspects and in the infliction of physical injuries'on the
others. In that case, it was held that murders and phwwa ' 1
Tho overt act which is the subject of the prosecution injuries were inherent
~~ .. in the crime of treason' character-
is the giving of assistance to the enemy by A, leading ized by-gNnx.&id aidcomfor t .to_thunemy. The murders
to the capture of X. One part of the overt act is A'S and physical injuries committed, although criminal .dffenses
going with the Japanese.soldiers to the house of X. The in themselves separately punished by, the Revised Penal
other part of the overt act is the tying of the hands of
X by A in the house of the former. Only B'testified
c,, are the very acts of giving. aid 'and comfort to the
In the nature of things, the giving of aid and
to the first part of the overt act of A, and only C comfort can be accomplished only by some kind of act.
testified to the second part of his overt act. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity
Note: In this jurisdiction, w e fallow the zeverely .restrictive as opposed to a mental operation (People vs. Prieto).

;c
,
. .. , rule, as .distinguished from the eommosite theory. Under the ,,. . .
'; composite theory, it is, not necessary that two witnesses testify B agreed and decided to commit treason.,: Then,
to each part of tho overt act or cireumstanoe, as long as the they proposed the commission of the crime. t o several
parts OY circumstances constitute B single, ecntinvaus, and eom- other .persons who were also deterntined lo dommit treason.
finsite overt act.
.._ Thereafter, all -of them committed treason. how many
'86 . arraignment.
Charged with treason, A was brought to th6 court for
The clerk of court read to him the in-
%

.,
,
cfimes were committed by them?
. .
Only one, and that is treason.'
' ,

TG
conspiracy to com-
*. mit treason between A and B and the proposal to commit
formation which alleged that A was a Filipino citizen
who joined the NIakapili organization which fought on the treason made by them to several persons ,are absorbed in
side of the Japanese Imperial Army against the, Philip- the crime of treason which they later committed.',
N q t e : In conspiracy to commit treason and in .proposal to
pines :inn the United States and took part in the exeeet1-
commit treason: the crime of treason $->E' be a&?&
, . tion of guerilla suspects. When asked if he was plead-
guilty or not, A ad~nitt.edall the facts allege$ in the
e ~ ~ ~ i i m i t t e d ~ p r o p to
o s acommit
l treason, the -s.al e
... - .in&! , n-ae _*Led by the person, !O-&~?LP the proposal is made.
'information but that he had to do them because he was If the p p o ~ s d . i s ~ e & s d , and t4ere is a decision t o commit
kfraid of the Japanese. Can he be convicted of treason the Arne of treason, it would he pnspiracy to commit 'treason.
. .....
on' the hasis of his said admission? Why? I
'871. How, is conspiracy to commit treason ' committed?
NO. The statement of the accused is tantamount- to Conspiracy to commit treason is committed when k o
, .
The confession mentioned in the law
p l e a d i u a g u i l t .y. .. - -. : . o r more persons come to a n agreement concerning the
meanS a 1 L E n A s i d g u i l t i ! . I of treason aud c!ed&xi to commit it. (Arts.
C&rcession and avoidance is not _a confession of guilt. and 115, R.P.C.)
Note: Had A made a confession nf guilt, that'g, he pleaded
:: guilty w&houLexplanation, A could have been lawfully ,convicted. 'i to commit treason committed?

344 ! 345
I
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Proposal to commit treason is committed when the per-
son who has decided to commit treason prcposes its execu-
tion to some other person or persons. (Arts. 8 and 116,
R.P.C.)
873. Is misprision of felony punishable?
A t common law, misprision of felony is a criminal
.
Meet either (1) to prevent a felony from being com-
mitted or (2) to bring the offender to justice a.fter its
commiz:sion.
Our penal law does not consider misprision of felony
as a crime. The only single instdnce where it is considered
a crime is in misprision of treason.
Thus, i t has been held that the failure.of 8 private
individual to report to the authorities the commission of
an offense is not a crime and the r.ere silence of one
who w h e s s e d the commission of a crime does not make
him criminally liable.
# 4. To the Governor or Fiscal of the province, or Mayor or
Note: But a publie.afficer who has th; duty to prosecute or
cause the prosecution of a law violator may be held liable for
dorelictiol of .duty under Art. 208, if he maliciously tolerates
the commission of a crime which is about to be committed or
maliciously refrains from prosecuting. 8 violator of the law.
874. Is the person gnilty of m i o n of treason only a9
accesso;ry to’ the crime of treason?
He is o n a K n i s h e d as an accessory to the crime. of
treason, but he is principal in the crime of misprision
of treason, this being a separate and indegendent crime
defined in a different article of the Revised Penal Code.
Note: It is absurd to think that a person guilty of misprision
of treason is only an accessory to the crime of treason, when
there is no treason committed. What is being committed by
other persons is onlp conspiracy to commit trcawn, and wbat
constitutes misprision of treason is the failure to make known
to the ‘proper authorities the existence of that conspiracy.
_., 875.
.,~? . A, a l?ilipino citizen, knew that B committed treason,
~.
‘ k
,
having given aid and comfort to the enemy whom he
346
,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEIt
favored emotionally and intellectually. A did not report
it to the governor or fiscal where he was residing and
9 where the act of treason was committed. Is A criminally
liable? Explain your answer.
No. In this case, there is no misprision of treason, be-
cause the crime of treason was already committed. Art.
116 sags “having knowledge of any conspiracy against”
the Government of the Philippines, which means that there
is only conspiracy to commit treason. When treason is
?ctuallg committed, m$?.csilence of one who knows of ita
commission d9e3 not make him criminally liable, either
as princigal, accomplice o r accessory.
Elements of mispvison of tmaron:
1. The offender must be owing allegiance to the Government,
and must not be a foreigner.
2. I€e has knowledge of any e_onsp>r?y (to commit treason)
against the Government.
3. H e conceals or does-not disclose and make known the same
as SO& as possible.
Fiscal of the City in which the offender resides.
*.
Thc element of misprision of treason which is not present
is: IIe has knowledge of any conspiracy against the Govern-
-/
S76. May an alien residing in the Philippines commit misprision
of treason?
merit. Why?
i
No, because the law (Art. 116) provides that the of-
fender is “not being a foreigner”.
677. A, a private individual and a IWpino citizen, knowing
that B was in conspiracy with others to commit treason
against the Government of the Philippines, during the
I time of war, harbored, concealed and later assisted in
the escape of B. Is A criminally liable?
Yes, not under Art. 19, but under Art. 116, because
r he is guilty of misprision of treason f o r not reporting
the conspiracy to the proper authority.
Note: A private individual i3 liable a s a n aeeessorg
par. 3 of Art. 19, R.P.C., for hairboring, concealing or
347
i

CRIMINAL LAW IWViBWEI:
.. . . ing in the escape of the principal, ,_.rlyif the pcin.&al
q - o f i r s a s o n (not y
c- to commit treason), parricide.
mur er or a n attempt to take the life of the .Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty. of some other crime.
/,878. What a m the e!ements of the crime of espionage, as it
is defined in the Revised Penal Code?
Elements of the ist way of committing espionage:
. _ 1. That the offender enters a warship, fort or naval:
or military establishment or reservation;
2 . That he has no authority therefor;
3 . That his purpose is t o ~ o b t ~ ~ n . i a n y ~ n ~ ~ r mplans,.
-a~on,
photographs or other data o f a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines.
Elements of the 2nd way of committing espionage:
1 . Offender is a public officer;
2 . He has in. his. &.$esssn the articles, data or in-
6rmation referred to in the first way of commit-
:"'
ting espionage, bxreason~.oChis- .a€fice;
.
He & A d h e i r contents to the rmIesenJ*bive of - 881. What are the crinles clasgified as provoking war and
a foreign nation.
879. ay espionage be committed by acts other than those
defined ass acts of espionage in the Revised Penal Code?
Explain yonr answer
Yes. Commonwealth Act No. G16 punishes as acts of
- espionage, the following :
/'r
I. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting, through gross
negligence, to be obtained information affecting national
defe e ;
. Unlawfully disclosing information affecting national
,: d ense;
3 . Disloyal acts or words in time of pcaee;
4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war;
5 . Conspiracy to violate certain sections of t h e Act;
.,.
6. Harboring or concealing violators of the Act;
~./., . '7. Destroying or injuring or attempting to injure or
:
. aestroy war'materials when the Philippines is at war;
948
I
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEIVER
#
is 8. Malting or causing war materials to be made in a
defective manner when the Philippines is at war; etc.
?
880. A foreigner was arrested by the military police in a *
base of the U.S. Army, stationed in the Philippines. He
was caught in possession of a photograph of a certain
place in the base which was off-limit to the civilians.
Which has jurisdiction over the offense of espionage com-
mitted, the Philippine Government or the United States
authorities?
Either one could try and punish the offender, because
the act of espionage committed affects the security of
both nations.
Note: If the offense is against the security of the Philippines,
even if it is committed within the base, the Philippine courts
have jurisdiction. If the offense is against the security of the *'
United States, even if it is committed outside the base by 8 .i
1 member of the.armed forces of the United States, the latter
has jurisdiction over the offense.
disloyally in case of war?
,.
They are: (1) inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals; ( 2 ) violation of neutrality, (3) correspondence
.with hostile country, and (4) flight to enemy's country.
The first two are crimes that may,provoke war. The
i last two are crimes involving disloyalty during the war.
Note: In inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals, even
mere negligent act, which is unlawful or unauthorized, is con-
templated in the definition of said crime, for the effect is the ,
same whether committed intentionally OP through negligence.
In the crime of flight to enemy's country, mere attempt
t&-o~x~.goAmemm. consummates the crime. The q3
I law doen not require that the offender should not be a foreigner.
This crime may be eqgmjt&d by a resident alien,
In the crime of cmrespondenee with hostile country, the
penalty is +-eclusioit temporal to death when the correspondence.
r contains notice or information which may be useful to the ene
and the offendw intended to aid the enemy thereby. The e
is not treason, because in corrcspondenee with hostile eaua
adherence to the enemy is not necessary.
549
i
 CRIXINAL LAW IZEYIFXER
882. A group of men in a fast motor boat intercepted a cargo
vessel in ithe waters on the seacoast of Sumatra and by
means of violence and intimidation took valuable personal
. property from the cargo vessel. They came to the Phil-
ippines in the same motor boat. If they are apprehended
' here, can they be prosecuted criminally before our court?
1 For what crime? Explain.
Yes, for piracy. It was committed on the @gh seas,
which mea.ns any waters on the seacoast which a r e with-
out the boundaries of low-water mark, alkhourh such waters
m?x.be~in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government.
Insofar as the PhTIippines is concerned, the crime was com-
mitted
-. on the high seas.
883. Suppose that in the same case they were caught in the
1 very 'placs where they had committed the forcible de.
predation, what crime was committed by them? Explain.
I n that case, the crime committed was j:obber+with
-~
violence against or intimidation of persons.
884. What is mutiny and state the venue of action in case of
/
prosecution Tor mutiny on the high seas? Explain your
answer to the second part of the question. I .
It is the raising of commotions and disturbance on
board a ship against the authority of its commander.
It being a crime against the law of nations, the crime
may be prosecuted and punished i n any country where
7 the offenders may be found.
hen is piracy or mutiny on t h e high sea^ punishable
+leath?
Whenever the pirates seized the vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same; when the pirates os mutineers &an-
doned their victims without means of saving themselves;
'
whenever the crime was accompanied. by murder,
.-
omicide, physical injuries, ox rape.
. ., . .
the State7 .
6. What are the crimes against the fundamental laws-of .
350
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
They are:
1. Arbitrary detention, /.
2 . Delay in the delivery of the person arrested to th
proper judicial authorities, ,..
3. Delaying relea,se,
4. Expulsion,
5 . Violation of domicile.
6. Search warrants ,maliciously obtained and abuse in
the service of those legally obtained,
7 . Searching domicile without witnesses, <*
8,. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peace-
ful meetings,
9 . Interruption of religious worship, and
10. Offending the religious feelings.
Note: It will be noted that with the-single exception of the
crime of offending the religious feelings in Art. 133, the of- :
fender in all the crimes against the fundamental laws of the
State is n public officer or e@oyf!!
I
I' ..,
887. What are the classes of arbitrary detention?
The classes of arbitrary detention a r e :
'/
i., ,~I. Arbitrary~detention by arresting ' and detaining a
. person without legal guounds (Art. 1 2 4 ) ;
2 . Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
proper judicial authorities; and
s:;peia,:ing release.
a Note: In these three classes of arbitrary detention the pen-
alties depend on the periods of detention: (1) if the detention
has not exceeded 3 days; (2) if the detention has continued
for more than 3 days hut not more than 15 days: (3) if the
detention has continued for inore than 15 days but pot more
than 6 mcnths; and ( 4 ) if the detention has exceeded$ months.
E l ~ ? n e ? i l sof wbitrarll dotentdon b y wresting and detmining (i
person without legal grounds:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee.
' 2 . He detains a person.
/ 3 . Without lcgal grounds.
d W h a t is the usual cause of arbitrary detention by arrest-
ing and detrinin:: a person without legal grounds?
361
I
 I
/
CRIalNAL LAW RE
/ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The usual cause of the commission of the crime is ar-
. resting a person without warrant by a public officer. A
. . . .peace officer must have a warrant of arrest properly is-
sued by the court in order to justify an arrest made by him.
f there is m - r m n t o€..arrest, the arrest of a person
889
? a public officer may constitute arbitrary detention.
In w!hat cases may a public officer who detained a person
without warrant not criminally liable for arbitrary de-
tention?
In general, when the following requisites concur: (a)
there is reasonabkground of suspicion that a person has
committed or is about to commit an offense or breach
of the peace; and (h) the public officer has a c t e d ~ ~ i n
go-od~..faith.
In particular, when the detention is a consequence Of
1
a dwful arrest without warrant in the three cases pro-
ded by the Rules of Court, namely: (1) when the person
to be arrested has copmitted, is actually committing, or
is about t o commit an offense in his presence, (2) when
an offense has in fact been committed and'he has reason-
abre ground to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed it, and ( 3 ) when the person ,to be arrested is' a
prisoner who has escaped.
890. Is actual commission of the crime by the person to be
. arrested necessary to justify his detention? Explain yuur
answer.
No, because the legality of the detention of a person
does not depend upon the actual commisSion of a crime
b;him, but upon the nature of his deed which makes the
rresting officer believe that a crime has been committed
o r is about to be committed by him ( U S . vs. Batallones).
/. Note: Even if the person arrested without warrant 09 arrest
w a , s innocent as he did not in fact commit a crime, the arrest-
ing officer i s not liable f o r arbitrary detention, if (1) there
was reason to believe that the person arrested had committed
or was about to commit a crime o r breach of the peace; and
(2) the peace' officer acted in good faith.
352
'i
8 d m u n i c i p a l treasurer of a town, having found h i ' . . .
i servant quarreling with his wife, seized him and detained:!!
him in the municipal jail. Is the mnnicipd treasurer: :
guilty of arbitrary detention or of illegal detention?, Ex-
plain your answer.
,It is_submitted that the municipal treasurer is guilty
o&n116wfnl arrest (Art. 269, R.P.C.), not arb;trary de-
tention or illegal detention,
When the w m o s e of arresting a person without au-
thority of law or reasonable ground therefor is to -d
the person arrested to the proper authority, like the jailer,
it is unlawful arrest. (See US. vs. Fontanilla.) Unlaw-
ful arrest may be committed by any person (People VS.
! Malasugui).
1 The municipal treasurer is ~ o t g- ~ l t xof arbitrary ,de-
tention, because he is not the public officer who can com-
mit the crime.
Although Art. 124 mentions public officer or employee,
without qualification, the offender @ u s t a c t in his official
c ~ z & y in detaining , a ~person^ in otder to be liable for
arbitrary detention. Only uublic o m r s w u e the
authoritr to dzt-Gn oz to order the d m ~ ofya person
can commit the crime, and the treasurer has no such
authority.
*mIikicipal tFeasurer is not guilty of illegal deten-
of thk purpose of the detention.
Note: The crimes of arbitrary detention, illegal detention, and ,
unlawful arrest are committed in the same manner; that i s : ;
the offender arrests or detains a person without legal grounq4
In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer; &i
illegal detention, the offender is a private individual; in un- .'
' lawful arrest, which is committed by any person, thk offender
has the purpcse of delivering the person arrested or detained
t o the proper authority, not necessarily judicial authority.
892. Suppose a policeman arrested a person without legal. :
gr'round and detained him in his house, not in the jail, ?;
'8 would he be liable for arbitrary detention?
It is submitted that the place of detention is immat6- ,?
B rial., The law v i d e t a i n s a person." .<.<
// 353
 # iI
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWlER
~,>:
.. .., mitted it. A warrant of arrest,is not necessary to arres@
Note: But if the poliecrnan detains a person f o r e ,
personal motive m n d s the public oosithn of the offende: a person under those circumstances, because ,the offens$$
=-commits i l G d c i e n t i o n with the aggravating. cir- was in fact committed and the peace officer had reasonable8::
.. eumst:mee of taking. s g e of his public position. around to believe that the person to be arrested committed'::
a , If the crime committed is arbitrary detention, taking ad- it (People vs. Malasugui).
vantage of public position is inherent = aggravating circnm-
Note: The element that is lacking Is: Without legal groupds;:,,
stance in the crime and does not serve to increase the penalty.
There was legal ground for arresting C. , .
, ,.i:
.,
893. A policeman, suspecting that X stole the missing jeep ,
:of M, called X to the police precinct at about 8 o'clock while on patrol duty, heard somebody'&-.,:
in the evening and was investigated then and, there. X iag, "Police! Police!" When the policeman arrived,at the:
. ' . ' , .was told to stay in the precinct until the investigation sceae he saw a priest just getting u]p and freeing hmi &&
dernninated, but allowing him to go to the near-by from the accused. The policeman did not see the attack:!
when he wanted to drink and to eat and permitting i made by the accused, but he heard the cries of the priest.
go around the premises of the police precinct. He 1 calling for help at a very short distance of forty -metem',;
:go home until the next morning., t o . his disgust
.. ..and annizyance. Was the policeman guilty of arbitrary I away. The policeman arrested the accused and detained
him in jail. Is the pdiceman who maide the arrest without :
. . detent'&? Explain your answer. . . i,
warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary detention? ' Explaii,
.
..
. tiecause no confinement and no restraint on his !
!
your answer. ; \'T% 'A I . . _ ,- ,
I

, person was made by the policeman. At most, there was No, because the arrest was lawful and the detention
only unjust vexation. of the accused was €or some legal ground. The warrant,:
.., . Note: The element of arbitrary detention by Cetaining a person
without legal ground, which is lacking, id: That the offender
i
of arrest is not necessary in this case, because the person
. , arrested had committed an offense in the presence of t h e
detains B person.
. . T b conn-, there m.%i.be confir,em*ent w..restraint
peace officer. The policeman heard the disturbance creatdd
on the person of the offended party. by the act of the accused and .proceeded a t once to the
, ., scene. Direct personal knowledge of the commission 'of
894. A, who was carrying with him a pocketbook, containing the crime may be through sense of sight or hearing.
money bills in the sum of 8230 and his identification /
card, wazi found lying on the ground with several wounds. 896. May the chief of police order the icrrest of the offender,
B asked A to name the person who had attacked him. after hearing the complainant and hi:r witnesses and being
A said t h a t C did it. Later, A died because of the wounds. satisfied that the person complained igainst committed
policeman, who had received information that C was 2
robbery? Explain your amwer. '
possession of much money, arrested the latter
searched, the pocketbook of A with his iden- ! No. What the chief of police should do is to file a
tification card was found in the pocket of C. The poke- complaint with the proper authority, such as the justice
man locked up C in jail. Is the policeman who made of the peace in the municipality or the fiscal in the prov-
the arrest without warrant of arrest liable for arbitrary ince or city. Any of these authorities will conduct pre--
, ', . detention? Explain your answer. liminary investigation and, if there is probable cause, may
.. . file the corresponding complaint o r information with t h e
ii
I
,.
.
' No, because the crime was in fact committed and the
had reasonable ground to believe that C corn:
~

. . proper court.

354 355

i
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER I

I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

This is t h e ruling in the case of Sayo vs. Chief of Police,

~

"?
8 . . He fails to deliver such person to the proper judici$&
I auihority within: v
U S . vs. Sanchez, the Supreme Court held n. six (6) hours, if detained for crimes or offenses punish-,,
complained against may be arrested. able by light penalties, or their equivalent;
. . . b. nine (9) hours, fcr erimeft or offenses punisliable by
crime of arbitrary detention limited correctional penalties, or their equivalent; o r
or employees who actually detained . C . eighteen (18) hours, f o r crimes or offenses punishabla
by capital punishment or iifflietive Qenalties, or their
ground? Explain your answer. equiva!ent.
do, because a judge of the Court of First Instance, a
justice of the peace or the jodge of a city court, or the would be the crime if a private individual detained
fiscal, before whom an arrested person is brought for another for some lezal ground and failed to deliver the
.*.
I

' ,_ investigation, may &r then-d of that person w&h- i person detained to the proper judicial authority within the
,,, o k v e r i f y i n g t h m h of the charge. In such a case, i time specified by Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code?
,, such public officer, even though he does not actually de- The private individual would be guilty of illegal de-
. , tain a person, becomes a principal by induction in&e kntion.
'. , c&oof arbitrary detention. ! Note: While the private individual may make an arrest in vim
Note: What is the liability of B private individual who effee- ! of the provisions of the Rules of Court, he must u r
,,;,:';.;
t i d y induced a policeman to detain a person without legal ! the person arre-tted to the police officer without unnoce888~p
d.-
ground and the policeman actually so detsined that person?
But the private individual who failed to do m is not liable
That private individual should be held liable for arbitrary for arbitrary detention, because only public officers may be
, 1detention, 8s principal by induct.ion. held liable for that crime.
Private individuals who conspired with public officers in
.:. I, certain policemen are guilty of arbitrary detention
detaining 900. The second element of the crime of delay in the delivery
(:People vs. Camerino, CA-G.11. No. 14207-R, Dee. 14, 1056).
of detained person to the proper judicial authority is that
the person is detained for some legal ground. What would
.$9& When may a public officer or employes who arrested be the offense if that element is Racking?
some legal ground be held liable
The offense would be arbitrary detention by arresting
and detaining a person without legal ground under Art. 124.
f& t o r l ~iw
l such person
(1) within 6 hours, if 901. A inflicted on B serious physical injuries resulting in the
punishable by light pen- latter's total blindness, punishable by prision mayor. The
,.'.:, I alt&i or their equivalent; (2) within 9 hours, if detained policeman who saw the commission of the crime arrested
for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties i and detained A. For how long a time ean the policeman
.: , . or their equivalent; or (3) within 18 hours, if detained
I ( > ..

.
(,i,,,
for crimes or offenses puuishable by capital punishment
/ t i . or afflictive penalties or their equivalent. (Art. 125, R.P.C.)
I

. . . . Elements
,. .
of arbitrary detention by delaying the daliuew of
detained peison to the pvoper judicial authorities:
1. The offender is a public officer or employe$,.
I
i
w y detain A without delivering him to the proper
judicial autkionty?
The crime being punishable by prision mayor, which,
is an afflictive penalty, the policeman can legally. detain.;
A Miithout delivering him to the proper judicial authorities 1
>I;! .I,:
lb$al
2. IIe has detained B person f o r some .. pound.,
i within 18 hours.
,- ..
356 357
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

'arrested X for theft committed within his
penalty for theft is arrest0 mayor. The
"
..
'
' policernan.detained X for 2 days, after which the chief
'
of police filed the corresponding complaint with the justice
', of the! peace court. Later, a petition for habeas corpus
was filed- in court in which X contended that he should
be released because the complaint was filed after 9 hours
and, hence, his detention was illegal. Is the contention
of X tenable? Explain your answer.
.. The -of the policeman to him to the court
within the period of 9 hours does not affect the lezality
,.
The judicial authorities are the Justices of the Supreme
Court and Court of Appeals, the Judgee of the Court of
First .[nstance, the Judge of the City Court, and the Justices
' ,
of the Peace Court, , P d & c a l or any of the other prosecut-
ing attorneys with whom the complaint may be filed isnot
a judicial authority.
The purpose of this provision is to prevent any abu,se,;
that may result from confining a person without infom~,,
ing him of his offense and without permitting him'to go
on bail.
+v- Note: Art. 126 does not apply when there is a warrant d
arrest, because his detontian is b~ virtue of ah qrder. of :the+
e&. At. 125 a d i s s - m l y when a pliblie officer akeded
or,detained a person without warrant of arrest. When a ,public,'
905. Upon order of the m
and confined in jail for direct assault at 5:OO pm.
the following morning, a co
was filed against them with the justice of
but the justice of the peace did ]not conduct
investigation, as required by
mained in jail for six days
liminary investigation. It a
the complaint, the justice of the peace advised the,
of police to release A, B, and C, hut the mayor obj
because it would be hard to locate them later
they go in biding. Is the m
tsntion? ExpIah your answer.
No. On the assumption
for some legal mound, the
them with the justice of the peace, a judicial a
the next day is a sufficient compliance with the

and C should have heen delivered t o the proper judicialT'

authority within nine hours, yet in the computati
the period for the filing of the cornplaint-which is
valent to the delivery of a detained person to the
judicial authority-the means of communication
as the hour of arrest and other ckumstances
material possibility for the fiscayto make the'i
' authority? . . y d ' f i l e in time the necessary information, mu
'
.
,__ I

358 369
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
' ' into consideration (People vs. Acosta. C.A.). The ob-
..'
jection of the mayor to the release of A, B, and C does
not make him liable criminally, because the justice of the
peace has the sole power to order the re:ease or commit-
..? ,,. ,
ment of the persons arrested, after preliminary investiga-
tion.
906 A policeman, on mere suspicion that B committed theft
, R a n d without reasonable ground thercfor, arrested the
latter and locked him up in jail, but ,5 hours later he
delivered B t o the justice of the peace, by filing a' eom-
plaint for theft. Finding that the coaplaint was not
suppoi:ted by any evidence, the justice of the peace dis-
missed the complaint. Is the policeman- liable for arbitrary
detention? Why?
The policeman is guilty of arbitrary detention by ar-
resting B without legal ground under Art. 124, because
. he arrested the person without warrant of arrest and the
arrest was made not under any of the circumstances pro-
vided by the Rules of Court, whereby an arrest . m y be
made without warrant of arrest. He arrested the person
on mere suspicion and without reasonable ground therefor.
Note: .Henee, even if the geaee officer delivered the person
(horn he had arrested to the proper ludieial authority within
the time specified in Art. 125, if the arrest WBB without legal
praund, the peace officer is liable under Art. 124.
907. The justice of the peace who dismissed a criminal case
for insufficiency of evidence told his clerk to tell the
jailer l o release the accused, unless held on other charges.
.
'
The jailer did not release the accused, because the order
was not in writing. As a consequence, the accused con-
tinued to be detained in jail until the next day when the
justice of the peace called the jailer to his office and
,
reprimanded him for disobeying his order. Is the jailer
, criminally liable? Why?
Yes, because a verbal order of release from the justice
~'. , . of the peace is sufficient. Hence, the jailer is liable for
delaying release. Since there is no malice on the part
360
CRIMINAL LAW REYIE,WEK
Of the jailer, he is liable for arbitrary detention by d 8
laying release through negligence. jq
Elements of Selaziins mleasa:
1. The offender i s a public officer or employee.
2. That there is a judicial or executive arder.for 'the r e
lease of a prisoner or detention pi-isoner, or that there i s 8
proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such p e r s m
3. The affender without good reii~onsdelay (1) the serving
of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or (2) the rperfom-
anee of such judicial or executive order for the release of tha
prisoner, or (3) the proceedings upon a petition for the release
4 of such person.
I
1
908. What are the crimes known as violation of domicile?
They are:
~l 1. Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against
the will of the owner thereof or making search without
the previous consent of the owner;
2. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in
the service of those legaily obtained; and
4i 3 . Searching domicile without witnesses.
4 A policeman, becoming angry with the owner of a house,
forcibly entered the same against the will of said owner
and attacked him inside his house. Is the policeman
liable for violation of domicile? Explain your answer.
i
No, because the policeman was n ~ t _ a c t i in
g hisqffNal
capacity- when he entered the house. The policeman should
be held .liable for physical injuries committed on the per-
son of the owner 3f the house, with the aggravating cir-,
cumstance that the crime was committed in t h e - n l g
of the offended party.
Note: It cannot be trespass to .dwelling, because when trespass
to dwelling is_.a ,direct m e a n s . . t o - ~ ~ m - ~ i t _ . . ~ ~ o ~ith ~is. _ c ~ e ,
.absorbed
... in the other crime.
Vioiation of domicile under Art. 128 i s usuallv committed
when the publie officer has eesea-ant.
910. In what cases may a public officer who 'entered the:?
domicile of an individ?tal and searched papers and other,&
"
961
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CllIDfINAL LAW REVIEWER
,... .
effects found therein, without search warrant, not be Elements of violation of domicile by enta*ing and/w aearehhgi
held c:riminally liable? the dweiling: ,

1. The: offender is e. public officer or employee;

When the owner has consented to the entry of the
..public officer to his house, or when some crime or set
of' disturbance of public order is actually being committed
in the dwelling and he enters the same to prevent the
. commission of the crime or to arrest the offender.
A public officer may lawfully .make a search without
search warrant in the house of a person, if the latter
consented to the search. 'What the law'punishes is search-
ing "papers o r other effects found therein w o h & t the
previous consent of such owner."
Nots: There is still violation of domicile even if the owner
of the house is absent when the public officer enters the same,
2. He is not authorized by judicial order;
3 . . Re performs any of the following acts:
a . Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner
i thereof; or
b. Searching papers or other effects found 'therein with-
out the prevlous consent of such owner; o r
C. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surrepti-
tiously entered said dwelling and a f t e r having hem.
,'
required to leave the same.
,'
912. In what cases may a public officer who, in making a
search, is armed with a search warrant legally procured
from the court, be held liable for violation of domicile?

y? . .
proyided that thcrf: is an i n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . o f - p ~ h-It . ~ b i ~ ~ ~ . n
b{ the owner.

policeman, without search warrant and having been

ihformt:d that B was detaining his wife in a room of
his house, and seeing that the door of B's house was not
A public officer who, in making a search, is armed
with a search warrant legally procured from the court
may be heId l i n b M i @alation of in the follow-
ing cases : +-l.)-.when he exceeds h i s authority ub-i
ing the search warrant; =hen.
S m in e s e - t h u e
,
he .us
(Art. 129?%=,.
:

" locked, entered the same at 4:OO p.m. to verify the

report. When €3 went out of his room he saw the wlice- he searches the dwelling yith-&um:tp?sses (Art. 130)..
man inside the house. Is the policeman guilty of viola. Note: The public officer who uses unnecessary severity in execut-
tion of domicile? Explain your answer.
It is submitted that the policeman is not liable for
.. violation of domi,cile, because his entry_ into the d a n g rant without iust. cause. may be held. liable
..
of B i!x only w m u t the latter's consent. If itt -w is so, because Art. 129 says, "in addition t o
/ ing to the affonder for the commission of
da timi and the door was only c&%l but not locked,
'. +?
here is no indieatian of&ik&on o n the Dart of B.
, .
. ,. Note: A policeman may enter the dwelling of another evm
without search warrant and even wainst the will of the owner,
without the previous consent of the owner of the d
,FK& the i n m f L m u b l j c _ o - r & r and public 8ecurity jus$ifies
such entry. For instance, a policeman who is arresting 8 per-
son who has committed B crime may follow him to the house
of another even against the lstters will, or when the mime
is being committed in the dwelling of another, B policeman
may enter the name even against the will of the owner to p r e
vent the consummation of the crime, OF when B public officer
enters the dwelling in order to attach the property of %e
odmi!r, which is inside the dwelling. without search w a w t and the ~

362 363
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
is committed even if the search was made in the presence
of the owner or in the presence of other persons, provided
that the owner did not give his consent to the search.
914. During the meeting in Manila of the municipal mayors
of the different municipalities in the Philippines, several
of them created a disturbance, resulting in the interrup-
tion of the meeting. Are those mayors who created
the disturbance which resulted in the interruption of the
,. . -
meetina liable for intermution of ,oezceful meetina under
Art. 131 of the Revised Penal Code?
No. The public officer or employee liable under Art.
131 of the Revised Penal Code must have the intention
to prohibit, interrupt or dissolve the peaceful meeting. It
would seem that the public officer o r employee, commit-
ting the crime under Art. 131 must be acting in their
.,.. official capacity. And even if that is not required, a
. . distinction should be made between a case where the public
officers are participants in the meeting and a, case where
they are not participants therein. In the first case, it is
disturbance of public order under Art, 153; in the second
case, it is interruption of peaceful meetkg without legal
ground under Art. 131.
Since they were participants in the meeting which was
interrupted by reason of the disturbance they created,
they are not liable under Art. 131.
915. What crime would be committed if the offenders who
dissolved or interrupted a peaceful meeting without legal
ground a private individuals who are not participants
/
in the neeting?
isturbance of public order (Art. 153).
If there is violence or intimidation, grave coercion is
committed (Art. 286).
916. When may a public officer prohibit, interrupt or dissolve
a meeting without incurring criminal liability?
When the meeting is Rot peacefuland there is a l e&
g r r for prohibicthg, dissolving or interrupting it.
364
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
917. Does a policeman or chief of police have a legal g o
for interrupting a meeting simply 1Secause the speaker
talking against his religion?
If the meeting is peaceful, the fact that the speake
! , , is talking against his religion is not a legal ground
i interrupting. such meeting. He must respect the free
If the speech is defamatory, he may later
a cdmplaint for defamation against; the speaker, but
$
o f police o r the policeman cannot legally stop t h
,'
/Of speech.
chief
moeting.
918. May a public school principal stop' the speaker 'in the
commencement exercises who delivered a campaign speech,
it being election time?
Yes. There is a legal ground f o r stopping him, b e
cause the speaker was talking about a prohibited subject . '
in view 01 the occasion.
Illustration: The municipal president bf a town stopped the
s eaker from continuing with his speech at a publie meeting,
2 ecause the speaker talked of politics contrary to the agree- '
ment. It was held tliat the munioipal president was not liable
J, , , or interruptins peaceful meeting (People vs. Yalung, C.A.).
919. hat are the crimes against' religious worship?
' They are:
I,, Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and
1 2 . Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133).
/
'$60. What would be the crime if the public officer who pre- ~Y
vented or disturbed the religious ceremony or manifesta-
6
tion of a religion used violence or threat?
It is still interruption' of religions worship, ohly that
the penalty is higher (Art. 132, 2nd par.).
d'
What crime is committed by a private individual who I'
prevented or disturbed a religous ceremony or manifests-
tion of any religi,on?
&$& G q CJwy.
If there is only a distur ance, it is st hanc of
public order under Art. 153; if prevented by violence or
365 %
I
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. intimidation, it is grave coercion and the penalty is one
degree higher (Art. 286).
922. A policeman and a private individual threw stones a t
the minister of the Iglesia Ni Cristo who was then
preaching in their chapel. What crime was committed
. .
by the policeman and what crime was committed by
private individual?
Both are liable for offending religious feelings under
Art. 133. It is not necessary that the offender is a public
officer. The act of throwing stones at the minister i s
notoriously offensive to the feeling of the members of the
Iglesia ni Cristo.
923. Suppose, that in a baptismal party where all the guests-
were Catholics, a priest who was there was slapped and
gravely slandered by a man belonging to another reli-
gion, is that man liable for offending the religious feel-
ing? Why?
No, because the acts wei'e ilot performed in (1) a
place d c z m o religjous worship or ( 2 ) during t h e ~ c d e -
bration of any religious ceremony.
N o t e : Art. 133 requires that the acts notoriously offensive te
the feelings of the faithful must be perfomled either (1) in a
- . place devoted to religious worship or ( 2 ) during the eelehratiom
of any religious ceremony.
924. A Protestant meeting was being held on the middle o f
a road. The procession of the Catholics was approaeh-
i n g that meeting when the accused, who had been speak-
ing against the Pope, shouted, "This criminal and de--
vouring beast!", referring to the Pope. Is the accused,
liable for the crime of offending the religions feelings?
Explain.
No. In that crime, the offender must act with deliberate
intent to hurt the feelings of the faithfuls. The accused
did not purposely attack the Pope and deviate from the
.
, ,. .. topic of his speech when the procession was approaching
.. the meeting place.
366
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER
I,
925. A group of persons rose puhlicly and took arms against,!
the forces of the government, resulting in the killing';
of certain policeman. Some of thoije who rose publielyj
were killed and those who were captured refused t~ give:
any statement or make any admission. Are. they liable
for rebellion? Why?
No, because the purpose of the public uprising is not
known.&hen the w u e of the public uprising and
taking arms against the forces of the government iiJm-
kq_ow_n, the offenders cannotbe held liable for rebellion.
Elenenl.8 4 j rebellion:
;/That thore bo (a); public upriaing and (b) taking a m
against the Government.
2:'The p-ssuf the uprising or movement is *c-
a . To remove from the allegiance to said Government
of its laws,
(1) the territory of the Philippines or any part there-
,of, or
( 2 ) any body of land, naval 0.c other armed forces; or
b,' 'To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly
o r partially, of any of their powers or prerogative.?.
,.-
926. , Suppose, those who were captured admitted that their
purpose was to overthrow the Philippine Government, but
5. ! they failed to accomplish their said purpose, because they
were overp3wered by the forces of the Government, what
stage of the execution of the crime of rebellion did they
reach?
The crime of rebellion is complete or consummated the
very moment a group of rebels rise publicly and take arms
against the GoxemBent, for the purpose of overthrowing
the same by force./he i&ent or mrpase of overthrow-
ing the Government is only the $ubjec&te element of the
offense and it is m i c i e n t , that such pmse_exists. It is
not necessarx that they accomulish it.
j .T??
4:-
in the case of U.S. vs. acmes, where a great
.I
'j riumber of individuals gathered at a place with the object ':
of attacking the government and of taking possession by
means of force ytown, which object .they did not aceom;%$$
5 ,,'i*./:,.!..i
i, 1
&?i.
.j, 567 .&
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
plish because they were surprised a t their headquarters
by some constabulary forces who succeeded in dispersing
them after an engagement in which some were either killed
or wounded and others were captured, i t was held that
:'
they were guilty of consummated rebellion.
927. One of the purposes of the crime defined in Art. 134
is to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, whofly
or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
What ivas the crime conimitted if the movement merely
sought to effect some change of minor importance or to
prevent: the exercise of governmental authority with re-
spect t o particular matters or subjects?
The crime committed was insurrection. The crime
committed was not rebellion, since the purpose was not
t o completely overthrow and supersede the existing gov-
ernment.
928. What is the nature of the crime of rebellion?
It i:r by nature a crime of masses, of a multitude. It
is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues
and plots. It is an uprising of large extent and long dura-
tion, directed against the government.
929. May a person who did not actually take arms against
the government, but entertaining the purpose of rebellion
and performing other overt act, be held liable f,or re-
bellion?
Yes, like the courier or, spy, provided that he is in con-
-spiracy with those engaged actually in taking arms against
the government.
Rebellion may be 'Committed by prom>ting, maintain-
ing, o r heading a rebellion. It may be committed by a
' public officer or employee who exacts contributions or
diverts public funds from the lawful purpose for which
,they have been appropriated (Art. 135). These acts do
, not involve actual public uprising and taking arms against
the government.
368
CRIMINAL LAW REV123WEII
930. The treasurer of a town voluntarily g a m to the dissidents
actually taking arms to overthrow the government all
the public funds under his custody for use in financing
the uprising. Is the treasurer gnilty of the complex
crime of rebellion with malversation, or of two distinct
crimes of rebellion and malversation? Is there any ag-
gravating circumstance present in this case?
t
There is only one crime and that is rebellion. This is
so, because while holding public office or employment, the
municipal treasurer took part in the rebellion by diverting
public funds from the lawful purpose for which they were
appropriated. The aggravating circumstance of having
taken advantage of public position cannot be considered
against him, it being the essential element of the crime
he committed.
. p e f do not constitute a complex crime, because the
act' of diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for
which they are appropriated, which may constitute mal-
versation, is one of the means of committing the crime
of rebellion by B public officer. It is the very act Of
rebellion committed by a public offtcer and, therefore,
cannot be considered as another crime to be complexed
with rebellion. For the scme reason, the act of diverting
. public funds from the lawful purpose for which they are
appropriated cannot be treated as a s p r a t e and distinct
. J
offense.
931. A , p i t K other Huks, ,.@.ked.. the..people in a b d o for
,fuodstufb, at the same time warning; them, on pain of
having their heads cut off, not to .LeprL.tlikmefmce
of Huks in those parts to the constabulary. Disregarding
the warning, B and C denounced the Hvks to t h e W
,~onstabulazy.d~t+chment with the r$lsult_that the
were ambushed by the constabulary soldiers. In r!lt&-
4
tion for what B and C had done, a group of H u h led
I
by A returned t o the barrio and apprehended B and C,
and with their hands bound A cut off their heads. Then,
A and his companions took everything they could use
from the house of B and C. Can the court convict A of
369
 I
I. 1
..
I.
CIIIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER
.. murder as a separate crime from rebellion? Can the
crime of murder committed by A be cnmplexed with
rebellion?
No. The act was perpetrated in furtherbrce of rebellion.
Since murder was committed in iurtheraiice of rebellion,
murder is not a separate offense. Any or all of the acts
described in Art. 135, when committed a: a means to or
in furtherance of the subversive ends dexribed in Art.
.. 134, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion. It can-
not be I-egarded or penalized as distinct c k n e s in them-
.. selves. In law, they are part and parcel of the rebellion
itself and cannot be considered as giving rise to a separate
. , crime that, under Art. 48 of the Code, would constitute
a complex one with that of rebellion (People vs. Togonon,
et ai.).
932. In what cases may a public officer or employee be held
liable for rebellion?
A public officer or employee may be held liable for
rebellion by doing any of the following: ( I ) engaging in
war against the forces of the government; (2) destroy-
ing property or committing serious violence; and (3) exact-
ing contributions o r diverting public funds from the law-
ful purposc for which they are appropriated (Art. 135,
R.P.C.).
Note: A public offieer or enipioyec m a y also be guilty of re-’
bellion by promoting, maintaining o r headinz a rebellion, or
by merely participating o r executing the commands of others
in the rebellion. This is so, because Art. 135 States that re-
bellion may be committed by “any person who promotes, msin-
tnins or heads a rebellion.” The same article a h says, “any
person merely particioating O P execotinp. the command of others
in a rebellion” is liable.
933. Who shnll he punished as leaders of the rebellion, if
their i&entities are not known?
. , Those who in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
.. signed receipts and other documents issued in their names,
. or performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels shall
I
.-<
370
CR131INAL LAW REVIEWER
be punished as leaders of the rebellion (Art. 135, last par..,:
’ R.P.C.).
934. May a group of alien residents in this country who rose.
publicly and took arms against the government for the
purpose of overthrowing the same be held liable f o r
rebellion? Why?
Yes, because Art. 135, which provides for the penalty
for those guilty of rebellion mentions, “Any person” with-
out qualification as to his nationality. Moreover, in the
case of U S . vs. Del Rosario, it was held that it is not
a defense in the prosecution for rebellion that the offenders
never to3k the oath of allegiance t o the government or that
they never recognized it. It is submitted that this ruling
may apply Lo resident aliens. To hold otherwise, is to
negate the right of the government to exercise authority
ovei’ certain class of the population.
935. When i s the crime of murder, lxbber-y or arson cam-mit-.
tcd in the oourse of the rebellion punished as a separate
offense, and when is it considered as part of tile com-
mission of rebelfion?
The common crimes of‘ murder, robbery, and arson
committed in the coiixe of rebellion may be punished as
seperalc offenses when they are committed_ for private
purposes or profit, vilhout any p d i t j .a!.motiW_o_n. But
.ivhen any of these common crimes s committed in the
course oC t h e rebellion, not for pri ate ends or profit,
but to accomplish any of the purposes of rebellion, it shall
’
he considered a ~ ~ b ~ o r bine the
d crime of rebellion.
-I--
936. Several ,persons had the purpose of overthrowing the
Government. They secretly enlisted their sympathizers
,as future soldiers of the movement and solicited contrihu-
- tions from those willing to give. Before they could or-
ganize to rise publicly and take arms against the GOV-
ernment, they were arrested by the . ~ a h h
and when investigaled they confessed t o the foregoing
372
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
facts. For what crime can they be prosecuted and pnn-
ished?
C&&a_cy-to. commit rebellion. There is an agreement
as shown by the purpose; there is a decision to commit
rebellion, as shown by enlisting men and soliciting con-
tributions to carry out the purpose.
c;/.i
93
9o
Under Art. 135, public officers or employees may also
commit the crime of rebellion by any of the manners
specified therein. How wonld you distinguish 'rebellion
committed by public officers from disloyalty of public
officers?
I n rebellion, the public officers perform any of the
following acts (1) s a ~ n i n ein war against the forces of
the government; (2) &&o@ng-praperty or committing
serious violence; (3) cxaacting_cnntz&tutic-m and divawing
public_fu.nds from the lawful purpose for which they have
been appropriated. In d ~ o y a ~ t ~ ~ f - , p . u b l i c - o f the
~c~s,
public officers are guilty o f . w o f the foliowing: (l).f$k
in2 to resist a rebellion by all t h e means ,in their power;"
(2) co,ntinuing t o d-e-the-dutiies of their offices
under t.he coocol of the rebels; and (3) acceuting&ppoint.
- office under them. If he is in campiracy with
p p ~ t to
the rebels, the public officer performing a n act of dis-
loyalty is liable for rebellion.
9%. IIow is proposal to commit rebellion distinguished from
inciting to rebellion?
Similarities: - In both, the offender dEsLot--@ke
=mi o r is not in open hostility against the government;
and in both, the offender -.,another to commit re-
bellion.
Differences: - In proposal, the offender is &xiddto
commit. the crime; in inciting, it is not.necessary that the
offender is decided to commit rebellion. In proposal, the
offender proposes the .execution of the crime by secret
~
means; in inciting, the offender incites othbrs to the corn-
mission of rebellion p-ublicly and by means of speeches,
372
CRIMINAL LAW REVIIGWER
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners and other repre-
sentations tending to the same end.
939. What wonld be the crime, if the crime of rebellion &s
a s k committed by the peoplo to whom the p r o p o d
was made or who were incited to commit it?
The crime committed is e n . The proposal or in-
citing to connnit rebellion is absorbed.
940. Two rival groups of jeepney driv,ers, all armed, attacked
each other in a public plaza, using their arms even against
the policemen who tried to stop them and to restore order
in the place. The attack being t_um.ultnnus and the com-
j motions occurring in a puEig!b, did they commit
I
sedition? Explain your answer.
No. Although there was public and tumultuous uprising,
j the$ject of the uprising w > u o J to urevent the polico
m e n s a r e public officers from fr$ely_.e.z%rc&hg their
I hnetion, or $-attain
.~ ~..any-other
____ object of sedition.
!
94.1. Two persons, who bated a councilor of their town, burned'
the latter's house. Is this sedition, their object being
to inflict an act of hate or revenge upon the property7
of a public officer?
No, because they did not rise p.ubljcly and tumultuoW.
They did not use force or intimidation or means outside
of legal methods. The existen,ce of tho object of sedition
is not enough. There m u s t &.public and tumultuous u p
rising. The word :f;umultuoua" .means that at least four
persons who are a r m e b o r wX6 are provided with means
o m e n c e took part in the uprising.
~
N o t e : The element of sedition that is not preacnt ia:&at the
offenders rise~publielyand tumultuously, using.foF5 ar~intimida-
tion or o t l ~ e means
~. outside of loga\..m$thods.
942. What object must the offenders pursue in order that
!
public and tumultous uprising, using force or intimidation,
or employing means outside of lmegal methods, may be
considered sedition? >
.'W
'.?.
373
 I
CRIMINAL L A W REV1EWF:R
They must pursue any of the following objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution ‘of any
law or the holding of any popular election:
2. To prevent the National Government, or a h provin-
cial or municipal government, 01’ any public officer thereof
from freely exercising its or his functions, or to prevent
the execution .of any administrative order;
3 . To inflict any act of hate nr revenge upon the per-
son or property of any public officer or employee:
4 . To commit, for any political or social’end, any act
of hate or revenge against p r i n t e persons or any social
class: and
5 . To despoil, for any political or social end, any per-
son, municipality or province, o r the National Government
of all its property or any part thereof.
043. A wanted to eliminate his political rival B before the
election which was about to take place in their province.
A had an understanding‘ With the Huks, whose com-
mander was his friend, to the effect that the Huks would
attack the barrio where B was living, with a particular
end in view of killing B. During the attack madc by
the Hukri in which A also took part, B was seriously
injured and his house was burned. Considering that the
Huks were engaged in rebellion and A was in conspiracy
with the Huks, do you believe that A committed rebel-
lion? Explain your answer.
NO. A committed pkditioa
If the purpose of the vpr&ing is cot exactly against
thesovernment and not for the purpose of doing any
of the things defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal
Code, bi:t-.-merely to attain by force or other means out-
side of legal methods one object, to wit, to commit for
any political end an act of hate against private person,
the crime committed is sedition.
N o t e : While it is true that the Huks were engaged in rebellion
and that A was in w n s p i r a c y with them, their purpose was
< not to overthrow the government, but o&&Q-@fljct fozL&iEl
end an act ..of. hate against B.
374
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
9.14. What is the nature of the crime of sedition?
It is one of those offenses which a r e directed against
f the authority, not against the existence of the government,
or the general peace. The u@g&?-_objsst of sedition is
a vglation of tine puhlic-.peace.,
945. E, in a meeting, uttered: “The big ones are persecuting
and oppressing us, who are small, which they have no
right to do.” Then shouts were heard from the audience,
R saying, “Let u s fight them until death.” Is this in-
citing t o rebellion o r inciting to se,rlition? Why?
Inciting t o sedition, because the people were actually
incited when they said, “Let us fight them,” followed .by
R’s shouting, “Let us fight them tc death.” When E
uttered that the big oues ivere persecuting and oppressing
them, he was lamenting a feeling of hatred andxexe.we
among them (People vs. Evangelista). To inflict an act
”
of hate or rcvenge against the person or property of public
officer is one of the objects of sedition. The crime of
inciting to sedition is committed when the offender who
does not take direct part in the crime of sedition i&
others to the accomplishment of any o f the objects of
sedition by means 01“ speeches.
94F. Suppose, the speaker uttered and told the audience, “Over-
throw the present Government and establish your own
government, the government of the poor. Use your whip
so t.hat there may he marks on their sides”. Is this
inciting to rebellion? State your reason.
No. This is inciting to sedition. The reason is that
the words uttered “suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
1,
or riots,’’ which is one of the ways of inciting to sedition
under Art. 142 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs.
Nabong) .
! 947. May there be inciting tn sedition even if the inciting does
not relate to the accomplishment of any of the objects,
of sedition mentioned in Art. 139?
375
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Yes. There are two parts of Art. 142. The first part
defines inciting to sedition by inciting others to the accom-
i . .. ,
plishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition,
by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, ernblems
or other representations tending to the same end. The
second part defines inciting to sedition, as by uttering
seditious words or speeches, or by writing, publishing or
circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or
any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tends
to disturb the public peace. ,,In the second part of Art.
142, the accomplishment of any of the objects of sedition
is not the purpose of the act of inciting others.
948. What is the justification for punishing the uttering or
writing and publishing of sediti,ous words or speeches?
The justification for punishing it is that the utterances
or writings which tend to overthrow, or undermine the
.. security of, the governmellt or t o weaken the confidence
of the people in the government are against the public
peace, and are criminal not only because they tend t0
-
incite a breach of the peace but also because they are
--
conducive t~ the destruction of the goxe.rgment itself.
949. Does not the second part of Art. 142 violate the eonsti-
tutional guaranty of freedom of speech and of the press?
It is opined that it does, because what is Dunisheid in
that part: of Art. 142 is cot, the act of ineicing to sedition
but the Citterances. or the-publication of words or speeches,.
thereby affecting the freedom of speech and press. Under
the c!e&r-and..present danger rule, the second part of
Art. 142 may be dgc&red~u.nconstitntiona1.
950. What is. your understanding of the “dangerous tendency
. rule’’ in relation to the crime of inciting to seditbn, and
..
.
how is it distinguished from the “clear and present danger
rule”?
Under the (angerous tongency rule, there is inciting
~
to sedition when the yords uttered or. nublished have a
seditious, tendency, in the sense that they could easily pro-
376
CRIhlINAL LAW REVIEWER
. ~ducedisaffection among the people a n d - a state of feeling:;,.
incompatible with a disposition to remain 1oyal”to the
Government and obedient to, the la.ws.
Under the clear and present danger rule, it is required’~
,‘thatthere must be a reasonable ground to believe that the
danger apprehended is imminent and that the evil to be
prevented is a serious one. There iaust be the’probability
of serious injury to the State.
Eznntpl~ of the application of c l e w and v e s e n t danger &:
A political @arty applied for a permit to hold a publIc
mecting in Mimila. The Mayor refused to grant permit.
The refusal of the mayor to grant permit for the holding
of a public meeting was predicated upon fear that in view of
the bitterness af the speeches expected from the minority men
- - who^ were fresh from political defeat and were smarting with
,charges of fraud agaiiist those in power, there might be hreach
. of the peace and of public order.
Held: The danger was not imminent and the evil to he
prevented was not a serious one. The mayor was ordered to
issue a permit (Primieias VB. Fugono) .
951. What are the crimes against legislative or similar bodies.
They are: (1) preventing the meeting of a deliberative
body by force or fraud (Art, 143); (2) disturbing its
session or meeting; and (3) misbehaving in .the presence
of any such bodies as to interrupt its proceedings or to
impair the respect due to it (Art. 144).
Note: The legislative or similar bodies referred to nre eithe?
House of Congress, its committees or sub-committees, constitu-
tional commissions, provincial hoard or city or municipal council
OF board.
952. What is the liability of il person who disturbs the pro-
ceedings of either House of Congress?
The same act of disturbing the proceedings of either
House of Congress may be made the basis for contempt
proceeding and/or for criminal prosecution (Lopez vS.
De 10s Reyes).
953. What do you understand by parliamentary immunity?,
377
 I
I I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Parlinmentary immunity, under the Constitution, means
that the members of Congress shall, in all cases except
treason, felony and breach of the peace, be pivileged from
arrcst during their attendance bt the session of Congress,
and in going to and returning from the same. Under the
Revised Penal Code, it means that the members of Con-
. . gress should not be arrested or searched during the regular
or special session, except in case a member has committed
a crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a
penalty higher than pvision mayor.
954. In what cases may a public officer lawfully arrest or
search a senator or a rempresentative?
In the following cases a public officer may lawfully
arrest or search a senator or representative: (1) when
Congress is not in regular or special session, he may law-
fully arrest or search a senator or representative in con-
nection with any crime; and ( 2 ) when Congress is in
regular o r special session, he may lawfully arrest or search
a senator or representative, provided that the crime com-
mitted is punishable under the Revised Penal Code by a
penalty lt<gher than prision mal/or.
Note: A member of Congress may bc arrostod or searched
during regular or special session, if he committed homicide
o r rape, because these crimes are punishable by re02usio.n ?ern-
poral, a penalty higher than pvision. magor.
955. May a member of Congress, who, during its session, has
in his possession a revolver without license be searched
and arrested,’ the crime not being punishable under the
‘ Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer.
No. The crime of illegal possession of firearm is punish-
able by imprisonment from one to five years, which-is
not higher than prision mayor. The part of the provision
relating t o “crime punishable under this Code” states the
exception. Hence, crimes punished by special laws are
included in the prohibition. It is only when the penalty
is higher than prision mayo? that the crime should be
’K
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
378
i
CIUMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1’ ,SW*
2156. D,oes parliamentary immunity mean exemption from crunBq
, ,.>.y
ina1 liability?
Ui
No, because the immunity under the Revised Penal Code
1
extends only to awest and search during regular or special,
session of Congress and the felony committed is not punish-
able under the Revised Penal Code by a penalty higher
I
than pi.ision .irztqior. Even if a senator o r representative
committed a crime under circumstances where his arrest
and/or search would be punished as a crime, he can be
prosecuted and, if found guilty, he can be punished.
Eveu under the Constitution, parliamentary immunity
is limited only to civil arrest. The immunity excludes all
indictable offcnses.
,1157. In n meding where many persons were invited to con-
sider the ways and means of improving the community,
A volunteered to speak and, in the course of his speech,
he incited the audience to carry arms and use force and
violence against the mnyor and councilors for neglecting
their duties. Js that meeting an illegal assembly? E X -
plain vour aiiswer.
No, because to constitute a n illegal assemblx, where
T
the audience is incited, the meeting must be organized
for the purpose of inciting the audience to the ;commission
of treason, rebellion, sedition or direct assank4
pose of the meeting mentioned in the question w
Note: A is liable for alarms and scandals under
par. 4, of tlie Revised Penal Code.
‘958. A group of about 20 persons, armed with bolos, daggers
and licensed pistols, were gathered together in a c e r t a i n
place holding a meeting. A group of PC soldiersJwho
! were suspecting them investigated each and every one
of them on the spot, but n,ot one of those persons revealed
the purpose of the meeting. Can they be prosecuted and
, and punished far illegal assembly? Explain your answer.
No, because to constitute the crime of illegal assembly
the meeting must be either one of the following: (1) any
.’ meeting atteuded by a m e d persons for the purpose ?f
319
>c

961. Distinguish illegal association from illegal assembly, as
purpose o'f the meeting was to commit any of the crimes
punishable by the Revised Penal Code. In this kind of
illegal assembly, two requisites must concur, namely: (1)
962. What is the difference between ill'egal association nnder
'959. Suppose, one of the persons who attended the meeting
., ?vas carrying an unlicensed firearm, what crime, if any,
was committed and by whom? Explain your answer.
$
Only the persons carrying unlicensed firearm may be
held liable for illegal assembly, because under the law, if
. any person present a t the meeting carries an unlicensed
, firearm, it shall be presumed that the pur7ose of said
-meeting, insofar as he is concerned, is t o commit acts
I 963. What are the acts punishable under the Anti-Subversion
. . punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and he shall be
' considered a leader o r an organizer of the meeting.
I
Note: 13ut that provision of the law establishes only a p r ~
sumption and may be rebutted by proof of lack of such purpose.
,960. What are the two forms of illegal associations?
...
i '
,
They are: (1) associations totally or partially organ-
,. ..
ized.for the purpose of comrnitting any of the crimes
380
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEYYER
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and ( 2 ) asso-
ciations totally or partially organized for some purpose "
contrary to pubiic morals.
to (1) the act or acts constituting the crime, ( 2 ) the
person or persons criminally liable.
What is punished in illegal assembly is the holding of
meeting and attendance a t such meeting; whereas, what is
punished in illegal association is the formation or organ-
ization of an associntion and membership thereof.
In illegal assembly, the persons liable are the organizers
or leaders and persons merely present a t the meeting;
whereas, in illegal association the persons liable are the
founders, directors and presidents, and mere members of
the association.
the Revived Penal Code and illegal association under the
Anti-Subversion Act?
Under the Revised Penal Code, the illegal association
must be totally or partially organized f o r the purpose of
committing any of the crimes punishable under that Code,
o r totally o r partially organized for some purpose contrary
to public morals; whereas, nnder the Anti-Subversion Act,
the association or organization must have the purpose of
overthrowing the Government of the Republic of the .Phil-
ippines to establish in the Philippines a totalitarian regime
and place the government under the control and domination
of an alien power.
Act?
The acts punishable nnder that Act are:
1. By knowingly, wilfully and by overt acts (a) af-
filiating oneself with, (b) becoming or (e) remaining a
member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and/
or its successor or any subversive association defined in
that Act;
381
 I
I
CRIhIIXAL LAW REVIEWER
.~ 2. By conspiring with any other person to overthrob-
the Government of the Republic of the Philippines or the
. . government of any of its political subdivisions by force,
violence, deceit, subversion or other illegal means f o r the
purpose of placing such government or political subdivisions.
under the control and domination of any alien power.
. '/
3 . By taking up arms against the Government to over-~
throw it, to establish a totalitarian regimd in the 'Philip-
pines, and to place the government under the control and
domination of an alien power.
..9 4. Suppose, the members of the Communist Party under the
guise of forming a political party with a different name.
presented a ticket of their candidates , for the coming
election, with the intention of obtaining control .of t h e .
Government and, once successful, of plaLing t h e govern-
'. ment under the o n t r o l and domination of an alien power,
are they liable for violation of the Anti-Subversion A e t ? ~
Yes, because one of the acts punished is by conspiring
t ' overthrow the Government of the Repuhlic of the Phil:
.,/
pines by deceit for the purpose of placing such Govern-.
ment oi' political subdivision under the control and domina-
tion of any alien power.
9 a. What is the difference between rebellion or insurrection-
under the Revised Penal Code and violation of the Anti-
Subversion Act where the purpose of the offender is to
take up arms against the government?
Both in rebellion or insurrection and in violation of
the Anti-Subversion Act, the offender takes up a.rms.ta
overthrow the government. Gut while in rebellion or in-
surrection the purpose of the ofEender in taking arms is
only to overthrow the existing government and replace it
with a new government, in violation of the Anti-Subversion
.,
Act the purpose of the offender in taking arms to over-
throw the government is to establish in the Philippines
, . .a totalitarian regime and to place the government under
the control and domination of an alien power.
382
?
,
CRIMINAL LAW REVItEWER
986. What is the difference between conspiracy to coma
rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and conspiracy
.overthr,ow the government under the Anti-Subversion Act?;!
In conspiracy to commit rebellion under the Revised
Penal Code, the conspiracy relates to the crime of rebellion_
as t!ie latter crime is defined in the Revised Penal Code)
whereas, in conspiracy to overthrow the government under
the Anti-Subversion Act, the purpose of the offender is
to estahlish in tb.e Philippines a totalitarian regime and
to lace the government under the control and domination
., /
9
an alien power.
What are the two forms of direct assault?
The two forms of direct assault are: (1) without pub-
lic uprising., by employing force or intimidation for, the
,
attainment of any o f the purposes enumerated in defining
the crime of yebellion, or of any of the objects of sedition; *
and ( 2 ) without public uprising, by attacking, by employ-
ing force, or by' seriously intimidating or by seriously
, resisting any person in authority or any of his agents
while engaged in the performance of official duties or
on the occasion of such performance,
Elements of dived assault of the 1 s t form:
1. The offender employs farce or intimidation.
2 . The aim of the offcnder is to attain any of the purposes
of t h e crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the
crime of sedition.
2. There is no public uprising.
Xlaments of d.bect nssuult of the Bnd / o w n :
1. That the offender (a) ,makes an attack, (2) employs
farce, ( e ) . makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes
B serious resistance.
jf
2 . That the peisan assaulted is n person in authority or
his agent.
8 . That t h e person i n authority o r his agent is (a) engaged
in the perfarinanee of official duties, or (b) on the
OCCBSi0,l of SUCII performnaee.
4 . There is no ,iiublie uprising.
Note: The phrase "on the occasion of such performance'' should
be undwsloud as "by reason thereof."
383

/'
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I
8. May direct assault 'be committed against a private in-
dividual? Explain.
Yes. if the crime committed is direct assault of the
. . first form. because in this form of direct assault the ob-
ject of the offender may be any of the objects of sedition.
.. When the object is to commit for any political or social
end an act of hate or revenge against private person or
social class, and there is no public and tumultuous up-
rising, but only force or intimidation, the crime is direct
: assault even if the offended party is a private individual.
'S
But in the second form of direct assault, the crime is
always committed against a person in authority or his
agent.
B How do you distinguish persons in authority from their
agents?
Persons in authority are those public officers directly
vested with jurisdiction, that is, those who have the power
and authority to govern and execute the laws. Thus, the
Provincial Treasurer is a person in authority because with-
in the province for which he is appointed, he has the duty
t o execute all the laws pertaining to finance and collection
of taxes in addition to hi6 other duties; tine Provincial
Health Officer, within the province where he is appointed,
has the duty to execute all the laws relating to health
and sanitation; the Division Superintendent of Schools,
with respect to all the laws pertaining to education, in
additioii to his general superintendence over all the schools
and school teachers within the province to which he is
.
assigu ed
On the other hand, agents of persons in authority are
only charged with the maintenance of public order and
~~
. the protection and security of life and property. He is
a subordinate official of a person in authority. Thus, the
municipal treasurer and the municipal health officer are
only agents of the provincial treasurer and district health
officer, respectively.
970. What are the different ways of committing direct as-
sault of the 2nd form?
384
,.
,~,
CRIllIINAL LAW REVIEWER
They are :
(1) By attacking;
(2) By using force;
( 5 ) By seriously intimidating; or
, (4) By seriously resisting a person in authority o r his
,,"agent while in the performance of his olficial duty or
by reason of the past performance o f such duty.
971. What degree of force is necessary t o constitute direct
assault?
If the offended party is only an agent of a person;
in authority, the force employed must be of a serious
character as t o inclicate determination to defy the law
and its representative at all hazards.
The force employed need not be serious when the of-
ended party is a person in authority. The mere laying
of hands, as slspaing his face, is sufficient.
the purpose of the crime of direct assault by resist-
ing a person in authority or his agent, what is the nature
of the resistance? Why?
Serious resistance; otherwise, it would be resistance
and serious disobedience only.
A, the mayor of the town, and B, a private individual,
were conversing in front of the municipal building. I n
the course of their conversation about politics, B and the
mayor became engaged in an altercation, resulting in
B's giving a fist blow on the lips of the mayor. Is B
IiabIe .for direct assault? Explain your answer.
No, because the mayor was& in the performance
Note: The crime committed is o n l y ( & ~ ~
385

formance of his official duty when he is attacked o r
/
seriously intimidated by the offender? Why?
No, as long as the attack or the intimidation a
made by of the past l3erformance of his officiat
duty, there is direct assault even if the person in au-
:.., G t y o r his agent was at the time of the attack o r
intimidation9 in the actual performance of his official
duty.
*975. The .Division Superintendent of Schools who was asked
.,.,
by the Provincial Governor to appoint certain applicants
recommended by the latter for the position o€ teachers
.. openly refused to do so, because the applicants were not
eligibles. The agent of the Governor who met the Super-
. . intendent in the railroad station gave the latter fist
blows, causing contusions on his face. Since the agent
. .
of the Governor was not the person affected by t h e
performance of the official duties of the Superintendent,
... .. can that agent be punished for direct assault? Explain
. . . your answer.
Yes, because it is not necessary to commit the crinie
of direct assault that the offender was personally affected
by the pi?rformance of the official duty of the person in
authority or his agent.
Since the attack appeared t o have been prompted by
the desire of the special agent to revenge a supposed af-
front to the Governor by the Superintendent in connection
with the appointment of teachers, which involves the per-
formance of official duty, the agent is liable for direct
i assault committed by reason of the performance of official
duty of the person in authority.
When is the &ve of the offender important in deler-
mining 111isguilt in connection with the crime of direct
assault?
If tho person in authority or his agent is attacked
. ' while he is n o t i n the performance of his official duties,
'. , . :the 9 v e or reason for t h e k is necessary. It must
. -
386
i
CRIXINAL LAW REYIEWER I)
b a w n that the a m c k w d e by reason of the past , :,
,
-performance
+--- of pfficial duties ofhe person in euthoritx
-
,,&his agent.
A learned from his neighbor that B, the mayor of his
town, was maintaining an illicit relation with, his wife.
A got his pistol and proceeded to the municipal building.
As soon as A saw I3 in the latter's office going over
some ,pending papers, A shot B but failed to hit him.
Is A guilty of direct assault with attempted homicide@ $$&
Explain your answer.
The m n v e here is iptnaterial,,because B, a person in
authority, was attacked w s l e p r r f a r m 3 n c e of his
official duty. Hence, A is liable for direct assault.
1
978. What c&umstane&tuay qualify the crime of direct as-
MUlt?
Direct assault is when it is committed
with a weapon, 0 when the offend% is a public officer
or employee, or p) when the offender lays hands u I n
a person in authority.
P
97 .A, councilor of a town, upon knowing tllat some PC
soldiers were arresting his political leaders and followers
for playing a gambling game, went to. the place and
requested the soldiers to release them. When the sergeant
of the FC refused, the councilor hit the sergeant with
a cane several times on the different parts of the body,
causing serious physical injuries on the sergeant. Con-
sidering that the councilor who attacked the PC sergeant
is a person in authority, do you believe that the councilor
is guilty of direct assault? Explain your answer.
Yes, because the sergeant ya&Ata.cked while in the
performance of his duties _and by reason of the nesfom-
ance of his duties, while tliemuncilor was&in the per-
formame of his duties. It was n g his official duty to
intervene in a case where an agent of a-person 3iT au-
thority, like the PC sergeant, had lawfully arrested law-
387
 I

-I

/
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWIER

breakers. In other words, the councilor was . not

, contend-
?., ing in the exercise of official duties.
98 , A harboir policeman and a policeman of the Manila Police
Department happened to investigate a complaint for theft
committed in the pier. The harbor policeman claimed
' , that the MPD policeman had no right or authority to in-
vestigate any case mithin the harbor compound. The
MPD policeman seriously injured the harbor policeman.
Is the MPD policeman guilty of direct assault? Explain
your an.,w e r .
&. When the person in authority o r his agent at the
time of the attack, is& in the performance of his offi-
cial duty and the attack is not bv reasop of the aast
f performance of hisofficial duty;
n n the Derson in authority or his agent has acted
without authority of l a q in excess y - o
when. he is attacked;
+dWhen the offend!@ & a person in ald.bm& .,
or an agent. of authority and he and the offended

' .?# I
.. , ~,.> ~
No. He is liable for physical injuries o& because
&
b w s e contendine in the exercise of authority. Jhere !
was no i,ntention t w h e authority of the n t , k ut t ..
o-son in authority.
9 1. A slapp,ed the barrio lieutenant who was helping the
policeman in preserving order in a procession., Is the blows. Is A liable for direct assault?
crime direct assault? Explain your answer.
I t is submitted that inasmuch ai3 the offended party
.. Yes, because the barrio lieutenant is a person in au-
was no longer a person in authority at the time he was
. ,. thority by direct provision of Art. 152, as amended. =e attacked, A was not liable f o r direct assault. One of the
.
f w w d , when the offended uarty is a person i n
a-yt, need not be serious. The law simply mentions elements of direct assault is that the offended party is
laying oP hands, without making any distinction as to dif- a person in authority or his agent.
ferent cases. It is to be noted that the same provision 984. A policeman saw X when the latter attacked the justice
of Art. 148 with regard to intimidation or resstance as
other constitutive elements of assault expressly requires i
that they be serious. If the law had intended to distin-
guish between the case of a serious laying of hands and
. ,
,I
that which is not serious, i t would have laid down that itted by X?
~ .', distinction. This indicates that the distinction which the
. . ' ' law makes in the cases of intimidation or resistance is

cases is an attack against a person in authority ficial duty.

4
... . ..

388 i 389
-v
 I

CRIMINAL LAW n E v i E w m i CRIRIIXAL LAW REYIEWHR

.. Elements of indiyeot assault:

1. That a person in authority or his agent is the victim
~ and the Chinaman were taken to’ the. police precinct for
investigation, hecause the policema.n, believed that there
.
of any of the forms of direct assault defined in Art. 148. was no law requiring aliens to carry their .gegistration
2. That a person comes to the aid of such authority o r
I certificate. In the police precinct, the Malacafiang agent
his agent. shouted at the policeman, telling hdm that . h e , d i d not
3. The offender makes use of force o r intimidation upon
’ . suck person coming to the aid of the authority of his agent. know how to investigate. Whereupon, the policeman
grabbed the hand of the agent to take him to, the police
985. Several strikers obstructed the free passage along a sergeant. The agent refused to go with him and gave
road by 1:ying on the road forming roadblocks. A con- fist bXo\vs on the policeman. What crime was committed
:’,

stabulary major ordered them t o get out from the road against the policeman, direct assmlt or resistance and >
:
; and clear the way. They refused to do so. What crime serious disobedience? Why? n

’ . . . was committed by the strikers? Explain your answer. The crime committed was only qSistance and serious
The strikers committed the crime of simule disobedienxe,
I G-3 The order disobeyed is that which requiTed
because the disobedieuce Lo an-of H person in a- him to go to the police sergeant. ,The foree ‘emdovef
w t y was not of a serious n a b.e (Art. 151, par. 2, i u t o f a &s nature and did not indicate defiance I
R.P.C.). of the law 01: its r e p r e s e n w e , iEview
the aecusedadxd.re-i
a
f& &at
. ,, :.
For raiding his house where some gamblers were arrested, -of resistance and serious rii8i-e:
A became resentful against the policeman who made the 1. That a p s n in authority or’h-t ikenaaaed’h
raid. The next day, A met that policeman, while patrol- the nerformaneeqf_official duty.
’.’ ling on the street, and struck him with his fist which 2. Such official duty c o d i: givinp a Iawful~order to
the ofgnder. . ,
hit the latter on his breast; but when the policeman held
his hand, A desisted from further attacking him. What I
S . That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such per-
crime wais committed by A? eon in authority or his azent.
.
. ,. 4. That the act of the offender is not included in- the
A wa2: liable f o r 6 t r e a t m e n t on@ He w a s not liable provisions of Arts. 148, 149, and 150.

-
for resistance and serious disobedience, beeause there was
no order by the policeman that A disobeyed. u d
i
--
What are the6rimes against public o r a
&I Le gkect assault, be&se the force employed k.p& They are:
ofasedous nature as to inilkate &e, Ofthebw
Tumults and other disturbances of Oublic order.
case of US. vd.
Unlawful use of means of puh-n and unlawfui
Tabiana, wherein the policeman who was struck on the breast
by T a l h n a with his hand had ordered Tabianr to submit him- , f Alarms and scandals.
self to the arrest being effected. There w88 then in order
disobeyed.
,’ 4 Delivering prisoners from i&&
a certain Chinam? I 98# A, beccming angry with the employees in a government
office, shouted to the top of his voice and chaenggd

I
alien registration
both the agent them to a fight. There was disturbance in the office.

390 391
.*’
 I , ,
I I
i' f

./
. I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. .
. .
.., Is A liable for tumults and other disturbances ,of publie of the peace, rind then presented it
order? Why? the jailer who, not knowing the falsification, released
upon receipt of the forged document. What crime was
,:
No, because even if there was serious disturbance in ;$
the office, it was n& p&~&& or intended, A having been
' .. .' p e d to cause the disturbance ( U S . vs. Domingo, 19 / It is a eomdex crime of delivering prisoner from jail
through falsification of x w&.A . -- 1 n t by a private
'Phil. 69).
-,

.99
.I---
.
Note: A is liable fw @arms and seandal$u.ider

If a reporter published in a newspaper as news the false

Art. 166. iGdividual. The usual means for committing the crime
of delivering prisoners from jail are -e,
or briJgry.
intimidation
I t is true that the law (Art, 156) spF& of
.j
"

p' news that the President of the Philippine% died in his "other means", but the penalty for falsification of a public

/
sleep, is that reporter liable for unlawful use of means document by a priyate individual under Art. 172 is prision
. . of publication? Explain. correccional medium and maximum periods and a fine
No, because such false news may not endanger the not exceeding F'5,000, which is higher than the penalty
for delivering prisoner from jail if other means are used
public order or cause damage to the interest or credit
(awesto m a g o r ) . Although the falsification was the means
, ,'.,. .
I of the St,ate.
used to commit the crime of delivering prisoners from jail,
99 . Iftown,a person fired his pistol upward in the air within
what crime was committed by him? Explain.
a
the falsiiication which is a graver offense cannot be ab-
sorbed by the lesser offense.
E l m m t s of deJive&ng p7isoneru ,from jail:
The crime of4i&ms and scandamwas committed by 1. That there is B pemm confined in> jail or penal estab
him, bsakse it producd alarm or d a n e r , since the slug lishment.

i
ired from the pistol would fall down and might hit a 2 . That the offender removes therefrom such person, or
person. elps the escape of such person.
3 . By means of violence, intimidation, or bribery, or by

/
a perison caused serious disturbance in 'the meeting other means.
of a municipal council, what crime was committed by
him? 994. A is a detention prisoner in jail. B scut through C to A
file wrapped in the clothes delivered to A. Later, A

He committed disturbance of proceedings of a legislative
body unddr Art. 144 of the Revised Penal Code.
h the intention of helping B to escape from jail,
ed an order of release and counterfeited the signa-
-
ed the file in cutting the iron bars and succeeded in
escaping. What crime was committed by B who sent
the file to C? Explain your answer.
Delivering prisoners irom jail.
There are two ways of committing the crime o f deliver-
ing prisoners from jail: ,@f by E m A n g a person eon-
fined in jail or penal establishment, and @ by
such person to escape. The act of helping the escape of
a person confined in jail or penal establishment d-
e&~&$ thaL&f Lrovidinq the m'isonc with tools armeaps
that may facilitate his escape.

392 393
... ~

,-.~.
*:;,:., :.r,.:~' ,
, .
 I

CRIMTN-AL LAW REYIEVVER, CRIWINAL LAW REYIEWER

. .
ii Not6: A! c m e an accomplice in the escape.of A, -b m d ova& o~sa7.u- cc hzr escagixg:
'
a
t-lter A not 8. nrinchal. A who eseaQeg +fThe offender is B convict b y final i t.
doeJt commit a crime, A. I& is -8 hissontenen which con%
: ?n deprivation
of+ul€&.
detained in the city jail on a charge of murder. 4. He e d s the service of his sentence bn-g -d
money to the jailer who permitted A to leave the term of his s e d q e e .
jail, thereby making possible the escape ' o f A.
I? be punished for delivering prisoner from jail? For committing parricide under exceptional circumstances
:>Why? contemplated in Art. 247 o f the Revised Penal Code, A
A is found milty of the crime of murder@- was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months and l 0 ' d a y s of des-
.evidence to show that A committed tierro, during which period of time he was prohibited
would be l&le as an 6 c c e s s a t o the crime from entering the City of Manila. While serving that
' @,
of murder, because he assisted in the escape of'a aersou penalty, he entered the 6ity of Manila. In case of con-
guilty of murcer (Art. 19, par. 3, 'R.P.C.). viction for evasion of the service of the sentence, must
should be the liahility of B, because tKe llenalty he he sentenced to destierro or to the penalty of prision,
eeessorv to the crime of m u r k i s h i p h e r t u h e c~rreccionalin its medium and maximum periods?
the crime of delivering prisoners from jail, The penalty plovided for evasion of the servica&.&e
during t h e t e r m of his s&?&ce&
crimes of evasion of the service of sen- cannot e-i a m Et
,. ' e.
prescribed by law for_the_crun Hence, the D e n a l t y b
" They ape: be imuosed m a b e pision eol.relxh& in its medium
Evasion by escaping during the term of sentence. and maximum t~ &&.igp. because it i s - n pt
,$ Evasion during a disorder, by failing to give up
._' to the authorities within 48 hours after the Chief Executive
has annonneed the passing away of the calamity; and parricide, was confined in the Bilibid
, Evasion by violation of conditional pardon. Prisims in Muntinlupa pending his trial. There occurred
, .
a disorder resulting from a strong earthquake. A was
s convicted of murder and way sentenced to' death. .one of those who left the prison, because of the earth-
id not appeal. After -months from the time quake. He never returned to the prison or gave him-
udgm(ent was promulgated and while being confined self up to the authorities within 48 hours followkg
;:in the Bilibid Prisons in Mnntinlupa; A escaped. Later, the issuance of the proclamation amnouncing the passing
&A,, was captured by the Philippine Constabdlary. 'Can away of the calamity. May A be prosecuted and pun-
L4.rbe. prosecuted and punished for evasion of tho service ished for a violation of Art. 158 of the Revised Penal
@:of.the senltence? Explain your answer. , . , Coiie?
& Whether heappeals o r t , the judgment of the No, because he is&I a c& serving sentence
e penalty of death does penal institution, which is an e m t of the offense. The
shall have been d Z
f3fe- evasion on the occasion of a disorder ia; ..,
e,A wsi&&&& that the offender is a convict who is serving sentence hi!.!
. . ~ .. .
, . I a penal institution. This element presupposes b h & : ' '
-
595
4,

i
 I

I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

--
person is not a detention prisoner. A person confined he might also he killed. He never gave himself up hi;
the authorities even if the disorder already ceased to exist.)
. .. in prison pending his trial &
i a detention urisoner.
-9of evasion on the oocasion of disordem:
Is he liable criminally?
1. The o f f e n d g is a convict who is se&ng sentence i u Not under Art. 158, because the disordgr mustresult
penal institution. from conflagration, earthquake, e s u o n or similar catas-"
2. Them is rd- resultina frm- *te, o r d i n g the m u t i w in which h e x a s not partici-
a. conflagration. e d . But he is liable under Art.157, for evasion by
b. earthquake, -.-
escaping during tile +yam of his sentence. ' .
e. explosion, or
d. similar catastrophe; or Noti: F i s an i ed resistance to superior officers.
. . Hence, lsarmlng the guards hy certain prisoners is not mutiny.
e. in which he has & participated.
B U the guard@ attacked th&m~&s, there is mutin=.
3. The offender evades the service of his sentence by .leaving
the penal institution where he is confined, 0.1 the oceasipn
of such disorder or during the mutiny. 1002. A. was gwa>ted a a d i t i o n a l pardon after serving four
4. The offender fails-ot p to the authorities
years of the six years imprisonment imposed on him by
, w i g n 48 hours following the issuance of a pmelamation the court. The condition was that he ShQuld not commit
by the Chief Executive announcing the passhg away of any other crime in the future. Oln year after, he wi1q
such +unity. accused and found guilty of concealing deadly weapon
Note: If the offender fails to give himself up, ire ets an in punishable under a special law and was sentenced to pay
penalty is that the m c u s e h ~ a fine of twenty-five pesos. By order of the President,
f the time still remainine to be served
under the origina ntence, n a exceed six (6) months. A was reincarcerated and required ito serve the unexpired
If he ives himself u to the authorities
'
in 48 hours, portion of his sentence of six years. A filed a petition
Lf.
he shall z T & d - of the of.J&&.w for habeas corpus claiming and contending that he was
(Art. 98). illegally detained, because he was never prosecuted and
tried for violation of the conditional pardon under Art.
1000: Explain why those prisoners who & . n o t leave the pen& 159. Will his petition prosper? Why?
institution during a disorder are n o t entitled to a reduc- No, because the President of the P-s, &r
tion of their penalty. the Revised Administrative C o b (See. [64]), may order
Those convicts who remain in the penal institution are the arresi a& reincarceration of the person
&entitled to 1/5 deduction of their sentence, b m the conditions of the =don without previous judicial trial.
there is no assurawe that had they successfullv run away Jn such case, it would not be necessary to urosecute
and ' w d their
t-s, - l$v
. they would have, never-
ed i -1 with the a r i v a w
--
him and to li-
Penal Code.
L
&IL~ under Art. 159 of the Revised

of prison lifed- i by that sense of rightand loyalty

- - t h e ~ w e r ~which
t is sought to be rewarded by 1003. A was convicted of concubinage amd, as the concubine
that special allowance (Losada vs. Acenas), of her co-accused, was sentenced to 4 years, 9 months
and 1 0 days of 9 t i e r r o . After one month,/she was
I granted a conditional pardon. Later, she violated the
the disorder in the Bilibid Prisons, resulting from
the killings of certain prisoners by the other prisoners, condition by committing vagrancy, of which she was
A, a prisoner by final judgment, escaped for fear that later found guilty. In case she is prosecuted for and
397 J
396
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
convicted of violation of the conditional pardon, w h a t
will be her penalty, the unexpired portion of destierrw
which she was serving when granted a conditional pardon,.
or the penalty of prision correcciondl in it3 minimum
period?
c' ase
The Supreme Court held in one case that in such a .
the m u
It is un\y when the
l
portion of destierro. B
d .be s e m e d t d e unexuirtxl:
& the law provices the nenaltY
d-
& $
of prision. eorreceio~@Z in its minimum erfbd,' when the
unexpired Dortion of his sentence is
1s h~ he t
years.
u
years that tksxmuc ' t shall suffer the unexpired portion.
I
It is submitted that, with due respect to the Supreme
Court, the penalty to be imposed on A is p?.ision eorree-
eional in its minimum period.
' $'-Note: The @of the netion for violation of !he canditio?lal
ardon is the province or bity where the n 1 n i s violated,.
h 8 , where the new crime is e o m m i t t e d e q L o n ofthe
n
c- of the JWJ! on.
04. A was corivicted of murder and was sentenced t o 17 yeam.
4 months and 1 day of reclusion temporal. On March
6, 1 9 a after serving 15 years, 7 months and 11 days,
and when only 1 year, 6 months and 20 days remained'
to be served by A, he was granted a conditional pardon,
the condition being that "he shall not again violate any
of the penal laws of the Philippines." On April 29, 't
19fi 10 years after he was granted the conditionaX
on, A committed the crime, and was found guilty,.
drivin,g without license. May A be prosecuted fox
of the conditional pardon? Explain your answer.
No. The condition of the pardon which A was charged:
with having breached was no longer operative when h e
committed a violation of the Motor Vehicle Law; for driv-
ing without license. A's pardon dld not s t a t e t = i s
within which the condition thereof was to be observed..
" recidivist, A must have committed estafa before beginning .to,
Hence, A had to observe the condition of the pardon only
'within 1 year, 6 months and 20 days. When he com-
'_ mitted another crime thereafter, it did not result in the
398
CRIMINAL LAW..KEVIEWER
violation of the conditional pardon, as there was no coiidii
' tion violated.
The duration of the condition subsequent annexed to
. a pardon would be limited to the remitted portion of the'
prisoner's sentence, unless an intention to extend it be-
." yond that time was manifest from the nature of the condi-
tion or the language in which it was imposed (Infante
vs. Provincial Warden).
@
1005. A, 15 years and 7 months old, i s confined in the r q
formatory institution pursuant to Art. 80 of the Revised
.
',
Penal Code, having been found guilty of homicide. While
in that institution, A killed a guard there. Is there
quasi-recidivism in this case? Why?
None, hecause the &r w a G a c o n v i c t e d hv final
judgment. His sentence was suspended (Art. 80, R.P.C.).
1006. A comniitted theft in 1935 and est:afa in 1936. In 1937,
A was convicted of theft comrnitted in 1935. While
serving sentence for theft, A w a s convicted of estafa '
committed in 1936. Is A a recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? , '
Why?
A is a recidivist, not a quasi-recidivist, because when , .
he committed rstafa in 1936, he was& yet m e d of
theft by final judgment.
N o t e : To be a q u a s i - r e c i w t wo
, < - re
F 3"mite must be present:
4. He must be aiready convicted by final iudgment; and
4. He commits a new felony b&vu b-g to SeNe or
while sciwino the sentence.
In the probiern givtn, when A conimitted estafa, there was
no final judgment and he was not yet serving the sentence ,,
far theft. ..
Suppose A committed estafa after service of sentence for '
theft? Is A a quasi-recidivist or a recidivist? Why? .; , j
A is a recidivist, because at the time A committed estafa.%
it was after service of sentence for theft. To be a qua?i-'**
serve or while Eerving the sentence for theft. As e s t a f a . ' d
theft are embraced in tho same title of the Code, A i s ' ?
reeidivisc.
... <
399
 I

,,, ,.
'i i , CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER .,I ~,
: .',
1

1407. While A was serving sentence for homicide, he inflicted of the peace in favor of X. M stole from the desk of 4i$!
. . .serious physical injuries on another prisoner. Is A a
secretary the paper with the signature of the Presidei#j
recidivist or a quasi-recidivist? Why? in blank and typewrote a document over it, making :the>,,:
i'.,.
- ..
. ..
A i s a quasi-recidivist, because when he committed the
. felony of serious physical injuries he was alreadz cmYi&ed
President liable to him for a sum of money. What c&e7<
was committed by M? Explain. Is M liable for forge+$
under Art. 161? Why7
b a a L i u & m a t of homicide a& he committed the new
', ' . felony while serving the sentence for homicide. Falsification of a private docum& The President "'

wa: ma.de m a r as a &bto> & u I - > n his private

1008. Suppose that A committed serious physical'kjuries before c w The document prepared over his signature 9:;-
serving the sentence f o r homicide, but the judgment in thena private one. M is ml&ible for _forgery under4
3 Art. 161, b-hte z g n a t u r e of-tha PredtXIt ms .I@)
the homicide case was already final, is A 'a quasi-reei-
fd. The s i m a t y r e o f the President mvst be forged :,
.. ' divist?
-
on official document? sm of _ t h e _ B e p u h P nf the :
A is still a quasi-recidivist, because he committed the Philippines. , .
last crime a€ter final ixdgnm~ t as regards the first crime
and p-serving sentence for the first crime. 1011. What are the crimes under cud-
..
. S? , , -,!4 "Z
1 <:
, ;*:
They are: i_ ": I

1009. What are the Gimes called forgeries3 .1. M m and importine false coins and utterine false i
They are: CAS in connivance w u e c-feiter or ~L?.Q&. r ; ~

A. Forging the seal of the Government, signature or 2. Mutilat,ion of coins, importation

stamp of the Chief Executive. u m e of mutilated coins i ~ ! n i v :', 'a,. ~
A. Counterfeiting coins. o m e r ; and
A. Mutilation of coins. 3 . Selling of faJsrormufiktehcoin,a c o n i i + i n ,.&;,,&J:..,'~.:
ii

4.
Forging treasury or bank notes or other documents , , ,.,
payable to bearer. 1012. A made a dollar coin of the United States. Is he'liable's
', . ,,-. .I_

8
Counterfeiting instruments not payable to bearer. for counterfeiting coins? Why?
4
Falsification of legislative documents. Yes, because & s n a m e a , n s the imitation of a
Falsification by public officer, employee or notary genuine coin. Under the law (Art. 163) , the counterfeit- :
or ecclesiastical minister.
.-ing
. of a c u a foreien country ig punishable. The,:,

. ..
4.
Falsification by private individuals.
&
Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and tele- -w
-- -
Spanish text of the law (Art. 163) Eses the word-!
any Qualifying word, which embraces not odx$
phone messages. those that are legal tender, but also those out of circulation.!
Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of
~

1013. If the imitation of the coin is so imperfect that no onq,

merit or service. may be deceived, is the counterfeiter criminally Iiablel,!
Explain your answer. 1

1010. The ]?resident of the Philippines left to his s e c r e b ' a ..$.

signature in blank with instruction to typewrite above Yes, because it is $ttempted counkFZEiEZ3 B&$i
his .signature the usual form of appoifltment for justice :a imitation of a genuine coin, the offender commence!4$,, .
.. .%
-"
400 401
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEMTER

. -the m
m
o-c directlv b v 'O,&ac'st, & d a t i n g after liberation. Is A liable for mutilating e
ot perform a& the acts of sxeeutiin -w Explain y o u amwer.
ce the felony, i t is because Lf the cause 4s No, because the law (Art. 164) r-
t he does not know how agmdmuL. . 9- t
.. m-&.l tender.
ve,r, there are a- who claim that when Note: Art. 164 uses the phrase8 "eo
i ~ imperfect
o th& no one rrav.be deceiwd and "current coins", which mean t h
p-orduce t h P a l t a s .

1017. A Chinaman was caught by a detective mutilating a

~ ":~~., dollar gold coin of the United States. Is t h a t China
,:~?~~.'1~14; The I-peso silver .coin, which was in circulation before
., ,* liable for mutilation of coins? Explain your answer.
1 . . .the war, h;w been withdrawn from circulation.' If A i
' .
counterfeited several of such 1-peso silver coin, may he
be held liable for counterfeiting coins? Explain your
!i" No, because the gold coins have been withdrawn f r
circulation by the United States Government and they are
answer. not legal tender in this country. T h e w Dunishes &S
.....cI .
,.:~:
, ..
. > . .' < .
--
Yes, because under the law (Art. 163) even coins a- mutilation offiegal tender eo%&;
withdrawn from circulatign.
those that have been
, ' drawn from circulation m a e the subject of counterfeiting. 1
, : . The for punishing tlie fabrication of a coin with- %
... s 1018. May a person i m s s i o u of cmulterfcited or mutilated
drawn from circulation is not alone, the harm caiiwcl to

nivanee with lhe counterfeiter or mutilator? Why?

1
1015; What is -niutilation of .,coins?
r G s m o f i sa crime de-c
. bv a 'uerson 'i
._who
..,. .-,
,r.

-
shall take off
. . piubstitutind with another -1
. : ~ y h mutilates
o
part of the metal either by filing i t
of inferior qualiv. One
a coin does not do so for the sake o f t i -
mutilator.
, .
:i f :
1 9 , bot to take advantage of the metal abstracted; 1013. What erinie is eoiiunitted by a person who makes 1-p
:appro
. ... -,---L-?, riates a p. .of .the. metal of the coin. &
a r t &',e %e biils which are imitations of the I-peso bill issued by
coin diminlsks in intrlnslc value. One who utters said Central Bank?
I ,..mutilated coin receives ita legal. value, much more thm
-its.intrinsic value (People vs. Tin Ching Ting, C.A.). I / .

. . .
?016.,,A.
.. _ . , was surprised by plicenian -;the 1-peso
siIv5r 'coiri;'.which ' w ;circpl+on bef& "the war in 1020. What crime is committed hy a person who
.;*2.-:..
": Philippine National Bank check?
tlie Philippin&s;.but ,w&i1 has,bekn withdrawn from cir-

4Q2 403
 .
,. , .
I
i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

j CRIMINAL LAW RZVIEWER .~
:aqj
:...
The falsification of a Philionine National Bank e h k .;/1

is(&$ification of eommacial documenfiPeople vs, Samson, chased from his store, is that storekeeper criminally Iiabl'g
:i C.A.,and People vs. Cruz, C.A.). for possession of forged treasury or bank note? .ExpM,p:;
your answer.
..
, I.
Note: The "checks" mentioned in the law as obligation and
the intent to use the counter-.'.
security of the Philinpinea does not include e h a -si
Is51 or foreim banks *Qrivate core-. ThecEEQj to defraud or
. .
, . raferred t o as obligation and security of the Philippines a
tho2 is& by the Government and drawn aaainst DUbliC fnnda. . , , .'
1025. What crime was committed by a person who wrote the;^^.
1021. Is there any difference a8 to the manner the crime is word "Victory" in ink at the back of a one-peio .bill, zv.3
:T ' committed when the instrument involved in the forgery
, , . genuine pre-war treasury certificate "payable t o the &?arer
;j . Is payable to order?
, . <':.
- -I on demand", which has been, however, withdrawn ftom,..
y, . No, the manner of committing t m e i t i A e a , eirculation?
.L,

that is,? ,-f &$

! imuorting, or @ utterins in- h a b y giving to a treasury o r bank note o r any.':,
'*.,. . strumen s p a y a b l e t o s o t h e r documents M t instrument payable to bearer or to order, the appeirance ...:
-_
.....' not payable t o b aer, in connivance with the forser _o_r of a true and genuine document. The forgery cons$& in'% .
" w g r in case of uttering (Art. 167, R.P.C.). the addition of a word in an effort to give to the one-pe
..MII 1
bill the appearance of the true and genuine eertifi
14i2. Ib the mere possession of forged treasury or bank notea that it used t o have before it was withdrawn from cir- .'
... ' or othier instruments of credit punishable under the culation (People vs. Galano, C.A.),.
Revised Penal Code? Why?
. . No. Iu necessary that the p-or k m t h a t &
a 1026. A resolution was under considera.tion by the munici
..- '
ofe instruments i s false or falsified and that h e l council. B took it from the table of the secret
.r: .: the intent to use QJ- i
, ..,~
.,i .
I - - ' &e same. counterfeited or forged the signatures of the See
and the Mayor thereon to make it appear that
1623. A, who was buying merchandise, offered in payment of passed and Rpproved. Is this falijificatinn of leg
the same a bogus 100hpeso bill, knowing it to be falsified. I document?
...'. The owner of the merchandise discovered that the 100- & The crime of falsification
peso bill was falsified and refused to accept it. Is A is - -&
committed &y b
-~
. . liable for frustrated or consummated use of falsified or phrase w r i E n in thebill, resolution or ordinance
. : money bill?
~..
:.... . i
by changing t h a n ofT)unctuation o r adding a t
,.. . A is I u e &r @onsummated use of falsified rnonis ,-I or signs of punctuation,
J.,

!: " . bill, although it wa -a by the w of the The -of fa-ava

. . docunent:
I,. . merchandise (Peoples G!Santos, C.A.)A=~G%L 1. That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted
. ~

--
sary to obtain the cain in.tm&d, approved or pending apbrovsl by oilher House of Cane
or anv. nrovineial
_ . council.
board or munieiaal
1024.
.~ If the storekeeper keeps a counterfeited 50-peso hill to i 2.. That the offender a t h e same. ..
&$,: be used by him for comparison with bogus 50-peso bills 3 . That the a m n has ehan;wd the mealline::.
'is,, .td-
@qz:: that may be presented to him in payment .ofgoods par-
s:;Y$::.::., 4 . He has no proner ' th-or.
404
405
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . ,... .
CRlMINAL LAW REYIEWER

1027; A was'in charge of preparing the payroll'in the office

' ' - of the governor. .When 'the payroll for the month of
- '

March was presented to the governor for signature, he

noticed that the name of X . was included as- janitor in
. .. ., .that office when X was not employed i n . that office.
,, , .
Instead of signing it, the governor sent the payroll to
the provincial fiscal for action. For making a false
statement in the narration of h c t s in an official decu-
ment, the fiscal accused A of falsification. Is ,A liable
..,. . . for falsification? Why?
.-:. No, because the payroll was not si@ by the s c o x x g r
azd, hence, it was not vet a doumenL .A document
.,: .,. , . w&n statement by whicht-a , is established or an
1029. A protestant ministet altered in the residence Certifi
. .
issued t o him his age and"tlie date Of h i s birth:
liable for~'fa1slsificationcommitfed by an ecclesiastical
' .
.' 'ister under the'lash paragraph of"'Art. 171 of t h e R
' 'Penal Code? Explain 'your answer., '
, .
No, because the falsificatiori' by an ecclesiasti

,>.; o a i i o n extinguished. Before it is simed by the QOY-

.: e m r , the pavr?ll- piece of paper.
$Ii.
1028.
,or
What are the different acts of falsification that may 1030. The paymaster in a government office wrotkrthe
>*.i be committed on any document?
'. . of one of the janitors of the tiffice on;thk space f
They are: signature of that janitor on the payroll, took the
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signa- of that janitor who was then absent for being ill, and ap
. . ture o r rubric: the money. What act of falsifica.tion was committed :
f,:, ' 2 . Causing it to appear that persons have participated A? What document was falsified? Why?
in any act or proceeding when they did not^ in fact so If there was an attemut or intent tr, imitate the s'
participate;
ture of the janitor and there were some points of re
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in blance between the signature as written by A and
. , an act o r proceeding statements other than those i L k L
I(,<

2i : .
-
,;.;'.. ,, made b y ;
i .. ;.::I.:
~~

4 . Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;

... " 6 . A a n g true dates: On the other hand, if ther
6 . Making anyn-a e
or intercalation in a.
to imitate the signature of the
an attempt o r intent, the forged
-- document which c h a d meaning;
7 . Issuina in authenticated form a document purport-
did not bear sQme resemblance
falsification is by causing it to
ing to be a copy of an original document, when no such
original exists, or including in such copy statements con-
trary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
and
8. Intercalating any instrument e n & relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
v
406 407
 I

4 CRIMINAL LAW REYI.R%ER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEE
! . , - ?,?
n investigator and soldier of the Philippire Constabulary, I . 1@%?.In what cases is the making amf untruthfd.statementh$
in a narration of facts not a punishable act of .faLsifid- ,,.
. - ’ while investigating a suspect, typewrote his questions and,
after each question, typewrote an answer to the effect i tion?
. ,
,; ?;
1

that the suspect admitted the commission of the crime, In the following cases:
knowing that the suspect did not admit anything, as in 1. When there is no law requiring the making of such
.. . fact he! denied having committed the crime. As the 811s- statement or the disclosure of certain facts;
d not know how to read, he signed it. Was the 2. When there is colorable truth of the statements in
b
investigator guilty of falsification? In the affirmative, a narration of facts. .,.,
what act of falsification did he commit? 3. When the person making the narration of facts h&;
Yes, .attributing to the suspect who participated in no knowledge of the falsity of the facts narrated by him:..
or proceeding statements other than those in fa& 4 . When the perversion of truth in the narration of
made or given by him. facts was not made with the wrongful intent of injuring-.
a third person.
. ....,., .’
. I

pliance with the requirement of the Manila Police

Department, a policeman already appointed, qualified and 1034. A was arrested on June 5, 1957, without warrant of ar- ::
. , actiig as such, filled in an information sheet called rest. He was detained for three days without the police!,
- ,. ... ..“Persoma1 Data”. On the blank space opposite question
~ filing any complaint with the proper court. The policeman”
’
_ .. . No. 10 therein, which asked if the applicant had previous-
,., who arrested A, taking advantage of the absence of ‘the’:.
‘
, - ly been convicted of a criminal offense, that policeman clerk in charge of making entry in the blotter, erased the,
- placed “None”. In an investigation later conducted, it date of arrest of A in the police blotter .and t h 2 book ..
’ was discovered that, contrary to the defendant’s answer of records of arrest and wrote thereon June 8;’.1957, , t o +
to que!qtion NQ. 10, he had a previous conviction of the . make it appear that there was no arbitrary detention.
crime of theft. The prosecution did not point to any What act of falsification was committed by the police-
law or ordinance imposing upon the policeman the obliga- man and what document w a s falsified? .Is it fdsification
tion to reveal his previous conviction in filling in the committed by a public officer with abuse of his official ’:
,personal data sheet. Is the policeman criminally liable? position? Explain your answer.
No. The elements of falsification bv making untruth-
ful statements in a narration of facts are: @) there must
?
be a &a1 obligation to disclose the truth in the narration
of facts; and@) the ae-. Since there
i&&auoy ordinance requirinn the accused to reveal h&
-IS convictim,s-t n o legal obligation o n h e
Note: Is it a defense that there was no
p a o f the accused to disclose t h a u t h .
Nota: The narration of facts must he absolutely %e. If
there i s a colorable trut.h in it, there is no crime ( U S . YS. i
Bayot),. i
Under Art. 171,
‘Phe perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be
I ’ made with the wrongfd intent of injuring a third peraon.

408 409
1
. . , ,$*
”~,,~ . i
 I

J
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ntrnded to be protected undex Art. 171 js the, intere2t of,~,the 1087. A, a private individual, prepared - a 'deed of sale wher6
..,. ..
,. . ',
, ommunity which is' mainly intended to be' @arantezd hy 'the
strictest 'faithfulness of tlie dficials charged with ,the, prepara-
he made a false-statement in t,he narr.ation of facts, makg
tion and preservation of acts in which they intervene. i n g it appear that he'sold his prwerty to B, when iti
And if ha did not take, advantage. 'of' his 'Dfficial position,
truth arid in fact he never sold it. . The, purpose of A W q
... , who is ,!t bq treated. as 5 private izdividual, to put his property beyond. the reach of A's. creditorel
.. i. Art. , 1 1 2 : ; p ~ ' 1, of the'Revised Penal Code. The consideration mentioned in the deed of.,+onveym$E
Und,ef-this pro&sion, damage 01. inteht to eausd damage is not was fictitious. 'Later, he asked a notxriry.public to havf
.:,;.. .: ,: ,,,, ..nscessary either,, bearduse what. is punished .under that i y d it n,otarized, which was done hy 'the notary :public, not
vision is the violation of the Dublie faith and the nerversm
of iha truth which the document ,solemnly proclaim. ..knoiving the statements contained in ' the dowment . tQ
" ,-
?rhe'&g a-:'i;lust be m&b.l (People vs. 'Reodiea and be false. What crime or crimes were. committed 'a$
;. ,: . ' Cbhlefo). r.Ei.en:'if ordinarily the d a h 'in 'imrnat8rie. 2 what document was falsified by A, considering that the
. ,
.: , &r&n.of suchh-da was made to conceal a , ' O r i m e ~ ~ ~ e .dqcument was prepared.'.by him., as a private,.individ$i
..
:<,,.. . tho, a c e u s e d A i t B crime, t h a e ;becomes, essential and the ,act of falsification. had been conimitted by hlm
(TG- .
'Belpiea, C.A.) . , 1. , , ; , : before the document was notariized? 1 -:xp

1035. A requested a stenographer in the office of the treasurer A committed other form .o-f
.. The docume$z
+A&.

.,?
sur
' . tb pay his land tax and gave him P4040:' 'The stenwjrapkei-, falsified by A is a 6 u E m T a . ' ,- ?
: . instekd of payins' the amount ' t o tlte trMsurer"for A,
,

,,-....spent 'the money; took %lieland tax receCp%"df>his.:father,

A deed acknowledGd hefore a notarv nublic &a 6
:.,' erased the name of his father and .wrote,fn its.place the
n . . 'name,,of A and gave it to him, representing that it was
~

sented t o the no
:~,P~''.'?%# official receipt. What crime was committed by the
.>

%-
:. . stenographer?
The stenographer committed two crimes, namely : (1)
, estafa and (2) falsification_af-document, the
' . receipt of his father. The act of falsification committed very act constituting the crime 0:
i S i g a genuine cbcumd which c a its- (See Art. 316, par. 4 , of the Revised Penal Code.)
i%. The falsification w a a m r y t o m i t M a . Note: In the case of People VS. Tan Diang, the Supreme %o
. The falsification was committed to conceal the crime sf
,__

held that when the debtor made fictitious conveyance of hi3

.>, . estafa.
- < x s l @ b e malversation, becauJe received various parcels of real property for the purpose of putth!$
%

-
the money, not as tax collectpr, but as a private individual. the same beyond the reach of his creditors, and that th
tion of the judgment issued realiaed only a small am
'1036. What i!s the crime committed by a private individual
, .. .

: ..
who.cooperates with a public officer in falsifying a docu-
ment, the public officer taking advantage of his official
iseaudulent a
certain qersonal ro erty of the debtor, the crime
(Art. 314, R.P.C.).
Under Art. 316. mar. 4, of the Revised Penal Code, i
position? . , other form of swindlim, - w
a-r, shall execute any fictiti
A private person who cooperates with a public officer I It would seem that the proper
<..;:,,:., -'
in the-:falsification of a public document W s thesame tion is other form of swindling,
>.
d ,. .,
~~:,~.,~..~. imty.and .penalty as the public officer. (Viada; US. R:P.C., because the deed of sale etitious and it
.. , ,,:. vs. Ponte). .
ecuted to 'the prejudice' of -mothe
i
. ,i.A,. ..,
4JO 411
,
 ,, ,..,,>.:
i
' 1 .
.,.
i
,
. .
.
B
i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW HEVIEWER
authorities 01' to its owner found property) should
It is believed that notwithstanding the decision in the Casb
of Feop'le vs. Tan Diong, the crime Committed is not fraudulent ' regarded.
. i n s o i v e n c p the reason that the deed of sale was fictitious,.
whereas, n fraudulent insolvency, there must be A n actual a&
't ' .
The two@&gmLes of
fication are present:.&
&
intent Q
%on*- the part of the *e& with his property, w&h genuine signature; and m e arc
presupmses that there is an dctunl transfer rf his nroperty
f d i m b l e Consideration.
s m e b&mm the nenuine s i g u e
insoIven& ? n d ( o n One.
The document falsified, being a c u k , is
. ;
e-rd by a mercantile law. Hence, it is a
...
.. d.t-
.,. ,.1: . imws. ---i
i.

;
,
,I
.
Thq'&&consists e t& falsified check
-.1038.What dociument was falsified when the signature of a. m A t of the car of the offended party, t .
. judge was counterfeited on the order of arrest prepared
'~
pretending to Dossess urouerty (money in the form of,,.
c G k ) or defrauding the offer.ded party by means of
.by a private individual and used the same to cause t h e other similar deceits.
_iI arrest of the offended party? Why?
The falsification of the check ' w a s n e c e s s a r y m e a G
. . F m : a t i o n of a 6ublic document) bv a urivate in- for committing estafa.
. ' dividual under Art. 172, par. 1, of the Revised Penal Code,
,'

. .because the order of arrest is a public document, evenif

'

1040. When is the falsification of a public, official, or commer-

it is simulated or fabricated, s&e the signature of a U er- cial document punished as falsification *by publie officer, '
"'
' sLn in authorixy & counterfeit& on the paper w
____ m employee or notary pnblic under Art. 171, and when is
,
...
~.
given the appearance of a
anrniIlU)lhL!.fAE@- it falsification by a private individual under Art: 172, of
the Revised Penal Code? .
1039. A found on the street a booklet with one hlank check ' When the public officer, employee or notary public
. .. ,.of the Philippine National Bank. He detached the hlank c m h d the falsiifica%n ef a document with abuse Qf
check and wrote the word ''cash'' an a blank space after

, _I
the words "Pay to ", the sum of P1,OOO in words
and figures, and signed the signature of the owner of
-
mhis official osition, it is @%EifiEi€ion
Penal Code.
uub!i$ under Art. E?o??%%%ed
r,

the lost check with intention l o imitate it and with striking When the public officer, F p l o y e e or pstary public-,::
siqilarities with it. Then, A used the check in buying -f a p b l i c , flicial o r m m e r c i a l document '
;
.
-
w
B's car. As the check was worthless, B was prejudiced. taking advantage of his official i,osition, *when thq'C
What act of falsification was committed, what kind of o-f is a private individual, the crime is punished :$
document was falsified, and what crime was committed? under Art. 172 and the name of the crime is falsification,;
Explain your answers. by a private individual. %
The act of falsificatiw is qountevfeitina the signature .>,
..A.

0iAhE.df-
O LthLKK- .
Y.
Y. 1041. A is a public officer whose duty, among others, was to.:;
::
?- -
The djxument falsified is a 6 m m e r c i a l docuZG33
documenQ tour the province and to make a report of his observa-1%
+. tion in the different places he would visit. He was y.
?-

It is@tafa throunh falsificati

,':_. ..,
@?'<,Pined,a,
&@Pined,a,
*&
I_ p:_
:~i~ ~..,~. . C.A.). Theft ( f a d : ::
ocumenq) (People
;eker to the loeaL - allowance. The driver of the PU car-
titled to travellinrr

412 413
 CRIMINAL LAW IUWIEWER CHIDIINAL LAW REVIEWER
.. " h.,

which he used issued a receipt f o r F25. A erased the Is there falsification of private document through rmHe$i
figure '$2'and wrote in its place the figure "4". Then imprudence if there is z actu:il damage caused? Sup-'
A prepared a v d e r for the refund of the amount of pose that there is actual damage caused?. Explain your,:
p-15 be allegedly paid to the driver and attached thereto answers. .. .
, .: :
*:
.".
.,.
the altered receipt issued by the driver. He signed the No, b a s e there must be
voucher and submitted it to the provincial auditor for G e ai m m c e i-es
auditing and later to the provincial treasurer for Pay- if there is actual damage caused
ment. A was paid the amount of 845. What crime was -that becornsimportant. In such case. -ai;
comniitted by A? Explain your answer. of falsification
p a n e e exists. -
of private document t w h 'e-r
A committed estafa through falsification of . . an official
document, because he-EXlBlX& 3 U S &la1 caDacity 1041. Is there any differeJlce between the use of falsified doci.,:
:-thefalsification vas a necesc;lrdirneans to_ defraud
meiit in judicial proceedings and the use of
t u v e r n m e n t . ' The receipt, which is a private docu- i ,' document in transactions or proceedings other 'th
' ' ment. Z e l y a supporting paper to the. voucher. cial? Explain your answer.
Note: The crime committed is against the pub$
tres,sury under Art. 213 of Code, because Yes, in the crime of
==ision requires that the p-qfficer must enter into

52-6Z-F
. was paid t o him.
Do not eonfuse this question with the case of U.S. vs. Nieto,
where the municipal president in preparing the voucher to seek
reimbursement of what he paid for the typewriter acted as a
p,ri,uute pereon.

.-::1042.
.. In what kind of falsification is damage to a third person g carbon copy of the receipt, by,making it appear
amount paid by that customer was only P300,
._.:
, ~ ,
or at least intent to cause such damage an essential ele- the difference of P200 and turned over to the
ment?
.. ts, damage a at
hfalwflcation of
, least intent t,o cause damage on the nart of the Offender
', is a_n indispensable &?LlLnt. If there ism d a s e caused
- to another or at least an intent to cause damage, a r e

.~~
~.~~
_.-
of falsijiieatior, showing the intent to cause damage.
Thus, if the person who falsified the receipt. showed 't
~

. . ..
t o other persons to prove his claim that he already paid hls
i;daebt fication 'of private document, b m e
__I . to X, the intent to e s u ~ edamage is present.
 ' 'I 3,
...
, , "'

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRlMINAb ,LAW REVIEWER,

- ,. ...
,win the commission a ~ t a ef- ia &Q ., . ,,It is consumma.ted felony,, because
-be ~
cautled by'the falsificativn of the private d w t .
~~ aLe is_ sufficient in ,falsification af
In a complex crime, each of the crimes forming i t must be Actual damage to the offended party
..,.. * .. -complete in'itself, that is, it can stand alone as a distinct crime. : ,
-. I
They form a complex crime, because both or all the mimes
,> , (

are the result of one single act, o r that one a some af them 1048. ,A found a check for,.PSOO, payable?
.... . . took i t with him to the bankj cOnn
d d a m a g e or intent t o cause dam&! e, wh&is
the crime 03 estafa and that of falsi
s
G
ere necessary means to commit the other or others. Th
of B on the dorsal side of the check, the1eby.m
appear .that it was endorsed ' by- B,
ment, cannot he considered aa-xeaeut a t the What crime was committed by A.?
both &&B. Bgse, o m -
considered in Ialsifieati n t e In a similar case, the Supreme Court.of :Spain held
i m . The falsification of a private docu. ' ' that the crime committed was theft, becaus'e. finding'the
ment is &a crime umJ&%there is d a m s o r at le.%&Wm* which is a lost property'\jithout returning' it
'
to cause damage. Hence, it cannot stand +a 8 distinct criine,
if there is d-amage to consider. Such being the ease, i t
I
. check its owner or turning i t over to the proper author
.. cannot form a complex crime with estafa or he a crime separate
II ' ' theft: and the falsification aud.e&hing of' tlie:ch'ec
'
and distinct from that of estafa.
1 ' bui the continuation of the crime of t k f t already c
mitted. 'But t h e
1046.
,.
A, an employee of a prLvate company, was in charge ' ' crime of estafa t
of preparing the payroll and paying the wages of the m n t . This is the
inborers of that company. He put there names of laborers " of Appeals. T a k d m e
~ , . .,.-;,,,..-,:
~

, . ,. ,
who did not work and placed opposite their names amounts / .

conresponding to their supposed wages for the month. 1049. A entrusted to B a Torr&&, ,title covering ? pare
i.'
Then the payroll was presented to the cashier who gave land 'for' safekeeping: Later, B" falsificc 'a' deed "of
' A ithe necessary amount to cover all the wages of the covering the property described in the.'said 'ToFiens
. . laborers, including those who did not work. He pocketed and counterfeited the signituse 6f the owner "Of
the wages for the laborers who did not work. What "
Torrens title. ,Then, he sold the liand .ani3 delivered
crime was committed by A? '~ Torrens title and deed of SaIe to the' purchker.
Falsification of private document (People vs. Reyes). deed of sale was notarized at the instance of B.
' . receiving the proceeds of sale, he s:pent the .&e for
I
Note: When the offender has t o falsil7 a pri\.ate document
t u t the money or proporty from the offended party, the . 0wn benefit. What crime was 'comriiifted by,,?? Expl
crime committed is falsification of B private document only. I vour answer.
,>
~~~~~ ~

,;e,

When the offender had in his possession the money or

-t______

B committedL@afa through fald'u 'z x h' t . . o f a uut& 24

He committed e&fa y&h a h u e of 'xmtldeue, :'yj
because the Torrens title was entrusted to him for safe- . i
keeping and his subsequent act resulting i n the'misappro-
priation of the property covered by the Torrens title corn- ,i3
,;:
1047. Suppose that when a private document was presented to pleted the, commission. of the crime. He committed also:' . , , ~.,
defraud another the falsification was discovered, is it at- the crime of 'falsification, because he counterfeited in t@e.;
. - ,
tempted, frustrated or consummated feIony7 deed o f sale the signature :of the, owner of. the. Torrens'?
. ,
. i

416 417
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
'
. '
title. But the falsification was a necessary means for
committing the crime of estafa.
1050. A bookkeeper of a company, in connivance with its cns-
tomer B, while recording the account of the latter, did
not record some of the invoices of the said customer.
Later, A sold the invoices to B for half their respective
values. What crime was Committed by the bookkeeper?
The bookkeeper committed the crime of falsificatio>
ofarivate document by omission when he did not record
some of the invoices in the record of the account of B.
The falsification by omission in effect constitutes the mak-
ing o f untruthful statements in a narration of facts. The
selling of invoices to the customer for half their respective
values does not constitute a separate and distinct offense,
., . because it is merely evidence of damage to the company,
~
which is an element of falsification of a private document.
However, if the record of the account of B is a com-
mercial document, defined and regulated by the Code of
Commerce or other mercantile law, the bookkeeper is liable
for two distinct and separate crimes, namely, (1) qualified
theft 'of the invoices which he sold to B:'%nd (2) falsi-
fication of a commercial document which was committed
t o conceal the crime of qualified theft.
The falsification was not necessary to commit the
qualified theft, because the bookkeeper had in his posses-
, . sion the invoices stolen.
Note: The selling of the invoices is qualified theft, because
, . . the baokkemer toak the invoices with grave abuse of Con-
fidenee. He & d only the m m a S e x % ' D of
the invoices. H e t-d have the juridical oossession of the
, ., .,
same, because his possession of the invoice is, in law, the poa-
mrsion of the company.
1051. When is the uger of falsified document deemed the
author of the f m i c a t i o n i
When the following two m a r e present:
B q w h e n t u s e was so cbselv connected i n m e
w&fihp f alsification: and
418
CRIMINAL LAW' REVIEWER
p)the u s 9 i a d the ca- of falsifying the docu-
ment.
Ilkzstvation: Thus, when the blank check was atolen 0-
before the falsified check, made on wid blank check, was p m
sented for payment, and the person who presented it was BTL
employee in the office where the blank cheek was stolen,
the two requisites are present.
1052. A, a private person and not enlp~loyedin any office, sent
a telegram to B who was then in Mindanao, stating in
the telegram that the latter's fat.her was dead and that
he had to come home to Manila. B came home, incurring
expenses for his trip, only to find out that his father was
very much alive and in good health. Is A liable,for fal-
sifying telegraph message? Explain your answer.
No, because he is nei$her a public officer or employee
nor an officer or employee of a private corporation=
gaged in the service of s e n d i n g s receiving wireless, tele-
graph or telephone message.
f
The falsification of, or the uttering of fictitious w i r e
ess, telegraph or telephone messages can be committed
only by an officer or employee of the Government.or of
\ any private corporation engaged in the service of send-
ing or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
(Art. 173, R.P.C.).
But A is liable as a princiual bv inducement -e
-.
c&Ee of f a m o n nf telenrauh message.
1053. In what cases may a private person commit a crime:
in connection with false wireless, I!able, telegraph or' tele-
phane messages?
When he knowingly u m such falsified dispatch
prejudice of a third party, &r atle;l& with intent ot-e
such prejudice (Art. 173, par. 2, B.P.C.).
1064. A was applying f o r a job in a oompany. The m
required A to submit a certificate from his forme
ployer regarding his length of service in his :fo
ployment and efficiency as an employee. .A -eo
419
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWIm

'. .., &., : present any, a s he was never employed, befare. 'To impress 1057.. What are .the crimes classified as ,&her falsities?
the manager of the company, A typewrote a. certificate . ..
.They are: I ,

.+ .. , . purportedly issued by the administrative .officer of an

' '

, ,,.., ,.,office .of the executive department of. the Government,
1 *-. .)..stating therein that A was .a former ,ehaploYee of
department ' and very efficient and t h a t 'he intended to
resign to look for a n employmen( with a bigger salary.
A ,coumterfeited ,$e signature of the administrative officer
. ti....
on thi? certificate and later presented it t o the manager
.,,. . of the: Company. What crime was committed by A?
1. Usurpation of authority or official functions.
that 2. Using fictitious name and concealing true 'name.
3. Illegal use of uniforms or 'insignia.
4. False testimony against a defendant.
5. False testimony favorable to the defendant.
6. false testimony in civil. cases.
7 . ' False testimony in other cam3 and .perjury.
8. Offering false testimony in evidence; ' '

A committed the crime of f a l s i f i c a b of certificate pf , . , , . . , . . . ,. , .

I
..,.
-.
.. -
. . merit by a private indi.&W (Art. 174, R.P.C.), 1058,.May a pnhlic officer commit usnrp:ttion of authority or
.- . .
,. .
Note: The last paragraphiof Art. 174 p n i s h e s a ptivate,per- official functions? Why?
son who falsifies a certificate of merit, .or. service. The
of the sam-punished under Art. 175. Yes, because the law (Art. 177, R.P.C.) applies,$%.
,.,-.: "any,person". T W s no reason to restrict its OD=-
1055. Suppose that it was the 'administrative officer:.who .. , issued tL~T&iyafL%ilwh 1.
.
it; what' crime was committed? 1059. -The .mayor of the town, although tho .justice of the peace
Tlle,, administrative officer committed the crime of was in the municipality, :conducted 'preliminary 'examina-
'. f - " ' f&&.tinn of esrtificate af-mer it bv a ollblicdfficer.
- . ;. , ,
tion .and ordered the arrest of the offender. Is the mayor
f.
liable for Usurpation of official functions, of the. justice
iO56.' A l i v i l complaint was filed by A'against 'B'for damages, of the' peace? Explain your answer.
-j,:- oli account of the serious phpsical iniuries which the
'
No, because the act is specifically covered by Art. 241
I , .., ,
latter infIicted upon the 'former. A induced C,,,l$s physi- ~' of the 'Revised Pe&L&&e, ~v@h punishes any o f f i a
cian, t o sign a certificate to the effect that 'he treated o-xecutive bran Ch ,of t h P G n v e m r & who assume%
*..:.' A, 'chiargeil and received Prom hlm the sum of P500 z e , , ,
,' judicial
- ,
uowera, . . . . .
his fee, but. the fact is that C received 'only PZOO in full
payment of his fee. What crime was rommitted by the 1060: An. employee in the Bureau of, Public Works exercised
*?* .,.)
..
ohvsician? 1s..it falsification -of m e d i d tettificate"By
.,'. 'a 'physician? ' Why? , . -
'
the powers of his Director wheu the latter was sick,
without having been designated as Acting Director, and,
I

*,i '. t&xn,,o

G b i f i c a t i o n of private documen3 'It .is
w l e , b a s e the- Zertificate
falsificl- s' without any right to do so. What crime was committedj;
by that employee?
hi:..
' does mt ,to,the illness o r - injury nf -a':person. I n -' - That- employee committed usurpation of authority OG,
-,.
falsification of medical certificate, the false facCs certified official functions, because under pretense o f official posi-"'
must refer t d e illness or injury qf a m n (Art. 174, tion he performed acts pectaining t o . the Director with-
, .,., : . , ~, : ., i I
-R.P.(S.). ' .I. out being lawfully entitled. to do, s o . (Art. 177, R.P.C.).
,: 'Note: When person, ''&a I;hys:kii?, -f?lsifi$d::'i. medical - ,
.., . emrtificate, the crime' is 'falsification :of -rned&LCW&& ay 1061. .A, a . private individual, pretended to be a detectiw'
.,.. . . 7 ; P,;:,:-':r-,:, .-
of the M.P.D. and succeeded in secoring- the consent 'of
420 42 1
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
the owner of a house to enter the same, because of his
false representation that he would make an investigation.
Once inside, and taking advantaxe of the fact that tho
owner went to his bedroom to changd clothes, A h l r
from a table a purse containing money and left. In ad-
dition to whatever other crime he nommitted, did A
commit usurpation of authority?
No, because pretending the exercise of public authority
was made by A to gain entrance into the house of the
offended party to commit robbers with f o w unan_thingn
in that house. Since it is a n e n t of the offense of
robbery, the cfime of usoroation of authority is deemed
a&rM
1062. In nsulrpation of authority or official function, is it
neceszry for the offender to perform a public functicn
in the Government o r in any of its branches?
If he already knowingly and falsely represented him-
self to be an officer, agent or representative of any de-
partment or agency of the Philippine Government or Of
any foreign government, it is not necessary to perform
any act pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer. He is already guilty of usurpation of authority.
But if, in addition to pretense of official position which
he made, he also performed any act pertsining to any
:,. person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
Government or foreign government, or any agency there-
: . of, without being lawfully entitled to do so, he is guilty
of usurpation of official functions.
:. 1063. Republic Act No. 10 punishes any person who, with or
.. without pretense of official position, shall perform any
act pertaining to the Government, or to any person in
authority or public officer, without being lawfully entitled
to (lo so. To whom is it applicable?
Republic Act No. 1 0 is applicable only to members of
, . seditious organization engaged in subversive activities.
~.'3064. Is 1,he use of a name other than one's real name dways
. , .I ..,
,t;- ,. pundshable?
:, i
422
,,.
CHIXINAL LAW REVIEWER
No, it is notpunishable-
(1) When used as a @nym
or
(2) When a fictitious name is nqtnsed
(3) When the purpose is && conceal a crim
to evade the execution of a judg:ment, or not to
damage to public interest, or
(4) ,When the use of fictitious name is an -ent o
a particular felony, as it is absorbed.
Thus, in estafa or in robbery where fictitious name is
used to commit the crime, 80 that it is an integral part
of the commission of the offense, it is not t o be considered
a separate and distinct offense.
Also, when fictitious came is included in the false
statement in the narration of facts, i t is considered pa
of the crime of falsification.
Elemext8 of using fictitious E r n e :
~'
1. The offender uses n name oLhor than his real n F e .
2 . He uses that fictitious name publicly.
3. For the purpace of-
=. concealing a crime;
b. evading the execution of 2t judgment; or
e . causing damage.
1065. A represented himself to C that he was B and signed '!
B's name. on a deed of sale of a ]piece of land belonging, :
to B and, after receiving thc proceeds of the sale
C, the vendee, A spent the same. Is A liable for
fictitious name? Explain your answer.
While it is true that A publicly used a name other t
his real name when he represented himself as B on
public document, with the purpose of causing &ma
to B, A is*liable, because the
the law (Art. 178) is said to be
terest. Since the act of A re
-.
private interest of B, the crime commit
means of deceit. And having f & i e d a
as a necessary niea,ns to commit
423
 I
I
I

CIElMINAL- LAW. REVIEWER CRIM~NKL'LAW REVIEWER

1 ,.
Note: The insignia or uniform must beluaod nublidy'and ik-
I.

--
' "I
c&&e of estafa through falsification d f a public
, document, by causing i t to appear that B'pahicipated in . -P,maginary The insignia o r uniform tahould not be that of an
office.
a n act or proceeding when in truth and in fact he did . , ,:,,
~, .,'. .
~.,
, . not so participate. 1070. What are the three forms of false testimony?
.1066.
.. They are :
. . Give an illustration of publicly using a fictitious name
2,,
'
1. False testimony in criminal cases.
to conceal a crime; and an illustration, to evade the execu-
I, tion of a judgment. ,.,,
2. False testimony in civil c a s e !
,,.,,. ,
When A, who looks like B, a prisoner by final judg- 3'. False testimony in other cases.
ment, takes the place of the latter in the jail. A hae l o
'use the name of B, and B has to use the name of A ; 1071. The evidence presented against A ;shows that.dur&g the .:
other wise, the authorities will discover that one takes the preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal, A tes-.":.'
place of the other. The purpose of A is to conceal the tified under oath that he saw B stab C who was k i l l e l -
. , crime he has committed, that is, delivering a prisoner as a result. n% he' the' case was tried before the Court
' of First Instance, A changed his.' testimony by testifying ;''
,, . from jail. The purpose of B is to evade the execution then and there that he did not 3ee B at the.~piacewhere -'.
' ' bf the judgment against him, that is, to evade the service
' '
'
of the penalty imposed on him by the court. ' C was killed, and that C was killed b y an unknown 'person.. :!
.I Can A be 'Convikted of false testimony on the basis of ,.
1067:-A w : arrested
~ for playing a gamb1ing:game. A gave the foregoing facts?
the name of B,for himself, stated he wag married, which ' ' No, the -1 must' determific"'~fY& wllich of the W
was true; gave his real residence, real 'occupation, and contradictory testimonies .- If the testimony given
correct age. Is A liable for concealing 'true name? by A before the fiscal is false, it being a testimony upon :
No. He must &o 1-c his other aersonal circnm- a material matter, under oath before a competent
s&,g. He must n a n l y conceal his true name, &l artthorized l o receive and administer' oath, and the
: _. 5''. a i all his other personal circumstances. requiring the giving of that testimony, it-is-
. . testimony of A was upon a material matter;.-becaudg,
:What crime. is committed. by a lieutenant who used the death of C and the person who caused his death were'
'insignia ,of the captain of the Philippine Army? W h y ? main facts which were the subject of"th& 'itiquiry;
Illegal use of i-because the lieutenant u m fiscal before whom 'A gave his testimony' wag a.,compe
2 :! , ni&& which aertaiw to an office no$..&ld by him ( officer
. authorized to receive p,nd, administer oath;
. ' -. 8 (Art. 179, R.P.C.). waa a willful and deliberate assertion of falseho
cause A knew. his testimony before therfiscal was false;
1069. What crime is committed by a constabulary soldier who and under the law, the person giving evidence-ortestimony-;
. used the uniform of the policeman of the Manila Police relative to the subject of the inquiry -by the fiscal must
'
, .
4
Department? Why? do so uiider oath (Art. 183, R.P.C.).
because the constabulary soldier If i t is the testimony of.A before.the .court which is .:
.false, then the cri
j,w&fihe is not m member (Art. ,170,R.P.0.). '
; qf the defendant

494 425
 CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW HEVIE'WER

false testimony under oath or who executed the false afiidavit

,1072. What are the two wvnvSof committing- Illustrate is I
&liable for perjury.
each. Perjury m t be committed t l m u 'I negligDFee,
,',::: y.' By testifvine falsely u u k . c d k in a proceeding o e r one of its elements is that there must he a willful and d
assertion of falsehood.
than judicial.
(a) False testimony &re any committee of'conwess; 1073. To hold a person liable for perjury, must there be a law
(b) False testimoFy before a y adrninSrativ+-&&Y requiring that a testimony under oath or an affidavit be
...,. ,., ,
I
a-a
t-&r a hearing. made in certain cases?
Example: B, C , D and E testified under oath before This is not a settled question. The meaning of the
. . . the board of special inquiry in support of the applica-
ir
. tion of three Chinese boys to enter the Philippines,
declaring that said boys were the children of A: and
phrase (in Art. 183), which is, "in cases in which the';
law so requires" has been the subject of different inter-
pretations by the Supreme Court (People vs; Tupasi, et'
that they were born in Manila. During the investiga- al.; and People vs. Angangco). In the Tupasi ease, it:
' , 'tion, A testified that the three boys were not her chil- was held that there must be a law requiring a statement ,:
dren. B, C, D and E are guilty of perjury by testify-
' '

- ' ~ " ing falsely under oath.

:
- under oath or an affidavit upon a. material matter to be
made in a particular case. I n the Angangco case, it 'w"
4:: By making an affidavit. held that i t is sufficient that the siatement be made under
(a) In a9liaction for marriage license. oath or an affidavit be made to serve a legal purpose,
(b) In @lieation for civil service examination. such as to be assured of the veracity of the witness who
( c ) f p p w g s , re&ing that a f & h i t s be attached testifies.
thereto. It is submitted that there must be. a law reauirina it.
Ezantple: In his application for civil service exam- This interpretation must Drevdl, hecause such s t m k
ination, which is under oath, A stated that he wa8 p m i m ? m d .
not convicted of any crime, when in truth and in fact
he was once convicted of theft. 1074. Under the old Penal Code, a person who would procure
@iof P)BViUWi
another t o testify falsely would be liable for subornation
of perjury, if the latter would testify in a manner, making
-
k.There must he state-
a-material matter:
oa h a
x affidavit won
him liable for perjury. What does the Revised Penal
4. Before a competent officer, authorized U v e and Code provide for such act? Give an example of suborna-
administer oath; tion of perjury.
- 4 W i l f u l n d deliberate assertion of a false& b x E The Revised Penal Code treats and punishes such act
g M r ; and
as plain perjury, the person who procures the false wit-
4. That the sworn statement containing the ralaity i u -
ness as the principal by induction; and the false witness,
&ired by law.
Note: The false testimony under oath or the affidavit must. the principal by direct participation. .
~ i k t ac material matter; if it ildaes not refer to B material Example;
matter. the false testimony under oath or the false affidavit
cannot xive rise to perjury. A induced B and C to testify falsely in a'prelim-
, , There must be a w v n d deliberate assertion @.&%,&- inary investigation that A's servant who left his house
~ !,&.
, ,,. If there is an bonest mistake, the person who BaVe a
,T
without his knowledge took with him some clothes and,

427
 CRIMINAL. LAW REVIEWER
.P money, when. as a matter of fact the servant did not
take anything with him, except his o ~ personal
n prop-
erty. B and C testified falsely under Uath before t h e
'fiscal that the servant stole^ some ,clothesbnd money
belonging to A. A was guilty of the crime fonnerly
. . known ,as ,subornation of perjury. Under,Jie, Revise$.
.. Penal Code, A is liable for perjury as a' q$$pal
,,. by^
induction.
1076. A procured I) to testify in his favor, their agreement
.:,, , .
being that I3 would testify that he was present when A.
" '
paid his debt to'C, which was not true. Dur&g the trial,.
,.. ' .
when A presented B, a s his witness, the lader told t h e
. . . t r u t h ' t h a t ' he had no' knowledge of any payment made
' by A t o C; and th& he waS requested by A to testify
".' blsely. Is A liable criminally for having presented B
; .I
as a' witness? Has B any criminal liability for taking
., .
the witness stand? Explain your answers.
When A, presented B as' his witness, he knew that his
said witness was false, because the latter agreed with him
to testify :falsely. Under, the Revised Penal Code (Art.
184), t M m e offer of a witness knowins him t
-.false wit&-% i= consummated felolly. It ,would Seem
that it is not necessary that the witness offerkd should
testify in .a manner making him liable for false testi-
. . mony, because this is covered by Art.,l7, par, %,in rela-
,. tion to Art. 182.
A s regards, B, i t is submitted that he is also liable,
because B and A were in conspiracy. ' From the facts of
' w e , it will be noted that A and E had a previous
__ and both af-them decided to carry Gut th&
.: agreement
&,,ag indicated by the f a t t u presented him a u
:, . ' W M s s Lnd B took the witness stand pursuant to their
' agreement. Since there is conspiracy, the act 'of A is
consi.dered the act Of'B. ' It is true that B told tkk tr&
and did n e testify in the manner he was told to testify,
';a%but such'desistance on the part of B, having been made
', 1-a the acts of ' hae..hen ppsfanned, w &
not in. any way relieve him of criminal resuonsibility. In
CKIMENAL LAW REVIEWBR
' , the crime'af offei*inc false testimony m c e (Art.
184), a +the acts of execution are'.Derbollged. * u ~ h e
.
, -
, . -mere offer ,of a false witness 5,tes:timony
or official proceeding.
. ' 'a1
,,
Note: This ctime is also committed when.the offender offered
in evidence a false witness o r .false teutimony in an official
proceeding. This is not a crime formerly known. 8 s Subornation
09 perjury, because under Art. 184. it is not necessary that .
the witness offered should testify falsely !n B manmr making
him liable for perjurv.
"~
If the offender knowingly offered in evidencc false doeu-
est in a judicial or official proceedinz, the crime is' not
covered by Art. 184, but should be^ punished under;the last
.,
.paragraph of Art. 112. , .
The false teatimony may be offered without the witness by
' ' ' '
. . preienting his swposed deposition in court' or othkf official
proceeding. ..
..
1076. A i s a retailer of certain goods imported from a foreign
Colintfy by B. Tilting advantage of the Scarcity of that
kind of imported goods, B and A agreed'to fix highep
prices ,for the goods ,which A purcha.sed from him and
A. .in turwwould resell the same goomds a t much .higher
a prices, ,thereby increasing the market price of such goods.
Are A and B liable under the Revised Penal Code? If
eo, what crime was committed by them?. . ... - ' .
Yes. The Revised Penal,' Code punishes -any ,' person
who, being an imuorter .of merchirnrWisewholesaler , n,r
t s e r ' s h a l l a x r a in any manner w i - t t W . ' o t h e r . uersop
- f o r the uuruose of increasing the nprket price- of m -i
' &
g (Art. 186, pa?. 3, R,P.C.). ' : ! ' ' . . .
The crime committed i s ~ o a o l vand
:. G 5 0O i' trade
F
~!.' , : .~ . , .I . ,*. ., ,.. , . , , j .
1077. A, B and C executed a Ijnblic documknt wh;ch:embodiea
their".ngreement .,to the. effect t h a i mrtain .merchandise
would .be sold at certain price .and .no$+one of ..them shall :
.. sell &is merchandise at,--lesserprke:without thwprevioukl
,I
,,,consent of ,.the athexs, .The agreement.. xas.,not:::~carn$
...
.- out, because they were..arrested, , @m,thep .be$held, .crim-3
+:
I
, '>f
429,

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER
' , i n d y liable under the Revised Penal Code on the basis OF
,,': : that agreement? Explain your answer.
.~, '. , .
"
Yes. Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who
.
shall enter into any contract or agreement or shall take?
part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a
" trust or otherwise in restraint of trade or commerce o r
:
' '
' ' to 'prevent by artificial means free competition in the
market is liable for monopolies and combination in restraint
of trade (Art. 186, par. 1, R.P.C.).
. .
1078. A, a millionaire, invited all lumber concessioners and of-
. ,
'
" fer& them certain price plus a share in the profits if dl
of them wwld sell their lumber to him only. A's purpose
was t o conitrol the price of lumber sold locally or exported
to foreign countries. The lumber concessioners refused
, and,.rejected the offer. May A be held criminally liable
under the Revised Penal Code for his attempt to mono-
':,.polize the sale and exportation of lumber? Explain your
. . your answer.
No, be,cause in monopolies and combinations in re-
' straint of trade, it is necessary that the offender &@
. -combine with any other person or persons to monoDo&e
, ' a particular merchandise or object of commerce, !y&&
.,.-"-.' ' presupposq that there Should. b_e an acre- n claimed that he purchased them 6 months' prior ,:tb h
-
.i,
two or m r e aersons to accomalish $he uuraogO. The . .Re-
' 'vised Penal Code-e& or CoDlbdWn.
But in this case, since the proposal of A was rejected
by the lumber concessioners, there was no meeting of the
mind between him and the lumber concessioners and, there-
^'fore; there is not even a conspiracy.
Illustrate monopoly by spreading false rumors or making
use of any other artifice.
.. Spreading false rumors or making use of any other
artifice to restrain free competition in the m a r h t is illus-
ted in the case of U.S. vs. Fulgueras. i n that case,
.'accused went about distributing papers and prochma-
s to .the people of a certain town, spreadink suhvewive
. . . 430
*
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
and fanatical ideas that unless they lower the prices' of
needful commodities they would be viziited by flood and
other calamities. As a result, the people lowered the
prices of their commodities and used inrjtruments of meas-
ure larger than the regular size.
1080, When is the pussession, preparation, administration or
otherwise using any prohibited drug punishable?
When the possession, preparation, administration or
the use of any prohibited drug is n e i s u l l y authorized.
..
,. , . :
1081. What requisites must he present in order that a persohi.
may be convicted of illegal possession of opium?
They are: tl?_eoccupancy or taking and:&&-
tent to possess the substance shown to be opiLm.
Note: The second reqiiisite is lacking .in. the case of . a wife
who was told by her husband to got from beneath.-a pillow
B can which contained opium and, after having tnken it-there-
from, attempted to throw it away when the policeman was
searching for opium in their house. She was caught by.tha
policeman wliilc in the act of throwing it away. I t was held
that she had no intent to possess opium.
1082. A policeman found in the possesion of the accused a bottle
containing opium in very slight quantity. The ,accused:
is
arrest,' because the state lof ..his health. necessitated his
frequent use of the same. Is the accused criminally
liable?
The law penalizes the mere possession of opium by un-
authorized person without regard to the quantity. If the
state of his health really required the pills there must be
a prescription of a physician therefor.
Note: P-=ion of Datent medicine q -w , the
possessor k m that it contains wium, i s also punished by
-cause the term "oDium" includes vrenarntians, b-&isb
opium or morDhine e m ag an inzredieat.
1083. Two ,policemen, armed with a search warrant t o 'search
for opium in the house of X, found under his bed a can
451
 ,/" CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER.
CRIMINAL L.4.W REYIEWER,

.:, ".,, which,.wa.s, empty;: but. there, .were ,traces . g f , . . ~ i j s ~ j ~an

~ing 1087: The policemen also charge those found smoking opium h~'.
Can, X be .held-liable,for illeg&posses- that place with the crime of knowingly visiting an opium.
:,. . I I i opium .container. '
,; 'i. i dive. Do the policemen properly charge them?
: sion ,sf ,opium?:. Why?,. , , 1 ~

a b ? s l s e the law r d a e s n o t . ~ ~ ' p ' a ~ ~ ~ i i ~ s s s e s s i o n , 1 No. Only those "g&being included in the provisions
of the next preceding article," which p& possessing
but present nasi%&- ' (U.S. vs. Tang Seng Ki).
or -u prohibited d n g , can be chmred with'knnwingly

l.1
1
visiting an opium dive o r resort (Art. 191, par. 2, R.P.C.). 1:';

088. A w& in the house of B while the latter was smoking

opium. A and B were then in the same room. Is A Liable
criminally? Explain.
No, because it does-not aunear that the house o f B , :
w E a n opinm dive-rt. To be li&l,e for visitina a ,,

house where r-a is smolcinir opium, the &

e must
, . be shown to be an opium dive or re@.
liable..for illegal possession of-opium? . , '

:
...., /-

1089; A, who 'was a member o€ the crew o€ a foreign steamer

,, which arrived in Manila from Kongkong, bfought with
/' him several cans of opium. The opium was never landed
sion. , .
,... . ,.

A is the owner o f a- 'house 'where Chinese sinoke opium,

and f u r smoking opium in that house each Chinese would
pay 1'12.00 t o A fhroq$i B' who is in charge of the place.
i from t h e vessel. He was arrested. R e confessed that
the opium belonged to him but would nut state his pur-
pose in having in his possession the opium. There was
nu evidence to show that his intention was t u import
illexally the opium into the Philippines. For what crime
B ilways'remains a e,door. That huuse"is well known may A be prosecuted and ,punislied?
.F' ' '.'to the & x m e n , a e s t s were' ma8e before in the
opium.. , are If the steamer hadManila a-ort of d estination,
,

,
.
'
.,
, .. .
place
iually
of 9ersons
liable?
for smoking . , -
A and,:B crim-
- t i s illegal imQortation of opium. The
terms "import" and "bring" are synonymous. Importation
is a m m f an onium dive. B
per bf o m - r c c ,m
, r t : (Arts. 190, -d 're - e the goods at the customhouse,
"i 7 , R.P.C.)., , .. , , , \ ' ..~
b m e l y hr&$C~ t&m inta wort. K t would be absurd
to think that A was merely carrying opium back and forth
e found'-in that house by.'tlie 'policemen and a foreign country. No better ex-
'the place: X, Y and 2 are'. just sitting
~
the logical deduction is that A
er 'Chinese' are smolcing opium. They fail be brought into t h e Philippines. There
regencf there. ' What
~. crime .is committed illegal importation.
But if the steamer was not makinx Manila a$ its n a t
are !gdlty of the erirne of. knowinglp. ' v i m of destination, then there i s m r i m e Mere possession
'
-'(Art. 191, par. 2, R.P.C.). . - of opium in such case is He, because it does
T
J
432 433
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAI, LAW REVIEWER
., % .
pot involve a breach of Dublic order and the steamer o n No. I n the nature of things, B jxeiew list 'nat..rag&
which it is found is a foreign vessel. pertains to a game of iueteng and that the actus<$ %oil@, I.,,...

, n o t keep it in his possession but for its connection .Wi@

Art.. 193, par. 2, provides that "the illegal possession of
.$'$hzh
an opium pipe or other paraphernalia for using arty athei
prohibited drug shall be prima facie evidence that its
possessor has used said drug." Does this provision au-
thorize the prosecution of a person for smoking opium,
if he is found in pos+ession of opium paraphernalia, even
if no opium 'was found in his possession?
No. That provision merely a presumption that
the s- or other psraphernalia found in the nuia?&m
of the accused are for the use of, or have b e a o-,r
any prohibited d r u q
1095. A group of persons were surprised by several policemen
Note: In fact, if he was actually smoking opium, it would be
tho a w r i m e for which he can be prosecuted. The possession
.of the pipe would n n t he a s m t L c r i m e . Even if together
with t h e opium paraphernalia a quantity of opium was found
in the same place at the same time and by the same detective
or policeman, there should be w s i m c only.
. ,:e
When may a physician or denList be held criniinalb liable
for preseribing opium for his patient?
.,, .* '
game of jueteng. The burden of the evidence .is
->,.' shift2 to the accused to show that his possession.is law-
ful or that the list is in no way connected with %e
., .
jueteng game.
u t if the ~uetenglist bears a date or is otherwise
/
/ shown
" . to have been used a t a time different from that
/
when the game of jzieteny was played, tberemustbe
evidence of its connection with the game of jueteng that
has taken place or is about to take place.
playing monte. Cards for playing monte, tallx-sl1eets and
lead pencils were found on the table, but no money W a s
used as bet in the game. Are those 'person3 criminally
liabletifor gambling.? . ,

-
When the physical condition of the uatient dls.ot (US.vs. Rafael):
-
require the use of opium (Art. 194, R.P.C.).

What -si , .
..I
*.
It is a 01' scheme the result of which deDends
-
wholly o r a l y upon chance .or. hazard.

Are spectators liable for gambling?

Why? 1096.
L . . i " . ~ No, becjuse a speetator does not take Dart directzw o r
.%!&#*J:. . ' indzctly
- i n . gambling. T h e w punishes "any person <
y: .."'.tvho, in any rnawr, s h a dIY or i n d i r e take uart
y~ .' 1

,,. . . i w a m b l i n g game.
4. .Must the Drosecution wove that the iuetenz list is con-
ectea wi& a game ai
jueteng wW&has taken place or
&ut Ito :take, place?

434
 I

I . / .

I ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIXINAL LAW REVIEWEll

1097. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code pun- 1100. Suppose that the woman w a s m e a s old and the man
:' nishing the crimes pertaining to lottery? was her teacher, what would be the crime? Why?
.+
I .;
~. . '
,
chance. -
Art. 185, par. (a) punishinc lottgy as a gasle9f

€'amgraph (c) of Art. 196 punishps D ~ S S ~'011

S Sbf-lnir
~
., The man would be liable f o r m € l a s c l v ~ o u s n e ~ ~
the consent of the offended party,
cause the latter crime is committed
scandalous conduct is &expressly
grave scandal,
err
when the high& '
falling Within any
a t w 'w Q . J is in any , m a n n x u
O u I
the game of iueteng. -----------
other articl? of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 196 -
importation, selling or distribution, k 9 . Q - 1101. In a gathering where there were many people, A advocat-.
n*ce with the i m r , of lottery tick&; mere pos- ed the practice of birth control. Did A commit any
session w m of lottery tickets; and selling crime punishable by the Revised Pena.1 Code? If so, what
or distributing the same without connivance with the im- crime?
porter. Yes. A committed the crime -of <immoral doctrine9
by publicly expound& 9m i m i n c doctrine o d
1098. May a person be held liable for betting in games the e m y to public morab.
result of which does not depend wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard? c 1102. What is the Lest to determine whether or not a picture
Yes. In betting in sports conkiib. &uy person Who of a naked woman is obscene?
shall bet -money or any objest el-o o m e g2Qn The proaer test is whether the n>ut.&e L t h d G h re,
L
t . u l t of boxing & other sport contest i&&$& fpr as indi- 't, i m arimpure; OJ whether it is
betting in mort contest. naturally r&ul&d k e x w' ' e imqllr.ns-
/ N o t e : As regards immnral acts or shows exhibited in theaters
'
1099. A policeman saw a man and a woman 27
below the wall facing the sea at t h e Luneta.
yea+s old
The place
,/ by d a n c e t s - t h a t is the lustful .rei& d l h L U l %e.

below the wall is not visible to the publie. The man p h 3 . Is lack of visible means of s u u p s t an indispensable.
was pcrforniing acts of lasciviousness on the person of element in vagrancy?
1
L .1 . the woman, with her consent. Are they liable for WIXS No. Only in two cases is lack of visible means of
&Qmkll? sui5fGrt an indispensable element of vagrancy. !

a s , because the act, a highly scandalous conduct w a h 1. First caseL

' ' w d d o&d ag2inst decency or good customs (Art. 200, (a) The person has the physical ability t o o r k ;
R.P.C.),was committed in a public dace. It is not re- ( b ) He neglects t m himself to some lawful
&d that the act be committed also within the knowl- CalliB;
I
e&e - IC o m as
blic, circumstances are (c) He b m aDarent meanSof subsistence.
stated by the Supreme Court in the alternative, being 2. S ~ C case:
O ~
senarated .bv_ the word "or". . (a) The person is found about public or
:',..,. .. N o t e : The.i,mportant n l e m et~ of the offense of @ve scandaD
is, that the i c t & complained of be committed in a W
i semi-public buildings or places or tramping or
place or mithz the or view of the public (U.S. 78.
wandering about the country or the ,street&
.,
SiGnicso). ; (b) Without visible means o f support.

437
 I
I I

,i
CRUIINAL IAIV REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1104, Suppose that B who has a pension or income from rents are the crimes classified. .under
of his property and has nothing to do, finds pleasure and office?
. . spends his time in the house of 'prostitution, is he a 5 The crimes which are classified under malfeasanc.nce,m
vagrant?

' ' .
-Yes, because any idle or dissolutn nerson who lodxes
in houses of ill-fame is also a vagrant. This 'is true, e m I
office are:

/'2.
1. Direct bribery, and
Jndjreci hr-.
if he has a visible means of support. .I
Y
,,,WlO. A justice of the peace, a lawyer for many years, hap-,.'
loitering in the yard of the house of B, at pened to try his political enemy on a charge of less&
\ late hour of the night. He could not explain his presence serious physical injuries which under the Revised Penal
.: there. A is a man of moderate means with a good job. Code is puriishable by arrest0 mayor. A s a revenge, t h e ,
What crime, if any, did A commit? justice of the peace convicted, and imposed two years h-
Vm
'. A person is also a vagrant if he be.fyyd prkonment on, the accused. What crime was committe$.,.
, ' . i .
oitering -i inhabited or u n i n h a h i t d & X 2 belonping by the justice of the peace?
a n o t l r w or iustifiab!c purpose. He is nowingly rendering unjust j u d a The judgment
liable, e d f he has a good iab. 'I is ntjust and he knows or he ought to know that his judg-
in having sexual intercourse wit11 a woman .~ ment is unjust. There is malicg 9' ill~will~JI this ease,
in consideration of t500 given by A. That was the first t&eAustice of the peace having acted in the spirit. &.
time ,she had sexual intercourse. Is she a prostitute? -e (Art. 204, R.P.C.).
Explain your answer. Note: An unjust jud-ent is one which i i
i d supported bv the eYiddnce.
No;because a rostitute is n a,
$0;. mnnev
,
,- An unjust judgment m a y be iUe
'
.or profit, & $ j e s C l intercourse. because of bribery.

a woman who is physically a virgin be a proktitute? '

1. Suppose, the justice of the *peace tries a man,
B
Y if-she, for money or orofit, !&utiavl indulges malice or ill-will, for the same crime and upon eo
!
i n i o u s conduct only, w
2- sexual i n t e m u me.
- imposed the same penalty, is' he criminally liable?
Note:- are thQse ''women who, for money or grofit, Yes, f o K i - ' e I-
/kabituallu i n d u l E in sexual intercourse iascivious condue:" gence' oi. ianorancg (Art. 205, R.P.C.).
(Art. 202, 1LP.C.).
1112. The justice of the peace, knowing after examining the
What are the crimes classified under G i s f e a s a n t in witnesses, that there was no groun? t o issue the& w
office? ,.'
i ofst, nevertheless, issued it an'&by reason thereof A
The crimes which are classified undcr misfeasance in was arrested by the policeman who executed it. Is the
office are: justice of the peace criminally liable?
1. Know&& rendering uniust iudemeqt. Yes, because he rendered an G l s t interlocutory o r d e 3
2. Rendering judgment t l w h negligence.
3. Rendering utm-m
it interlociitorv order. 1113. When is the detay in the adininistratim of justice pun-
4. Malicious delay in the-da ' e. +' ishable?

438 439
 I

/”
;m
CRIlIlINAL LAW REYIEWER

e n the delay in the hearing and disposition of the A-rds

CRlMlFAL LAW REVIEWER

the fri&-, B, the policeman, com-

is criminally liable and such mittdd dereliction of dut@ & maliciously tolerating
/ .c. a
(Art. 207, R.P.C.). Y commissio-f the crime, k m g that a crima was abaut
to be .-e He was a&o guilty of &ect b r i b e r 3
esb- he accepted a promise of .s?ift. and a n e e d to aer-
of committing dereliction of duty
form an act
. . ’
in connection with the
in the prosecution of offenses?
performance of his official duties.
The two ways of committing dereliction of duty in the
Relative to the se_ond question, s w chanped his
prosecution of of€enses are:
m a a n d did &commit the crime of robbbbury, it is siib-
BY ina~icious~yrefraining from instituting prosecu- niitted t h a a , the policeman, c e t be held liable for
dereliction of duty, because in dereliction of duty, in the
By maliciously tder&-g
in the e o ~ f f e es.
u . ~ prosecution of offenses, it is necessary to prove t k m m -
mission of the crime which was taler&d (U.S. VS. Men-
that A committed ;loza).egaIly possible t u the policeman
by arrest0 menor li$e €or frustr&ted dereliction o f t y in the prosecution
notwithstanding the of offenses, k w e such crime_ i s e n t i a l l y by omissjpn
complaint made to him by the offended ‘party, took no and it
L__
&
t in felonis by omission t h d s S p 3 5 )
action against X and even gave him money so that he ., attemuted or frustrated stage of execution.
could go to’ a far place outside of that municipality. What B S having agreed to accept the $rift of Plod from A
is,the eriniinal liability of the chief of Wlice? and havinr: agreed to tolwate the commission of the crime,
He is&oL s-aiclesnyy, because X committed only w m anaeteonstituhga-m ’ ’m e, t h e m ?i m t y
irrht W w g $ , a n accessorv i s x t liable for light felony; ofGreet b r i h e r a
for @ e r e l i c t i o n m i u e prosecution
of offense:, hy nP - niaim
refra- from instit- of a town that he would
prosecution against a violator of the law. The treasurer kept
, the matter to the
opposite his office.
treasurer liable criminal-
ly? /Why?
t. To be l i a b & ~ d e r e l i c t i o i lof duty in the prosecu-
d‘”
t i f m i e s xthe public officer m m e “in dereliction
‘f the duties ”.eco- It is-n& the duty of the
I
kunieipal treasuEr to cause the prosecution of offenses
against person or public order s ; t o s t o p the commission
1 07 such crime which is about to be committed.
i
1
&8. A tax collector told a taxpayer that the latter need not,
I i
pay his tax, but that he had to give him some chickens.:, .,

440 441
 CRI>IINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIXiNAL LAW KEVIEWER
,'>
<., ,i

The taxpayer gave a dozen chickens to the tax collector A is liable for (--theft
-J&m
i &
l hW
sO ' n. He :
n u i a b l e for cprruption of public officer, because the .;:< .i
and did not pay his tax. Is the tax Collector guilty of
bribery?
-.. policceman is& Ii-for direct or indirect hriben.
i.@
.,., (1

,/GI order that t,he vi&r of the-qift may be held liablei-$5

No. Thc m n s were given to him not t o r r u p t
him, but b e m s e of the false aretense. It is mt within for c o r r u i & h of imblic officer, the k t t e r m u t .
._?$
%<'1
I .

the power of the tax collector t o Yelieve a b w p r 3 m m mitted bribery, dkcu-t. . ~$

._,,
\
p a y a i s tax. He, therefore, made a falsee - and 1120. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave the monef ',
--' $
by means of such false pretense k d e f n u r k d the taxpayer to the property custodian, also an employee of the City
of his chiclcens. (Estafa bv means of deceio was committed Government, who agreed to give the firearm to him, what.:
by A. would be the crime? ,..
Noto: In Greet briber3 l i e public officer who reeeivep the
gift o x present or a a a ixomisc, must a w e e to do eith&r This is W l x i b e r Q because the crime which the
-
=of -olloninp three acts:
To perform an set eoastitutin_p a-e.
property custodian agreed to commit is connected with the
performance of Jiis official duty; that is, Cmalversatio3
i

To execute an net ;at constituting a crime. by permitting other a e u m t o 3 2 mblic Drouerty.

3.T- from doinrsomothing which it is his official
i.
d y t o do
It f s w e e e s s a r y that the public officer performs the act
constituting the crime, or refrains from doing something which
it is his official duty to do. A mere promise by the public
r0
- to perform the act a t o refrain from doing something
which. it m f f i c i d - is sufficient.
policeman, 81,000 because the latter agreed
to steal a certain firearm from the property custodian
of the Police Department of the City, the said firearm
having been confiscated from A for possessing the same
without license. In consideration of 81,000, B stole the
firearm and gave it to A. Do you believe that B is liable
, . . for direct bribery, considering that he was a public of-
ficer and he agreed to perform an act cmstituting a
crime? Explain your answer. If your answer is in the
' .. negative, what crime was committed by A? Why?
N>becawe the act which B, the policeman, agreed
to 'perform, h-a constituting the crime of theft, &
not connecLed with the performance of his official duty.
If the act performed or which the public officer agreed
to perform, in consideration of the gift, i s & c e d
with or -r to the performance of his official duties,
b-is Lot c m d .
Note: In ease of conviction, a confiscated firearm i s forfeited'";
in favor of the Government and hecomes public iproperty. & !!& :
property custodian is a public officer accountable therefor. 1 l ~
heallows another o w to-it,Xekiiable foLkalversation3
1121.' Suppose that the property custodian was not able to give
the firearm to A, because he was relieved as property
custodian after he had received the money, is the property
custodian liable for direct bribery? Why?
1122. Suppose, the 'property custodian gave the firearm to A
soou after he had received the money from A, how many
crimes were committed b y the puhlie officer?- Why?
Two crimes: (1) d i r e c t b a y and ( 2 ) malversatipn.
The reason for this conclusion is that the law (Art.
210, par. I , R.P.C.) provides a penalty for direct bribery
"in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime
agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed."
_,
1123. A, petitioner for naturalization, gave the clerk of court
850 to set the case for hearing earlier. .There were many
pending cases before that court which were filed.with it

442 443
I 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

much earlier. The clerk of court set the case for hear- in its entirety. Is the judge liable criminally? How
ing, although the old cases should have been set for
hearing instead. Is the clerk of court liable for direct
bribery?
w
about the plaintiff who gave the gift?
Yes, the judge is liable for&&ct
din?& bribery, the art nPrfnrmPrl bv t h ~ .
bribera In i n - ,
2.
'
2, being a public officer he is liable f z a e c t b r i b e d &just and praper.Ttt? law puxes the a m c e
committed by executinK which d a e s = a ',a ~constitute by the public officer of offered to him bv reason '
I of his office, because the object of the giver of the gifts
a crime in consideration o u t t , the act be-
(Art. 210, par. 2, R.P.C.). is that they are given to h i p in anticiDation of f uture
f w from him in connection with the performance of his
duty or that he is rewarding him for having performed
1124,' Suppose t h a t when the clerk was not busy as he had a duty, and if the public officer has acquired the habit
nothing to do, he was asked by the plaintiff in a civil
of accepting gifts, he is ther&y e . x x to future cor-
case to prepare a writ of execution, the judgrrent in his
ruvtion.
favor having become final, but to expedite the prepara-
tion of the writ the clerk was offered P20, which he t h e f t i&.hUe f o r c o m
accepted and by reason thereof he prepared the writ im- the gift to h-t (Art.
mediately, what crime was committed by him? ,"212, R..P.C.).
c l'
fi-bXi(Art. 211, R.P.C.), because the money A
, &?.' What are the crimes under frauds and illegal exaction?
hich he ad 1- y a s offered t o by reason Qf.hk3 / y?? and transactions?
&e. It is not direct bribery ef the second farm, be-
e w e t a g performed wi?a nSt xz.hst. NohQdv was
M e d (11. uniustly affected by the act which he ex- a&t the public treasury and s i m i l a r -
* e g h x l (People vs. Pamplona, C.A.).
, / 3 Oiher frauds.
1125. A sanitary inspector who inspected a store found it in
'i
p Prohibited transactions.
a very unsainitary condition. He received from the owner
of the store canned goods and several gantas of rice. The
2, Possession of prohibited i n a t by a public officer.

sanitary inspector did uot report the, condition of the 1128. A sold office su'pplies to the Provincial Government. The
store to his; superiors. What crime was eoninlilted by Provincial Treasurer and A had secret agreement that the
the sanitary inspector? price of the supplies would be raised by P2.000 and that
amouut would go to the Provincial Treasurer. When the
-1- - .
w&h
. - by refrkining from doing something
iswag his official d u t y - t d o , t u , to reDort it supplies were delivered and the paymeut was about to
be made, the anomaly was discovered by the Provincial
to his ?,umLjor, in consideration of a gift (Art. 210, par.
Auditor who caused an investigation and as a result
3, R.P.C.).
the transaction was caucelled. Did the Provincial Treas-
urer commit any crime? If so, in what stage of exeeu-
1126. Having decided a ease in favor of the plaintiff, the i u d e
i tion? What is the liability of A?
i . . was given a gift by said plaintiff. The decision was
..xw
&#&, perfectly 1e::al and just and in fact when the defendant Both A aiid the provincial treasurer are guilty of eon-
:,qj;y appealed the case to the Supreme Court il was affirmed
,b~.',, suinmateJ fraud against the aublic -ty. This crime
. ;.
,.p.Ir..
An,* I

~ . %' .
. .
~ , ,i,,
I.
444
i
 CIII~JUIiiALLAW REVIEWER CRII\.IINAL LAW REVIEWER

is consnmmatd by mere agreement, as long as the =Be ed was turned over to the cashier. Did that employee
Ucl-2 the government (Art. 213, R.P.C.). oommit any crime?
A is liable for the same offense, because he and the >,-because the Revised Penal Code expressly uroviks
provincial treasurer were in conspiracy. When there & that2 i s f l m o 3 w h e n t.he tax toll- voluntarily
conspiracy, the act of u e is-the act of all, and t h i s r u l e fails to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for anv sum
ap$& evpiAf the o f f e w is ordinarilv eammi t k d of money rollecied bv himy-0 (Art. 213, par. 2 ( b ) ,
public n f f i u x who takes &antage
(Viada: U.S. vs. Ponte).
-of
of his official uositian

ageinat t~ae :>ublic t r c n s u q :

, R.P.C.). The r m i a t
is provided hy law.
official receipt, b d I
,
,
.

1 . That the offender be n public officer: ''1131. The tax collector accepted from X a gold bar worth P500
2. That he should have taken advanrage of his office, that in payment of the tax in that amount which X should
is, h-e>itt,rvened in the transaeti3i in his official camcity. pay under the law. He turned over the gold bar to the
treasurer. Is the tax collector liable criminally. Explain
the nlaking of contra&, or &j €he adjustment or set&-
your answer. .,
ment of accounts relating t o n- ' ' y o
d
-s, o r k e Yes. He received a thing o r o b j e e t of a nature dif-
uy- other scheme. ferent from thatr-orp (Art. 213, par. Z ( c ) ,
4.. With B t to defraud tho Government. ,i R.P.C.). Under the law, taxes should be nGd ia l z l
Note: What constitutes the offense is the mere enterinx into t& currency.
an agreement with any interested party or speculator, w w -
t-!fraud the Government. / 1132. Suppose, the tax collector intended to own the gold'bar

crime was committed by a tax collector who, hy held liable? -.

and pay tke tax out of his own funds, would he stiU be

means of &cxit, succeeded in receiving from the taxpayer Yes, because l e g , directly o r,-ni -b
than that fixed by law? -====
ofpayment other wise, things a I m f a natur_e
means of deceq (U.S. vs. Lopez). d i f f w r o m that rovided law is punished by €hi
Note: In n,-i M dr
s
ce
j is employed by the public R m & s G ( A r t . 213, par. Z ( c ) ,
officer in demanding an amoiinL larger than OP different from
that authorized hy lam. A mere demand for a sumlarger than ,
or different fmm that authorized by law is gu€ficien$. be the crime if the same acts were committed
The talrpayer need not pay the amount demanded.
by an officer or employee of the Buteau of Internal
It is g m w y that the public officer
difference or the whole amount collected f
of the
e ,
, Revenue or of the Bureau of Customs?
h w liable for another c r i m e G l % % & y
/ It would be B violation of the National Internal Revenue
Code o r of the Revised Administrative Code, as the case
.,1-30. An employee in the treasurer's office of a municipality
1 i. i;
may be.
:,,.., issued to B who paid FZO as tax a temporary receipt in
. ' ' a coupon bond paper, although he had official receipt {134. What is the special provision of the Revised Penal Code
. in blank form with him. The amount collected is the for frauds or deceits committed by any !publie officer
.. ' amount of th.e tax fixed, by law. All the amount collect-
~ ~

~ i .
who takes advantage of his .official position?

446 447
 I / I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CKIUINAL LAW REVIEWER

In addition to the penalties prescribed for swindling he did not have the 1-0 custodyf
I
and other deceits covered by Arts. 315 to 318 of the Re- ___- ~
he was not axcountable therefor.
~~ ~

vised Penal Code, the penalty 'of temporary special dis- Note: To be hahle forealversatmn oi P U ~ I C funds or vrop-
qualification in its maximum period to perpetua.1 special i e a t h e public officer&' must have the official custody of
disqualification shall be imposed upon any public officer public funds o r propertb @ the authority to collect or receive
I t , m , and &Wm
v-e the o&&im t o account fQxAhem
who, taking advantage of his official position, shall commit I to tine government. M W L

_,.,
any of sa,% crimes (Art. 214, R.P.C.). prccedins question, the crime committed by the mayor
I
wa?&heeaub.e he took oersonal moperty, belonging to the
1135. May the judge of the court of first instance IawfuUy municlpallty, w&ut the consent of the t r s s e r , its custodian.
'.
engage in agricultnre through his encargado in the prow I H l h a d t h e intent to gain, as the sG;fnetion or eniovment
ince where he is appointed? he derived from riving the b-to the persons building the
i chipel is sufficientgain. ,-
Yes because a-re ig_nnta transaction of s-
/
e-c n.
Notes: Commcree involves transaction of exchange or specula-
%n.
~

A public officer having

- o
.. of Govern-
1. The Mayor of Manila who e n g s a i n coxmerce in this ment property, vjthaut author&y to part with physical posses-
City i s a t liable, because he is & a L w n ! u' i L've, but an elec- sion of it, unless upon order from his immediate superior, ean-
tke, public officer. not be held liable for malversation (US.vs. Webster, 6 Phil.
394).

'/
The provincial treasurer of Rizal who qngages in com-
m ce in this City is &.Liable-- -t. t
his ju&&.&h.
,/"
1.137. May the mayor or the justice of the peace be held liable
3. .A Justice of the Court of Appeals who engages in com- for malversation? Illustrate and explain.
merce ill Rizal may be held liable, because h: is a N&& Yes, when the mayor, for instance, received from the
1-. and any arovince is subieet to his iu:isdietipn. (See
Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce, prohibiting justices and superintendent of schools a sum of money as rental for
judges, among others, from encaging in the commercial pro- the use o f a building belonging to the municipality and,
fossion.) instead of deliverine - the same to the treasurer, applied it
to his own use. In this case, t a g er- t h w y
1136. The mayor of a town gave to certain persons then boild- as the representative of the municipality and he had the
lug a chapel several beams of molam wood which were obli&on to account for it-to the government to which
in the premises of the municipal building and destined it was due.
to its use. When the treasurer, the custodian thereof. The justice of the peace may be held liable f o r malversa-
learned of what the mayor had done wit,h some of the tion if t -h € c h i s uersonal it t h e s , f&
beams, the former filed a complaint against the lat- sat- paid in his court and received bv him. He thus
ter with the provincial fiscal. If you were the provin- became accountable for them, that is, he had kac!u.p t
cial fiscal, would you prosecute the mayor for malversa- f o m to the governmat. Their misaunrooriatian iS.
tion? Explain your answer. G
a
-
- -
If I were the provincial fiscal, I w w prosecute
,.~':*+,+;.
,<.&&
:? the mayor for ion, because although the mayor
h'ote: Ilencr, the name of the Dublieof&a-QLn&im.
m u 1 in the crime of malversation. It i s the *of
inim;
the
L.. :
--.--
was a publie officer and the beams he gave away w e q d- of the public o f f s e held by the offender which dete&-

448 449
 I

CRInlINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

incs whether or not he is liable for malversati

At?
When he is an a d l a or depository of funds ..
or /
~~

wived the funds - 0 by reason of the property, attached.-~ sei& o r de

& fl
I
!( OD a&he has the o h l i z h to account f i r if @-the
ment, then he is an accountablc m i i h l i ~ liable
v e x . in case he misn- '
r
muyern-
f o r &-
or through ahandow
.&
tB
%
F
r(i?-
When he @
__.
2.22, R.P.C.);
&?.e
~
by public

direct part or cooperates b.

&?
~
J
-I

m w t DL~- M i . 5 sto
- to the $&n~&t$e of rnaiversatkn &.puhLicfunds ar Drouerty
r other person.
, b m b l e o f f i c e r ( U S . vs. Ponte, et al.; People
vs. Calauan, et al.) : and
During the preliminary investigation by the fiscal gf
/1138.
a theft case, the police investigators gave the evidence I # When a private p e r s p
by necessary &s aids a p@&&&%r
public officer ,r
in c a or
to him consisting of a wallet with several ZO-pem hills
. inside. The Piseal kept the eviclence, but later spent the -~ ~7
s#ex
e r m i t t i n z ~ ~ n & E h td as i n t 0
(People vs. Longara and Cinco, C.A.).
f a.
money. What crime was committed by the fiscal? Ex-
plain your nnswer.
1140. The auditor examined t h e books and accounts of the
@?->because he received the money lrom the municipal lreasurer or a municipality. The auditor found
police investigators hy reason of his office and he had that the treasurer had shortage in the amount of WOO.
the obligation under the law to keeu the same to be usad The auditor required the treasurer t o make good the
as evidence. Although the money belonged to the of- shortage witllin two hours, hut the treasurer could not;
fended party in the crime of theft committed by the ac- explain or make good the shortage. There being no
cused, the same was seized from the accused hy pnhlic evidence that the treasurer misappropriated the amount of
authority and deposited with the fiscal. Malversation is P700 or through abandonment or negli~ence permitted
c d e d h y the deuositorv of funds o r property attached, or consented to the taking of the amount by other person,
seized O P dGosited by public authority, even if such p r o p may the treasurer be prosecuted aind punished for mal-
e& -h to a urivate individual (Art. 222, R.P.C.). versation? Why?
N o t e : It will be noted that as a general rule, government funds Yes, the w e of a public officer to have duly forth-
or promrty
~. a-e Laken OP m;saaprwriated
..
~
by the offender in p u b l i c a d s or property with which he is
malvcmntion. The oveinment funds or ,,me& n i&de ? m e upoii demand by any duly authorized officer,
funds and tmst f u k r - . The trust funds are the
m c o u t s . ' f u n d s , Red Crass funds, Anti-Tuberculosis funds,
shall be ?)~.ii!za
f o o i a evidence that he ha:; D u t such missing
funds held by the municipal treasurer, and other funds funds or property t o s o n a l uses (last par. of Art. 217,
which, although not strlclly public funds, are impressed with R.P.C.).
the character of public funds when they are officially received
by an accountable public officer.

I 9. When may a private individual Bc heM li&le- for a&& (People v4. Tolentino).
f ' v - n ? But when there is no demand, tbere m u s t be affirmatiye
f- toshow aeum-n (17,s.7s. Acebedo).
J , In the following cases :
When he has charged, y-ii CapacitLwhatever, 1
urovincial or municiual funds, revenue o r th_e fault or negligence of the ~I%u% & tueh as, when it
p m (Art. 222, R.P.C.) ;. t+n during the commission of theft of robbery by other
I
I
persons.

460 I 461
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1141. What kEud of negligence may make an accountable public
officer liable for malversation?
To render negligence a basis for coiiviction of malversa-
tion, the negligence of the accountable public officer must
be positively and clearlzi shown to be inezeusabb, approxi-
c
mating malice or fraud (People vs. Berms, C.A.).
Note: In the case of People " 6 . Bernas, the accused, then a
municipal treasurer and having in his custody B number of
sacks of government rice to be sold to the people, sold the
execs:$ rice on credit to the employees and laborers of the
municipality, in violatlon of tho instruetion 02 his superior.
It was held that mhiie violation of the rules and regulations
of the office is evidence of ncgligenea, in this case, the negli-
gence of the accused cannot Lo made the basis for conviction
of malversation. The accused m n t e d to avoid the possible loss
that the government may suffer in view of the approaching
harvest season, which might bring down the price of the riee
and HISO because there was a pending storm and he had no
plnee to keep tho rice. Such baing the case,ec- t
?f the accused d u approximate malice or fraud. -1
esGle.
But when a disbur8ing officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, whose duty wa8 to deduct from the salaries of
enlisted men the premiums to be turned over to the GSIS.
entrusted that work to his sergeant, and although he knew that
'%43.
his s,srgeant, who was receiving a meager salary, was sporting
n nice ear and living with his queridas, he did not take any
step to cheek whether or not the sergeant was turning over
t o the GSIS the money deducted by him from the salaries of
tho enlisted men, until it was discovered by another perfion that
the sergeant had misappropriated the money. i t was & misappropiiated the money collected from the customers
twm abandonment and ne~lipewe, agproximatinr malice
or fraud on the Dart of th ishur . f i cr =Ad, therefore
m x r malversation. A n % e n
L if h e m
get a ccnt out of the mismropriated funds (People vs. Torres,
m.).
c o r n o r lack of criminal inteat, when there is no
negligence, is also a defense in the e m of malversatjon.
Thus,tiiere is no criminal lia'bility for making 'payment through
honerit mistake as to the law or to the fact-. At most, the
accountable public officer is civilly liabls for the damage caused.
I
was a travelling sales agent of the Philippine charity
weepstakes Office. 13;s duty as such travelling sales
452
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
agent was to sell sweepstakes tickets entrusted to him
for salc, with tlie cihligation of turaiiig over the proceeds
of the sale of said tickets to the treasurer of the Philip-
pines Charity Sweepstakes Office not later than one week
before tlie corresponding draw. Ne received a total of
171 booklets of sweepstakes tickets for the February
25, 1951, draw, valued at P5,377.95. He accounted ~ Q I
and turned over only P1,417, thereby leaving a balance. ~i
of 83,960.95 unaccounted for. In spite of repeated de-- ...:,
mands made upon him to account for the snnie, X failed
to pay the said balance. What crime w8s cornmitt,& .'
by X? Explain your answer.
The crime committed by X is malversation (People
vs. Angco).
- -
X was an accountable uublic ofBcer and the nrnc%e~d.?
of the sales of the sweeustakes tickets were public fun&
for which he was acc-le. His f a m to account for
the amount of F3360.95, notwithstanding- de-
,, *'m&s, is evidence of misanbrovriation on h.is part.
,*-
was committed by the collect,or of the Metro-
What.
politan Water District (now NAWASA) who misappro-
priated il sun1 of money Collected by him from the cus:
tomers of the adid corporation? Expliiin your answer.
The collector of the Metropolitan Water District who
of that corporation committed -1-
'
The Netrouolitan Water District is a m n of the
Philippi& Legislature. The law creating this entity classi-
fies it as a public corporation, for the purpose of furnish-
ing adequate water supply and sewerage service to the
inhabitants of Manila and suburbs. It cannot be ques-
tioned tinat the Legislature may validly create special in-
strumenlalities or districts to aid the State in, o r t o take
charge or, some public os state work for the general welfare.
Such agencies are qaasi-corporations or public corporations ' .
for narrow or limited purposes. The officers and emulovees
453
 I
CRliVIINAL LAW IIEYIEWER
of the Metropolitan Water District -1-a a d
i a f u n d l r are public funds (People vs. Bustillo).
.h.m” ””t n.. __.~~ease of the Manils Railroad Corporation,
in the
R n t ..~
I ~
although it is of ‘‘a quasi-pubiic character,” it was held that
its.treasurer, who t m I - h i s personal use a sum of money
from the funds entrusted to him for safe-keeping, was &$Y
1144. The provincial treasurer required a municipal trea,R-
urer to render an accounting of the funds in his posses-
sion. Believing that since there was nothing wrong
with the c,ondition of t h e funds in his charge and that
he had no duty to render an accounting, the municipal
treasurer did not render accounts far more than two
months. Is the municipal treasurer liable for the fclonp
of “failore of accountable officer to render accounts”?
No, because that felony is committed by an accountable
public oE€icer “who is required by law or regulations to
render a.ccount to the Auditor General or t o the provincial
auditor,” not to the provincial treasurer, for a period of
“two months after such accounts should. he rendered”
(Art. 218, R.P.C.).
1145. Suppose that the provincial tre;lswer w a s dismissed from
office because of certain anomalies committed by him,
and although he was not acting as the treasurer of the
province, the provincial auditor required him to render
account, hut the former provincial treasurer refused to
do so, can he be held criminally liable for failure to
render accounts? Why?
Yes, if ere IS a law or regulations requiring him to
render m&t. The law (Art. 218) says, “whether in the
service or separated therefrom by resignation or any other
cause,’’ if required by law or regula,tions, h~ehas to render
aecount:r within two months after such accounts should be
8% i
&..
,,”.. , rentleered.
6 -An elective public officer had discretionary fund under
‘his custody. When he ran for re-election, he spent part
454
CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER
of such fund for election campaign. Is he liable for 2-
legal nse of public funds? Why?
No, because in the felony of &gal ncp of ,-
the public o f f i c e r , w g public fund or property under
h.is administration, must an& e-t to a uublic use
other than that for which such fund or pronerty w a s -
propriateLby law or ordinance (Art. 220, R.P.C.). He is’
liable f o r @ m n >
1147. The municipal council uppropriated P10,OOO for the pur-
chase of a garbage truck. Before the municipality could
purchase m e , the Lions Club donated a garbage truck t o
the municipality. The lreasnrer, knowing that there was
no need to reserve the amount tor the puwose of a
garbage trrrelc, spent the money for the repair of the
municipal building without any authority from the munic-
ipal council. Considering that there was no damage
caused, do you believe that the treasurer is criminally
liable f,or@Iqal use of the public rnm@ Why?
a because the crime is Committed even “if no dam-
a or_embarrassment to the public service has resuked.“
=
The penalty is a fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum mis-
-
applied. T e S e must be an ordinance appropriating that
amount, for the renair of the m>ieipal building before
the treasurer could law&lIy u s the money therefor.
N d e : When the amount UppJied to ;i a public use had not bee3
appvipviated by @ or mdinan e, the public officer applying
that amount is i s liable
m e f o r be u n d e r Art.
Art, 217, b u -
propriating puubbTl-8s.
1148. The contractor who constructed a building for the munie-
ipal police presented his claim, with all the n e e w a r y
,papers duly approved by the proper officials, to the
treasurer for pzynient. The fund f o r the purpose was
in the custody of the treasurer, but he delayed the pay.
ment in the hope that the contractor would come across
with a cut from the amount payable to him. Because
months the treasurer did not make the payment,
for ~ W Q
the contractor filed a complaint with the provincial fiscal.
456
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
..
Is the municipal treasurer liable for any felony? If so,
what felony? Explain your answer.
Yes, he is liable for failure to make navmentfrom
Gzvernment funds in his nosse.sian as a public officer
under obligation to make such payment.> failure to
..
make payment must bunahmus. In this case, the d&
I
in the paym$nt w&e to his malicious intentiw to cause
the contractor ta come across with a cut from the amount
due the contractor (Art. 221, par. 1, R.P.C.).
1149. A court stenographer, having a grudge against the ac-
cused who appealed from the decision of the court con-
victing him, kept the slenograpldc notes and their tran-
script in his house and when ordered by the judge ti,
produce them the stenographer claimed that the steno-
graphk notes and their transcript were lost, which was
not true. For what crime may he be prosecuted and
punishecl? Explain your answer.
It is submitted that the stenographer is liable for &
--
cious failure to make delivery of Dublic Drone& & ..I&
-
custody. It is committed by a w c officer who refuses
to make delivery of any property in his custody or under
his administration, a t : the ordel; to do 80 by competent
authority. The refusal of the stenographer to make delivery
of the stenographic notes was malicious (Art. 221, par. 2,
.’ R.P.C.).
1150. A municipal policeman, having under his care and guard
a prisoner who was serving sentence in the municipal
.. jail, permitted said prisoner to go and buy something in
the store near the jail. The prisoner, taking advantage
of the confusion in the crowd, fled and never returned
to the jail. These facts are alleged in the information
filed by the provincial fiscal against the accused jailer.
If these facts are established by sufficient evidence, what
crime was committed by the jailer? Explain your answer.
’.:’ The question involved was not squarely decided by the
k?Suprerne Court in the case of U S . vs. Eandino. In that
i ,.
CRIAIINAL LAW REVIEWER
case, the in€ormation filed by the Provincial Fiscal was
dismissed by the trial court on motion of the defense and
on appeal by the provincial fiscal the Supreme Court re-
manded the case for further proceedings. Some Justices
were of the opinion that while it may be true that the
acccsed had no knowledge that the prisoner would escape
and that he did not permit him to do so, it was unques-
tionable that he did permit him to go out of the municipal
jail, thus affording him an opportunity to get away with
ease, and that the prisoner’s escape was effected through
the tolerance of his custodian and was deemed also to have
been by connivance with the latter. In the case of People
vs. Bandino, the Supreme Court cited Escriche’s dictionary
“Legislacion y Jurisprudencia” which defines the word
“connivance” t o be “dissimulation or tolerance.“
011 the other hand, some Justices believed that proof
of the facts contained in the information will sustain merely
%I coiivictioc of@3elitv in the c u & r J J r i m ners through‘
Eegligenca
But in
.~. the same case. it is stated that “if there was
~~ ~~~ ~
connivance or conseat on the part cif the policeman in the
prisoner’s leaving the jail, it is unquestionable that he is
responsible fnr the crime with which h e is charged on
accouiit of the escape effected by the said prisoner who
took advantage of the leave allowed by his custodian.”
The felony of conniving:.with or consenting to evasion
is committed by any public officer who shall c o n s e n t 2
the escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge.
It is submitted ?hat the guard is liable, a t least, for
infidelity in the custody of prisoner through negligence. ~
1151. What crime, if any, was committed by the municipal
mayor who permitted a prisoner detained in the municipal
jail to eat in the market near the municipal building
three times a day, but always under guard?
The niayor did not commit any crime.
__-
Leniency or laxity on the part of the mayor i s t
infidelity. It was held that leniency or laxity in the per-
457
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
formame of duty of the municipal president as regards
the custody of prisoner is not in excess of his duties.
Note that the municipal president was the person who was
aceusied of infidelity in the custody of prisoners. The reason
for this is that the l i i ~ n i e i p ~president,
l now the municipal
mqror, j, the head of the municipal jail.
The m ~ is rguilty of infidelity in the custody of urisoner,
i4 he utilized the prisoner’? s a f o r domestic chores i
n
-
&
--
house (People YS. Evangelista, C.A. 38 O.G. 1 5 0 .
1152. Is the chief of police liable for infidelity in the custody
of prisoner if he permitted the prisoner to sleep in the
latter’s house at night and the prisoner a1wy-s returned
to jail early in the morning?
Relaxation of the imprisonment of the prisoner is con-
sidered infidelity. Thus, it was opined t h r t there is a
real and actual evasion of service of senlence when the
custodian permits the prisoney to obtain b relaxation of
his imprisonment and to escape the punishment of being
deprived of his liberty, thus making the penrlty ineffectual,
although the convict may not have fled. Under this rule,
a prisoner who is permitted to sleep in 11;s house every
night and would go back t o jail during the daytime obtains
relaxation of his imprisonment, and thereby makes the
custodian liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
Where the guard allowed the prisoner serving a 6-day
sentence in the municipal jail to sleep in his house and
eat there, he is gnilty of infidelity in the custody of prisoner
committed with malice (People lis. Revilla, C.A., 37 O.G.
1896).
1153. What kind of negligenee is contemplated in infidelity in
the custody of prisoner through negligenee?
The public officer who is charged with the conveyance
or custody of a prisoner is said to be negligent when his
laxity in the cnstody of prisoner shows positive careless-
ness short of deliberate non-performance of his duties as
guard. As was held by the Court of Appeals in the case
of People vs. Nava, C.A., not every little mistake or dis-
458
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
traction of a guard leading to a prisoner’s taking advan-- L
hge a€ the situation is negligence. Such mistake or dis-7;;
P traction of the guard may be dealt with administrative1y;j
only.
The negligence of the guard which shows positive care’:
lessness short of deliberate non-performance of duty is il- ‘(
Iustrated in the case of a guard who fell asleep while.,:
guarding the prisoner with the result that the prisoner
escaped.
1154. l\‘ould the gunrd of the jnil be hcid linble Cor infidelity
in the custody of yrisnnw if (he priwaaf rvho e * c W d
is not pct rnukted 11.v fiwL JiidRnwnt?
Yes, hccause the lam in dcfininp the crime of infidelity
in the custody of p-isoiier provides t w o & D enalties
to be imposed on the public officer guilty of the crime.
The penalty of prision correccjonal in. .its medium and
maximum periods is m i posed&
, -’ heen sen-
tenced by final i u d m e n t ; and the penalty of pr&ion COT-
reccional in its minimum p e r i o d , p s e the fupitive 2
only held as a detention p a y f o r any crime o-
-
tion of law or municipal ordinance.
1155. Map a @&e individual be held liable for infidelity in
the custody of prisoner?
--
Yes, because the Revised Penal Code p w s e
vate person to whom the conveyance or custody of a pris.
oner or person under arrest shall have been confided, w h
shall commit any offenses of infidelity in the custody 0:
prisoner. Hence. as long as the private ni-1 &
c k m t i i e conveyance 0 - i of a orison% gpjzg
sonunder arrest, if the escape o f the prisoner -2
under arrest is due to his connivance witl.lthepu’snne r g ]
p-er ari’est or to his n-ace, sxih arivate in.
diE&ual is criminally iiable (Art. 225, R.P.C.).
Y
1156. Tlie nt.cnogrwher In Ibe Plnciil’iu olllcu romoved tho wrlf
ten confession of the accused from the record of ~
459
 I
I t
L
CRIilfINAL LAW REVIEWER CRINIINAL LAW REVIEWER
..
"' ' criminal case kept by the fiscal but which came into his of infidelity in the custody of documents? Explain Y Q ~ ?
possession when he was typing the information. Then, answer.
he gave i t to the accused who in turn gave him F'lOU.
What crime was committed by the stenographer? Does
< - No, because the transfer cerrificate of titie &s@
yet-hned by -and, therefore, it- did not e w e &
the givin:: of the confession to the accused and receiving d m e n t within the meaning of' the 1a.w. In infidelity
BlOO from him constitute a separate offense? Explain in the custody of document, the decYmept must Ke com-
your answer. &
P th&s, it must be c a e of establishing a t
The stenographer is guilty of (infidelity in the e x $ or extinguishing an obligation. In this. case, before the
of document3be~usehe_was a uublic officer; the wn- t-raiisfer certificate of title is signed by the register of
confession of the-accused, w h u a d m u m enl, w m - deeds, it cannot establish any right nor extinguish an
f&ed o r a k u s i e d tQhim by r e m m of his of%c ' e: that obligation. wflJfl 9 clLdd/; WnsL
'
h j remoyed stlchdorumeat -of . e; and that
t u s of the said docnment from the r w r d O f t h e c a s e 6158. Is the destrnction, concealment or removal for an illicit
w u u r a l l y result in the damage o r prejudice to& purpose of peri.gdieals, pamphlets or magazines by the
' . public i n m t . postnmster who has the custody of the same by reason
The mla- of document i s n s t a c r i m e , u u k s of his office constitute infidelity in the custody of docu-
i s f o r an illicit uuruose, an-at to urofit by it is an ment? Explain yonr answer.
illicit puI'uose. It would seem then that the receiving. of No, because books, p e r i o s s , p a m m t s and m s a -
/

PI100 by the stenographer is Et a n in&pg&ent and s z a - zincs are ~ ~ documents,

o t for they cannot establish a right
rate crime of direct bribery, but as theconstitutive element 02extinguish an obligation.
of illicit purpose.
1159. When is the taking of money hills used as evidence in
the trial of a case by the clerlc of court infidelity in the
not bo f o r a good or-lawful ourpose. custody of documerlt, and when is it malversation?
Hence, if the stenographer of the fiscal was given PlOD I When the money b i p are attached to the records as
e& the \n4ttoii confession of the accused, exhibits and removed therefrom by the clerk of court and
would also he e o n u n i t t d misapFpriated by him, the crime committed i s m
I ' , .,
1157. The Register of Deeds of a province told his clerk to ;-- -2
- documents2 b z c s those money bills.
z prepare B transfer certificate of title based on a deed .-
case are
. of sale submitted by the parties. The clerk prepared
'
"
the transfer eertificate of title and presented the same to
the Register of Deeds for his signatnre. When the trial of the case has terminated and the money b i i l s s e
Register of Deeds read the transfer certificate of title 1 3 t for the nuruose of returning the same to the owngr
he foonil many erasures, insertion and intercalations which. and the clerk of court misappropriated them, the crime :
made it appear very dirty. In the heat of anger, the
I
committed is w o nYfLps- because these
!,. :' .Register of Deeds tore to pieces the transfer certifieate inonev bilk are trust funds ofhe government anrlthe
.*~. !.. '~ of title. Did the Register of Deeds commit the crime clerk of court is accomtable therefor.

460 462

i
 1 1 . .
..
CKIhIINAL LAW IU3Il:WER
/.’
116
,
. m a t c r h e is committed by tie pustw,a&e who w.d
a letter addressed by one person to another and after
opening the letter and finding a 50.peso bill inside the
letter he renioved the money and spent it for himself:
Explain your answer.
In several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the
crime was held to bcfaithlessness in the custody of 6 c u -
mentor p a s The word “pauers” inrludes pBWX?lQUyp
d n a - = m m r h .
1161. The stenographer of the court, for the purposc of helping
i
i a person accused of a crime, put the record of the ease
among the records of decided cases, so that the CN
of court might not set the case for hearing. As a lesult,
the case was not tried for more than one year until the.
clerk of eourt, upon complaint of the offended partp,
lceked for the record and found it. Is the stenographer-
of the court liable for infidelity in the custody of docu-
ment?
The stenographer of the court is-liable for infidelity
in the custody of documcut, becalm he did LuLhave t h e
custody of the record of the criminal case by reason o f his
office. ‘fhe stenographer is not the custodian of the record.
-I
Note: If the clerk of court was the one who did it, he would
have been liable for infidelity in the custody of document by
concealing the same, being a public officer who had the record
I by reason of his office.
7
important element of the crime of infidelity in the cus-
.. who-
of document is that the offender is a public officer
has the custodv of t h e a n -t by P ce.
1162. A pub ic officer was charged With the custody of a sealed.
docunrent. He permitted a private person to open it,.
I him t o deayn, revaled the same t o t k ~scesed@foe
causiig the breaking of the seal. What is the liability~
of the private individual, if any?
The Revised Penal Code d m d h the a-&
&k who8
- theseal, &
u there is conspiracy
betX6een him and the public officer.
/ 462
( /
a=,
.*b
--
The law (Art. 277) pu&&es any public afficer ch&
&,the custodv @ € m sor property sealed by mrmz
who shall b r u h e - s or permit them to &
1163. When may a public officer be held. criminally liable €or
-
opening closed papers, documents, (181‘ objects?
When the public officer is &&ed with the custody
of (not merely entrusted with) closed panem, dfmme&.
os objects.
Thus, the treasurer of a municipality who received
from the PC corporal ciosed envelops containing election
returns and addressed to the provincial treasurer, f o r the
purpose of putting thereon sealing wax, and who opened
them and read the contents thereof, was not held criminally
liable f o r opening such closed documents, because he was
not the custodian thereof [People vs. Lineses, C.A.).
1164. The Military Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines had a secret plan t o capture certain
dissidents. An agent of the Military Int,elligence Service,
who was one OF those who planned the raid l o be made,
mentioned it to a friend who happened to be a relative
of one of the dissidents. As a consequence, the dissidents
were able to elude the soldiers who were seut to capture
them, Is that agent criminally liable? Why?
Yes, because having known a secret involving the gen-
’
eral interest of public order by reason of his official capa-
city, he revealed it. The crime is called fivelation ot secret3
,<,
i 6 y an o f f i c e 9 A r t . 229, R.P.C.).
i
1165. The clerk of court who learned of the decision of the ,~
,judge, coniiclinp the accused of murder and sentencing’
I
f the promnlgation of the judgnlerrt. As a consequence, $;,
I
the accused jumped bail and fled to the mountains. He !P
was never captured. Is the clerk of court criminally ‘ I
liable? Why?
463
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

; ..
_
>?'because having known a secret affecting the ad- judgment, decision or order of-anj s u u a i n r yde.'.y
ministration of justice which should not be u u b l i & d h - scow of the jurisdiction of the latter an&kmed . ,
@ the promulgation of the W o n , he .t1 - with all th&gaLfmn&u . ' s (Art. 231, R.P.C.). ..
Note: This is also the crime committed by an inferior officer -
It would seem that the o f f e - n b nkcommitted if there , '.
who made a report to his superior, h u t o r e the latter could
approv
m e t w r t , the inferjor officer mhlished
/ js &y a refusal to obey the .iudgm&., decision or order
of a superior a u m t y , which involves or a f f e c t s A e
$ offices.
, The felony of revelation of secrets by an officer is also I

'committed by a puhlic officer who shall wrongfully aelive? to Note: The e ~ n m g i e s of open disobmzdience are:
another person papers or copies of papers of which he may 1. S h & f who r e f u s d t o execute t .
m ori!i&ment
. , ;
have charge and which should not be published (Art. 229, R.P.C.). of the court. ,.
2 . Mayor who refused to execute the order of the Governor. . '

66., To hold a public officer liable for revealing the sew&

of private individuals which he came to know by reason
of his office, what secrets of the private individuals must
he' reveal?
The secrets contemplated are those that may&@ !a the
good n a m o r fortune of the private individual. If the
secrets are contrary t o public interest or to the adminis-
tration of justice, the same may be revealed by the public
officer without incurring any criminal liability.
Nota: The secret of the private individual muat he known
to know of the -
by reason o d o f f i e e of the public officer, % i f m e
thmyzh somebody else the publie o f f h r
Art. 230 of the Revised Penal Code.
-- slander or libel, as the case may he.
l167., Is damage to the offended party a necessary element of
t h G i m e of revealing secrets of private indiddual?
Why?
1169. May the felony of open di
member of the lawmaking body?
KO,0 9 ex- and
t h w .
1170. The city engineer ordered his assistant to cause
demolition of the houses built on a public street by
syuakters. The assistant of the city engineer did
execuse the order, giving his reasons for suspending
execution of the order. The city engineer became. furio
and insisted that the order he carried out.
gineer gave the assistant 24 hours during which
the order. But the assistant still continued to
execute the order of the
criminal liability of the assistant? Why?
The assistant city engineer is liable for disobedience
to the order of -superior officer, after the latter has dis-
approved the suspension of his order (Art. 232, R.P.C.).

to reinstate a policet?ian 1171. When is it not a crime to disobey the order of the su-
perior?
Disobeying the order of
liabio fur the k the order of the smer
o f that order w g & b w I t
No. This felony is committet by any judicial o r a Thus, if the cKief of police
ecutive officer who s N openly r e f u s to me@e Ah2 t o arrest X upon com

464 465
 . ,. .. .,.,
,..
% .

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

P
arrest X, because he knew that there was no legal
{;he arrest, and the chief of police insisted but
policeman is not 2. When the public officer shall maltreat
.. the Revised Penal Code. to extort a confessia_n.y to obtain some informa
I ' . ~ . .
hief of police of a. municipality received a letter
m the provincial fiscal with a sibpoem to >e served 1115. May the mayor commit the crime of maltre
X , to be present a t the preliminary investigation to j+wner?

/
condu&d by the fiscal. The chief of police forgot to The mayor i m l i a b l e for maltreatm'ent o€ p g
$e the service,of the subpoena and because of his if the latter i&tkcustodv of t h g d i c e . The, law,
ure to do so .the fiscal was not able to continue with 235) contemplates actual charge of the prisoner,
reliminary investigation. Is the chief of police crim- which is so merely by legal fiction. . .
.. for refusal of assistance? Why?
liablc 1176. A constabulary soldier went inside the., provincl
e chief of police is not criminally liable for the
of refusal of assistance (Art. 233, R.P.C.). with the consent of the warden arid then and:thqe<
has been held that the failure t o lend cooperatioll constabulary soldier tried to obtain information %om
the administration of justice o r other public serv- prisoner. When the prisaner refused to give any
ice must be malicious. Since the chief of police only forgot formation, the soldier gave him fist blows and kicked
him several limes, inflicting physical injuries. What
t o serve the subpoena, he did not act with malice.
was committed by the constabulary soldier. Explain
answer.
1173., Why is the refusal of a person without legal motive to
harge the duties of the office to The constabulary soldier committed
crime under Art. 234 of the Re- &- He _c&n&-be
-~ held liable for mal
r *?.~*a
onel-, b s u s e the prisoner was not under his chdr&'.He., .,(,A

d, the discharge of the duties O f a e . cannot be held liable for coercion eAher, b&..the,'pn&i$
1
m&er of dutx of the person elected ones was not beiw c o a e d by him @ @
- s!bbng$
i

o a p b l i e office is l u L d m h a I I Y
,/
/
against his will at the time he subjected t m e e . "
The physical injuries irere inflicted as an act of revenee : 1'
,., -
legal motive t - u or against the prisoner for not giving the desired information. -'!:
f the office to which he was appointed. ..
1177. The jailer, becoming angry with t.he prisoner under hls:.,si
.'.
,,', 4
!,
<. i ..,'* $*'

!
What are the ,two ways of committing the crime of mal-
treatment of prisoner?
charge, boxed mtl kicked the latter. Is the jailer k b l e
for maltreatment of prisoner? Why? ". 3
& becanse -maltreatment must z a *,i
fficer shall overdn. himself in the
of a prisoner or detentiun prjsowr
r @ by the & ~ U of Qpunish-
?&&.bnriized by the &tion, or ( 2 ) b d - .., prisoner b.v season o f personal grudge. .' 5%
.~;d
 C R I M I X ~ LLAW REVIEWER

by the justice of the peace court, stating further that

in his opinion the accused was innocent. ' Is the mayor ',a,:
<'
t
, criminally liable? Why?
Yes, becanse the Revised Penal Code
.~~ ~
executive officer who shall a,ddress any order or sugges--.
- - - c p r e l i r n i n a r y investigation while t h T u .. t t o any judicial a m t y
.
&
i to any ease
. . peace is in the municipality. f 01- b u c k s corning within the
, , the courts o f x e (Art. 243. R.P.C.). '
1184.". A jiistice of the peace with whom a homicide case was ' /
. . ,
filed for prrliminary investigation, for some reason or /
,,'
11186. 1s a judge liable for suggesting to another judge to decide
another, tried the case on the merits, announcing that . \
a case one way or another?
he would render a decision after the trial. The l a m e r
No, becaxe a n y an executive officer can be held liable
df the accused asked the justice of the peace to refrain
'.
, >
from doing s.9, as he had no jurisdiction over the case.
Nevertheless, the justice of the peace continued with
*' for the crime of orders or requests to any judicial authority
under Art. 243 oi" the Code.

..
..
the trial of the case. Is the justice of the peace liable
,for disobeying the request for disqualification? Why?
f 187. How about a congressman who sent a note to a judce.~'
requesting the latter to decide the case in favor of his'.
, No. bocause the
. .. ' ' o n m b e i n s ,. ,
.'.'
leader who ix a party in the case? ...~., ~.,.,.
>.*
c . e d b y m h Q l 3'ty. Besides, the one re- NO, because the person who sent the note is not:an""
-I</

. , quiring him to refrain from continuing the proceeding i s /lcntive ofxicer.

'.,:. not a superior authority, he being only a lawyer of the
accused.
To constitute a violation by a pnblic officer of Art.
', '
;42 of the Revised Penal Code, punishing the crime of dis-
,, . obeying request for disqualification, the folIo~ving
.- , innst be present : :that t h d s a w o n rexwlng 1:
',,.. ', ,. his jurisdiction w m n&t Q$ decided, M t h a t he has
.. %*, *;, been la_wfullv required b y m L & u t h o r i t v 11
.~.~-~., -t
.,.I, .,.'. . frorb continuing the proceeding, and .@4 that k e continues
.l.-..,-'
;I
your answess.
:,,.sz@'z. the proceeding.
.j,&&<:-
"%:a&$*+
,.,,,'~' . He is, however, liable for - % m a l funG
%&'.!' tions under Art. 177 of the Revised Penal Code, because
@*
<,.";
he performed an act pertaining to a judge of the Court
!
"6, .. of First Instance, without beirlg lawfully entitled to do h .

. The mxyoyor of a nwnicipality wrote a letter to the juntice 1. 1

f the peace of the same municipality, requesting the N o t e : ?his felony is also cornmitt
r to expedite the trial of a criminal ease cognizable . I s h & & i c j t p z a k e immoral &nj

470 471
.c
.:.
 I
:.. ~,
.,.
, .
iI
, . I

,. . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.' .,
- .'$;. cI
\.,',.. interested i n s pe-ketbe such o>fieer f o m a n , In what cases is the perialtv for p g a i a e , . '
.. o=y
'
respect to which he is required to submit a report to,
or consult w i t h a superior officer.
1
elusion perpetua to death, not t o he impoqed
crime Committed is parricide?
It is also committed by a d n directly charged with
the care and custody of woman nrisoner to whom he shall In the following cases :
. .. , '%

, ,,. ., , solicit or make immoral or indecent advances. 1 . When there is a @$&&f in the
It is also committed by a & who shall solicit or m e tim (Art. R.P.C.).
a,
~

, , ~ ,: i B a 1 o r indecent advances to the w t e r , s&r or

, 2. When the s_se or d m ,
. .., relative within the same dearee b-ity of the p m n
$ ' - thecustody of said warden.
and living with her parents i
c
There should not be s e m -',
if the woman is
circumstanc_es (Art. 247, R.P.C.).
~

under 18 years of age and a m , because i t .would _he 3. When the offender m d any of his
. . t h e o w r being a p m m - tioned in the definition of the crime of parriei
w . If the woman is under 12 wars of age, and thereis
.. L ', tsexual nx&&eae w e -
intercourse, the crime is- If the woman is married,
..* ,.,.
:.
.
~. i
. . '.. ', i t = s r m if thexad.cn or public officex lmQ%!Lher conceived the idea of killing her hushand,
to b a d d . a stranger, to kill him with a pistol furnished.
The public officer should ~1 perform acts of lewdnegs On of 4 . B shot the husband of A tb
When C g a v e thhe pistol to B, the former knew that
sister A had induced B to kill her hushand. What cri
was committed hy B and C? 'Explain .your answer;
t if thewoman is a m i t u t e , the cdme i m o m m i t t e d , B committed -because he k m the ds.e.as&$(
o @use agamst ehastita if t h 9
wn-
of &e & promise of reward. =is &
The public officer shvaM i e Oeslt with d&ninm.- a- m n the crime of murder, Et in the crime df *,d
<
p: w e . ~,';Lii$
;!#<&,~
i O s t h e wife is l a l e f o r f i a be-e a=@:
When i!l the killing of one's child not parricide? i.
! i n g circumstances which arise f m private re la^^"
When a person kills his c&Ld who is h d l a d i he I?
(' of the.offend& with the offend& party and which auali@$
,d- the crime is not parricide, hut infanticide. the crime shall a.ggravate the lia
crime as against, the principals, ac
. .. . When is the killing of one's grandchild or grandparent not to whom they are attendant. The
.. . ,.: parricide? being attendan
. , .
, .,
,*. I When the relationshipxis E& I-te. Hence, the to parricide as
killing of an ille itiniete randson DI- an illegitimate grand- ii
, - ,.
1194. Suppose, in the same case,'D, a stranger, assisted in
father is& or& as the ea%LZ?aL-he.
escape of A, who is guilt9 of parricide, what is the Iia
er, adopted parent, or ity of D?
!
ister not parricide? The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of No
Knd in the direct lice, that the straager who participated
tims in parricide. nequent to the commission of parricide would be liable

473
1

, . Ii
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ory to parricide, not to murder or nomicide, be- r s d e , if the o f f e n a r i m a

penalty has to be lowered by two degrees. ,dk-aht the r
submitted that the provision of the Revised Penal In the bedyoom of his house, A surprised
",. is point is clear that the aggravating circum- B, who was her paramour, hugging and
.,' . *'stance which arises from the privat,e relation of the offender
with the offended party shall not aggravate the liability
of, or qualify the crime against, the accessory to whom inflicting slight physical i
it is not attendant. inally liable for slight ph
195. A woman lived with two different men, A and B, for
a period of one month, until A decided to give up and
leave the woman to B alone. A child was born to that Code, in order that a person
liable for inflicting slight or less se
woman .eight months later. When the child. was one
:, keek old, E killed the child. What crime was committed
.1, . h$
., '':cannot
w e the .paternity of the child i-certqin
be considered the father 01the child,
gd-B
B is liable
. .
,,," _...for u r m n o t parricide., It is mur&r because k ! k w
'~ .' x n h e r e z e a k n e s s
. ,, of the,'child & t o his tender J

: . a s E eommitted the-e without risk to himself arid,

:., . therefos:, the. killing of the child was attended b d e
L

,, ' mstance of treachery. aidering th'at A did not surprise his daughter in
of 5exUal intercourse in his own house, do you
. AthehadPhilippines.
been married to @ in China befor-e
Here, A married. X. In a
came to
quarrel,. A
k i l l d R. 'What crime was committed by A? physical injuries, or must he be sentenced to des
for having inflicted physical injuries under excep
circumstances?
It is submued that A should be sentenc
of -0, he surprised them in
intercourse and he
tion with a-woman. A
' child was born of that woman, which undoubtedly was the
later, that child was al-
woman and married. She birth p_arent wiiwt..& is living. It is sufficient that the
illed p when the latter was tlYo2WUs -tawas then livingwith her rnEnts.
rime was committed by A?
, because E m a g r a n d c h i l a 1200. A surprised his wife in the act 0% sexual i n t e r c o 3 4 :
was illegitimate. .In par- another man, but the paramour succeeded in j.mpi"
u -.A , '.

475
. .
3,

.
. .. ,.,.,
,, _I
 . .
.
., ,. .
., ~, ; ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIFWSR

the window. A took the door in going out to chase

/
( not mind it.
I!.*

One day, A surpdsed- them -.in

aramour, but he lost sight of him for half an hour.
when A was searching for him, he saw the para-

e, he !tilled him. In case A is prosecuted for kill-

4 having sexual intercourse. A killed the suitos'+n
tined his said daughter. . Is A liable -.for :*hemic
to the penalty prescribed by law. therefor? ..::
No; while heissl'lly'of m i c i d e , ~ h 'shoul
6
the paramour and convicted after trial, must he be tenced to the penalty of
the S&LX of hi-er
He might have oromohd
c~ b u t s the p
It is submitted that a w g h h f t &t o U h far
i~
says: "Any person who shall promote or
half an hour, s w h e -may be considered continuous; wostitutim of his wife 01' daughter or a " . ,
-~
~ ~ ' _ ' , L

m r ,i t w e have consented. to t+e infidelity uf the other.spoucie,;

/ not b e s t l e d to the benefits of this article." :
the act of sexual intercourse. Whatever time
rom the's-g to the kilrillg was but necw

mour and overtook the wife in their house after the lapse
of certain time. In this case, the Supreme Court applied
.the provisions of Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code in
favor of t'he accused.

ty of the other spouse."

t in your answer.

4T7
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW'ER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

b m e it -od that- ' d

. . - -~ ~
w o l l l L k' l L c. If-
o E y d w s n $ g i u a a s an inducement
'e
e nrin-
cipal by direct participation to commit the c g e , t h m s
gh@€Zhe commisskn of the c r i m e - w i t e -
vious promike, the pivinx of the numy-doesnat constitute
the qualifying circJdmstance of 0rir-d W

A, whih driving a jeep, saw B, the man who almost

'?;illed him before, waIking on the side of the road. A
:.;..dmve his jeep straight ahead to B who was run over and
' , killed. What crime was committed by A? Why?
@&d& because h m d B by means of a.-I
Murder is committed by any person who shall kill another
"by means of motor,vehicles" (Art. 248, pax. 3, R.P.C.). the train passed over it, it expIoded derailing t h e
and killing some persons inside. What crime was
. A put a, time bomb in an airpIane to kiU its pilot.The When
pilat
mitted by A?
I . t h e airplane was flying the bomb explotkd.
was killed. What crime was committed 5y A? Why?

e>,
A:.*' "

c o m m W by m e w s of exal a or fall o f a n
'- if the pilot did not die of explosion bnt died due
to the Fall of the plane.
Note: When a person had the izl~e&LkdUL another and to
accomplish his purpose, he used as means (1)inundation, (2)- . .
(3) p o k n , or (4) exp$o&n, tho cdme is murder
w,
It is also murder when B person killed another b y means
of (1) s h i m e k , (2) strivnding of a vessel, (3) derailment,
or assault upon a streetcar or locomotive, o r (4) f&of an
No, because killing a person on the occasion of any
airship. of the calamities mentioned in par. 4 of Art. 248 of the
,Code requires that the offender must take advantage of it
A set the house of B on fire, resulting in the death of /in comiqidng the crime. '!:
i

a child who was burned. What crime was committed N o d Killing a person on the occasion of destructive cyclone, ',,

b y A ? Explain your answer. ,&&e and other public calamity is also murder.
A committed a c-rime nf a r m with hmu.ude
..
When is the k i l l e r n o t i a b l e for murder, even if he had ,;,
' (U.S. vs, Burns, 41 Phil. 418), or plain arson and the
humicide absorbed in the crime of arson (People vs. Pa-,
premeditated hefore he coninlitted the crime?
,."
. , . 1
:.,.a
terno, et al., 47 O.G. 4600). It cannat 48 In the following cases: ,* '
ir
,'

t l L t z . e J W ' ' nnv 7) articular person by. means 1. When t.he pe~sonkilled i s d i f f e s n t from the' ,in:.:. :,
e. 1 tended victim. . ::+
, ,.

.. ,
480 481
$E
. .
i
ip
 CRIMZNAL LAW REVIEWER

. When ihhe js his-, a s d n i . or b- ' ' i its gaximum period to death. What is the .proper penal-
eendant; because the crime W i c i d e . t y for A in case of conviction? Why?
.
When the v i e i s a child less than 8 A m L d d , ~. .The .penalty that should be imposed on A in case, a€
. because the crime is infanticide.
conviction is reelusion perpetuu, the medium of the penalty.

/:;
4 . When evident uremcdi&%tionis d-n in the for murder, because only treachery qualifies the crime to.
-information, but it is p-d-during the trial. and abuse of superior strength, nighttime. purpose
: ;' , 6 ; When the killing of the victim is by means of B0;Son,
jl ~ 1
for, craft and fraud cannot lye eonsidered even w
S, .because evident aremeditation is absorbed. generic aggravating circumstances, because they a
so&&iLtwa *=Y-
.;
~ . .
lZl8;:Is the killing of a person with ignominy murder? Why'!
* . .

'.
Note: But killinr R -
No, because w n y is && one of the aualifvina
a g g r a v a t i n ~circumstances of murder.
' s o n with- i8-r.
1223.' A killed his y i f e with evident premeditation and with
crueIty. What crime was committed by -A.? .Why?
t i ocn m willbe ..;.
/ ~ a ~ ~ i ~ E v i d e n ~ r e m e d i t aand
c $ i H g e s aggravatim circumstances, w e , , 2
. .;
~

once the crime is aualified, as p a r ~ d e b, r the rplaibn- , . I

.< ,.?

--
ship between P a - d r t y ,
pyewnce of t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i a g _ e i r c u m s tsuch a n cas'
&e
e .treachery . >I
an,- cannot change the name and nature of the <
c r k a n d the qualifying circumstance shall bckea&$%z ':
generic avra- for the deter;

1&4.
i^hen
iahe.gropa pedy. . ,.
two ou more qualifying circumstances are vresente
~

the crime. Is A liable for murder? Why? bow may they be considered in the qualification of the
crime and in determining the proper penalt
Only o&them will qualify the crime

-
' 1 shall be considered as generic aggravating

/.
21. A was killed by a band. Are the members of that band '
which shall have the a c t o f r a i s i n g the nenalty to the,
liable for murder? Why?
By a band is not sa&ficdy mentioned in Art. 248 as
'
a qualifying circumstance in murder; but it may be con-
sidered either Was-We of suoerior streng-th,
: or @ as- a smed men-as r e g y d s the leader of $he
'. in which case, they are liable for murder.

A killed B with treachery, abuse af superior st3kugth.

at .nighttime purposely sought for, and with craft and
fraud. The penalty for murder is reclusion, temporal in

A83
 CRIMIWAL LAW REVIEWEX
.,.'.. :':*:
Note: The difficult question t o salve is when one of the w&& .g
' " ' - ~ ' p m t i Q i ion the part of the person performing or €ail-' ~25;
ing to perform such act. Hence, intent to ~kiJl -oxanalice
found in the body of the deceased was mortal and the oUl&
was only slight, which could not have caused the death of tkk :..

/. . cannot exist when the physical injuries are ni&&&&btugh

lit,
decensed. If there is no evidence which wound was inflicted.:
re-Wdence. The crime is - m e s s
. .. serio_u,T by oiie or the other of the two defendants, it is not easg,to .'
ph-iZi3- gh Zeclrless i m u r u d w d e p e n d i n g determine their liability. In the case of US. v8. Ahiog, et a l 1 ,.: .
. on the extent and/or effect of the injuries suffered 6y the 27 Phil. 140, the Supreme Court stated: "One line of AmerieG
decisions wou:d here simplify our task, if we were t o follow-.
.. ... offended party. them strictly, by acquitting both defendants. Some of these
. .,..
exculpatory doctrines fol!ow:
-'"
1226. What is corpus delicti in crimes against persons where 'If two o r mom are acting independently, and the actual '$
perpetrator of the homicide canno1 be identified, all must-:%4
, ' ~, the death of the victim consummates the crime? be acquitted, although i t is certain that one of them was'>@)
Covpus delicti, in modern sense of the term, means the
actual c,Dmmission of the aime charEd. Hence, if the
milty.
~~ ,

'And where two persons strike another, there being nothing

,"*
*11.S&

?
;,
: . crime charged is homicide, murder, parricide, or infanticide, to indicate a conspiracy between them, and death resulta,
if the jury have a reasonable doubt an to which struck:'

/
, . . in which the' death of the victim is an element of the of-
. . the blow causing death, it should acquit- them both."' . ":::,
.. . ' fense, there must be satisfactorv e.vid.mce o f A h e j & b f , j .Ti

&&-of the victim and of his identity.
Note: When the death pf the victim results from the usa Of
violence by the offender the intent to kill is conclusidy p m
surned, because in czimes against ~ e r s m athe. law considers
t u e a r a t h e r than the intention. Lack of intention to com-
mit !so grave a wrong as that committed will only mitigate
'~'.1 , ~ I ,' the liability of the offender.
227. Without. any conspiracy or spontaneous agreement, A
and B 'dealt X blows with clubs which hit the latter on
the;J!ead. These blows, or at least one of them, which
'' . ' on&ouId not be determined, caused the intracranial
... h e r n o r h g e and crushing of the cerebellum of X, which
caused his death. Discuss the liability of A and B, ex-
plaining: your answer.
,It i!3 submitted that A and E are guilty of the crime
o?(GmJ It is a welllsettled ruk ]%this jurisdiction
Of eorure, when tlierp is conspiracy, both are liable for the :.:*
death of the deceased. . ,,%
:.I ~*
1128. X and Y were brothers-in-law and not altogether friendly,-
although they were in speaking and visiting terms. One
day, Y visited the residcnee of X , was receked .in a
friendly manner, but after a whse an altercation arose,
as a result of which %shot Y in the abdomen, inflicting
a wound that was necessarily mortal. Soon afterward:
but within a few minutes, when no other person W:a+
present, Y procured a knife and cut his throat, inflict;.
ing a ghastly wound, from the effect of which Y must
necessarily have died in five minutes. 1s"X liable f o r
the death of Y? Explain your answer.
Yes. In determining the liability of the defendant in
a case like this, the && is: "&&e?-, when the deukh
00, the wound inflicted bu the defendant, &Lm&- ,,.

that w J m a v-ied as a result of oneof the wounds tribute t o thm_cueat. If it did, although other independent :1
r e h d from two uersons, a a n g independently of each causes also contributed, the casual relation between the
other a,nd the wounds inflicted hy them could have caused unlawful acts of the defendant and the death has been made
the &:t.h, and It could not be shown yhich c a u d the out. Here, when the throat was cut, Y was not m e r a y '
' . death of the victim, ressors are g m o f A e languishing from a mortal wound. He was actually dying
_c
crime of homicide (People vs. Peregrino and Mangco,
1
-and alter the'throat was cut he continued to languish;
from both wounds. Drop b y drop the life current went
e C X 3 3 O.G. 4504). :
485
 .&j:*,2 j , ,
. ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEH

%
: +. , -. .&$from both wounds, and at the very instant of d a t h person who killed her was unknown.. Two
. ,. _. ..t)le gunshot wound was contributing to the event. . I f the
_..
pointed to X as the person who pushed' ihe' old
.,.:.,..a.! '' .
!
throat cntting had been by a third person, unconnected during the affray, resulting in her failing
'. . *., _ .. . with the defendant, he might be guilty; for, although a It appears, however, that the cawe .of
,, '. .., mdn cannot be MZed tivice, two persons, uiting inde- the stab wound on the side of her body:and the perso
. . . . mndentlv,, may contribute to his death and each be guiltY , who inflicted it could not be identified. Is X criminal1
of a hoinicide. is stiil in life, a n d a y liable for the death of the old woman?
',
-
he killed. but
x_.____..., if
~ . . " - a wound $v!ien
,, . ' other both may properly be said t o have contributed t o
by an-
'
Y 2 because h-t
ing a confusgl
of the old woman
tumultuous a f f w , and
his death." (Cited in U.S. vs. Abiog,~etal., spcpra). ascertained who actually killed her, and the person or ' ".
persons who h f m e d the-*es
1229. When the evidence is not clear as t o which bullet or b d -
b m d . In such case, the Derson liahb -ei
lets fired by the two defendants killed two persons, KhDcd v m u m n the victim. ,
how many crimes 'are committed by the two defendants?
., L
If there is n i evidence showing that the two vic- 1232. Must the person killed in a tumultuous affray be one ':'
tims died with more than one and different bullets and of those engiged in the free-&aIl fight? Why? ~<Pr
it is wifbin the scope of possibility that the two versons XO. The law does not require that the person killed.' I?:

were ki1.led by one only and the same missile, there is is one of those engaged in the free-for-all fight, because
I - -
only one crime of double murder, a complex crime (People the law (Art. 251) says, "and in the course of the a f f r a y . ',,',
vs. Bersamin Mirong, et al., G. R. No. L-3098,March 5, someone is killed."
..
",

1951). Noto: I f the one who caused the death in a tumultuous affray
Note: This ruling applies only whcn the positions of the %- is&wn, that person who caused the death will be liable for
_-
tims ~ ~ such
r te h u a c0-t by o n e x s a m e dug. ordinary h&de end will he sentenced to the penalty far the
crime of homicide, which is reclusion tempoval. If the person
' '

who caused the death cannot be as-ined, the gerson or

1230. In what crimes may the court impose wpon the person
guilty of lheir f r 9 a t e d stage a penalty lower b x t w o
degrees, instead of one degree, than that proyided by law
r for the consummated stage?
In the crimes of parricide, murder or homicide.
Note: A s regards any of those crimes, the court may impose
a penalty lower hy three degrees, instead of two degrees, upon
the person guilty of an attempt to commit any of such crimes.
It, is, however, discretionary t o the murt to lawer the penalty
by siieh namber af degrees, as it has to take into consideration
the :facts of the case.
1231. X and nixteen other persons had a free-for-all fight
in a market place, In the course of the tumultuous af-
6r ' .i
fray, a market vendor--an old woman-was killed. The
persons who inflicted serious physical injuries shall be punished
by prisioe magov, or one degree lower than the penalty for
homicide.
1233. In physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, ',.
who must be the injured party?
The injured party must be participants in the affray.
It seems that if the injured person is&T a participant,
Art. 252 is not aDplieable.
Note: In physical injnries inflicted in a tum
the person who inflicted the serious physical
less serious physical injuries CannothLidsntif
person responsihk therefor ca-entified, he
for ordinary physical injuries. The @eraon or
for physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous af

486 487
 &:
.dl

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW- REVIEWER

. ,
.*"
, 'k:
who appeared to have used violence upon the pet'son of the that could cause the killing of A, but if the crime ' was!.'
,>
>
.. ..
..-',.i
.,< offendefiarty. !,.11.*'
not produced it was by reason of a cause independent*of&
.. ,. ...
It. would seem that there is no crime of slight physical in- his will, that is, the timely surgical operation made bp',;:;,
juries inflicted in a tumultuous affray, because the second para- the doctor on the werson of A. , ,,.,
"L
graph of Art. 252 speaks af physical injuries of a less serious
nature.
The persons taking part in the atfray should not com-
pose two distinct groups (US.YS. Tsndoc, 40 Phil. 954).

1234. A wanted to commit suicide and confided his intention to ( 1 ) BY assistine another to commit suicide which is c o h j
s-ed. ,.ii
B, his friend. B suggested to him how to commit suicide
withoul. suffering much pain, by telling him tu put the (2) By his assistance t o a e r to the extent of'
do- ' .
barrel of his pistol into his mouth and fire it upward (3) By s s a another to commit suicide .which
so a s to destroy his brain. Then B left him done. A c=mp?ated.
.....,.. - followed the suggestion of B and sh,ot himself in the The third act punished, which is giving assistance to sGei
,I
,, manner indicated by B. Is B liable for giving assistaice which is not consummated, refers Lo the first act.
+& ..
<. t-kkle? Explain your answer. The preceding question iuvolves the 2nd act of giving as
Yes, because giving suggestion d o t h e m ? of ance'to suicide, because B went t o the extent of trying to
A himself.
ccmmii,ting suiclae is_a positive and direct eoooeratiop
--
amounting to giving assistance t o sukde.
But if B only gave his pistol to A who had told
he would commit suicide, and A %sed that pistol to
self, but he did not die, because of the timely int
, 1235. A, upon knowing that B would commit suicide, went to of the doctor, then the act of B is that one menti
the place where B was going to commit suicide. A stood
by and looked at the manner B would commit soicide. A
saw the actual commission of suicide by B. Since A did
not prevent B from committing suicide, is he criminallg
more descrying of pity than of ~,enalty.
liable? Why?
No, because mere passive attitude of n o t p r e v e n.t i.n g 1237. Wlien is the discharge of firearm (1)
the suicide d o z t c o a t e giving assistance t o de.

1236. A approached B and requested the latter to help him

cornniit suicide. B agreed t o lend his. assistance to A
...
,., to the extent of doing the killing himself. In accordance
with their agreement, B shot A in the chest perforating
$: I , ,> ~., ,
. , .,. .1
.
the right 3nw a€ A. bwause ef tb.c t W y surzical , w e a i m i n g the *firearm
operation given to A by a doctor, A survived. What
2. ' :.
, .,~ .,. crime was committed by B? Explain ).our answer.
'.,. B is liable for (frustrated giving assktance to suicida
He p e r f o r m e d m h e acts of execution nxessary to give
.... . assistance to suicide to the extent o f doing the act himself
,,,.; .

488
 CRIMINAL LAW IlEVIEWEK CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

case of frustrated homieide in the sense that to consti

cide, or attemated murder or at- rated homicide the offender has the lntent to
firearm must have hit the victim and must
mortal wound in his body $0 that the offen
sidered ap having performed all the acts of
/ sary to produce the crime of homicide.
. .
N o t e : Take note, however, that it is not.inerely grave threats
.,. .,
e>.
when the firearm is already discharged. It will I;s@ave threats
-
if the firearm is on1 pointed a t a n , t $ x n m
--
with d;?nth,* Ischargmg f t .
4 2 . When is it an i p o s s i b l e crime, and not illegal dheharge
of firearm, if $person had the intention to discharge h?.
firearm at or ..!binst another?

/
'!'
238; A, withoirt intent to kill, fired his gun at 3 who was
wounded, but only slight physical injuries were inflicted.
:What crimes were committed?
It would b e ' h impossible crime if the offender aimed
his firearm a t or against another person and pressed the
trigger, but the bullet did not ezptode because it .was
defective. This is an impossible crime, because the act
Illegal discharge of firearm and slight physical injuries. performed wouid be an offense of an illegal discharge of ..
One of the crimes committed is illegal discharge of fire- firearm; a crime against persons, were it not for the' ''*

;i^
,.' arm, because there was no intent to kill. Although the
employment of ineffectual means.
i . two crimes were the result of one single act, a slight phy-
i d injury, which is a light felony, cannot form a com- 1243. If the' discharge of firearm wils directed at the house ,
plex crime with illegal discharge of firearm.
I__
where the offended party was, but without the offender .:
actualiy seeing him, what is the crime?
1. 9: Suppose that in the preceding question A inflicted on B
.,
less serious physical injuries, what crime was committed? The crime would only be alarm, because i t produced

/
.. alarm or danger in the place. It is not illegal discharge . ,
CompIex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with less
/of firearm, because the firearm could not be discharged
serious physical injuries, both being less grave felonies.
at or against the offended party when the latter is not
240. ~Suppgsetlint i n .the question next preceaing B was kine& visible to the offender,
.. what crime w a s committed?
244. When is the killing of a child under seven years of age
Homicide, plain and simple, as the intent to kill is con- (1) murder, (2) parricide, or (3) infanticide?
clusively presumed when death resulted from the illegal
The killing of a child under seven years of age is mur-
der when the reiation of the offender with the child is not
illegal discharge of firearm? one of those mentioned in the definition of the crime of ' ' '

parricide and the child is at least 3 days old. There is a

Yes, if the firearm was directed at or against a certain
person without intent to Bill and the offender pressed the
u t the firearm did not explode because the bullet
N o t e : This ease should be distinguished from the ease of nt-
:. tempted homicide, in the sense that in the latter ease, the of-
fender has the intent to kill. It is to be distinguished from tho
presumed treachery when the victinl is under seven years .(
of age.
' It is parricide when the victim is the child, whether :"
legitimate or illegitimate or the Iegitimate other descendant
of .the offender and the age of the child is at least. 3 days
Old. . .

,, . , , 490 491
1 1
CRIMINAL LAM' ILEVIICWEK
,.. . :. It is infanticide when the child. killed is less than 3 days
' ' ' dd, whether .or nat the o€€eader is related i o ihe child.
.
~
; i.
Note: The name of the crime is always infanticide whoever
' is the killer, hut the penalty differs when the offender is re-
,, ,.
latcd ti) the child, as father or legitimate eandparent, in
which (case the penalty will be that far parricide. But if the
, . relation 02 the offender with the child less than 8 days old
is not one of those mentioned in the definitiod of the crime
of parricide, the penalty is that far murder.
The intention to conceal the dishonor of the mother is not
an element of the offense, it being only a mitigating circum-
stance.
womb which results in the death of the foetus.
f '
Note: In abortion, the age of the footus is immaterial.
1246. What is the purpose of the law in punishing abortion?
'
The purpose of the law in punishing abortion is not
to, protect a person, as the foetus is not yet a person which
ubject to any rights, but principally to protect the
of a human being, who is also subject to life, and
the health of the mother who is placed in a grave danger
abortive manipulations, and to protect as well public
/ interest h y preventing the diminution of births.
Is there x crime of abortion through imprudence?
There is a difference of opinion among Spanish com-
mentator:1 as to whether or not there is a crime of abor-
tion through imprudence. But it may be stated that abor-
tion through imprudence may be committed, as for instance,
when a dJ:iver of an automobile through reckless imprudence
bumped a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion, the
crime committed must be abortion through reckless im-
nrudence. It cannot be intentional abortion, because --"_
ahor- I_
492
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
'was the result of .a negligent act on' the part of the of-
fadex. T1.R vid.exe was ?& intentiona1ly-d by him:,
w--4kL%-. .
1248. Is there an impossible crime-
Yes, if the woman is not pregnant, but the offender I
believes that she is pregnant because of her bulging ab-
domen, and he used violence to cause an abortion. This is
an impossihl? crime where the act performed would have 'i
been abortio:,, which is a crime against persons, were i t -',
, not for the herent impossibility of accomplishing it. It ' ,
is impossible.,:p cause an
-:
abortive means used was inadequate.
crime, where the act performed would.
have been an-on
inadequate means.
were it not for the employment of
249. Is them frustrated a h t i o n ?
Yes, if the foetus that is expelled with the use of abor-
tive means is viable and it survives. It is also frustrated
abortion if the offender with the intention to cause abor-.
tion employs e f i c i e n t or m e abortive means but
abortion does not result. The crime of abortion is not
:produced bFreason o? a cause independent of the will
of the 'perpetrator.
Is there attempted abortion?
Yes, if the offender has commenced the admini
of abortive substance, but does not perform all the acts
necessary to produce abortion, that is, the pregnant woman
did not swallow the abortive, which is by reason of a cause
other than his spontaneous desistance.
there be an accomplice in the crime of abortion?
Yes. 0-0 accompanies a pregnant woman to 'the
clinic of a doctor or to the house of one to perform the
act o€ abortion upon her, or one who pays the person t
493
 . , CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
perform the abortion, or one who looks for the physician
who later causes abortion is liable as an accomplice.
1252. May a person be held liable for unintentional abortion if
. at the time he exerted violence on her he did not know
. . her to be pregnant and that as a result of the violence
. exerted the woman suffered an abortion?
, pri.yion n a y o r to prision correccional in its medium and":,,)
,x""/ Yes,, because the lack of knowledge of the pregnancy
of t h offended party is immaterial. What is considered
. : .. e crime of abortion is the fact that a pregnant woman
uffers an abortion because of the act of the offender.
This is in accordance with the provision of Art. 4, par. 1,
which says that a person committing a felony is criminally
liable for the result although not intended by him.
1253, A woman suffered abortion by natural'cause. The ex-
pelled foetus had already a human form and ahout six
. months old. While the foetus was still alive, it was
buried by the servant in the yard, as instrxeted by the
mother. Are the mother and the servant liable crim-
. : inally?
.. . .
No, because the foetus, in view of its age, did not have
I ,
.
'its own life, independent of that of the motber. A foetus
,:. under these conditions had necessarily to suxumb a few
. ' , moments after its expulsion from the maternal womb.
The crime of infanticide was not committed, because
in this crime the victim must be a child less than three
days old, but one who can subsist outside of $be maternal
womb.
There is no abortion in this case, because the expulsion
of the €oetus was due t o natural cause.
N o t e : There are two kinds of abortion: (1) intentional abor-
tion, (,hat is, whet%abortion is intonded; and (2) *mintentiom1
abortion, that is, when abortion is not intended, hut the abortion
is caused by means of violence.
The means used in inter.Lional ahortion i s *ither (1) via-
lenee, or (2) any other means, especially adrnlnistering abortive
.. substance or surgical operation (Art. 256, R.P.C.).
Unintentional abortion is causcd by violence only (Art. 257,
. .,~.
R.P.C.).
494
~ . , .,.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER x
L .r
1254. Is the conseat of the pregnant woman in the abortioh
an element ai the crime of abortion? Why? ' ,
No, because abortion may be committed without the
consent of the pregnant woman. If the woman shall have. ~
consented to the abortion committed on her, the penalty
to be imposed on the offender is only lowered (from
maximum periods),
1255. 1s;Lhe woman who consented that another person should ' .
ce an abortion upon herself liable criminally?
+. She shall suffer the same penalty that would be
ed had she practiced an abortion upon herself. , '
1256. A quack doctor, who tried to cure a pregnant woman . '
suffering from stomach ache by giving her a certain
kind of medicine, caused abortion. It appeared that the
cause o f abortion was the medicine administered. What 4.
is the criminal liability, if any, of the quack-doctor?
. . quack doctor is liable only
The f o a e g a l practice
He is not liable for abor-
n-r ~~
Gon, whether intentional or unintentional. It is not in-
tentional abortion, because he did not intend to cause abor-
tion; and it cannot be unintentional abortion, because. he
did not employ violence. l l a 'm is caused
by violence only.
1257. A, a stranger, ,poisoned a pregnant woman t o kill her.
As a consequence, she died and the foetus 'in her womb
also died. What crr'me was committed by A?
,;.::
.. '"
w r , because A killed the woman by m mison.
It canmi be a complex crime of murder with intentional
abortion, because the abortion was not intended; and the
crime uf murder cannot be complexed 'with unintentional
abortion, because tliere was no violence used.
125s. A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide drank
poison. Because of the timely intervention of a doctor
she did not die, but the poison taken by her caused-
495 <:
I .I

1
'
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/abortion. Is this abortion practiced by the woman upon

'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER:

1261. A and B had a quarrel. A challenged B t o ' a Iight,:

saying: '%et us see who is the better man." B refused
.:
, '
"

herself? Explain your answer. to zccept the challenge. C, who was present, scoffed '. .
No, because in abortio Gticed by th? woman upon at and decried B in the presence of other persons for .':$ *-
' +- ba
herself, In this case, when she having refused to accept the challenge. Are A and C ',+
tried to commit suicide, she could not have f n t e n i JQ eriminafiy liable, A far challenging R to a duel and C ..,.:!
' . for scoffing a t or decrying B publicly for having refused
c_nuse an abortion an herself. s<+
t.
:
!

Nota: Abortion practiced by tho wornan herself is commitred _.

..
by B woman who shall practice an abortion upon herself ur
shall consent that another persoit should do so (Art. 268, par. 1,
R.P.C.).
Ths parents of the pregnant woman who Committed abortion
on her with her consent to ~oneealh e r diskonor are also liable
to accept a challenge to fight a duel?
No, there was no challenge to a duel in the question.
The act of A in challenging B to fight, saying: "Let US
see who is the better man," is not challenge to a duel,
because it lacked the formality that the challenge to a duel

/' (Art. 258, par. 3, R.P.C.).
259. What circumstance will qualify the crime of aburtion
committed by a physician or midwife and what is the
reason of the law for imposing the penalties in their
.. maximum period?
Abortion committed by a physician or midwife is auali-
fied by abuse of his or her scientific knowledne o m s -
__-
sional skill (Art. 259, R.P.C.).
They incur a heavier-guilt in making use of their
must have. C is not liabie either, because scoffing at
or .decrying another publicly for having refused to accept, .
a challenge to fight a duel presupposes the existence of
a challenge t o a duel, which is not present in the question.
Note: Challenging to B duel includes (1) inciting another to
give or accept a challenge t o a duel, or (2) scoffing at or de-
crying another publicly f o r having refused to accept a chal-
lenge to fight a duel ( A r t . 261, R.P.C.).
8262. Define mutilation and state the two ways of committing.
it.

7
126
kn w l a g e for the destruction of human life, where it
should be used only for its preservation.

. What is duel?
It i:s a formal or regular combat previously concerted
between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds
of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms
and fix all the other conditions of the fight.
Note: An agreement to fight which is carried out without the
him
A-
The term "mutilation" means the lopping or the clip-
ping off of some part of the body.
The two ways of committing mutilation are:
1 . By mutilating another f - s s e
either totally or qy-,
f o r ~ l c i i Q P .

E
--
of =se
of demiving
esi&hhxa n

2. By niakirrg other mutilation, for the Eurnose of dgv,:?ij

-- the offended party of m a r t of his body; cdhgr
living
than the essential organ f c x a ? w d & i o n .
,,
presence of two or more seconds is not duel; and if one kills (Art. 262, R.P.C.) e
the other, i t is plain homicide.
Note: If the part of the body of the injured party is cut d U P .
There i s no distinction as far as the punishment is concerned ing a fight, them is no mutilation, because the offender has
between killing B human being in the conrse of duelling and no pun~ose af depriving him of that pnrticular . p a r t of his
' the crime of homicide, Both are punished with reelmion tern-
body. The crime would be seriousphysical iniuries.
porv.1.
Ihelling is punished with arresto mayor, although no physical
The law does ~ & . & k o n l y to the rruJt but a l s e t e t h a .,:
intention of the act (US.YS. Esparcia, 36 Phil. 840).
injuries are inflicted (Art. 260, R.P.C.).
1 %..!
497
496
 I

, .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1263. A and 8 fought each other with sharp boloes, With in- 1297. If any of the serious physical injuries wzas inflicted be-
tent to kill, A struck B in the lourer part of his body, cause of the injurious substance given to the offended
cutting his private parts. B did not die due to the party, what was the crime committed?
timely intervention of a doctor. What crime was com-
1. Th.e crime was administerinr infurious substance Qg
mitted b:y A? Why? bev-e iE the offender & a t the time he administered
F s r a t e d homicide, because A had .the intent to kill. * K e same to the offended party that i t w m US,
d'It is n@ mutilation, because it \ v u not the intention of & provided there kill (Art. 264, R.P:W.
A to deprive B of his essential organ for reproduction. .*"
2 . If there then it w a s &
en

/
Note: If there si-t t o kill on the part of the offender, murder because the injurious s u b s h s e having b
and thore i s n-to hurposc of depriving the offended of tl:e offended party, the E&C
.&M
*Y
party of a particular part of his body, the cutting of his
privnte parts or any other part of his body is anlv serious p m d tke s u b i e d e u h a s of the+.
physical injuries under Art. 263 of the Revised Penal Code, ' 3. It w a s ( S m m s h reel&%
izn- u e offender did not know of the injurious .'
264. What crime was committed by a doctor who removed the n a r e of the substance 01" beverQe, but h e J j d - w t ta&%
ovary of a woman SO that she might not beceme pregnant the necessary ~ e . c & h i ~ to avoid iniurv to anothcr.
again? 'Why?
1268. May the court permit the presentation of evidence of :
@util:itiod because the purpose of. the doctor in re- medical attendance in the case of serious 'physical in- ' :
moving the ovary of the woman was to deurivc-her of jnries? Explain your answer.
the'essemtial organ for reproduction.
While the law (Art. 263) 'does not mention medical a&
1265. A caught E stealing in his house. This being the third tendance in defining any of the serious physical
/Mmence of medical attendance m3y-b wxx&ed
time that B w a s caught stealing in his house, A cut all
the fingers of the hands of B. What crime was com- -
lish the 1ErmWh.si3, which 1s- 0
mitted b:v.'A? Why? &termining the seriousness of the physical injuries in
certain cases.
e t a b e c a u s e when A cut B's fingers, h a -
tion was to denrive him o f his fingers so that E! could 1269. In classifying serious physical injuries, what factors are 2
not steal again. taken into consideration? '_,
T'ney are:
1266. What crime was committed when in inflicting any of the consequence of the physical. injurie
I . The IrsxLL.o~ror
serious physical injuries, the offender has intent t o kill? inflicted (when victim becomes insane, "e.).
If the wounds inflicted are mortal, that is, they are 2 . The I= of a principal member of the body of th
sufficient +to cause death, it is either frustrated homicide, offended party (when he lost an arm, &leg, etc.).
frustrated murder or frustrated parricide, deyending upon 3. The i s o f the- of any principal member of
. , , the circumstances under which they are inflicted.
body of the offended party (when he lost the use of
If the wounds inflicted are not mortal, then it is only hand, arm, foot or leg, ete.)
:.:' attempted homicide, attempted murder or attempted pami- 4. The loss of any of the non-&cipal.~mgber of
&.>,?*$.>
..,, ,,,,,>: ,. cia% as the case m a y be. body of the offended payty (when he lost the sense of h
.-
+??q?~i.t$:<r
,F,:.;,.
,& :;:&; ',, 498 499
..,c' , ~.., .
 ' I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. . ing of one ear or he lost one or two fingers, which map
also be deformity).
5. The loss of the , p & o f any of the non-principal
membei:
6. The incaaacity or illness of the offended party.
When are serious physical i n i w 3 e s - a
When of the serious ph,ysical injuries i&hflkkd
was hit on the head by 6. There'was
no break in the skin. Hence, no medicine w a s necessary.
But as a consequence, A could not prepare €or his lesson
for two months, because he became dizzy whenever he
read his assignment. How would you classify the p h y s i d
injuries inflicted on him by B?
The physical injuries inflicted on A are classified as
serious, physical injuries.
The term "&relative t o incapacity, includer; schoOt
&< oTgreparation .for a arofession. Hence, a student,
.' who is injured by another and rls a consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted he could not attend his class
or study his lessons, is incaaacitated for the performance
of the work in which he was habitually e n g a d .
Wi.2. Classify the physical injuries inflicted by the uffendw
on the offended party whose Ieg injury required hos-
pitalization for more than thirty days.
That leg injury is a serious physical injury covered
by Art. 263, par. 4, of the Revised Penal Code. The
hospitalization for more than thirty days may mean $i&eF.
i
i&ss-.or..iKcs.acity forJab.or f o r more .thm-tYirty~ days.
(See People vs. Mom AIi, et al., G.R. L-7431, May 30,
1958.)
273. A boxed B on the left cheek, causing the loss of'tW0
. . molars. Medicine was applied only once on B's gum
I othes.
500
i
.i .
CRIMINAL LAW RNIEWER
, ...,
from which the two molars were removed. He w a s nob- :&
incapacitated for the performance of his work. What k i n v :
of physical injuries was inflicted? Why?
& % z z w because although there i s .$:
deformity, and the part of the body injured or the effect ..*.
o m i n j u r y is not one of those specifically mention@ .
in the article defining the felony of serious physical in-
od '
juries, there is loss oLa n o n - a r i n c i w r nf h-b..-J
under paragraph 3 of Art. 263.
1274. A boxed B in the back of his head. B did no€ need
medicine as RO wound was caused on his head, but he
was not able to work for one week. After one week he
realized that one of his eyes could not distinguish one
color from another. How would you classify the p h p
s i 4 iniuries inflicted by A?
I
e c physical i n j u r a because the offended Party
-~
b d the use of an evq./ 1s not necessary that there is
comple&Jdidness of an eye, as t,he dirninuition of the
"=offer of an a is sufficient. This is the opinion
of Viada; Cue110 Calon believes that there must be total
blindness.
1275. A inflicted a wound on B in a l'ight. The wound re-
mained open for 27 days. B only cleaned it with warm
water and did not apply any medicine. B's wound did not
prevent him from performing his work. How would YOU
classify the physical injllry inflicted by A on B? Why?
The injury inflicted by A on E is6light Dhysical in>
jury, because there y a s no medical attendance and the
latter was not inmpacitated from h-k. The physicat
injury inflicted is not less serious or one of the serious
physical injuries.
2276. In 8 4 a a r r 4 A shoved the face of B until the latter
fell on the f@r. B did not suffer any physical injuries.
For what cJxFy i s A liable? . Why?
'
A is liable fL:d. s ' w bv ill-treating an- ,
;
601
 I
I /
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER i

1277. What are the crimes against Gersonal l i b e r t a The penalty shall h a w h e r e the kidnapping or deten-
tion is Committed for the PurDOSe of k t o r t i p raLlBQ?@e9enda
They are: V' nsotof the c - n e n t i o n e d &.nr%gnt in the com-
/Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. mission of the offense.
8. ,Slight illegal detention.
.~
.* 4 Unlawful arrest. 1278. A, €3 and C, pretending to be constabulary soldiers, told
. , & Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. X to go with them to the barracks f o r investigation.
A, E and C took X to a seclude,d place where the latter
f Inducing a minor to abandon his home. was detained for three days until he was rescued by the
,$!Slavery. real constabulary soldiers. What crime was committed
4. Exploitation of child labor.
4. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of ---
/"by A, 13 and C? Why?
because &
' L e b t s . ,/ ,
a d s G < n d serious illega-3
committed the crime simulating public authority. In such
/1278. What is the essenthl &men t or act tl!at makes the
-
case, the periohoL&&tion iLimmaterial.
offense of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? Is 1280. A policeman> together with several private individuals,
the period of detention of the victim important in the i kidnapped a person for the purpose of extorting ransom
determination of the crime? from the relatives of the victim. What crime was conl-
The essential element or act that makes the offense mitted by the policeman? Explain your answer.
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is the deariva- The p+%ep, like the pri&teindividuaIs with whom
tion of the offended party of his lib& under any of
f o h instances enumerated in Art. 267, the illegal de-
tention. of the victim for more than five days being one
he was in cons i r g , committed&:dnauplns! a .
il@T?I&iif&-because hgAid-x& in h?:
c m y w k n he took mrt in the commission of the crime.
OE
of such instances. Having acted as a urivate i n d i y i i , he was not liable
The period of detention of the victim is imuortant, ,for arbitrary dete n b. n .
when n u of the other instances which a 'dy the
2
crime i m n t . 1281. A boy, 1 4 years old, was forcibly taken from the side-
The period of d e h h o.. & of the victim- nt, walk of a street and carried away in a jeep, but before
when any of the following is u r e m t : the culprits could cover a distance of one kilometer, they,
1. If it shall have been d-c simulating Dublie were overtaken by the peace officers who reseued the,
mityty; boy. What crime was committed by the culprits? Ex-
2 . If any serious physical injuries shall have been i& plain your answer.
f=d upon the person kidnapped 01- d e t n i n e d e i f -ts
I G=
& To kidnap is to carry off by unlawfu!:
t o kill him shall have been made. -
force. The intention of the offenders was to carry away
the boy by means of force.
3. If the person kidnappgd or detained. .shall Ije a
m a r , femaie,or public officer. i There are three ways of committing the c ime of kid-"
napping and serious illegal detention: -k I

(shall kidnap), &detaining another, or H i n a m d h c ~ $

m s e r deprivine him of his&&

502 503
ri
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I ',' The forcible taking away of the xi&m w e s i l & a l
. ', d m m (People vs. Undiana, 50 Phil. 6 4 6 ) . $0
1282. A and B, by means of violence, dragged and carried C,
a Yyomm, to a distance of three meters from the place
where she was grabbed. rlfter having carried her to a
distancme of three meters, A and B dropped C, because
of her struggles, and A and B did not persist in dragging
her away. A and B left C. What crime was committed
by A a d'B? Explain your answer.
P
& and B committed the crime of @insummated Brave
oercioQ eb- C-comoelled to do- ' a d t
h e r w i l l by means of violence. The acts of A and B do
not constitute the crime of frustrated illegal detention, but
rather that of consummated grave coercion (People vs.
Marasigan, et al., 55 O.G. 8297).
Nota: The ruling in the case of People YS. Undiana, 50 Phil.
641, and that in the ease of People vs. Crisostomo, 46 Phil.
775, arc not amlicable.
I n the Undiana case, the accused dragged the offended party
to a distance of 40 meters from the house where she was taken
forcible abduction and there w a s - e n c e of lewd desiens.
It would seem that had the information been for eonsummated
foorcible abduction, the accused would have been found guilty
of consummated illegal detention.
I n the Crisostomo case, the accused were found guilty of
consummated illegal detention, although they only dragged the
offended party along and took her against her will to a rice
field where she was rescued by other persons.
I t will be noted that in those eases the victims w g . u s m e d
by ather.persons from the accused; while in the instant case
the offenders, after having carried the woman to a distanee
-
of only three meters and dropped her because of her struggles,
did not persist in dragging her away and volu ' . ' d ..
from furthering their purnose and left with=-
1
sumg them when during all the time they wore in B position
to ,carry out whatever intent they criginaliy entertained for
there was no person present that could have stopped them
(People vs. Marasigan, et al., supra).
KO4
1
CRIMINAL LAW REITEWER
1283. May a p r w individual, who Iddnwpped or detained or
otherwise deprived another of his liberty, not be held
criminally liable? Explain your answer.
Yes, w h a h e kidnapping, detention or deprivation of
liberty is not ille@. One of the elemeats of kidnapping
i and serious illegal detention or slight illegal detention is,
that the kidnaminc QLWQI&Q ' iIi-
N F a private person arrested and detained another
u e? any of the instances where arrest without w t- Ja
authorized h y t h e R u l e s s f _ C o ure, the w l l e g a l .
The detention is n
Prevent her f r
1 1 when the aceused a d e d without
criminal inhnt, as when he locked up hi, wife in 3 2 w l n fn
.o. m.tide.
1284. A, together with other persons, f ~ m 3 l ytook a woman
27 y e a s age to a ear and carried her to another munic-
ipality for the purpose of m a d n g her. There was no
impediment on the part of A or the woman to marry. On
the way to the other municipality, A never touched the
woman. What crime w a s committed by A and his com-
panions? Explain your mswer.
A and his companions committed the crime of-
i!legal detent103 because the victim is a f&e wh.3.W
d m d o L h .T k Tk +t !~e T F victim is a female, it
that the deprivation of liberty lasted morg
The crime c a z e forcible t?hdu.& n,
because t l i m v s no lewd design, as shown by the f a t
that he did not touch the woman a i anytime and that h&
i i i t e n t i ~ k i n zher f d b b w a s t o marry her.
The intention to mamv the iv-n who is of age ,and
the &nze of any impediment on the part of either party
t u i T y negative the p r a e of unchaste designs.
Note: But if A e n r w and && the woman on the way,
or otherwise touched her body
his companions would be liable
.I
1285. Su ,pose, in the preceding queslion, the female was onlJr;
would the crime be the same? "i;i
No, because in s u e h s e the intention to m a
k&g that the &cannot Five consent to the marria
505
 CRIDflNAL LAW REVIEWER CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER

by r x o D of her a e- s i ' s; and the detention is to be punished with a penalty one degree Iower
than that provided for the urindpal, because he is only
C & I E J Y Ob~ I ~
forcible a b d u c t i m .+ andna&
- i t is only in &&gbt illegal d & d iion
1266. A, B and C detained X for w a y s during which time where the person who shall furnish the place for t h e
X was subjected to physical violence, because he at-
tempted several times to escape. X suffered l e m i o u s _-~
perpetration of the crime is punished with the same pen.
altx as that f o r the..p-.
physical injuries. What crime was committed. Explain
your answer. A and B detained without legal ground X, a -&Or,
demand ransom. X was released w& i. t h d s , ,be
@ illegal detents baause the - d Qt fore the institution of any criminal proceedings, and
f.or moreith an 5 d a t h e r e w&n&simulation o w i c without attaining the purpose. Must the court impose
=
,a the o f w p a r t y w a s s t a p w i r , a a penalty one degree lower? Why?
femaleor a e r , there was no t o w t h €fended
p a a a n d the physical i n w n r M were-&&erious. - No, because the crime committed
- -s i
Note: T h s i m e is @&ht il&nal detentio@ when n a o f t a That privileged' mitiga&@ngcircumstance is ap-
the cireurnstan%that the crime of kidnavoing acd plicable only t o a case of &ght illegal detention.
ser;oUg illepal detention is nvesent (Art. 268, R.P.C.),
I ~1291. A, suspecting that B w a s occupying a part of his land,
1287. If the robbers, after taking p e r m 1 property by means tied his hands, forced t h e latter to ride in a jeep, and
of intimidation, compelled the victim to go with them took him to the municipal builNding for the puwose of
and put it restraint on his person, thereby depriving him filing a false charge against him and delivering him to
of his liberty, are the robbers liable also for illegal de- the chief of police. What crime was committed by A?
tention? Why? Why?
>, b,ecause the w e of the robbers was not to A committed the crime of Q Z i E V ~ t because J
deprive t&e victim of his liberty, but & t o Feventa h m d or detained another without authority-w
' reporting the matter to the authorties. or without reasonable ground therefor, but for the pur-
)
pose of deiivering him to the proper authorities.
1268. What is the s t k i p a t i o n and&bility of the person who
p e s t r a t i o n of ihe crime of 1292. IIow is kidnapping aiid failure Lo return a minor dis-
linguished from ordinary kidnapping and serious illegal
His uarticipa_tion i a nh
-t @ioi$E& & b detention?
h e a l > e ounished with the same uenalty provided for Both in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
the bq direct particiuation in the crime of slight detention, when the victim is a minor, and in the crime
i w W n . I of kidnapping and failure to retur a minor, the victim
is a minor under 21 years of age,/& while in kjdnauDin5
1269. What is the liability of the person who furnished the and failure to return a minor, the offe der is(
place for the pernetration of the crime of kidnapping with the custody of n minwJwEn/ k i $ p a . p e. ~ ~ ~
and serious illegal detention? Why?
I
I serious illegal detention tb o f f e n d s shoral8-n-o
The person who shalt furnish the place for the per- custody of the v i m . f i i d n s p p l n g and ser;tduhsa\rfie%
t petration of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention the crime c nsists in deurivina the offended

506 607
 1
I I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
moviehouses were bigger and better than those -found in
, ’

2
party of his libmiy, m e r y c o n f h h g h‘ u or-ng
restraint _on his oerson. n kidnapping an& failure to
return a minor, the crime consists in deliberately failing
I
.g
$010; that the city was a better place to live in; that
she. would take them with her to Manila; and that they
need not worry about the expenses incident to their going
to restore the &or to his p&s o r guxfiians. to and shy in that city as she wwld defray them all.
1293. A induced a’minor to abandon the home of his parents A was 19 year:! old and only a maid, while 1) and S
by proniishx to give him food, plenty of money and were both 14 years of age. Is A liable for inducing the
beautiful (clothes. The minor refused to abandon the minors to abandon their homes?
home of h!is parents in spite of the enticement. Is A 7. In view of the fact that m a n $
*“.j
criminally liable? Explain your answer. also a minor, i t cannot be sunnosed that A commanded
It is opined by a Spanish commentator that hte-e s-cendancy over D and S, a> to be able to orevail
of inducing, a minor to abandon his home is consummsed 0 4 .
by the mere induce&. HZce, it would seem t h u i n In order for an inducement of a minor to abandon
not necessary that the minor actually abandong h a m e the home of his parents or & i s or the person en-
because of the inducement. trusted with his custody to -titUte the crime penalized
N o t e : This opinion is correct, because the wime is committed under -221 of the Revised Penal Code, i t is essential
by inducing B minor to abandon the home of his parents or that th&ucmm t beactual, committed with erimirJal
gusrdinnr: QT the persons enhnsted with his custody. The law inte2t, and dctermiDd by a w i l l t o cause damage. The
(Art. 271) says, “shall induce a @erson under age x x x to
abandon the home,” which means that what ednstitutes th_e
representations made by A to D m d S highly praising
e&% si- the. s e t of induing, and tke i e a w
’ q of the home the City of Manila and her offer and promise to take
by-minor is not r e a k e d . them to that city d e do not constitute inducement.
The verb “to induce” means “to influence”; “-t ‘1 on”;
1294. A, a boy 13 years old, left his parents’ home and lived “to move h u e m i o n or i n f l u m e ” ; or “to incite by
with B. After sometime, C induced A to abandon the
-m (People vs. Paalam, C.A., 64 O.G. 8267-8268).
home OF B. Is C liable far inducing the minor to abandon
B’s home? Why? 1297. A and B kidnapped and detained X for a weelc t m @
No, because B w a m A‘s guardian nor a n e m n
/ the latter to wwk in x.plantation in Mindanao&bout
entrusted with A‘s cusbilg. sakry. Before A and B could board a vessel for Mindanao
Note: Art. 271, R.P.C., provides that t m which the W r with X, a policeman rescued X. What crime was com-
a-s, because Of the induce ent made by the eeused, must mitted by A and B? Why7
be the h a m of d wrent8 o7
ra- or the&on e n h x
with his eustodv. be- the purpose was t m e - h &
I
is kidnamed_or ckhned ‘ , tlle_crimecam-
1295. In the 8ame question, is B liable for A’s leaving his m=si slaverv if -se is t o enslave him (Art.’
parents’ home? 272, R.P.C.) .
& b s i M B =got entice or induce A-tQ abandon
t h d e &f his parents. 1 1298. A sold his nephew, 7 years old and an orphan, to B on
the promise of the latter to send him to school and to
1296. In a conversation she had with the n1inql.s I) and S,
treat him as his own child. But contrary to their agree-
A told said minors that Manila was a big city; that the r
609
508
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

ment, 13 compelled the boy to work in his house as sew ant^ [?lace. B e A w (Art. 275, par. 1) e s abandonment
without ,pay. What is the liability of A and B? of a person in %,e:
I_-
o& when such uerson, m n d in
A-was e- for slavery, because he had no inten-. an uninhabited- woun&d o i dying, is
tion to enslave t h m r when A snld,him. B would
be liable fpi- because his intention in purr ha sing^
fails to help 01% render assistance to another whom he
~-
the minor was'to enslave him, a i o d y his s u b s e m a t
act. has qm&?n?X& v+Qim&& or injnred. A intenti-
c

N o t e : The penalty shall he imposed i n the maximum p e r i d wounded B.

if thc purpose is to assign the offended party to some immorah . .
traffic. 1301. A, while driving il jeep, bumped and ran over a pedestrian
Ill 01. sellinq a human b e i w &%€y crime. &W who was seriously injured. A continued to drive his
m a ! it a crime k . & ~ a t l i en c e u ~in buving oy jeep without even loolcing at the injured person. How
- --
selling n person to enslave him.
,.*' many crimes were committed by him?
1299. What are the a e s against s e c u r i t y a l ' A committed @) physical iniuries, if the i-party
They are : did not die, w-. &
t n& reckless imarudence, if
k: Abandonment of persons in darrre.r and abandon- the injured varty &ed subsequently; and# -a
ment of one's own victim. ment of one's own xieiim, by f a i l i m -t or render
'
2.. Abandoning a @tor. assistance to another who- r
p. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with in&r&
his custody; indifference of parents. Note: The crime of abandonment of one's own victim requirea
4. Exploitation of minors.
5. Q . u ~ f i d L t r ~ s p ato
s s dwelling.
6. Other forms of treD.ass. 1302. Suppose that in the same quation, A stopped his jeep
7. Grave threats. to help the injured pedestrian, but he saw a mob, rush-
8. Lisht threats. ing towards him, and by reasnn thereof he drove away
9 . Other I&&Ahrea ts. his jeesp, thereby failing to render assistance 60 the
10. G%ve c o m s . injured person, can A escape criminal responsihility?
11. L i w i o n s . Why?
12. Othw 'similar c e n s .
Y
, es, h+ause he was prevented to render assistance
13. F.omtion, m N e n a n c e and yrohibition of corn-
b y e insuperable c z m (Art. 12, par. 7).
bination of capital or labor through violence or threats.
1300. A, who stabbed and seriously Tvounded B in the abdomen. 1303. A saw a pewm seriously wounded lying on the side of a
left the latter in an uninhabited place where the crime warehouse near a harbor. He did not render him any
was committed. Is A liable for the other crime of ahan- assistance. Is A liable for abandonment of a person in
.. donment of his own victim? Why? danger?
,. <,
The &e, b e i a e w h m a n v other aersnns were
&t&$..,;., ~,No, , because
%,
- w ~ ~ e l ' - . oA &
in an u&W&&pbee
~
wounde4 B in that -a it is submitted that A is nat liable. The olace
,,~ '!, .
~
v y
, '-.'I.
, ,

... ' , ,

510 511
 CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER
n
m n e uninhabited -t is thda&&ermn
in the X&I w u render assistance.
1304. A saw at the market place a child, 4 years old, who
was abandoned. A did not mind the child. Is A liable
criminally? Why?
No, b 9 u s e the minor-under seven years af age ~s
n m i d abandoned in an unsafe place. Art. 275, par. 3,
requires that such child is found abandmed and w e 130% What would be the crime if there is intent to kill when
is not l.&n to a safe dace,% to his farnib-
i@X,ies.
' 1305. What i!i the purpose of the offender in committing the
crime of ahandonihg a minor?
The purpose of the offender must be to avoid the obliga-
tion of caring for the minor under seven years of age,
the custody of which is incumbent upon him.
to kill, l e f t h e r one-year old child in
1306. A, w & M e n t
her bar,ong-harong which she abandodpermanently. The
child (lied of hunger a s no person saw the child since
. its mother had left it there. When she left the child,
she thought that someone would find the child there.
Her purpose was to avoid the obligation of caring tor the
child. What crime was committed by her?
G n d o n i n g a minor,) There are three responsibilities
urovided by the Code, namely:
& When the minor is deprived o&y. of t h e m k a n d
protection it needs bv reasQn of & C k & L W C ;
4 When h u e is endangered; and
& When the minw dies, as a result of the-on-
n
i&
T h e e no intent to kill o n e part of A, s h L
not lxble for the h i g s e oLPanicide.
1307. A told his servant to accompany his child, 6 years oId,
to his grandmother who was living one kilometer away.
But the servant left the minor on the way and never
512
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
returned to his master. Is the servant liable for aban-
doning a minor? Explain your answer.
. Yes, because he abandoned a childless than 7 year4
of axth&&v af which is incumbent upon him.
cusk&, af the minar may be t s b o r a r y only.
Note: &t io constitute the offense, the abandonment must be
@Gnent,>
the child is abandoned by the person having its custody?
If the purpose of the offender in abandoning the minor
/
,"'
under 7 yearKOof age is t o cause hiri death, the crime COX&
mitted i s either f-i the c- S
o s ; m a i f the child is 3 days o_r older and the offend
is not related to the child; o r & r m if the child
3 a o r older and the offender is the father or mother,
E
w m r legithw& o r illegitimate o r legitimate grand-
p s -
-
Note: In the crime of abandoning a minoy, the o f f e n d e r s h s y
not have
---. the intent to kill.
1309. A, a pregnant woman, while answering the call of nature
in a bamboo thicket, nnexpectedly gave birth to a child.
As she was suffering from extreme debility and dizzi-
ness, she left the child in the thiclwt, where a n animal
killed it. Is A liable for abandonment of a minor?
No. 'TkaanmlaUnmt thatthe_lsJv (Art. 276, R.P.C.)
p e s is ~ W i i i Z Z i a n d ~ b a on-n d
m s t , r e - z - L i n t & x m t i o n of the axe a m -
t@ tuba ne& by rmiQp QF his klXk2&%
(People vs. BaEdian, 63 Phil. 530). 4 is exemDt from
criminal liabilitr,
t&c&d
c r i s L & a J A n t when she left the child.
1310. A was entrusted in Iloilo by B wil,h her brother, a minor
6 years old, to be brought to his mother in Manila, but
A gave the minor t o the captain of the vessel, A's friend,
613
 CRISSIKAL LAW REVIEWER CRlMlSAL LAW REVIEWER

to do it for him. Is A liable for abandonment of minor incurred hv an ascendant, g?laniiw~, 01- person entrnsted
by person entrusted with his custody? Why? with the custodysf-arrur u x s h a l l apain& k&
t&
,tl,lysi
It is submitted that A is&liabIe for abandonment @XEhllim in his servke (Art. 273, R.P.C.). Exploitation
of minor by person entrusted with his -custody, a of minors is committed by &H causing, (=employing,
-
o n h the person havine char= of the reaving or educutipn or (3)'delivering any boy or girl under 16 years of age
of a Ginaw-er
1-t
e ' r to-aala5licjnsti-
or other persou, without the consent of the one who
(or under 12 years of age, in case the offender is an
ascendant) to perform any d m e r o u s M aLb&mh,
entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the &ysical strenwth, or c_o_ll_tartion; or to w o r k j n m S
latter without the consent of the proper authority, shall be o m w c h t , gmum.t, r m d k m , wild-animal
liable (Art. 277, R.P.C.). t ~ i . o, r m a ! . m g e r (Art. 278, R.P.C.).
Notn: Is Art. 276 applicable? That article punishss a ?- c.suL> 1313. When is inducing a minor to abandon the home of his
who shall ahandan a rh ild u w t c C L ~ the s m&ody
~
of\.w igincumbent U I .
parents or guardian a crime of exploitation of minor
It can not he abandoninrr a minor under Art. 2'76. because under Art. 278 of 1,he Revised O d e ?
.
that article - y when there is an-interruptior~ of the The act of inducing a mixor to abandon the home of
e n s and proteetin-" t h a w - Y er his parents or guardian is exuloitation of minor x!hedh?
affi. Under the custody of the captain of the vessel, SUT-
wznser t h m e and p r o t e a of a responsibjs-sm. a a o f the mi= is under sixteen yearse- and the
purD3e of the offer:dxis t o make the minor follow a a
1311. When is a person liable for the felony of indifference of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, d a r , wild-animal tamer,
parents;? or circus manage% q t o accompany any habitual v a a w t
* or beggar (Art. 278, par. 6, R.P.C.).
A person shall be &ble for that felony if he s b u - Note: Exploitation of minors is punished b s s e it endangers
&&I his chLldren by not +ins them the e d u c a t i o n d h - t u o r A a E y o f m .
I u t i o n in life r& a n w a -
(Art. :?77, par. 2, R.P.C.). 1314. Wbat, is the difference between trespass to dwelling and
Note: Hence, if the parents are so poor that they do not have violation of domicile?
the means to give their children the necessary education, they One of the ways of committing the crime of violation
will not be liable. of domicile is by entering any dwelling against the wil:
The parent is not liable under Art. 2 7 7 + r % e is working of the owner thereof, the offender not being authorize(
in another province or city and the minor and his mother 1.e:
judicial order.
::,'

.
,**':.
,

.
.,
i
hisminor
r&!iires
U him there. ~ I n that mse,

ceases.
'
~ l @ M u
'Ye
Ehieli their fit;rinninlife

1312. Distinguish exploitation of child labor from ex&&&iom

/
,
'
The other way of committing the offense is, havini
surreptitiously enteped said dwelling, and being require(
to leave the premises, by refusing to do so.
Trespass to dwelling is also committed by enterinl
. .
.,
of A r s r s . the dwelling of another against his will.
Exploitation of child labor is a crime against liberty; The first way of committing violation of domicile an(
whereas, exploitation of minors is a crime again&&- tY. the manner of committing trespass to dwelling are tho
I
c' Exploitation of child labor is committed by any person &me: thc offender enters the dwelling of another agains ,,L$

fvho, under the metext of reimbursinc himself ot-f the latter's will.
.,
515
I 1
CRIMINAL LAW ‘REVIEWER
But the other way of committing vi( tion of domicile
and the manner of committing trespass to dwelling are
not the same: while in the other way of committing viola-
tion of domicile, the offender enters the dwelling SUI=
reptitiously ; in trespass to dwelling, the offender enters
the dwelling of another against the latter’s will. But what
constitutes the other way of committing violation of domi-
cile is the refusal of the offender to leave the premises
after having been required to do so.
The offender in trespass to dwelling is any private
person; in violation of domicile, the offender is any public
. .~-
5,<.i
e officer o r employee.
1315. The third way of committing violation of domicile under
. Art. 125 is by smrching papers or other effects found
I
in the dwelling without the previous consent of the
owner. If a private person committed such act, what
would be the offense?
If the e&ance is onlpwithout the tfif the owner
te dwelling and the private p e r s o n x a fiearch w3h-
of x
out the previous conseqt of the owner, the offense %E-
jiiziszim
If the entrance is.- e wilkof the owner, and
. the search is without the tm.u~
‘ us consent .rf the owner,
the offense is‘6respass to dwellin9 the uniust vexation
beinn only a l h t felony s u e considered absorbed
,,
in the crime of tresDass t o dwellin2.
If pgrsonal nroperty i s a n , after the search, w&
intent t o a n , the crime i s q u e there is vio-
lence aeainst or intimidatim of 1 -s or force unon
t
m It is not necessary in the ordinary life of men,
1316. What is the difference between simpIe trespass and
., ’ fied trespass to dwelling?
When the e-e into the dwelling a ~- . e t h e will
of its orvner&t committed by means of violence/or
iptimidation, it is o m 4 i m p i e tresuass to uweiiln
. ’ , the crime is committed by means o f violence or%$?&-
t h , it i:; -@XEtea tresuass t n X 3 I i i p (Art. 280, R.P.C.).
+’:
616
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEF:
1317. A was found by B inside the house of the latter. There
is no evidence as to the manner A entered B’s house.
Is A liable for trespass to dwelling. Explain your answer.
Where there is w i d e n e e as-t.&L.he manner a person
&D the d.siellul
’ g of another, he cmnot be held liable
for trespass to dwelling, because to constitute the crime
of t r e m i w - b Ay&i.ng e-t jnto the dwellingof
ae-r must be amin& the latter’s y& The entrance
-....the dwellinn of another is against the latter’s will
‘into
I
when there isgrohib~itionor oppositign, exmess or im-
og the part of the owner of t he dw& . g. Such
p&
prohibition or opposition cannot be assumed. Nence, there 9
must be evidence of the prohibition or opposition of the
owner. of the dwelling or of the facts from which it may
be implied.
1318. A prohibited B from entering his (A’s) house. One week
after, B went to the house of A upon the invitation of
the laitel’s daughter. A found B inside the house. A
called for a policeman and complained against B for tres-
pass to dwelling. Is B liable for trespass to dwelling?
Explain your ansver.
W A l t h o u g h A’s daoghter invited B t o go to the
house of her father, wch invitationSUlIi0hXIWiil C!EX
the express lllLQhihitioMf f-.
1319. At about 3:OO p.m., A pushed the door of the house of
B and, once it was opened, entered the house.. IS A liable
for trespass to dwelling? Explain yonr answer.
in ordes to call at the &or of a house or to enter it, to
obtain the previous permission from the owner who lives
in it. With the utmost good faith, a person, l o whom
e?ztrunce has n o t been denied beforehand, may suppose
that the owner of the house h a no obiection to receiving
en I him in it (Groizzrd).
Note: This is the reason why there ia no trespa.ss, if the en-
trance into the dwelling is m7.u rvithozLt the consent of the
ownel..
511
 I
I 1
" '.

' CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

i
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1320. A, a girl 12 years old living in the house of B, invited

There - crime of trespass to dwelling with
C to come inside the house. B scolded A for inviting homicide or e committed in said dwelling. When tres-
. C to enter the house and filed a complaint against C for I pass to dwelling is a direct means to commit any other
. ' trespass to dwelling. Did C commit the crime of tres- c r i z e inside the dwelling, &
t&
p.% to dwelling is not,an
.
pass to dwelling? Explain.
independent crime. That the crime is committed in the
dwelling of th; offended party, is o& an agmavating
. . No. T & j n x W k a o f a member ofL&?&&i&Qld, -1 circumstance.
if she is a minor and onlv an inm
' ate of the dwelling, was
held sufficient to iustifv the claim that the entl'yvza&.& 1324. A, inlending to commit robbery in the house of B, en-
m a d e against the occuuant's will, in the ahsene-- - tered the same through the w ~ o w but', was grabbed by
pi=rohibition _ _
by the latter. ~ the neck by B before he could touch any personal property
in the house. For what crime is A liable? Explain your
1321. What is the criminal 1iabilit.y of a servant who opened your anw-? i..I..

the window of the house of her master to make pmsible @remass to d@ A .havinsr entered the house of
the entrance of her suitor in the house through the B through the window. The e n b n c e was against the
window? What is the criminal liability of her suitor7 will of B. The fact that A had the intent to commit rob-
She is a I-p bv i n d i s n e ..n ' vn in the bery in the house does not m2,ke it attempted robbery,
crime of+3$aiified trespass t o dwellin& and her snitoy & tiiere being 110 overt act of the crime of robbery.
a-prMpal by direct nart i c i d n in the said crime.
N o t e : It has been held that when the entrance into the &el ling 1325. A, for unknown - d s e , entered t.he house of B through
of another is effectd t-the window, the crime committed the wi&ow. B upbraided A for entering his house
i u a u e d tres~asst o dwelling, because -t ewstrnctiue through the window. A stabbed B, inflicting less serious
im i - f physical injuries on the latter. What crime or crimes
were committed by A?
1322. At 10 o'cloclc in the morning, while the d E r of B's house d r e s p a s s to d w e l l i n p r i o u s physlcal i n j u r i y
was opened, .A entered it and once inside immediately When A entered the house of B, he had no intention to
pushed B when the latter asked him wli2t he wanted. inflict physical injuries on B or any other person. It was
What crime was committed hy A? Why? only when B upbraided him that A inflicted physical in-
A committed the crime ofG~nalifiedtresuass to dwe1j.J juries. There being -t ' @
-.n
et on the
ing & m e of the use of violence, ~ ~e h part of ~ A, h e m i t t e d c two different c?&~e S.
f& that the door of the hoyse o u WUiQXED an.d.&W
.. .
w a n g - p m l u l a h n to the CULL
'37. In 'qualified trespass
Note: If A-h&&he i n t e n t i m t o & a r injure 8 when he
entered ths house, he would be 1i:ible only for
to dweliing, when there is v m e or intimidation .h,Q p*il+ie%
mediatele after entrance, it is not necessary tl&dx.re
1326. A entered the yard of the house of B late in the evening
should he Drier prohibition or opposition to the entrance.
by jumping over the fence. The gate of the fence Wa9
1323. Is there a complex crime of trespass t o dwellincr y&h locked. B surprised him inside the yard. Is A liable
for other form of trespass?
h
e- or rape committed in the said dwelling? Ex-
plain your answer. No, because the place was inh&&d.
... . , I
619
518
t

..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Note: Other form of trespass is committed when the offender
enters the closed premise< or tenced estate of mother while
either of them is uninhabited, the prohibition to enter t h o mme
being manifest, and the trewasser not having secured the per-
mission of the owner oi caretaker thereof.
..
A threatenep a woman that he would kill her husband
if she would not have sexual intercourse with him. Be-
Giuse of the threat made by him, A snceeeded in having
' sexual intercourse with her. What crime was commitfed
by A? Why?
p j b e c a u s e the t& made by A formed Dart of
- e element of intimidatien that he employed to succced
i h i s i r n a l defie. The threai thpn cannot be considered
-a ate and indeaendent &e.
otc: When a crime, specifically liunished
element of another crime ac&dlv cornmi$&,
G b s o r b e d by the latter.
1328. Suppose that in the preceding question, A threatened
the wontian that he would kill her husband if she would
not have sexual intercourse with him, and the next day,
the woman having agreed t o the condition imposed by A
to save her husband, A had sexual intercourse with her.
What crime was committed by A? Explain your answer.
I n this case, A is liable for brave threatsJ because A
threatenepthe woman with the infliction upon the person
of her husband of a wrong amounting to a crime, that is,
that he would kill him, imposing a condition, that is, that
she should have sexual intercourse with A, and A attained
his purpose.
Note: The crime committed is o p e , because wken the 05
fender had carnal kno
%so anreed to it.
t u c o n t r o l l e d her will a t the time of the sexual i n t e r m e.
Distinction of the two cases:
the first case, the threat made bv A ',as direct,
and continuinn until A accomDlished his 1)urpose. A
- had carnal -e of the woman
- b~- y m
That is one of the ways whereby the felony of rape is corn-
mittea.
620
I
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I n the second ease, the threat made by A to inflict upon
the person of her husband G n g amauntinr to a criole a&?
promised some future harm to the husband of the offended
woman. Since a condition was impcsed by A, - b
Qn-t of the o u a s e w u immediate, because he at-
1 tained his pllrpose the next day, t h e crime was-'
It will be noted that in the second case, there was no actual
nat-t when the pur== was a t the Doint of
beinn attaimd. In the first case, evcn a t the moment when A
was accomplishing his pu- the threat o r intimidation E
actuul and continuing.
1 3 2 m V h e n is a demand for money with intimidation robbery,
fl and when is it grave threats? Give illustrations.
A demand for money with intimidation i s. .m whep
the intimidation is direct, Dersisteut and c&UlUlW until
f- 0 the offender succeeds in taking the money of the offended
u o m
__r party. .The ga.in obtained is immediate.
Thus, if A, a t the point of a pisto!, demanded money
from B, threatening to kill the latter if he would not pro-
duce his money, and B gave to A all the money he had
with him, the crime committed by A is robbery with in-
timidation. The gain obtained by A was immediate.
It is w v e in1 s when the in_timidation is conditional
and merely p r o m s somefuture-m to the offend&
par.ty 01: to a member of his family, i n , t h m e y
c
demanded is& dd.b?ssl t-ff&r&either
^_
aersona)JY
Q?I through an intermediary.
Thus, if A told B that he would kill him if the latter
would not send him F1,OOO within twenty-four hours, and
B a t the money the next day, A would be liable for
grave threats. I n this case, the. gain ohtailled by A S!ZU
ry&-te. as he got the money the next day.
Note: In\=ry with intimidation the t h & o r
is directed0-0 the ers o t
-he t h B t - i m A e r s Q n , Lianar or
of the offended party or th&.&anv of the
fs3llily.
1,
q m
1330. What i s the stage of execution of the felony of grave
threats if the offender does not attain his purpose? Why?
621

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
- It is consummated grave threats, because m h e a&
of execut&n are performed by-the offender and the felony
is produced. The f w e of the offender t~ a t b'n his
p m o s e only u e s the penalty to be imposed.
.I
There are three forms of grave threats. One of them
is grave threats where the offender does not attain his
purpose.
1331. May a person he held liable for grave threats, even if
he did not demand for money from, or even if he did
not impose any other condition upon, the person threat-
ened? Elxplain your answer.
Yes, because grave t h r e a s m a y -a committm
i f t h e t h s i s not subject to a condition. Th% is the
third form of grave threats (Art. 282, No. 2, R.P.C.).
1332. HOWis llle penalty for grave threats determined?
If the offender attained his purpose, that is, the of-
fended pnrty gave money in case there was demand for
money, or that the offended party complied with the condi-
tion imposed by the offender, the penalty is next lower in
degree than that prescribed by law €or the crime the of-
fender threatened to commit.
If the offender shall not have attained his purpose, the
penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law
for the crime the offender threatened to commit shall be
imposed.
But if the -is wt subject to a condition, thp
penalty is fixed by law.
1333. May Ikhl. threats be committed if there is d e m a n d
for money or no condition is imposed by the offender on
the offended party? Why?
No, because a_threatto commit a wrong not constibt.
n-i must be made in the manner expressed in
subdivision 1,of Art. 282, that is, that binademand
for money , g ~ that any a t h w & ' ' ' ifflsered (Art.
: 283,C.).
622
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIGWER
X334. What is the difference between krave threats and light
threats?
In-rave threats and linht threats, the offender ..
i makes a demand for m x y or imposes any other cn -,
when he makes the threat.
While i n p V b J the offender threatens a n o a r
with the iilflletlon . .
upon the person, honor or property
the latter or of his family of any wrong aImm&B&L ofa
e;- in Ii$€3KrTZ$, the offender makes a threat t o
co.m&a w r o y not- n i ' rime.
Note: An example of light threats is tho ease of two Chinese
who threatened the offended party that they would denounce
her to tho NBI and RIR for buying real estate in violation
of the law and for not filing her income tax return, unless
she would given them P1,OOO. To denounce her to the authoritiea
is not a crime, but their demand f o r money makes them liable
f a r light threats.
.1355. What is blackmailing and under what 'provisions o f , the
Revised Penal Code may it he punished? Illustrate.
the unlawful extortion of money b!
cusaim .
ni ~ ( D O S U . It is punished in the Revised Penal
Code a s \ T @ T i T W + It is a t-t to commit a wrong
not constituting a crlme, demandin9 maney o r m i n g
nnyxhhcudtion.
Thus, if A sent a note to a woman, stating therein
that he would testify against her in the case where she
was charged with adultery, unless she would send to him
Pl,OOO, A is liable for light threats.
Blackmailing, consisting in threatening to publish a
libel and offering to prevent such publication for a com-
pensation, is aiso punished by the Revised Penal Code
as a crime against &nor (Art. 356).
1336. A, who seduced Bs daughter, refused to nlarry her. B
I threatened A that if he would not marry, his daughter,
he would file an administrative complaint with the SU-
preme Court to prevent. him from taking the bar exam-
623
I
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEFVER

inations, because he was immoral. Is B liable for light or light threats. If the offender fails to give bond to
threats?,. Why? keep the peace, he shall be detained for a period not ex-
/because B did n-ake a thwk&-commit a n g . ceeding 6 months, if prosecuted for grave or less q a v e
It -nig to file an administrative complaint with felony; or not exceeding 30 days, if prosecuted for a hght
the Supreme Court against a man not fit to become a felony.
lawyer.
1439. A told B that he would kill the latter. What crime was
Note: Both in grave threats and in light threats. the threat
m&bethe offen- bo- commit an a t- w PI
the o n l y e n c e is that in grave timeats the monp amounts
. committed by A?
It depends. If A u t in the heat of anger and
t o h e , while in ]-eats the m g which the offender subsenuent acts of A s a d that he did not persist in
threatens to commit b-e.
-
the idea i n a d - i n the threat, i t is other\ light threat1
Ife
~~

with the deliberate n e of creating in the

1337. But suppose, in his o d o u s e the rather of the seduce8
girl threatened to file an administrative complaint against mind of the p r s o n t h r e a t b e d the belief that t h m
the seducer with the Supreme Court, unless the latter w z b e carriGnb&ct, it{-\si
would give him P5,000, and the seducer then and there.
prepared and issued a check for that amount, what crime 1340. A, in the heat of anger, struck I? with a cane, saying,
was comnliitted by the father? Why? ‘41 will kill YOU!” B suffered slight physical injuries.
What crime was committed by A?
cry' with intimidatiog because btimidatioq m N
Slight physical injuries. The t h B t \vas -of the
/ consist & threat of arosecution, and threatening the
seducer with an administrative complaint is similar to
threatening one with prosecution. There si-an
i
a@t (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 1 Phil. 143).

on the part of the father. This element of intent to gain 1341. What crime was committed by a person who prevented
and that of intimidation make the crime of robbery with another from doing something not prohibited by law or
intimidation. M ~ J Qie , pain was e. compelled him to do something against his will, w i m
Note: 13ut W
violence or intimidation? Explain your answer.
e offended party did not issue a cheek then
and there, or if the check ivns issued s o m e t i e r , it would
beWt-L intimidation o Fv When the element of violence or

committed IS unjust v m o n
is not present, the
1338. What is bond for good behavior and how is it distinguished!
from bond. to keep the peace? 1342. May violence, a s an element of grave coercion, -eb
Bond for good behavior is a bail which the person. ployed urn-, instead of directing i t against the
making the threats may be required to give, not to molest. ’ person of the offended party?
’ ‘
the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, Yes, as when the owner of a house destroys its door
he shall be sentenced to d e s t i e v o (Art. 284, R.P.C.). or’windows for the purpose of making the actual occupant
Bond f o r good behavior is an additional penalty ia vacate it. This may be c o n s i d e r e d \ p m e a C ! because
grave threats and in light threats. the law (Art. 286) merely says, “any persqn who, x x x,
Bond to keep the peace is a distinct penalty which is shall by means of violence, x x x, c . h i m to & s o m e ~:
.,: &posed
- in cases involving crimes ,other than grave threats thing against his will, whether i t - b e right or wrong.” In ’.,’<
-.\:a
> Y
624 625

E
 I
i
CRIMINAL LAW REYYIEWER
the given case, the violence employed on the things Was
felt by the occupant, thereby affecting his security.
1343. When may a person who prevented another f r o m doing
something even by means of violence-riminally liable?
When t.he act sought to be prevented is w h i t e d by
law, as preventing a thief from taking one’s propertfir, t h e
. . act of taking another’s property being prohibited by law.
There is no grave coercion committed if the person
using violence or intimidation has the rig& ity
t o m - act.
Thus, a private individual has the right, to prevent.
ail0 4 from taking and carrying away his property, and.
’
/tk” exercise that right he may use such force as is neces-
sary to exclude the intruder from the enjoyment or disposali
. . of his property.
Also, a p_eace officer has the authority to prevent any
. person from creating a public disorder, even with the use
of violence, it being his duty to maintain peace and order.
1344. In what cases is the act of preventing another from doing-
something not prohibited by law, even with the use of
violence or intimidation, not grave coercion but another
crime?
In the following cases, the act of preventing another
from doing something not prohibited by law, even with
the use of violence or intimidation, is not grave coercioa
but another crime:
1. The act of preventing the meeting of legislative bodies
xm9w&
b force is not grave coercion, but the crime of a u d -
‘ng of legislative bodies under Art.
143 of the Revised Penal Code.
2 . The act of hindering or preventing a person from
joining any lawful association or from attending any Of
its meetings, is not grave coercion but the crime of urQ-
hibition or w r r u p t i o n of peaee€ul meetinAs under Art.
131 of the Revised Penal Code.
626
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
3 . The act of preventing a member of Congress from
attending the meetings thereof, or from expressing his
opinion or from casting his vote, by means of force or
intimidatioc, is a violation of parliamentary immunity d e
fined and penalized by Art. 145 of the Revised PenaI Code.
Note: When the Revised Penal Code specifically defines and
/ e e s a d c o m m i t t e d hy pEwxting another from doing
a particular act, the offender should not be punished for grave
coercion but for the crime specifically punished by the Code.
1345. When may a person who compelled another to do some-
thing against his will, even by means of violence, not
criminally liable? Illustrate.
When the =on com- has the authority of law
or right t o compel a n d e x to do something against his
will.
L
Thus, a policeman who saw the commission of a crime
may compel the offender to submit to arrest and to go
with’ him to the police station and, if he refused, the
policeman may use the necessary force to compel the of-
fender to do so, even against his will.
Note: But if the crime was =committed in the presence
of the policeman,1 and he had nareaso-ble e round to believe
that the rrerswl bo be arrested committed the crime, he ‘had
no authority of law to compel the suspect to submit to arrest.
,-&an then will he liable for grave coercion if bv means
o m n e e he would compel the suspect to go with him to the
police station.
1346. A was informed that his lot was occupied by B who was
building n small house there. A went there and by means
of violence drove B out of the lot and destroyed what-
ever was already constructed by B on the lot. What
crime was committed by A? Explain your ,answer.
A is liable forigrave coerclo2 because he compell<d B
--
to do something against the latter,s I t h a t , I&ng
t h ~ c e .I t is not a defense on the part of A that the
lot belonged t o him and that E had no right to occupy
it and to build anything thereon, b!xalise ‘&e law saal6
“whether it be right o r wrong.” The law does not permit
627
 ~

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . . .,.

% ,

.. m y person to comuel another to do something against his 1349. What is the difference between graire coercjon and gram ,,
.:
:, wilJ whether it be rivht. JSLIXU . ng. threats when there is only a condition imposed without !
a demand for money or intent to gain?
.. Note: The destruction of B’s small house is not a separate
offense of malicious mischief, even if it was destroyed by reaeon Inrgrave coercio4 the e-v or -dation must :
of ha,te or revenge, because there was only one criminal i m l g e be persistent and c&tin&p and the effectof the violence
-.. in the doing of all the acts of A which produced the different or intimidation is immediate. On the other hand, ‘ i n i
reau1ts. s h e intimjdation only promises some future harm,
aecausa It IS condltiocal, and t h e n d w t I?E~-
1347. A saw B about to enter the farmer’s land to occupy dFwdiak&€&.
the same. A by means of force prevented B from enter. ,, N v t c : Thus, if the accused threatened the complainant that
ing his (A’s) land. Is A liable for grave coercion? if he would not pay his debt he would be taken to the camp
No, because the owner or lawful possessor o-hing where he would be killed and the following day the complainant
delivered the amount due the accused, it was held that the ac-
bas the right t o exclude any person from the enjoympt cused cannot be punished for grave coercion (People vs. Romero,
thereof, and for that purpose he may u s e s u c h force a_s et al., C.A.). The reason f o r this ruling is t h a t the intimida-
may prevent an actual tion was mede the day before the complainant delivered the
’.
- be reasonably necessaiy to
--
or threatened unlawful physic-a1 -1
-__
j1
his ,property (Art. 429, Civil Code).
or u s u r p a t i o l r ~ f amount duo the accused and that at the time the amount was
delivered to tile accused there ~ - 1 sno violence or intimidation
employed on the complainant.
Note: When a person is @ma& in possession of another’s
property, whether le& or illegally, the owner Cannot W A 1350. What stage of execution was reached by the offender
t h c u s e of viole~tlcelawfully compel him to give up the property if the offended party in spite of the violence or intimi-
and take possession of the same himself. If he does SO, he is dation did not accede to the purpose of the coercion?
liable for n.
~ . . . The crime of Lgrave coercion1 is consummated. The
B u t if them la n e u & possession of the prwerty, and ~

there is 0 9 a threatened u n l a w f f h y s i c a l invasion Qr usurpd-
t&. of one’s property, the owner of such property may use
force reasonably necessary to repel or prevent it.
1348. A warned D not to report for work as there was a strike
of Iahorers. But B reported for work. When B was going
bome from his place of work, A boxed him several times,
saying, “Did I not tell you to refrain from working?”
What crime was committed by A?
.
Dvsical k i ur.i. . ~ A is not liable for grave coercion,
1361. How is grave coercion distinguished from illegal de-
because in that crime, the-&. of preventing by force must
b m d e -at the offended party w a u n g or &Q&.
to do the act to be prevented.
Since B had already done t h e 2 t to be urevezted, and
physical injuries were inflicted on him, he could be made
>; liable for physical injuries only.
E28
Supreme Court held in the case of Punzalan vs. People,
52 O.G. 7609, that the fact that a n individual was mal-
treated for the purpose of compelling him to confess a
crime which was attributed to him, constitutes the crime
of consummated grave coercion, even if the agents of the
authorities who carried out the maltreatment d i d a c e o m -
plish their purpose to draw from him a confession, which
it was their intention to obtain by the employment of such
means.
tention?
In \grave coercion1 the offended party is G t dd-
of his liberty for an appreciable length of time. Although j.)
the commission of the crime of grave coercion ‘affects the ;,;i
security of the offended party, there is no detention of,’?$
629
 . ..
,s
the offended party. In \ S e d 'd.@@ there mu-
d e M k m L l 'b xty 01- on the person of the
timidation commits & Uand, therefore, liable for m-
just vexaticn, b w e et-en in & se ht-r haslLIight
' !.
.^

offended party. to be heardbefore ha is made to my. The creditor should

apply to the @roper court to collect from his debtor, if the 'i,
WKen there is no clear evidence of deprivatioll of liberty debtor has refused to pay.
on.the part of t h s d e d party, the crime of grave /'
coercion is distinguished from the crime of illegal deten-
/
/ 1354. Is the debtor liable for unjust vexation if he. refused to
tion by the purpose of the o€fender. pay his creditor?
Thus, when the suitor of a woman with the help of No, because the c r e c l ~ rcan assert and enforce his : '

other persons seized the woman and took her to his house right and the law urovides for a procedure to compel a
. . where she was kept not behind closed doors but only watched
L

dehtor t o g a 7 his debt. He cannot, therefore, validly claim : ':;i

so that she might not escape, the sole purpose of the snitor
being t o compel her to marry him, the crime committed
P that, the refusai of the debtor to pay unjustly annoys or
. . ;,;
was coercion, not illegal detention. ,' W& him. ~.*
,j

.. 4.What are the three kinds of discovery and revelation , $:;.

. "". :Y
,1352. A, who was indebted to B in the sum of P5,UOO would of secrets?
not pay his debt in spite of repeated demands by B. One
day, B stopped the driver of the jeepney of A and told
*f
They &e'
Di&cering &s through s e k > r <
the driver that he had had an understanding with A ence. ,.,
..c.,.
to the effect that he (B) would take the jeepney with
-
"4
him in payment of A's debt. The driver believing the A z l i n g secrets with abuse p f f i .,.'.
representation made by B to be true, alighted from the 3 . R 9 i n g of industrial seere&
jeepney and gave it to B. Then B took i t in payment I ;<
~
,
.I
'
of A's debt. What crime was committed by B? Explain 1356. A received a letter addressed to B. A opened the letter '.,I

your answer. without the knowledge and consent of B. The contents . $

The crime committed by B is W c g e r a o n or uxfrmt
--
yexatlonjhecause when he seized the jeepney belonging to
of the letter did not involve any secret of B, a s it was
a letter advising him that his application for a position ,.;',:' <g
in a business firm was approved and that he could re- ".';
his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt, there was no violence or intimidation
port for duty as soon as possible. Is A liable for dis- :
e-!. .:. .
covering secrets through seizure of correspondence? ,
~~
*..i. .~
According to the Supreme Court of Spain, it i s a ; ~::$
o w beea i s e- t .,,

a
Note: The crime committed is n
to defraud and i m the ffcnded party w e . '..
n e m y that the correspondence eo- a secret of .';:;
/ -
frn"*g---- ~.
I
.,,
,., mot+
c&d
person. The f& that the correspondence is & .:::j
i n 3 L e m a e is an indication that the writer, a s ' y
53. What is unjust vexation? well as the addressee, dges not want any other person ' , ~

&st vexatiG{ includes any human conduct which," to read its contents. .. . .)1/

although not prodm ive of some physical oru%&.IkdhGP 1 >\

However, if A had no nuruose to discover the secrets ' I

w a d , ho- u&ustlv annoy o r i ngocent oerson_s. of the addressee or writer, even if he was informed of I

Note: The a&of the offender must be &at. The creditor the cor,tents of the correspondence, he is not liable crim- .,.!:;~
.., . seizes the property of the debtor without violenee or in-
who inally.
.,..,.

L'
. ., \. ,:.:,
'
.
630 631
. , : ~

:' ?,.
~

,,~. ...
...~.
:c<:
~~

.IF,.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMXNAL LAW REVIEW-
..
$
On the other hand, even if A h i d t h e .intention of benefit of the person in charge, employee or.work<
discovering the secrets of the writer or addressee but i f of the establishment. i
...,.. there is n o evidepce that h e w a s actually i n f o a e d of&
.. -; eo,- be is not criminally liable either. hat are the two general classifications of robbery?
Note: Thus, in the case of People vs. Otto, Jr., 50 O.G., They are:
C.A., 3127, although he was informed of the contents of the
eableprrm when he opened the same, since he had no inten- 1 . yR
r- with violence against 01' intimidation
tion to know the contents thereof, he was aiquitted of the ,/ of versons.
charge of discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. ,' 2 . R & b x b y the use of-e unon things. , .
In the ease of People YS. Singh, 40 O.G., C.A., Sup. 5, 35,
there was no evidence that the accused oDened the telegram,
because he claimed that he put it in the pocket of his trousers State briefly the different forms of robbery with vi&nce
b '
which wvaa subsequently taken to the laundry and the telegram against o s intimiddim of mrsons.,
was last. He was also acquitted o f tho charge of .discovering They are:
secrets through seizure of correspondence.
The law does not require that the offended party be (prej- 1. Robbery with homicide.
udiced. 2 . Robbery i i 5 k . m ~ ~
Revea-the secret is n ~ a element
n of the offense; it 3. Robbery with mutilation o& aQy of the serious
, .. only i n a s u e s the penalty. physical jnj'llries-
4 . Robbery wgh violence, w u t inflicting any of
1557. Is the accused liable for revealing secrets with abuse of the serious physical injuries.
office, if he did %reveal the secrets? 5 . Robbery with intimi&&llanly.
No, because the r w of the secrets is an e!s& 6 . A m t e d or fru&&d robbery with homicide.
of the ol'fense. ,,/ 7. €$yecution of deeds by means of violence or in-
i timidation.
1358. Is the accused liable if he learned the secrets through
another and revealed them? .'I"
1362. State the different forms of robbery by the uae of force
No, b w e he d m t l e a r n t h e s&s of h- u p a n a 9 .
. cipal or master in &s-caacity as manager, empbXQLor They are:
S a
Note:
.
the principal o r rnsster is +necessary.
-
1, Robbery c o m d in an nix-e, .pat
-0
,!.&ding or e x e devoted to religious worship, after an
/' unzwful entry or by the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
'.'. 1359. A was an employee of a manufacturing establishment. chests, or any other kind of lock or sealed furniture or
He learned the secret of the industry. Hie resigned receptacle inside the building, or by taking such furniture
and used the secret of the industry for his own benefit, or objects away t o be broken or forced open outside of
without revealing it t o others. Is A criminally liable? the building (Art. 299, R.P.C.).
Why?
2 . Robbe1.y similarly committed in a n uninhabited place
N d l e e a u s e the act constituting the crime of revelation or in a 7;ivnte building, which is n&an inbbikdhouse,,:;!
of industrial secrets is revealing the secrets of the industry public bm dmg, or edifice devoted to religious worship:,:$ ,. .,,
o-n$udic%of the o G e r thereof, not using the secrets (Art. 302, R.P.C.). ,.:,..a
, ,

532 533
 CRlMJiVAL LAW REVIEWER CRIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER
1363. A entere8d the house of B through the window and once that house, took them and carried them away, the
.,,
. . inside took money and jewelry belonging to E after in- committed by him was theft only, not robbery, b
timidating him with a pistol. What kind of robbery was he did not enter the building by any of the means me
committed by A? Why? tioned by the Revised Penal Code.
A committed Yobberv with intimidat'10% because & If the locked or sealed furniture or receptacle wa
, ' t w A used force upon things by entering the house $ the
i& building when it was found and then and
of B through an o m not i n & e a for entrance or it was broken open and the contents thereof were taken, :"
egress, when it is accomnanied by intimidation, the latter the crime is \theftbecause it was not broken open inside
element supplies the controlling qualification of the robber): the building where it was kept.
committed. But when the locked or sealed receptacle was taken
The reason for this rule is to be found in the fact that f m the building and n-b autside, the taking of
robbery nccompanied by violence against or intimidation 4ts contents is- '
of persons is considered graver than robbery committed /
by the use of force upon things, in view ok the greater d 6 5 . A broke the wooden gate of the stone wall around the .'"'

disturbance to the order of society and the security of premises of B and once inside took from the yard of B
the individual. building materials *-hich were lying there. What crime
was committed by A? Why?
1364. When is the use of force upon things in taking personal 1Theft,lbecause although h m open the &e,
'
property be1ongin.g to another ,with intent to gain theft not enter thehouse with f s r c & u m n th ings. H e m
. . , - '-

only and not robbery? Illustrate. ,. the yard mly.

-
When the offender did not enter the building, wGUhe .a '1366. A saw, through the glass of the door of a car parked
w w o f his b d y inside, in taking the personal property
or when the offender did not break door, wardrobe; chest,
l1 on the side of the street, a handbag containing money.
As the door of the car was locked, A broke the glass and
'
'I

or any kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle
inside the building, or did not take such furniture or object
away to be broken or forced open outside of the building,
even if there was force upon things, the taking of per-
was only &
sonal propert belonging to another with intent to gain
not robbery.
Thus, if A climbed the wall of a house, broke the glass
.,. of one of its windows, and after creating an opening he
',..- merely inserted his hand into the opening and reached
for the wallet containing money bills which was lying on
the table close t o the window sill. the crime committed was
. , r,' :., . only theft because A did not &a w w
if 13, while outside a vacant house, removed by
pieces of board from the wall of
.--
entered the car through the oped
the handbag. What erimc was eonlm
A c o m m i t t e d L y b e m e the
building._Jprrobbery y the use of
,'
,' breaking the door or window, the place entered after b r
ing must be a building.
' ' /',
11367. A removed the radio of B from the e
7 begair to leave the place. On the
having recognized the radio, B ask
gotten it; hut A drew out and opened his knife
threatened to kill B. What crime or crimes were e
1 mitted by A? Explain your answer.
, . A
* isti& and seaarate crimes
-
a n d k r a v e threats.1 The crime of theft was alrea

634 535.
I
I
1 I
I / _ . -
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

- ,
'.. :
- -- piete when the c ulpril has succeeded
, .'
summated when the offended party was intimidated. B e
,. ~ ...i threat to kill B made by A is n o t a constitutive element out of the building.
of robbery, because the intimidation must be employed
I/
Thus, in the case of People vs. Del Rosario,
before the taking of aersonel prop& y belonpinz to an- O.G. 4332), the Court of Appeals held that when the
, ... o m s c e t e . prit had already broken the floor o
Note: Takine or asportation is one of the element& robbery tered it, and had removed one sac1
and theft. When the taking o r asnoricdbn is G m p i & t&g opening on the floor, it was frustr;
- of \?lZQp-
crime is consummated. parentlv, if the culprit in the case was sururis
- _
But th, rule is different when homicide resulted by reason
of the robbery, or when rape or intentional mutilstion accom-
he was 'only removing the sack of sugar fr& the pile, ?:
panied the taking of personal property, or when any of the the crime would have

. ..j j
.7.
seriauri physical injuries defined in pars. 1 and 2 of Art. 263
inflicted by reason of the taking of pewma1 property.
yen if the taking of the personal property belonging to an-
other IS already complete when the rape or inte.itiona1 mutila-
tion is Committed, the crime is still robbery with rape or with
intentional mutilation, And even if tho taking of the personal
property belonging tn another with intent to gain is already
J of force -upon things.

369. While a woman was

following her suddenly snatched her handbag and ran ..::.
away with it. What crime was committed by that man? I;,
Explain your answer. ..>,.
~'

complete, if the offenders kill o r inflict any .of said serious

physical injuries on another person to defend the possession That. man committed the crime of mw
not robbery
, .

. .:
.
5
. . of the stolen property or to do away with a vitness, the of- with' v i o l e m uersons, b-se the mere sna&hi n g . .
fonder!, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery of personal property from the hand of the offended party ,::
+th homicide or with serious physical injuriey. -v on the nersQn ,U ' '
on the thing taken. It is a rule that to constitute robbery
1368. When is taking or asportation complete in robbery? with violence against persons, the violence must be on3h.e
Illustrate. PeLSxof , -on the thing tagen.
It depends on the kind or class of robbery committed. Note: But if in snatching the handbag, the culprit dragged
tlie hand of the victim, the crime istrohberv with violence
::
If the robbe_ry is committed with violence against or
intimidation of persons, thg taking or asuortation is m- against nerson.
d e t e from the moment the o f f g d a- -
s% of th- ev& he u d - o p u o r t u n i t y 2 is .the nature of the intimidation as a constitutive
dispose of the same. element of robbery? \. 0

Inhnndatio@may take any form,a s Iong as the& ;,'

. , Thus, if A pointed his knife at B and demanded for
his money, and B pulled his wallet from his pocket and of the offender incites fear in,-k-0 ' of,
, -' handed i t to A who to0J-hd.d of it, but a policeman sud- the offended mzty. Thus, a threat with a weapon or a ,
7
.~ denlv . awaeared, collared A, and uleced him under arrest, threat o f arrest and prosecution is sufficient intimidation.
i-~ the crime committed by A is consummated r e a h N o t e : Threat made to the owner of the store that it would be
'1 intimidation. ordered closed and that he would be fined for failing to make
entries in thc sales book unless he would give money is suffi-
If the robbery is w d by the u s e o f force u x n cient intimidation; and when the offender succeeded in getting. F
'a
which r e b s that the offender should enter p B dozen eggs and the ~ u m of P5.00 because of that intimidation, ,'-'
g, the t&hg of personal property inside is com- he was suilty of -r ' -intimidation. .,
. , a
'4

536
 I
I
i

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIENER

>. <&g
A private individual who represented himself to be a detec- for m e 7 The fact that a policeman, apparently act$$
tive and threakenod the offended party wiih arrest, if the -
incr in compliance with the law. but really with intent&

/
latter would not give money, is liable for & r-
t k i l i , he succeeded in geitinsc mnn ey.
1371. While A was looking for his lost pig, he happened to
pass by the house of B and saw under the latter's house
a pig. A. told B that that was his lost pig, but B said
. . that the pig belonged to him. A unsheathed his bolo
and threatened B with bodily harm, unless the latter
a:. would give to him the pig. Afraid that he might be
injured, B gave the pig to A. A was prosecuted for
robbery with intimidation. During the trial it was es-
tablished by the prosecution that the pig really belonged
to 33 and that it was not the lost pig of A. If you were
the judge, would yon convict or acquit A? In case you
decide to convict him, of what crime will you find him
guilty?
Since a believed in good f a i t k that the pig was his,
even if his claim later on appeared to be untenable,
being no intent t o gain on his mrt, he should be found
guilty of ( ~ W iOnei of the elements of robbery
* i 6,*
to gain, did with intimidation seize the stolen property#
stamps the crime committed by him a s robbery. Until tlie$
policeman has taken charge of the stolen property in the!;
manner prescribed by the adnlimistrative law, i t is the 1,;.
property of the owner, and not held in trust by the police-
i
i m a n ( U S . vs. Sana Lim).
137d Suppose that the policeman in the preceding question ar- '
rested X and took the tires and later sold them and spent
the proceeds of the sale,. for what crime is the policeman
liable? Why?
Tbe policeman is liable fortmalversationl because hz&g
lawfully seized t n in the performance of his dyty,
he had an obligation t o a c c o u n t . & ? d h m tQthe Govern-
n ~ n Although
, the tires were private property, &e
t h g were seized b L h b as an' agent of public antho&',,,,+;,,
his misappropriatimof the same m&e-.bL . liahlefor: . i
.,, , . . .,.
malversation (Art. 2 2 2 ) . :
'. <
In the case of US. vs. San Lim, the Supreme Court::!

/ is that the offender took the personal property belonging

to another with intent to gain.
1372. A policeman was informed that X had stolen four new
automobile tires. The policeman went to the house of
X and asked him to produce the tires. Having found
the tires in the house of X, who refused to give them
1
held that in such a case the crime would be-
A Justice dissenting stated that it would be either estafa
os malversation.

1374. A policeman, knowing that a person did&comrnit

crime, arrested such person, falsely accused him of a '
any

to the policeman, the latter threatened him with arrest crime, and then by means of threat of prosecution and;:,
and prosecution unless he would give hini the tires. The a imprisonm.ent, obtained money from such person who waS&
<:
.!.. . policeman t.oolc the tires but did not arrest X. Later, the
$.., ,I
released in consideration of the money given. What crime;$
..*,
. ,, .. ... policeman sold the tires and spent the money for his
~. I was committed by the voliceman? Explain your answer% .''~$g
:.>. ,?.
." . own benefit. Is the policeman liable for robbery? Ex- / w b e r v with intimida ' because the threat of prose-&$
,plain your answer.
i
I
c a n and i m n r i s c n m n t ? u sufficient intimidation;*$" ":
Yes. When the policeman took the tires but did not and there was intent to gain on the part of the polic+d
arrest X, he did not act in good faith in the performance I man when he t o o k the money of the offended pa
. of his duty. He had the in ' and the threat
&f;arrest and prosecution -which is an in- b75. Suppose that the person threatened w i t i arrest and
&imidation, to obtain possession of the tires made him liable secution by the policeman really committed a crim
@&@&::&.
638 639
4
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
It is true that in the case given the intimidation' pro-
*.thepo1icc:man did not arrest him because of the money duced immediate effect, but the demand f o r personal prop-
given to him, what crime was committed by the poliee- erty may he disregarded and the threat may be considered,
.man? Explain your answer. as not subject t o a condition. I n such case, the crime-i$
(Gt-1 b-se the n-p U W grave threats of the third form.
p s a n he refrained from performing his duty be. The crime committed by A is not robbery with in;;
s , . cause of e n e y . timidation, because one of the elements 0-ei-y &,&+t,:
thegemonal g r m t y must' belong to another. Since thb
:1376. Suppose, it is not clear from the evidence whether t h e property belonged tu him, A c& be guilty of robbe$,!
offended party had committed a crime when he was as no one can be he. -for robbery o
asked to give money by a peace officer, when is it robbery
and when is it bribery?
a. This is not an impossible crime ,wh
formed would have. been a n offense aga
When the money was given v m l y by the of- property, because when the act performed also constituteii
fended party, the peace officer is guilty o@
l 81=
-) a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code,
., ,, .
, ,
,
When 'there was threat of arrest and prosecution and impossible crime cannot exist.
'
the offended party gave the money, it is- &is submitted that A is not liable for grave+
:..
,
&awe he had intent to gain. In grave coercion,
,.'. '1377. What crime is committed by several persons who, by fender-@intent to gain.
~ : , i , means of intimidation used against the owner of a smaU
' ' house, succeeded in removing the small house from t h e /;379. A broke t h e o f tho drawer of the desk of B and
t.herefrom the .pistol of B for the purpose of ushg
' , lot of the owner and carried said house to the lot of t h e killing E. But due to the t i K e L b t m e n t i o n of c,
stopped_& the G t e r w-L?lbleto use $he..&
The crime is C o b k v w ith intimidation] Although a A liable for robbery by the use of force upon t
house ma- ce-d as real property when attached Why?
to the wound, the m n t it-is rem0ys.d from the ground ' No, because A never had the intention of deprivi
,' and ca&ed away it ceases to be a real property and be- 11 of the ownership of the pistol with the ch
comes pemonal proaerty One of the &g.&s of r m r y permanency, but only to use i t temporarily t o
is personal property -b (People vs. Kho Choe). In robbery, as iil theft, the :
ment of taking means the act of depriving anoth
possession and dominion of a movable thing coupled.
evolver, threatening to the intention, at the time of the "talcing" of the t
watch from B. When OP withholding it with the character of permanency.
4
he watch he had taken
from B was his own property which he had lost a week 1380. A, a passenger of a taxi, ordered the driver 'to stop
before. What crime was committed by A? the taxi and at the p i n t of a gun took all the mo
in his possession. A alighted from the taxi and 'told
driver to go away. After thirty minutes, the
turned with a policeman in his taxi and having point

540 541
 I

.~ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEYVER

. . ,-tb A as the person who had held him up, the policeman
to arrest him. A shot the policeman who was killed
result. What crime was committed by A?
your answer.
It is submitted that A committed robbery with homi-
the direct assault to be considered only a s an ag-
ating circumstance, because there is no such special
lex crime of robbery with homicide with direct assault,
,, .. ugh the single act of shooting the policeman who
, I
-was in the performance of his duty produced the crime
. ., of direct assault with homicide, and the homicide resulted
by reason of the robbery, under the law (Art. 294, par. 1,
; : ..
R.P.C.) the crime committed is r g b b r y with lmrau~&.
. ' In the case of People vs. Maugulabnan, et al., the Supreme
Court held that it is *necessary that the homicide be
produced on the occasion of the robbery; it is sufficient
that homicide r e g e d by reason of the robbery, inasmuch
as it is only the result, without reference or distinction
as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons inter-
, . vening in the commission of the crime, that has to be
1382. A picked the pocket of B, taking his wallet,with .money,.
bills inside. B chased A, bat the latter stabbed,,? who
Explain died as a consequence. What crime was committed?
Why? . . . .,
Robbery with homicide, because the homicide was com-
mitted by reason of the robbery, that is, to defend .the,
possession of the stolen property.
1383. A passer-by noticed three persons. inside ' t h e house of
another taking personal property. The passer-by asked
them why they were there. One o€ them shot and billed ,: 1
him. What crime was committed? Why?
Robbery with homicide, because the homicide was com-
mitted on the occasion, or by reason, of the robbery.
1: 1384. would it be robbery with homicide if a robber killed' ,
his companion, another robber, on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery? 'Why?
Yes, because in robbery with homicide, it is only t h e ' '
,

.
& without reference o r distinction as to the persons :'
intervening in the comnlission of the crime, that must
taken into consideration. be taken into consideration.
Note: Hence, when in the commission of robbery with homicide,
other crimes, such as less serious o r slight physical injuries 13S5. If parricide is committed on the occasion or by reason of
OP direct assault, arc also committed, those other crimes do the robbery, what is the crime committed? Why?
not form part of the special complex crime of robbery with The crime committed is robbery with homicide, be-
homicide. l,
'
,,,,,+use tiy p , m "homicide" in that crime should be. con-
1381. While ransatking the house of the offended party, one
of the robbers in the house dropped his pistol to thc
. .. ,floor.' It iexploded and the slug fired hit the floor of
*s in its Eeneric sense as to include-parricide, o-r
murdei or infanticid%
A, B, C and
.'
, ..~ ,.;
the second story of the house, resulting in the death
of an inmate then sleeping there. What crime was corn.
1386. I), all armed, entered t h e house, of X-where ,
the latter, his wife and child lived. They took persohd
.:~", property inside the bonse, and then A killed X, while D
~.,.
' ' mitted? Why? raped X's wife, and C inflicted serious physical injuries ' :
with ' ide. on the child. How many crimes were committed by . ,
them? Explain your answer. ,,i,.:.
- Even if the homicide supervened by mere accident&
- long a s it resulted on the o c c a s i o n s by reason of the
xobbery, t h e x e committed is robbery with homicide
.A, B, C and D committed one special complex crim
of roEeLy-with-homicide, the r s c and the physical in
, a

r:(People ' vs. Mangulabnan, et al.) . aju,ie.s. to be considered ~ ~ ; ; i y a s _ a , ~ g g ~ ~

542 543
*
1 1

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

CRIMNAL LAW REVIEWER
B in a fight provoked by 'B, 'When B was al-
, <
ready dead, A who was about to leave, saw the watch ing t o another with intent to gain, and the robbery is'accom-
'
panied hy rape.
'
of B on the wrist of his left arm. A took it and left.
If there is"&!!tent., t i gain, as when the personal property
Is A liable for robbery with homicide? Explain your is taken to be used as a tcken of the alleged consent of .the
answer. .'.~ wnman to the sexual intercourse, the-taKnp( oersonal
N G e c a u s e when he killed E, A h u n o , ' i h t e n t i o nto p m & y i z Qn,njust'-vexation. T h e ' k p e l i.,s a separate offense.
' I
dep:ive him of his watch.
1395. A entered the house of X through a n open door a n d . '
Note: f n robhery with homicide, the offender must have the
,-,. ktent'on to take personal pvopertg belonging to another w i t h once inside took money and jewelry in the unlocked &est.
. t.
Y
*n ent to gain when he committed homicide. If the killing of Before leaving the house, A saw a woman sleeping 5
a person took place a f t e r . the taking of personal property, a room. €le raped her. What crime was committed by
the intention of the &der must be either (1) to defend A? Why? . ,.
h e possession of the stolen property, (2) to do away with
or ( 3 ) to make good his encape. The crime committed by A is'(
I cause the taking .of personal.pr.o:op
the house of E, a woman, took her money panied by rape.
and jewelry, raped her, and then killed her. Is A liable I t ' i s snbmittsd that in the
with rape or robbery with homicide? robbery with rape, i t is not nec
A is liable for ro&ry with homicide. and the pmmis, sefiarate crime is actually
s i s c f ,..the rape shall be considered as an..aggraya$ng companied by rape. & :?
a
&mmstance. When on the occasion or by reason of the of robbery with rape is the f @
robbery, homicide was committea, and it was also acconi- sonal property belpnging~4oan0
I

panied by rape, the offender should be prosecuted and q'? is ;<companied by rape.
t-l , .,,
punished ;or robbery with homicide, not for robbery with k,!

r a p e p u s e the provision of the Code for robbery with $ / l b I . Is there a complex crime of
rape is designed for a crime,involving bs-rsity and yj rape? Explain your answer. ,.
harm than that involved in robbery with homicide. Y/ None, because the Revised Penal e (Art. 294) pen-"

/-
':.
/i:
138 . A, by means of force and intimidation,B ran
succeeded in rap-
away as soon
.-ahzes robbery accompanied- &y attcmmoted rwe.,
It cannot be a complex crime under Art. 48 of the Revised, '.
ing B, a 'woman, in a secluded place.
as she ~ : I Sreleased by A, leaving her handbag containing Penal Code, because a r o m c a n n o t be a necessary means
money. .A picked up the handbag of B from the ground to commit an attempted rape, just as an attempted rape' ,:~
and carried it away. Is A liable for robbery with rape? necessary means to' commit robbery and $&
~. Explain your answer. -_
cannot be the resglt of a-s-ingle act (Eeople' , '
There are two distinct and separate crimes
No, because the igtention of A was to rape 13 and attempted raE.
t h e ' i k o f gain came to.,.his.,mind only when B had left 1
A

her handbag. There "%$yo distinct and separate crimes wmplex crime o f robbery with frustrated
of =e a n d a t comm' ked by A. d murder? ..
Note: In rohhery with rape, the offender, .ke,hza committing
.~ rape, must have the intention to take personal property belong- Yes, under Art. 48, if the frustrated m y d e r js_ll :::
,I,,. ~ ' , necessary means for .commii%hg-the.x&bery. This crime :'t
644
545
l o
~.%:::
,. .
. '
.__/
..
CRIHINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER

. '.. . /:U.,
&by Art. 294 which punishes robbery with
homicide, which must be c$xummated. serious
L__. physical.__-
inju-rjcs.
Note: A t t e e o r frustp&L-robbery with s-physical
,
.
.
.. injurieii is a complex_crime under Art. 48, the serious physical
... . ,
. . injurie:i'%heing necessary means foor committing the attempted
~, .
-: '.-:. or frustrated robbery.
(>.
Art. 297 punishes at&eF-pLtd.,p_r fmst~$t$d_mrbp;ry with
&'?,I .
homicide, not with' serious physical injuries.
with serious physical already complete wh
with serious. phy- physical injuries inflicted thereafter can pot be
: . s i c d injunos.

A and B e e d the house of S. through an open door.

Once inside, they took personal property. When they were
,'

dividing the lept, they could nut agree and ;ought each juries inflicted by A
, other. 4 ,who was holding his-hnlo, struck B, hitting scribed in paragraph
...,,
*.,. . .. the latter on and cutting his"outer ear. Then, both of
. r
would be the crime eo
.them left with the loot. What crime was committed
I It would be robbery with' serious physical- inju
., by A and B? Why? The law (Art. 294)
, ,- " A and B are liable for @ becauseI ,
t&y-entered the nection with serious
.' m-
wif-~.u~using-force-.np~~"-t~~~s. A is liable also
for serious plhxsv.al..injuriq not robbery with serious
physical injuries, because the physical injuries that re-
.. sulted in BLB..deformity was inflicted upon a pssLn-,ze:,:
s-le for the commission of the offense.
Noto: The serious physical injuries described in pars. 3 and

/-
4 of Art. 263, amon6 them deformity, must be inflicted upon
persons &-ponriblc for the commission of robbery, in order
that the crime may be classified as ~ ~ , b ~ ~ r y . . ~ i t h . , ~ ~ , r i o ~ ~ ~ h y ~ i ~ l
injuries.
.,. .
-+..,.894.
. A took a sack of rice from a ' truck which was parked
.on the side of a street. When the driver. noticed A, he 1396. A, with intent t o take the money of B, hit the latter ~ . i
'r. chased him. After running tu a distance of several
' ~ .,
on the head, inflicting less serious physical injuries,
:' meters, A. dropped the sack of rice, drew out his knife,
opened it, and struck the driver in the arm, inflicting
What kind of robbery was committed by A, if after in4
juring B he took the money of the latter?
::z
.. ..
.' ,
physical injuries which incapacitat&l the driver for' labor-
RLbBry with violence~.aga&s~.psxsons. It is not rob
for two months. Then A picked up the sack of rice and bery with less serious physical injuries, because W
'ran away with it. What crime or crimes were wmmitted physical injuries~inflicted on the occasion of the
.-by
,. :A? . ]Explain your answer. are only less&ous or sl&&t, such physical injur
:. .,
,.J,,

. 546
i
.i
547

i
1 I
I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

.' CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER
While 'the general rule is that all the eonspi
.. be ,evidence of violence only. There is no such c le even if the result differs radically nnd substan
the Code as robbery with less serious phy- by them, it would seem that this
or robbery with slight physical injuries. robbery hy a band, hecause Art.
r-es that to be liable as principal of any
copiiitted by the hand, the =em& must be
C and D; together with E,. agreed and decided cdmmission of the robbery hy the hand."
.. to take personal property in the house of X. E, who ..
:: was the leader and mastermind, remained in his house B with intention to rob tho latter. When
one kilometer away. Once in the house of X, A, B, C A pointed his pistol at B, the latter grabbed it and .in .'
$6...: and D, all1 armed, ransacked the place for personal prop. their struggle for the possession of the pistol it exploded&
.ir 'F+ e&. Wlhen C saw that D was about to stab X with killing B. What crime was committed by A? Expailn' '
a knife, C held D by the arm t o prevent him from kill- your answer.
, . ing X, but D pushed C and immediately stabbed X to Homicide. It is not attempted robbery with homicide,
death. They took money, clothings and jewelry belong- because there was m..oxextAt ofd.&&xy. -_.-.
The intention
ing to X. For what crime or crimes are A, B, C, D ,to comaLit.robbery .mus$Jx%slbom~by external acts. . . .,
--'

r~ and E liable? Explain your answers. / Had A de,mmded money while pointing the'pistol at
. .. ,
A, 13, and D are liable f o i ~ e r y - w i t k - l r m i c i d ebe-
, / B, it would have been a t , . e d . x o b b e r y with homicide I'
cause they w e r e w s e n t a t the commission of the rob-
bery bz&a>,d and n_ot,.one.of them attempted to-prevent
the commission of the homicide.
C is liable only for &ejx..by a band, because he
attempted toarevent the commission of the homicide by
f+Q ,
b 9 9 . A bought a car from B for 85,000, which^ he did no

!j
;fi-pay. Sometime thereafter, A brought with him a P I 6 . ~ <
pared deed of sale and a t the poiut of his revolver asked ..,::
I3 t o sign it. When B refused, A shot B to death. What ':
! ) crime was committed by A? Explain your answer.'
E is also liable for robbery by a band only, because A committed a,ttempted robbery with homicide, because, :'I
he was not present at the conmission of the robbery with intent to defraud E, A, by means of intimidation, '.'
by a band and, therefore, he cannot be punished as prin- /' tried to compel E to sign a document. Having failed
.~
cipal of the assault committed by the band, which was his attempt, A committed attempted robbery, a n d
,I_
not. contemplated in the agreement. the homicide was coromitted oil the occasion or by,.re
'.! i
.. , Note: As to the liability of E, a similar question wns con- of an attempted robbery, he should be held liable f o r
special complex crime. '

The robbery which was attempted by A is

.. .. '1 .. o,f. dee$y:b3+means of violence .,or int
R.P.C.). * r
Note: The robbery known as execution of deeds.'l&
violence or intimidation is also Committed when the
rminated, and the death of the victim resulted on the occasion ./ shall corngel the offended party to e ? or to
of the robber& abynce.-ef proof showin.@h"at the homicide dmument.
-.
was a. na&of the .o~g~p~pj~h the p,rin&&=ilZ-&n It will be gmzzo
who was @&,the scene of the crim'e is liable for 'robbery,,. '' h t e crimes, if there
..:-'. in
-.-.-.-band' only.:
548
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW' R E ~ E W E R
,*
of the car was fdb paid. Itcould not be a complex crime failed to break open the locked wardrobe; because B ww
of grave coercion with homicide, because neither' one of the awakened and entered the room, sumrising A in . t h e act
two crimes could be a necessary means for committing the
other snd both crimes eo- be the &dLnf+..a single act. of breaking the wardrobe. The wardrobe. contained~moneg; :":
, ,. jewelry and clothes belonging to B and his wife. Wha) ':;,:
1400. What are the kin& of rohbery by the use of force upon ,. . ..,,. ;s,.
crime was committed by A? Why? '
.. things? ., It .is ..submitted. &at A committed(rattemDted robbew;.";':.
.
,

,., .. The two kinds of robbery by the use of force upon b ~ ~ 2 ~ @ : ' o f . f ; p ~When n ~ the locked furniture , ji
,~, things am: ,of-
or chest is in the house or building from w h i c h the .... . ,: ; ..~
e' . 1. Robbery by the use of force upon things committed fender wants to take personal property, it is necessaq,&i@
'. *'in a n q ' a b i t e d b s e , &c. building, or edke-devoted
to religions worship; and
G o h b e r y by the use of force upon things committed .. ...-
._
committed did not reach the f r
in a n &habited* or in a pdwLe_building.
The servant in the house, taking advantage of the ab-
.' sence of the owner thereof, bzk9..+open.-in that house

p, .
l o s e h e s t and took monep and jewelry therefrom
and spent the money for his own benefit. What crime
was committed by the servant? Why?
The servant committed r&bb).y--by. .th.e-used,ox.ce
upon things,,. because he b ~ ~ ~ s . p e n . . a . . ! o ~ ~-chest
..

e . d and Ne . But if the locked or sealed receptacle, chest or fumJtur

', ,'
with intent to~-...
gain, took personal property.,$herefr.om. 1staken from the house or building where i t ia kept and bmugh
.. It is submitted that the servant % ?s-.iLysd,t of outside to he broken open, it is ~ & d k S a w
' 'fied theft, because the crime was-.c.ornmiit.ed. by ,the.
, ' , . f s g a o n . things, w s m l i f i e s . . t h e crime..to robbery.

1402. .What crime was committed by the servant who opened

t h e locked chest with the key which she had stolen from
the owner and thereafter took money and jewelry there-
from? Why?
" The crime committed by the servant is ualified theft house, A broke it open and took its contents.
'because the use of a f a k N . $0 open a loc %a----J
e chest or
wardrobe does_Liot-make the taking of the personal prop- e r y by the use of force upon things ?$
A committed y b b--,
: :,:. . .
.. , erty therefrom r o b h e r y . . X e false key, whic
must be
enter the same.~-
r^,"'"
ti-open an outsid&doar
I
i- inhahited
'an .
n.. ... home.
.....
~

place of the robbery.

h ~ ' t ~ ~ i - n ~ ~ l ~a wca 5~.:I~ c ~
~

fFom-'szd house to be Groken o r forced open-outside the

.-<:g
1 -

a guest in the house of B, tried to.brreak open the 1405. .suppose, a policexnan upon complaint of B followed .A ;
eked wardrobe in the room given to him by B. . A to his- house and before he could forcibly open t h e re.,".;
.,.
. .. . ....
Y

560 651
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFIR CRIMINAL LAW REVIE'WR

,. was placed under arrest, wha is the stage entering through an openi
... ,, o f execution reaihed by A in the. commission of the or egress, the offender mu
crime? Why? @b.the house or building
..... . y w o f his body iiicluding

/
Consummated ~. robbery by the. use of force upon things
committed in a n inhabited house was committed-by A, he took personal property
, , . _._.
., , ~r? ,,because i .~9 5 n o t necessary that the receptacle taken from 407. While under the house, A broke the floor, and after. :.
, t h c o u s _ e . be.actual%.opened outside, as the intention to
creating an opening he caused a small boy, seven years ;:
~~~.~~.js..sufficient.
old, to pass through the opening and enter the house,
Note: It will be noted that when the offender (1) breaks a Once inside the house, the boy took personal. belongings,;?
door ( p i e the building), wardrobes, chests, or any other
kind o locked or sealed furniture or receptacle inside a build- of the owner of the house. Once in possession 'of the'
ing where they are kept, or (2) takes such furniture or ob- personal belongings taken by the boy from the
' '
jects away t o be broken or forced open outside, it is %ot ?e- A sold them and gave the boy a part of. the proce
.. q u i 4 that the offender should enter the building by any of the sale. Considering that A did not en
. the means specified in subdivision (a) of Art. 299, which arc: do you believe that he 's liable for robbe
, .
1. Through an opening not intended for entrance o r egress;
2. By breaking any wall, roof, pr floor or breaking any
of force upon things? iE xplain your answer.
, ~ , . door or' window; Yes, A is Laiae-for robbery by the(use
3. By using false keys, picklocks, or similar tools; things. Although A did not enter the house
4. By using any fictitious name o r pretending the exercise opening in the flo which was broken by him,:
. ,, ~ ., of public puthority.
~
If the offender enters the building by any of the said means,
,ypLiral,_byisd i,on in the crime of robbery
use, of force upon ngs a&ua!ly>ommitted by t
there is nu question that the taking of personal property from
the building is robbery by the use of farce upon things, even
The fact that the boy, who was only seven years
. . exempt from criminal liability, does not alt
if he does not break open a locked or sealed furniture or
rccept.acle. , that A, as principal&induction, is liable criminal1

/
the crime committed.
1406. A climbed a tree near t h e , window of the house of B
and from the tree, with a bamboo pole which he used. 1408. A, servant in the house of B, broke the wall
A succeeded in getting the coat of B, which was hanging a bedroom from the storeroom and through
by the wall inside the house near the window. A waUet ing thus created he entered the storeroom and
' .
: .

. , '
with money in the amount of PlOO was in one of the
,

pockets of the coat. What crime was committed by A?

Explain your answer.
The ctime committed by A is b h a because A d g
// sonal property. What crime was committed?
\Qualified,. t h G j The yall broken is
:/. wall.." " ~
~- .
'

. ,
not enter the building through the window. Even if A 09. A, for the purpose of entering B's house,
was able to get the coat, with the wallet containing money in lifting the sliding door from its g r ~ v
in one o,f its pockets, from the house through the window, pushed it inward, thereby opening it. On
inasmuch a s he used a bamboo pole to get the same, with- took personal property. Is A liable for robbery? W
out entering the house, the crime committea Is theft. To No, because the door 'wasnot broken, that
!:Constitute robbery by the use of force upon things by of the door remained intact. A is liable f
,, .
I
652 653
 '

CRIMINdL -LAW -REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

. >,.,
. .? .i,
-1 ' constitute robbery by the use of force upon things, the sonal property therefrom with
- , I " offender must enter the house or building by breaking the use of force upon things.
y:any door, etc. t to p E n an E u L a i o a t
,, order to get perso
. ,

.+.*
A, a friend of the servant in the house of B, had an agree-
,
,,. i
, .ment with that servant that late in the evening when 1412. A knocked at the door of the house of U who O p
*'"' B and-his family would have retired and slept, the servant I and, being a hospitable person, B invited A to en
,. '.:-would ,drop from the window a white envelope contain-

he key for the lock of the 'outside door of the

n: The servant complied with the agreement and metal badge, and that he wanted t6 verify
in€: found on the ground the white envelope with the information that th'ere was an escaped c
key, took the key therefrom and used i t in open- there. B told A to sit down as her baby
the door of the kitchen of the house of B. Once in-
, A succeeded in taking clothes and monef from the
I left him in the sa;,l and went .into her bedroom...
B returned to the sda, A was not there anymore
Be What crime was committed by A and the left with the radio of B. What ,crime was commi
Explain your answer. A? Explain your answer.
.4 and the servant committed robbery by the use It is submitted that
iipon things in an inhabited house, by using false
The key that the servant dropped to the ground I
the window and w h i c h 4 used in opening the door offender t mt
itchen was a u e y , i t L & g a stolen key, admitted A into
'. ,>''' 'The opening 'of an outside dam witit, a false key: will exercise 01 public
. . to the crime of robbery by the. nse._of force Pretending the exercise of public authority or. using;
'. u e g s . when p>rson?Lproperty is taken inside the any fictitious name must be the ihdwa!.u& t h m e ' .
house or building with intent -_~
I. to - g a b .
~ The servant is the .person in.-the house. to ~ e ~ tcLthe4ffende.
~ $ e
liable for the same crime, because there was comkacy

* .' . .. between him and A. When there is conspiracy, the act

of one is the act of all. f i e p r e r e l a t i o n of the
servant with the offended party is i=t?.ial,
. the 'crime committed is robbery.
because
1413. A, armed with a dagger, entered the garage of B after
breaking the wall thereof, and took some pers
inside worth P200. The garage was at one c
the lot several meters from the house of B. The
of the car of B was the occupant of a part of the
lill. A entered, ' t h e house of B through the open door and as his bedroom with a door which q e n e d into the gara
~ , . once insidse opened a wardrobe with a piece of wire which I When A entered it and took personal pxop
:'. he inserte,d into the keyhole. Once the door of the ward- the driver was out to the province on vacati
,. . robe was opened, A took personal belongings therefrom other person was occupying it. In determining
1' and left i.he house with the personal belongings. , What penalty, must the court take into considerati
crime was1 committed by A? Why? I
that A was armed? Explain your answer.
.$.<, , ,: A committed theft, because the use of a picklock to Y-es, because the garage is 'considered a
,%.. I_):. ,,..open a locked wardrobe will not make the taking of per- house, because it constituted the dwelling of
.?
~. ,
. , . 554 555
f+

j:
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW. R J W L T E R

'.even though the occupant thereof was temporarily absent I n robbery by the use of force upon things i
therefrom when the robbery was committed. The penalty place or in a private building, the circumstance
$5-
. . f o r robbery in an inhabited house committed by the use carries arm at the time of the commission of
.i,,of force upon things is based on the value of the property material. There is no gerson i n the place who
taken and on whether or not the offender carries arm
1415. A and B entered the storeroom of a public s c h d ;
%(Arts.
L.; 299 and 301, R.P.C.). through its open door. Once inside, they found. a.
$$:I'
_:.
.'
7*:,
Note: It is not^ necessary to consider the garage as a dependency box tied with a piece of wire. They untied it an :y .<?,
of the house of B, because it is a separate building. To eon-
valuable things iherefrom. What crime was comiiiit&&fi
,*,..&I

%.,,:
>' ,
stitute n dependency, the building must be contiguous to the
kr, principal building, it must have a n interior entrance connected
8 ' ' t k r s ~ i t h ,and it C u s t form part of the whole.
.,,
;:.:.Distinguish
~ ,, the two kinds of robbery' by the use of force
upon things a s they are defined in Art. 299 and Art. 302
of the Revised Penal Code?
In robbcry by the use of force upon things under
Art. 299, the crime is committed in an .inhabited house,
p s i c .building or edifics--dgvot& to religious worship:
in robbery by the use of force upon things under Art.
.
302, the crime is committed in an ..@nhab&eLplace o r
4: in a pri.irat.e.. builsg:~
In robbery by the use of force upon things under
Art. 302, the manners of entering the building are the
same as those mentioned in Art. 299, with the only excep-
tion of uS:mg_aag.-€iGt%ious&name. or p&.endhx&3he-es~erT
'
-~
cise of public authority.
In robbery by the use of force upon things in an in-
habited place, public building or edifice devoted to religious
worship,. the penalty is based on the value of the property
taken, as well as on ,whether o r riot the offenders carry
arm at-the time of the commission of the crime; i n rob-
bery by the use of force upon things in an uninhabited
place or in a private building, the basis of the penalty
is only the value of the property taken.
Note: In robbery by the use of force upon things in an un-
. inhabited place or in B private building, using any fictitious
e or pretending the exereisc of public authority cannot be
means of entering the building, because there is no person
the p!aee who can be deceived.
556
~,
. ._
by A and E? Explain your 'answer.
It is submitted that the crime committed by A and E
is robbery by the use of force upon things i n &:public
building. Although the carton box was only t i e f g i t h j , ?
piece of wire, it may be considered as s u r to a
qecept&<: The gumgse of its custodian in tying i
a piece of wire is t o _ P r e s e m d s x o ~ s which'
,
the purpose in sealing fufniture or receptacle.
Note: Suppose that the property taken by A and 8 was c
taincd in a closed box, would the crime Committed b y A:a
B stiil be robbery by the use of farce upon things?
In robbery by the use of force upon things in an inha
place, public building or edifice devcted to religious'wo
the law (Art. 299) u?es the phrase "loeked or xc&$ furn
or receptacle." If the box is neither. locked nor sealed, the.
opening of the box and the taking of tho contents therefroni
with intent to gain may be considered theft*-.
.
. .7'
1416. A and B entered a warehouse through its open door'dnd''''
once inside they found a closed box but not
locked. They broke it open and took the contents th
of. What crime was committed by A and .B? Ex
your answer.
It is submitted that A and E committed robbery
the use of force upon things in an uninhabited place
.' a private building (Art. 302). because the warehouse'
slot inhabited. Even if the box was not locked or sea!
the breaking of the same and the taking of the contentd
thereof with int&t .to gain was robbery, because
. bery in an uninhabited place or a private build
law (Art. 302) :,uses ,the phrases "sealed or, close
tule or recepta%fe" and "closed or sealed rec
 CRIMINAL.XAW .REVIEWER
. .
receptacle ih an uninhabited
order to take personal prop-
erefrom with intent to gain is robbery.
a warehouse of a crate mntsin-
ecause B crate is a closed rbeep:
ed a. warehouse through an open door and once
de he lifted and renroved a closed Imx containing Val-
rsonal property and carried it outside. Before
ould break it open outside of the warehouse, A was
ed by the guard. Is A liable.for attempted, frus-
or conqummated robbery by the use of force upon
in a n uninhabited & w e or a private building?
n your answer.
It is submitted that A is liable for consummated rob-
ery by the use of force upon things in an uninhabited
a private building. When a closed or seal&d re-
is taken from a n uninhabited place or a private
and carried outside, it is not necessary that it
open in order that the.of€ender may have pro-
felony as a consequence. Art. 302, par. 5 , re-
y that the “closed or sealed receptacle has been
rem2ved.” The last part of the provision which states,
“even If the same he broken open elsewhere.” does not
: hidieate an element of the offense.
by,.m&ms -of threat and intimidation against
om the latter‘s camarin about fifteen sacks of
h an opening made on the floor of the cam-
138 A and B are prosecuted and found guilty,
enalty be one degree l,ower in view of the fact
bbery consisted in the taking of cereals? Why?
No. The crime committed was robbery with intimida-
tion, ‘even,if there was force upon things, because when
he ‘use of force upon things and violence against o r
dation of persons concurred in the commission of
y, the ,latter element supplies the controiling quali-
fication.oi the robbery. The article of the Revised Penal
558:
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER
JCode which provides that the,-. shall
penalty next lower in degree when the rohb
in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood
ence to robbery by the u s e ’ of force upon
(Art. 303, . R.P.C.).
1419. A and B removed and carried away from .C’s’
after breaking a wall thereof, nine cavanes o
There being force upon things only and the^',.
taken consisted of cereals, must the penalty
lower? Why?
No, because the quantity of the palay fak
that the same was not kept by the owner as ’
or taken by the robbers for the purpose..
Note: Hence, the penalty is One degree lo
pohu is taken for the purpose
the palay is of big quantity it is not intended to
, by its owner as seedling.
1420. Is the posscssion of false key punishable by thg
Penal Code? Explain your answer.
It depends upon the kind of f d s e key
possession of the accused, If the false key found,
possession is a genuine key, stolen from
any key other than that intended by the
in the Ioclc of the door of his house, the possession
the Eame is not punished by law. But if the &.US&
. found in possession .of picklock or a simi
criminally liable for possessing the same.
’
Note: Art. 305 of the Revised Penal Code merely de
keys, without any penalty for the possession,of the
the other hand, Art. ,304 of the Code punishes .the
of picklocks or similar toole. H
in possession of picklocks or sim
i4il. What are false keys?
,’ . False k w s shall be deemed to include- .
1. The ’ tools mentioned in
. ,. (picklocks o r ’ similar tools specially adpp
mission o i robbery).
559
:-
’. ,
 . ..’
CRIMINAL LAW REVIMER;,
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner.
3 . Any keys other than those Intended by the owner
u. for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
1422. A, who was leaving with his family ,for Baguio, entrusted
the key of the main door of his house to B. One day,
i E used it in opening the main door of A’s house and
. . . once inside b o k personal property belonging to A. What
.:.,.
, ...
crime was committed by B? Explain your answer.
B committed the crime of theft, uecause the key was
not stolen and that key vias not “ot:Ier than” the key in-
tended by A for use in the lock whifi B opened.
Who are brigands or highway robbers?
i
.. Brigands or highway robbers are *hose armed persons,
:. ,. .
~
.. at least four in number, who form a band of robbers for
the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, o r
kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or t o
olitain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained
by means of force and violence (Art. 306, E.P.C.).
4. ,What crime is conlmitted by the brigands who eomnlitted
kidnapping to obtajn ransom? Explain your answer.
It is submitted that the brigands committed kidnap-
ping, not brigandage. The law (Art. 306) provides that
“if the act or acts committed by them (the persons guilty
of brigandage) are not punishable by higher penalties:
(they shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium
pwiod to reclusion tem;oo~uZ in its minimum period) ;
otherwise, “they shall suffer such high penalties.” This
m.eanS that if they actually committed a crime punishable
by a higher penalty, like murder, kidnapping with a de-
mand for ransom, or robbery with homicide, they should
ri(
be prosecuted and punished f o r such crime.
. A, B, C, D and E, all armed, committed robbery with
hitimidation in the highway. Are they brigands?
plain your answer.
560
.. .. . .,,.
,~., .. ,
I
’, , ,,.,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
It is submitted that since the purpose of these five
armed persons is unknown they are not brigands. TO be
brigands, it is not enough that they a r e armed, at least
four in number, and that they form a band of robber?;,
The purpose of the band must be either (1) t o CO-t
robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap persons for ex-.
tortion or t o obtain ransom, or (3) for any other purpose
to be attained by means of force or violence.
~ The offenders, to be brigands, must go out upon n e , ,..
highway or rove upon the country with a view to com-
mitting rohbevy in the highway, kidnapping persons, ,ete. :
Jf the agreement among them was t o commit only a p a e c - :
nlar robbery, they are not brigands or highway robbers. :j
Seven persons, all armed, formed a band of robbers
for the Furpone of committing robbery in the hkhway.
They went out upon the highway to commit robbew.. ,
Before they could commit any robbery, they were arrested
and when investigated they confessed to the foregoing ..,
facts. Are they liable for consumnlated brigandage? Ex-
pIain your answer.
Yes,. It is not necessary that they actually c o d h d
robbery in the highway.
,
The main object of the law is to prevent the formation
of such bands: in fact the heart of the offense cofisists
in the formation of the band by four o r more armed per-
son8 conspiring together for the purpose of robbery, etc.,
and such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation
of the law. It would not be necessary to show, in a
prosecution under it. that a member or members of the
band actually committed highway robbery, etc., in order
6
,, convict him or them.
p<Ina presumption
what crimes does the Revised Penal Code establish
from the mere possession of firearm with-
out license as t o t h o participation of the offender in those
crimes?
The Revised Penal Code establishes a presumption from
the mere possession of firearm without license as to the
EX-
participation of the offender in the following criples:
/
661
 . .
.,. .
CllIDlINAL LAW REVIEWER
1. In brigandage. I€ any of the arms carried by any
of the armed persons be an unlicensed firearm, it shall
be presumed that said persons,are highway robbers or
bfigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty shall be
’, imposed in the maximum period (Art. 306, as amended
,., by Rep. Act No. 12).
2. In illegal assemblies. If any person present a t the
meeting carries an unlicensed firearm, it shall be pre-
sumed that the purpose of said meeting, insofar as .he is
. . ,.. ,,
concerned, is to commit acts punishable under the Revised
; ’ Penal Code, and he shall be considered a leader or or-
.ganizer of the meeting (Art. 146, as amended by Rep.
, , Act No. 12).
Note: In Art. 146, there must be B meeting, whether the group
is in a fixed place or moving: in Art. 306, there must be a
band of robbers.
14228. If an individual, who knew that a group of persons was
a band of brizands, harbored, concealed or assisted in the
escape of the brigands or profited from the property
taken by such brigands, is he a principal or an accessory?
Explain your answer.
Under the law (Art. 307), he is a principal in the
crime of aiding and abetting a band of brigands. Such
person is liable as principal in the crime if he (1) know,.
ingly. and in any manner aids, abets or protects a band
of brigands; (2) gives them information of the move-
. ..
ments of the police or other peace officers; or ( 3 ) ac..
quires or receives the property taken by such brigands
(Art. 307, R.P.C.).
1429. To constitute consummated theft, is it necessary that the
. , offender, who took the personal property of another with
intent to gain and without the latter’s mnsent, should
be able to carry it away? Explain your answer.
No. The law (Art. 308) uses the phrase “shall take
’
personal property of another.” The law does not require
, that the personal property taken should be carried away
:..; ’_
i
by the offender.
CRIMJNAL LAW REVIEWER
1430. The servant of B, wliile ’ cleaning the latter’s bedroom,
found on the bed B’s wallet containing P100. The ‘servant
picked up the wallet from the bed and dropped’it Lo t h e
ground from the window intending to go down for it
later. The son of B saw the wallet when it fell on the
ground and picked it up, thereby frustrating the hope of , .
the servant that he would be able to get the wallet later:,
Did the servant commit attempted, frustrated or con-
summated theft? Explain your answer.
The servant committed consummated theft. In a juri-
dical sense, the consummation of the crime of theft takes
place upon the voluntary and malicious taking of. the
property belonging to another which is realized by the 1
material occupation of. the thing whereby the thief places
it under his control and in such a situation as he could
dispose of i t a t once (People vs. Naval, et al.).
N o t e : This ruling applies ~ I s uto the meaning of “taking” i n
robbery with violence against or intimidation of any person.
But when the placr is surrounded by B fence or wall and
one has to pass ii cheek pcint before going out, the taking
of personal property is not complete before passing through
the check point. Titus, iu the ease of People VS. Dinio (C.A.).
it was held that in crder to make the booty subject to the
eontrol and disposal of the culprits, the articles must first
be passed through the M.P. eheck point. If the stolen artidea
were found in the pojsessioii of the culprits by the military
poiice at Ihe check point, the crime committed was frustrated
,. theft because Lhe timely discovery of the articles in the Po*
$ session of tho culprits by the military police prevented the
culprits from placing. the articles “under their control and
: in such B situation” as they “could dispose of them a t once.” . .
I
1431. A, taking advantage of the absence of the owner, of a.;’
parked on the street, drove it to a place ”
ouse and then and there removed the fom,
the four tires with him and left the jeep.^:
eeuted and punished for the theft o
theft of the four tires? Explain you
st be prosecuted and punished for theft of,’*
ffcctively deprived the owner of the
563
:.- CRlhIIXAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

... -. -motor vehicle, the offense .comprised

.session of' the entire .._._ and of returning it later, would A be liable for t h e f t l . '
:
c_---- , ,,

the_wholc. motor..v.ehicle. The deprivation_I. of the owqer Explain your answer.

of &_jegp-.and the trespass..upon his Jight,,.pf possession N
A because a t the time_&lie taking of tbe watch,
were complete.,as.Jo .the,,.entire jeep (People vs. Carpio)
I_... . A 11kd no intention- - . fo * r
:0 .uer.m.%~n~Y so. . ~ ~ . ~ O . - ~ . ~
1432. A, in picking the pocket of B, succeeded in extracting dominion ,of tlie same,
.

/
his wallet. Finding that it was empty, he threw the \., ,.
1
wallet away. Is A liable for theft? Explain your answer. 1435. A gave B, a janitor in his office, P320, with instruction
. Yes,heeause t h s a l l e t which he .extracted ..fE.nnbe to pay A's insurance premium to the insurance company.,
pocket ofBhasl-
-.. some
... .... ..value and A&&b..far &he._theft B, instead of paying it t o the insurance company, spent
; : of the wa,llet. It wo-he. necessar3rfo~ilmake the money. Is B liable for theft? Explain your answer;:
i%Tf%&allet
*__---~ -
or to dispose-of _ t h ~ - . s a m ~ . t o . . c o , ~ ~ t ~ t ~ Yes. Although E did not take the money, for it was
the crime
h-mn*.
of theft. ~. received by him from A, he was liable for theft, because,:
only the p h y s i c a l , p r . m a t e r ~ ~the
~ ~money ~ a~s f. '
~ s ~w
1433. A and IB were roommates in a boarding house. A, tr&$EFrZTto h i m , 13 did not receive the money as a
taking advantage of the fact that B was sleeping, took bailee but as a servant. Sin-B did no&
the latter's watch from the table f'or the purpose of sell- juridical possession".of th_e,monex,..he ..W@~J&!&fO&
ing it. A went out with the watch to look for a buyer, es;a&,.. b&&~-
ust:
: I :

but on second thought he decided to return the watch. Note: It will be noted that in theft the offender does-
When A returned t o their room to place back the watch
on the table, B saw him carrying his watch. A admitted
to B that he took the watch f o r the purpose of selling
it, but that he was returning it because his mnscience
was bothering him. B now asks you whether A' can be Servant, domestic, or employee who misappropriated the thins
he received from his master or employer is liable for theft,
prosecuted and punished for theft. Give and explain your not for estafa.
opinion. i

Mv ouinion is that A is d l t v of theft. The element

I . Y "

of "takiqg" referred to in the .law means the act oL&-

-. ~
+&
-
.
:
J
1436. A picked the pocket of B who was walking in a crowded"'
place and succeeded in extracting from the latter's pocket i
<---
priving ,- __... of the possession. and. dominionaf.~o.vahle
another ~ a wallet containing 850. When A examined the wallet
thing coupled with the intention, at&e-t&ggd%wg," and its contents, he found out that it was the same wdet;;
and the same money which he had lost a few horn"'
before. Is A liable for theft? Explain your answer.
May A be held liable for another crime? I

Suppose that A took the watch without ',he knowledge

of B only for the purpose of using it in i. dance party

664 565

i
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,.,.
.y&' .,.formed an act which would have been an offense against caused his arrest. C
<>' property where it not for the inherent impossibility of its beginning that I? would
:y4;?, accomplishment. It is legally impossible for A to com- him, do yon believe that
3; /,it
., theft of his own property. your answer.
What element o f ' theft is lacking when a person took Yes. Although he kne
personal property from another, believing in good faith was going t o commit a cr
takihg of his radio by B.
----
. t..h.a t it belonged to him?
I" ~ L.-.--_
The elp-ment of intent to &=is>Ski.ng.
mere lack of opposition on

, . .Note: A s , - . is not n ecess% Th- 1440. The crime of theft is defined in Art. 308 of the
~
.e v & o r s?:g&i!m :~:;
O ~ t " ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ L s m - t ~ k i n ~
ot ier s property besu_fficjen$., @n.~ But to eonstitch th
Penal Code as the taking of personal property of
th%-tWbe coupled wiwl ,the intention at the time of with intent to gain "without violencc against or
I i, the taking or the thing ~ h h o l d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t k , t ? ~ ~ timidation
~ ~ ~ of ~ persons
~ ~ ~n , ~ ~
pe2z"""y.

A was in Dossession of rice land on whicn he D h t e d

,rice. A harvested the palay and piled it on the land.
'B,who (claimed to be the owner of the land, filed a When the violence consists in inflicting serious phys
civil action in the justice of the peace conit to recover
possession of the land, which was decided against him
and in favor of A. B appealed to the Court of First body, or has lost the us
InsLince, which decided the case against him. During incapacitated f o r the performance of the work in which:. :'
the pendency of the appeal, B filed criminal charges he was habitually engaged for a period of more tharl. 90. ' ' ?

against A, and had him arrested and lodged in jail. Whiie days (Art. 263, par. S ) , o r that the offended party has ' i
A was in jail and after the Court of First Instance ltad become ill or incapacitated for labor f o r more than
decidcd the civil case against him, B entered the land, days (Art. 263, par. 4 ) , or the violence consists in infli
ing less serious or slight physical injuries, and any
took the pfllay and carried it away. Is B liable for theft?
them is inflicted after the taking of the personal property
'
Why'?
is complete, the crime of theft as a separate and distinct .,;<
Yes, because
- - , his
~ ~ claim ,of.~
~ .-., .. .,~.,~
.ownership
.. l . Lwas not in
__.,~__~_, ....;.good
.,,. crime is committed. The physical injury inflicted con-, ,
f_iLh, Tli=must ..be-b.ma .fi&-r&jioJaua&rshiP, to stitutes another crime. (See similar question in robbery .. .
show
pIyi.,~ll_,
la% of intent to..,gain.
'i under Art. 294, par. 4.)
If the intimidation takes place after the taking of the" .
d~
$439; A s A was appruaehing his car parked on the side of
' a street, he saw B opening the door of the car. A con-
cealed himself behind the electric post and stood there
personal property is complete, the intimidatidn may con- "8
stitute a separate crime, such as grave threat; 'and will' ,. .
t o see what I3 would do in his ear. A saw that once not quali€y the crime to robbery. ,. *
inside the car B bsgan to remove, as in fact he succeeded
I When the force upon things is not used by the offender
in removing, his radio. B went out of the ear with the to enter a house or building or to break open a. lackea
dio and started walking away when A collared him and or sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building;
,; -:
" ~"
566 667
 E

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CJUllllNAL LAW REVIEWER

. '
O P after taking it away therefrom, the taking of the per- 1413. A is prosecuted under an information alleging that h e ' ,
sonal property, notwithstanding the use of force upon committed theft, without force upom things or violence
things, is theft. against or intimidation of persons. But during the trial,
Note: Thus, if A picked the pocket of B and having taken the fiscal proved without objection from the defense . . '
ths latter's wallet A yam away and that the taking of the personal property was accomplished
threatened him with a knife, by A with violence against and intimidation of persons.
w w y z - A used, Can the conrt declare him guilty o f robbery? Why? I
ep
- , t a k i n g o f B's wallet.
ioleze&p.inst or intimida-
If X broke the wall of the house of Y and after creating
a n opening X inserted his hand through such opening and
g e 3 i n the information, E n -
reached f o r some personal grcperty of X and took i t with in- &e-perp$nal proptrty belong- '
tent to gain, X is liable f o r :theft onl?, b::$yecc_he..~did not ,. . to gain
,-.*,--.- to robbery.
enter the house of Y.
M found a locked chest on the street. M took it to his house 1444. While a truck loaded with bolts of textiles was passing
and broke it open. In this ease, M was liable fcr theft, be- along a street in Manila, a bolt fell from the truck. A
, .x chest
cause he did not take ,the-lacked __~
..xfrom. the house d.it.i policeman saw the bolt when it fell from the truck. See-
o m 3 He did not hAe,gk-&..og$$ m the house of its Owner. ing that X was approaching the place where the bolt of
textile was lying, the policeman hid himself behind
1441. A cut some of the stakes of a corral and, after creating
parked autoniabile and observed what X would do with
an opening, A entered the corral, took and pulled away the bolt of textile. X picked it up and carried it with
the carabm from the said corral. What crime wa6 com- him. The policeman 'suddenly came out and placed x
mitted by A? under arrest, accusing him of theft as a finder of lost
~ I _ It depe5ds. u e mrral had a roof, th~e-t&n!~t. property. Is X criminally liable for theft? Explain yo?
: '
:b
the carabao, after, breaking some.,..of. the,.stahes, would
b%ZGl%rwby the use of force upon..things. If the corral
, answer. & e--.-
No. To be liable for theft, the finder of lost property ,;
had no top OT roof and iQvas not ,-,g~e_nd?.3Cy of a" mU~s~a~.c2n-_o~portuIlity to deliver the same to the local
"....~~house, the--crime committed is qualified theft?
ighabited
,/
authorities o r to' 'if< bieiYd-and' li6 'aid - n o t - d a - s T ~ X is 2
because the,.,cQrral.without a t o p o
~r r.oof ,is not..a building. not liable, because the policeman irnm&&ely placed him
In robbery by the use of force upon things, the offender under arrest. X did not have the opportunity to deliver
must have entered a house or building, tii; property to the local authorities o r to its owner. ,
--..* I .,-. ~ , ...,.-. ._ .,,. ,
%

W'
1442. A, servant in the house, having caught B, a trespasser, 1445. A found B a walIet containing P100. A gave it to c
tied B t o the post of the house after employing violence be delivered to R. Once in possession of th,e wallet' c.
on him. After sometime A removed B's shoes from his took the money and spent it. What crime was commit
feet and took them. What crime was committed by A? by C? Explain your answer.
Why? C committed theft,
, Theft, because the violence used by A was entirely and its contents to C,
' fbreign to, or had n o connection with, the fact of the

y taking of B's personal property.

k .

568 669

. \
 CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

He j15d DhYSiCd poZsgssion.of. it only. Thg- person-,,w.ho In the following cases:

.
. ,.
.-------
. . received it from &macquired.-.the same kind..of.~possession,

1446. When is the malicious damaging of another's property fidence; or

. . ~, a crime of theft and when is it malicious mischief?
. . When a person, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, shall remove 01' make use of the fruits
i
..., ) . , or object of the damage caused by him, it is theft (Art.
'~

. ;308,par. No. 2, R.P.C.). (Art. 310, ' Ti.P.c;)

When he only deliberately causes damage t o the prop-
. . 'erty of another, without removing or making use of the
,'., >' fruits or objects of the damage caused by him, it is mali-

9'
? .cious mischief (Art. 327, R.P.C.).
"' Yes. Although the domestic
' ' hunting wild birds or animals a crime of theft? s o d propertyfrom his master,
It is theft when a person shall hunt wild birds or ani-
als upon a n inclosed estate or a field where trespass is
bidden or which belongs to another, without the con-
its owner (Art. 308, par. No. 3, R.P.C.).
a person liable for theft for catching fish in
Y.4.52. The servant in the house of B stole the watcli Of
A person is liable for theft for catching fish in the theft? Explain your answer.
brook or stream, if that brook o r stream is in an jnclosed
estate o r a field where trespass is forbidden or which be-
longs to another and that person catches fish therein with-
out the consent of its owner (Art. 308, par. KO.3, R.P.C.).

who gathered fruits or other forest products

liable for theft? and transport A's merchandise from Manila to
Yes, when the forest is in an inclosed estate where
or which belongs to another and the i
gathering of the fruits or other forest products is with-
out the consent of its owner (Art. 308, par. 3, R.P.C.).

whai cases is the crime of theft punished by the

penalties next higher by two degrees than those re.
spectively specified for simple theft?

670 671
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIIWINAL LAW REVIEWER

. , nor AI&& of the Revised Pe

.. qroperty &ru&gd,-tA&m. B had only the physical pos- property faken in r(lb@em.,ds,.a
.:,\,' .' session of the merchandise, the owner having had the ..higher., The penalty, therefore,
', constructive possession of the same. I*LY;
1454.. In qualified theft committed with grave abuse of con- 1457. What crime is committed by a person who shot
-,ti-- 3 . ,~
fidence, whose confidence must be gravely abused by the cow which was destroying his plantation and then
.",^. offender? there took the meat from the dead cow? Explain
In qualified theft committed with grave abuse of con- answer.
. , fidence, the confidence gravely abused must be that exist-
. .~ ~
The crime committed was CEple theft, because the'
ing b e t G e n the. ~offended
.~. party^ and thCof€ender. cow was not taken. This is a case of simple theft, where ,'
'
Note: Thus, when thc accused asked the watchman of the a person who, after having malic,iously damaged the p r o p ::
provincial government building for the key to the door of the erty of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits.,'
session hall in order to use a typewriter and once in passessivn or object of the damage caused by him.
of the typewriter he took i t and sold the same, it was held
that the accused was guilty of simple theft only, because it.
'. %~;+v;~~~~-~;~~,.pf- th! watchman which he gravely abused
a of the offended party, $le provincial government.
1458. Suppose the cow which was destroying the plantation
of the offender, was caught by him, driven to a certain,.$
. .-. . .
place which was a few meters away from the plan?$ ..a
.-1455;;"V&at
',**.'~:. , I, crime is committed if the property taken after t h e tion and then and there the colv was slaughtereK'and d
."breaking of the door of a post office building is a mail, the meat was taken, what ,crime was committed by. the
matter? Why? offender? . ,
Robbery, because there waforce-.uQGn&hu and the The crime committed is qualified theff;, because the
Code (Art. 302) specifically provides a penalty one degree removal of t h c i ~ ~ ~ . i ~ g _ . c - ~ - ~ t h ~ l ~ ~ ~
higher when the property taken in robbery is mail matter t&e.cf large cattle a ~ d & . , g $ l ~ ~ j ~ s ~ ~ g & .
o r large caltle. Note: It will be noted that if the cow is iwnoved and taken
Notc: In any kind of robbery, wheLlier with violcnee against away from the place where i t is caught by the offender. the
or int.imidatian of persons or by tho use of force wpon things, crime i n qwlifiedfhcft. It .is simpl%.ih& when the cow is
if the property taken is mail matter o r large cattle, the penalty not removed and taken, but is killed on the spot, and the meat
is one degree higher, not two degrees higher as in qualified is taken. .,*..
theft. , . **<v
' -i
1459. What crime was committed by a person who; ha*qj
,1456. What crime is committed if the property taken with borrowed the carabao of his friend f o r the purpose Of24
violence against or intimidation of persons or by the
.. ' use, of f o x e upon things is, a motor vehicle? Why?
Uto&cry, - --
.-.\because the .naL$he-of the property taken can- 1 '
!
using it in plowing his rice field, later sold the carabao:$
to a third ,person 3nd spent the proceeds of .the Eale?',]
Explain your answer.
.:@q "'r
.r;
n&c!xan6:e..the ,naturesf the ,crime
. ~.if the- ~rope:~Y&k?b.?
~~

The crime committed is o&o$n hlrmncr. h a rordv&&

with-v~.olence..ag~nst, or intimidatj.Q,n-- s, 0 L . k

Note: But the e l $ y i s . n o t . ~ o n e . . Qegr.~e_or_t~edegrees.,~g4er

tha? that provided for simple theft, b$c?,u&e, neither A
=

672
i
7)

i
 I

ClllRlINAL LAW REVIEWISR CKlMINAL LAW REVIEWER

real property of another, there

of the same and the misappropriation of such thing &. or intimidation of persons. I
,
.:.
.. . 'e-ahuseoofconfide.n_ce.
. R.P.C.), the offender mnst t
estate or usiirp any real rights in property belonging .#:I 1'
1460.. A, taking advantage of the absence of B and the latter's another, by means of violence against or intimidation of :
,,.: , family, climbed one of the two coconut trees in the yard.
' persons.
of B and .took five coconut fruits from the tree. What
Note: If physical injuries are also inflicted in the commission
A? Explain your ansiver. of the mime of usurpation, the person who committed it is 4
committed the crime of simple theft, because the also liahls for the crime of physical injuries, because the Code: ,
'
taken from the premises of a (Art. 312) states, "in addition' to the penalty incurred for the
. . plantation. When only two or some coconut trees arc acts of violence executed by him," he shall be punished by
growing in the yard of the owner, it i s not a plantation.
. ..
1461. What, crime was committed by a person who stole crabs
and shrimps from the fishpond belonging to another?
it:,is submitted that the person committed the crime
of qualified theft. The
. . term "fish" iaits-ganeralsenszr, and used his own land after forcibly ejecting the-tenant8
,, .,n@ms.i~~- n ' in-water-~only, s u ~ J ~ > - ~ ~ ~ b ~ ,
therefrom? Explain ' your answer.
sters, etc. In i@ r e s t r i c t i v e m i n g , fi>h-f-&
1 ' ,Ege group of cold-blooded..
__..-,-- animals .living_@-.mter an-@
s, permanentgills_.fo?r.,~r~,athing, fkand,
I n a z i c r a s the law (Art. 310, R.P.C.)
'fish'' without any qualification, it is sub- ., ,i .

meaning of the term should be taken i n Such person was not liable for usurpation, because'the
e, so as to include crabs and shrimps. real property belonged to him and he had no intent to
gain. I n usurpation, the offender must have the intent,
1462. What crime was committed by R person who entered and to gain 'and the real property or real rights in property,
another after pulling down should not belong to him.
his small nipa house there,
consent of the o m e r ? Ex- 1464. What crime was committed by a person who altered
.,-,: .,
1,
plain your answer.
The crime committed was anosr&r_m of t r e s p 3 s
~ - the boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces
or estates?
(Ark 281, R.P.C.), becaw$ the."..p l a g was a fmced esfate
~

odmther;' I t was nocinhabited, the prohibition to ent%

-_ ' T k ~ n ~..committed,was,
aries or
.e
landmarks (Art.
usur
313, R
rl. ..,
t w e a s m a n i f e s t , as shown by the fact that it was
.. fenced, and the offender did not secure the permission 1465. What is fraudulent insolvency?
' . of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
. &.,
,' .~*, The crime committed is not occupation oi real p r o p
. .: . . .erty, because when the offender took possession of the
,';.",:.~
. ' ~ , > .,
, .'it
.,;. ,.+._. 3
575
. . 574
I ,
,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,?,...

:2
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ,
,.
.. .,46
- .~
@I
Note: In fraudulent insolvency, the fact that the offender is 4. '&ere is a demand made iiy the.offended part@q
r' ,~.' .
~, '' a merchant is not an element of the offense. If he is a mer- to the Offender. ,' ;.&&
chant, the penalty is higher.
The last element is not necessary when there is evidend

1466./" was indebted to B in the sum Qf P10,OOO and, when
the debt became due and demandable, A sold his house
and lot worth 815,000 and spent all the proceeds of the
d e . ' Is A liable for fraudulent insolvency? axplain your
answer.
I '. There being nothing stated in the qurstion that his
house an.d lot were the _only property of A or that B
was ac&ally prej-udizdl A is not liable for fraudulent in-
solvency.-Tmmportant element of the crime of fraud-
..
ulent insolvency is that the act of ~~XIIXW with his prop-
*,i
erty by the offender resulted in the prejudice of&?s creditors.
Hence, it is important to show that the sale of his property
by the offender at the time that his debt was due and
demandable resulted in the prejudice of his creditors.
1467. What' are the two general classifications of estafa 01
swindlin:$, m d give the elements of each?
The .two general classifications of estafa or swindling
are: (1) estafa with abuse of confidence, and (2) estafa
bv means of deceit.
T6e
elements
c-"..-
. e.,. m with ~b%~--?f,~c~nfi~~~e by
.
.-...of
misappropr1it;mg or converting The property of ahother
yrbt m a e y ,=d& or other personal -YU
-
of misappropriation or conversion of the money, goods .or..
..,,
other personal property received by the offender.
The elements nf -.tu! a by means of a g e :
1.J2-d there must, be a -dense,
,'
fr;uadulentnct
or fraudulepicmms ;
2. '$& such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraud-
ulent means must be B a d e or executed o m :
taneouslv w j i the c o m a h i m u L t h & a u d ;
3 . JM'the offended party must have r.elkxLm -the
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and
4 . #at as a result, the offended party suffered damage
1468. What are the other forms of estafa with abcse of con-
fidence? , ...
Estafa with abuse of confidence includes:
1. Estafa committed by altering the iubstance, quan-
tity or quality of anything of value which the offender
shall deliver by virtue of an-obligation to do so, even
though such obligation be based on an immoral or illegal
consideration (Art. 315, No. l ( a ) , R.P.C.).
2. Estafa committed by taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing
any document above such signature in blank, to the prej-
udice of the offended party or any third person (Art. 315, '

r e c a - b y the offender from another person for Safe- No. 1( a ) , R.P.C.).

>*% or on commission, or f o r a d m i n k b h - or for
the oblipalion to, make/
/. That there be misapproariation or c _ o e ? p of
such money or other personal property by the person
1469. In estafa committed with abuse of confidence by mis-
appropriatinx or converting to the prejudice of another
~
or by denying having received money, goods or other
i personal property, under what transaction must the ~

who has so received it, or denial on his part of such money,, goods or other personal property be received by ,:
receipt ;

is/
3 That such misappropriation or conversion or denial
c'
the Injury of an&heE; and
i
1l
the offender?
The money, goods or other personal property must be
received by the offender (1) in trust, (2) on commission,
. .
676
1 671
 ClZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW ICEVIEWER

' (3) for administration, or (4) under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the
quasi-contracts
,.. .
The offender d o e s &
the offended party.
-___
to he delivered
--- $g a third persp,pr to be returned to its owner.
In estafa, thed$!ix$Fy pf,the thing to the accused. should
not carry with it the transfer of ownership. . Thus, in contract
o r k l i or loan of money, since the ownership of the think or
of tho rnoney is transferred to the buyer or borrower, the latter
cannot be held liable for estafa for failure to pay the purellase
prico 01' to pay the loan.
1470; State the reason why in estafa with abuse of confidence
by misaplpropriation or conversion, the ;law requires that
1472. A, who was buying merehandise in the market for re-
Was only an extension of that of the latter. The juridical ',
rgnained with the owner. Such person,
pmsss>.io~nn_tbereof :, .3
not having the juridical possession of the motor vehicle,
committed qualified theft for disposing of it with intent . ":
to gain and without the consent of the owner (People vs.
Isaac).
But if the motor vehicle was pot ouerated as a r d a r
passenger vehicle and, therefore, not subject to the rules
and regulations of the Public Service Commission, the :
contract of lease isia1i.d and the person who received the .,,'
motor vehicle has acquired ~juridka! possession of the same.
If he sold the motor vehicle to another person and used
the proceeds of the sale for his own benefit, such person
is liable Tor estafa with abb_u_se._ofconfidence.
,,

the money, goods, or other personal property should be sale at his retail store in the barrio, told B, the owner
"
received by the offender under any of those transactions. of a stall in the market, that he w b leaving in his stall ..
the merchandise purchased from another stall while he
~
"

The reason is that, in estafa with abuse of confidence
the offender who misappropriated or converted to the
prejudice of another the money, goods or other personal
property must have juridical po-s&n of the property
he receiv'ed; and when money, goods or other personal
was buying other merchandise at another .stall. in the '
market. 13 agreed to look after the merchandise. When
A returned for the merchandise and asked B for it, the
latter plenied having received a n y , merchbndise from ,A .; '

property is cec~eivedin trust, on ~ctzmm~s&o.n,.. fg_r.admin-

What crime was eomndtted by E? Exp!ain your'answer. '
i s h a m , o r under any..quas&ontract or contra&of bail- B committed estafa with abuse of confidence. u e - ,>
ment, jyidical possession is tg2feKi;ed to the person eeived the merchandise.from A u a e r a c o n t m 3 af-bail- '.
who so received it. qed~..with 'ihe obligation of,.safely keeping. it,..and,-ofw- ; j(

turning the same. Having received ..the..mwcha

1471. What e ' & ' i s committed, by a person who, with intent s$Pi%eeping: E ac juri&s.Lmssenrjna of the Sam
&Id to another a motor vehiele leased to him aiWIiTdenia1 of received .it..is...e&Ea wi
owner? Explain your answer. of confidence.
w--- .L

hen the motor vehicle i s w d as a regular uas-

, ,
senger vehicle, subject to the rules and regulations of the 1473. A, a boy seven years old, found a wallet with m o n e y ' b i b
Public Service Commission, which p m the leasing of in the amount of 840 in it. A gave it to his father
v&icle operat$d as a ,public utility, the.&&&oLlease who later spent the money. What crime was committea
is ull. d and iGh ~pezoTcan not b c c w'der4 by the father? Explain your answer.
e-xa motor vehicle. In the exes of the law, The father committed theft, not estafa. When he
: '' such person was nLa-lessee-but only an emuloyee or
. . ceived the wallet with the money from his son, the f
;?" " a-of the owner, so that his pQs-of the vehicle assumed by voluntary substitution, as t o both the
.-
. ,
578 579
 'x. :?.*< ,
., ~

_ ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . .

erty and its owner, the same relation as was occupied by did not commit the crime of estafa even if he sold the
1 ,

A, the finder. A finder of..Iost~.pcoperiy ,,,acgy&~~s_only

, radio and he deliberately avoided paying anything at all. ''

. physical or rnateriaGssession of the thing found by him. (Sison vs. People).

.. Ixi%&';<.case, the father acq=%lT%FTE%izal
_ " ,,. .__,"____&. -.,--.,--+ or
.~ m ~ t e r i a l ~ p o s s e s s i o n ~ w money.
a ~ ~ , aXnd
~ ~ when ~~~.
he spent t h e money, he t h e r e b ~ c o - m ~ ~ (Amer- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ .
ican case, cited in Peop- Avila.) o w n e r s h i ~ f - ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ - ~ ~
-,- . _ ,-
th-ebiij;er, notwithstanding th.e-facfJm.- . .
.l474. A sold a horse to B for 81,500. B gave to A an advance
been paid,,,
,:. . payment of, 8500. A remained in possession of the horse . , _;.
~ ,
. , ... pending the payment of the balance of 81,000. Later, 1476. A purchased from B a p i g for P50. When A was about *
A sold the horse to C. When B asked A to return the to make the payment, B told A to give the amount of 's
.' P500, A failed and refused to do so. Is A liable for P50 to C, A's neighbor, a s B was indebted t o .C 'in&at ?:
estafa with abuse of confidence? Explain your answer. amount. A took the pig and promised to give the'P50.'.'j
.~. No. A received the PSOO in connection. with a con- to C. But A never gave the money t o C. ,What crime,!'
,, .. e
,?... .tract of sale of the horse. Even if there was a n agree- was conimitted by A? Explain your answer.
'a,,

.. ...~ $,. ,
ment between A and B that the former would sell to the A is not liable for any crime, because .the thing that
.,
.. ' latter the horse, and that A received from B an advance h e - ~ r ~ ~ ~ e ~ t ~he d e
.:,:, payment of 8500, A cannot be held liable fol estafa with had received from B A received a pig from €3 a n d . A .
abuse of confidence for selling the horse to c. p f o m K e T % T Z S e s h e E O to C. In estafa, the, thing
to be delivered must be the same thing that +he offendq.,;.
received from the offended party. . , .,
A ic n&&bl& did n o t take the_
"_
_I__
--..,. P50 fram,.B. .without. .t
cause he never delivered the horse to B. He is civilly
liable to B only €or the return of the P500 and for dam- 147i. A purchased a pair of shoes from a store where B was
ages, if there are any. a salesman. The purchase price o f the pair of shoes
was P45. A handed lo B a 100-,peso bill. As there was
eceived a radio' from B to keep the same for trial no small change in the store, B went out of the store
r five! days, at the termination of which A bound with the IOO-p.<so bill, after telling A that he was going I
himself either to return it to B or, if he desired to retain to look for a small change. B returned, but when A
it, t o pay the initial sun1 of 890 and the balance on asked him for the change, B denied having received any
installm~mts. A sold the radio and did not pay any moue) from A. What crime was committed by B? Ex.
amount to B. What crime was committed by A? EX- plain your answer.
d a i n your answer.
B committed theft. When he received the 100-peso bill
from A, h ~ w q u i y s d ,?&_the
. ~.hxsical-ormak&al+m-
session of the money, The juridical possession of the
money was not transferred to E, beyuse there was no
-. .\
680 581 3
 I
.- ?
,;. .i
, . ,. 1
.?. c
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

agreement by which he could exercise a better right Of

possession over the same than the owner himself. The 2-.
son ~ v h oreceived i t i w g b l
> o r 2 f t if he approp
for his own he&&,. On e o%er hand, if the owner of t
t l i i i g - i u p o n i h ~ delivery. o f ~ . t h e . . m e - t & ~
delivery of the 100-peso bill was only for the moment ex$ect the immediate return of ,,what “he.-delivere
and with the express obligation on the part of B to make crhne- ~ M n i ~ ~ estafa, t ~ & ~if ~the-_pzEc&L?-r.ec
~ S
immediate return of the same if it could not be changed misappropriated it. ’

or else to give back to A the equivalent in bills or coins
of smaller denominations (People vs. Aquino, C.A.; US.
vs. De Vera).
1478. A gave to B money in the amount of BlOO to be delivered
to C . When he was in possession of the money, B did
, not deliver the same to C and instead spent i t for his
own benefit. What crime was committed by B? EX-
plain yoix answer.
;. ;.,, B committed estafa with abuse of confidence. He re-
. .ceived the money under the title of commission, wiVn the
obligation to deliver it to C. Having acquired juridical
possession of the money, he committed estafa with abuse
of confidence when he misappropriated it.
$479. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave to his
servant the money to be delivered to C, but when he
was in possession of the money the servant did not deliver
it to C and instead spent i t for himself, what crime was
committed by the servant. Explain your answer.
The crime committed by the servant is qualified theft,
because his possession of the money was hut=e555X
of the possession of A: In other w o r d s , w e r v a n t did
n ~ a ~ ~ 6 i ~ u F i tpossession
K c d of the money. Having
- acquired only the physical or material possession of the
money, the servant is guilty of qualified theft for having
spent the money for himself. It is qualified theft because
the crizrie was committed by a domestic servant.
Note: When it is not certain that the offender received a thing
under a transaction transferring juridical possession to him,
because there is no clear indication that he received it in trust,
on commission, f a r administration, o r under a quasi-contract
or contract of bailment, the t e s t i s : Did-&h$,-_awner of Gh
thin&!&pm+&deliuery -of%c-same-tLt& ..of&$,%-e~~ec&
the immediate return of the thing .ddi~eh~$J-..If ,s,p,..,~h~~,te~~,
582
The test does .not apply when the person who received the,: .,
thing is a servant 01 employee of th
man?. or employee could not-suj&-
~-
the thing !h r G e X d .
.-.
.. ._
1480. May a person be held liable for estafa with abuse Of
confidence, even if he did not benefit from the thing he
had received from another? Explain your answer.
Yes, when he disposed of the thing he had received to
the prejudice of another he may mot have benefited from
the thing. In this way of com-itting estafa with abuse .’
of confdencc, the offender only used or disposed of an-
other’s property as if it were his own. The offender uses
or disgoses of another’s property without right to do SO.
-_--_...--by cq.uersh
This is known as estafa
Note: Thcs, in the cane of People VS. Flores (C.A.), where
i the accused received il ring from the offended party to sell
under the condition that she was to return it the following
day if not scld and wUithQyt;uqiauthauty ’ to & e A L t o a E U k * ,
agmt, bnt in violation of that instruction she gave i t to a
sub-agent who, in turn, delivered it, to a third person i n pnY-
ment of the cloth that said suh-agent\hzd ohtained from said
third person, the accused Sonverted it to the prejudice-of the
offended party and was held liable f o r ssiafa. even if she did
nottbp-nefit from the ring, In giving it to a subagent, with-
oat authority of the owner, the a2cused~dispose
a s if . i t were her. own-~~pmq&y. The accused
to give the ring to the sub-agent.
Art. 315 uses the phrase “ t o t h e prejudice of knother,” not . ;
“with intcnt to gain,” as in theft o r robbery. . .,
..
’.?
1481. When is an agent who gave to a sub-agent the personal ‘‘j
property- belonging to his principal,.&Jable for estafa
with abuse of confidence, if the sub-agent misappropriated
1 the property?
When the principal adj-&i@,Lthe agent to deliver
the personal property to-a sub-agent and the agent
~.
583
 I
I / I.
, .+ .
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. ._.
., livered it to a sub-agent for the same purpose of selling
the same on commission basis a n m e r e is -evidence
of c@nivance, collusion or corZSgiraey bet.wzn_.the-agent
- .. sub-gg.en$. t o , $&ri+Wl the p&cipal, the agent i s
and th.e ....-
not Iia.ble for estafa if the sub-agent misappropriated it
(People vs. Munsayac, C.A.).
1482. If an asent, who received personal property from his
principal to be sold, f o r y h , sold it on credit, is that
agent liable for estafa?
I n the case .of' U.S. vs. Morales, et al., 15 Phil. 236,
i t was held that the act of the agent in selling the jewelry
on credit and taking promissory notes from the purchaser
for the purchase price, is &&sstafa, ther%b$n&,no_'evi-
denee of conversion .of, the property to_tke_benefitof~the
_-.. ,
w d q -Of,some other^ perso-?.
But in the case of U.S. vs. Panes, 31 Phil. 116, where
the accused also sold to another on credit the jewelry he
had received from the complainant to be sold on commis-
sion and for cash, it was held that the accused was guilty
of estafa. The 'decision was based on the rule that 'k..
appI)z.iakg >?-O~:;S ..gwn_use,,i n d u d 5 n 0 t - d ~C C K V ~ ~
to one's p g p a d a d v a n t a g e bllt every &te.mpt t a a e
ofae.-mop&y of-another. without right" (9 RCL 1275).
It i.s submitted that the Panes case states the better rule.
' ~.
3. May it person be held IiabIe for estafa with abuse of
confidence even if the party prejudiced is not the owner
.. of the! property misappropriated or converted7 Illustrate.
Yes. For instance, A gave his watch. to B t o keep it
while A was taking a bath in the sea, .md then B left
with the watch without waiting for A. When A learned
: that 13 had pawned his watch to C for a loan of P50,
:~ A went to C from whom he recovered his watch, with-
out reimbursing C of the amount he loaned to B.
B committed estafa, because he received the watch
from A for safekeeping. He pawned it to C without
'.
' right to do so. When A recovered it without reimbursing
. , .
584
. ,
CKlMINAL LAW REVIEWER
C, B converted the watch t o the prejudice of C, not
the prejudice of A, the owner of the watch.
Note: Who can be the complaillant against B for estafgl'
Either A o r 6 , and it makes no difference that the party p
udiced was C and not A.
If C is the complainant, for what kind of estafa most'
be prosecuted and punished? B is to he prosecuted and pUniahedz
f o r esiafa by m c m f _ d e e d L . h e e a u s e he falsely pretended
to be the owner of the watch, when he pawned i t to C."'.Brrq
if A is tho complainant, B would be liable for 'estafa With,
P
abuse of confidence.
. .
1484. When may the agent who received money from
I' principal withhold the application of the Same to. th$
agreed purpose, without committing estafa with
of Confidence?
When the agent in good faith retained the money whic
he had received from his principal for the purpose of
sary self-protection against his principal in civil C
versies arising between the two with reference to the
or related matter, such agent is not liable for estafa.
reason for this rule is that the agent acted without
inal intent.
1485. Explain why partners are not liable for estafa
abuse of confidence, if the money or property hv
is that which is received for the partnership?
Partners are not liable for estafa with abuse of
fidence if the money or property was reee'
partnership, because when two or more person
selves to contribute money, property, or in
common fund, with the intention of dividing
among themselves, a contract is formed, called
ship, and when money o r property was invest
partner in the risks or benefits of the busines
, . partnership, even though he had reserved th
/ / conveysd only the usufruct of his money or property, tEe
\,, !I?., duty to return it devolves upon the partnership 'and no$
'I upon the partner who received it directly from him. S u d
being the case, the action that lies with the partner,
585
1Ii ;r"
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
furnished the capital, for the recovery of his money or
property is not a criminal action for estafa, but a civil
one arising from the partnership contract for a liquidation
of the partnership and a levy of its assets, if there should
be any.
f l t when money or property had been %wived by a
partner for specific purpose and later he misappzopriated
it, such partner is guilty o f t a f a .
Note: The reason is differed if the charge against the partner
is theft. The reason why B partner is not liaole for theft if
he takeii the property of the partnership is th-t 2 partner is
prcsumed co-owner of the assets and property uf the partner-
ship and if any of such assets or property i s taken by a
partner, it is not clearly and truly the property of another.
1486. Does the mere failure to return the thing received for
safekeeping, or on commission, o r for administration con-
stitute the crime of estafa? Why?
No. There must be evidence that the person who re-
ceived it either (1) misappropriated it, or (2) converted
it to the prejudice of another, or ( 3 ) denied having re-
ceived it (US.vs. Bleibel; People vs. Nepomnceno).
1487. Is criminal liability for estafa affected by novation of
contract?
The c ~ n d - l i & i l i t y for estafa is ~ o affected
t ~ by
compi*omise or e o n of contract, for it is a QQ&L
e* which must be prosecuted and punished. by the
Government on its own motion even thou&comp&k%!re-
p&ioz should have been %axe of the &=%suffered
by the o€fended party (People vs. Benitez, G.R. No. L-
15923, June 30, 1960).
In the recent case of People vs. Nery, G. R. NO. G
19567, Fcbruary 5, 1964, the Supreme Court held: “Ac-
-
cused contend8 that there is no prohibition in the Penal
Code t o prevent the parties to a contract to novate it
so that any incipient criminal liability under the I‘irst
, avoided. The n s a n ~ _ t h e o r qmay perhaps
the .filing of the~.sriminal information in
686
i .
ClllMINAL LAW REVIEWER
court because up to that time the ociginal trust relation
__ -_
may be cczny&ed by the parties intocan or&zsrY credi
debtor
._ situation, thereby placing the .complainant
~~~
toDe1 to-izdsion the original trust. But after the insti-
-
tution of the action in court, the offended party may no
longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the
crimiiial liability, as distinguished from the civil. The
crime being an offense against the state, only the
can renounce it. x f k & & o nis not- of the means
n@ed by the Penal Code whereby criminal^ li.&&i
be extinguished; hence, the role or’ novation may only b
ecther to prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast :
doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction,
whether or not it was such that its breach would not give
rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made ;
to appear as a deposit, o r other similar disguise is resorted
I to. Even in Civil Law the acceptance of partial payments,
without further change in the original relation between
the parties, can not produce novation. For the latter to
exist, there must be proof of intent t o extinguish the
original relationship, and suck intent cannot be inferred
I
from the mere acceptance of payments on account of what
is totally due. Much less can it be said that the accepb
anee of partial satisfaction can effect the nullification of
a criminal liability that is fully mature and already in
the process of enforcement. Thus, this Court has ruled
I that the offended party’s acceptance of a promissory note
for all or part of the amount misapplied does not obliterate
the criminal offense.”
1488. A borrowed a typewriter from B to be used by the former
for three days. After three days, B sent his brother,
C, who was living with him, to A to get back the tppe-
writer. C went to A and got the typewriter, but C
~01dit and spent the proceeds of the sale. What crime
was annmitted by C? Is he criminally liable? ExplaW-
! your answers.
C committed estafa with abuse of confidence, ljecause
he received the typewriter from A upon instruction of B.
-J
E87
I I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
’ Therefore, C received it from A under the obligation in-
., volving the duty to make delivery of the same to. B. C
acquired juridical possession over the typewriter. When
1J
;_ he misappropriated it, he committed estafa with abuse
‘..of confidence, with B as the offencied party. But under
Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code, C is not criminally
liable, because B and C were brothers who were living
together a t the time the crime of estafa was committed
by C and, in such a case, C is exempt from criminal liability.
1489. Suppose that C, in the preceding question, went to A
,.;,t, .
: without the knowledge of I3 and told A that he was
sent by his brother B t o get back the typewriter and
.. once in possession of the typewriter C sold it and spent
: the proceeds of the sale, would C be criminally liable?
.. . Explain p u r answer.
.
Yes, C would be crimhallyliable, because he commitked
e&& by means of deceit, because B did n o t a u t g g b e C
.,.
to get the typewriter and when he _renEse.n&d to A that
he was authorized by B to get the typewriter, he thereby
made false uretense, which is a f o m ~ . o j M t . In this
case, Art. 532 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable,
hecause the o-dy is..Bwho is not relat-C.
Art 332 provides that “no criminal, but only civil, lia-
hility shall result from the commission of the crime of
theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually” by the relatives mentioned in that provision.
It will be noted that to be exempt from criminal liability,
any of those crimes must be committed by a person against
his relativc, or caused mutually by the relatives, men-
.~, tioned in :raid article.
i490. ,What are the elements of estafa with unfaithfulness?
.. The elelnents of estafa with unfaithfulness are:
1. That: the offender has an onerous obl&&ion to de-
liver something of value;
.:-,
-*>.
--4i..
.*~~
.;.+ ,
2. That he alters itssu?Jstance, quantity or ‘quality;
I
~ . , . , , . ’ 3. That there e
..vi’,. ~ s-i or p m c e caused to anoyfler.
688
I
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1491. What crime was committed by a person who sold to ’ ,”
another 1,000 tins on the assurance that they contained .I
I
opium, when in fact only sixteen tins eontained opium, ,’’
while the’ others contained only molasses, that person :-I
having received the full purchase price far 1,000 tins of
opium? . ,
.<
Tiiat person committed e e f a with unfaithfulness, be-
_-
cause he altered the sub_stance of the thing which he should. ,~
have delivered by virtue of an obligation to_d.o,_%h &yen , i ;
though
..- su_ch-ogjpjion u-as based on an immoral or ill& ’:.;
-----
consideration. There is d G x e caused to the offended ‘ 2
party.
1412. What are the elements of estafa by taking undue ad- ~\:,
vantage of a signature in blank?
The elements of estafa by taking undue advantage of
a signature in blank are:
1. That the with the s m e of the offended
party be inn-blullr;
2 . That the offended party s
to the offender:
3 . That above the signature of the offended: part
a dscument is written by the offender; and
4. That the document so writtext c x s i e ~ ~ o n ,
ai* cgtzs~es-danzageto, the offen&dd?tY.
1493. A, who was leaving for the province, entrusted
A’s secretary, a blank piece of p
thereon, with instruction to B to prepare
his signature in case C would pay his debt.
was already in the province, B ,typewrote a p
note for P1,OOO above the signature of
him (B), and later he resigned and aske
A ‘was forced to pay B because of the .promissory
i What crime was committed by B? Expl
B committed estafa b y r m d m a
s i g & a & w f the offended party i
589
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER
/
,. a document above said signature t o the prejudice of t h e
offended party.
1494. Suppose that the blank piece of paper with the signature
of A was stolen by X who typewrote a promissory note
for P1,OOO in his favor above the signature of A an&
later demanded payment from A, and A paid X 1?1,000.
:.. .
because of the promissory note, what crime was com-
: mitted by X? Explain your answer.
.
G
X is lia.ble fo falsificatiog] because the signature in
b w c p o t delive \ o him by A and, thegfore, t&e ,
was no con_f@encer-pxsxlinclhim which he could abuse?
Re is liable for falsification, because X m.adealt.-apEar
~":: . t h h A A a r t i c i p a t e d . in that transaction, w h m l n truth.
yd in fact-he did. not. _so partikip&@, or ,he attributed
o A statement other than that made by him.
149.6, .
,.. . A, by means of deceit, through a falsified public docu-
ment of mortgage, procured a loan of $500 frnm B. The
. .'.
..deed of mortgage was worthless and cannot serve as
a security for the payment of the l'oan, because the mort-
gage was made in a falsified public document. A stated
:in''the said document that he was the owner of t h e
Property thlat he mortgaged when in truth and in fact
the property belonged to another person. Later, A paid
the loan of P500 to B within the period agreed upon.
When the owner of the property mortgaged learned of
the falsification, he filed a complaint against A fox
. estafa by means of deceit through falsification of a public
document. Can A be prosecuted and punished for t h e
4
complex cri.me of estafa by means of deceit through falsi-
fication of a public document? ExpIain your answer.
No. A is liable only for falsification of a public docu-
ment committed by a private individual (Art. 172, R.P.C.).
He is not liable for a complex crime of estafa by means
of deceit through falsification of a public document, be-
Cause the Revised Penal Code, in defining the crime of
',
.. . .estafa, states that the offended party must be ---defraudedt
,
, he was ip&=dd-o_part-with
-by any of the means mentioned by the Code (Art. 315).
590
, .
CKIMIN.iL LAW REVIEWER
There can be ~ ~ > ~ t &u&ss g . thze-ls a pemon defrauded., .~
B was not defrauded because he received the full pay-
ment of the loan within the period agreed upon.
A is liable only for f&jQfigt&g[..a public document, ,
:1 committed by a private individual, because the :
mortgage was a public document and he committed a n acC
of falsification thereon by making false statement in the . ,
narration of f a c t s . 8 n falsification of a public documen&
pjejudice to a.~.thixd party is not necessary .(People' v?.
Cura, et al.).
1496. B, having found on the street a rlng worth 8500, ,took
it home and later, claiming to be the owner thereof
sold it to A for 8250. What crime o r crimes were com
mitted by B? Explain your answwr.
B committed two crimes, namely: (1) Theft, for'ah
ing found a. lost property aud having failed to deliver
to the local authority or to its owner; and (2). e
. by means of deceit, for having falsely pretended to be the ;~
owner thereof, when he sold the ring to A.
Nqte: In the crime of theft committed by B, the offended p a w I,
is the owner of the lost ring which B found. In the crime of
est& by means of deceit, A is the offended party, be+anse
he was the m e . p a d nrdamagpd 8s the owner can recover".
that ring from him without right to be reimbursed a8 regards
the money he paid t o B.
1497. What are the elements of estafa by means of deceit?
! Thef'are : . .
j
&.'There must be a fakcpretense (false representa-
tion to a m,atter of fact, a QpsitiYeassertiorr-offa~s~od),
fsaudub~fact, or fraudulent means.
:.~
&'Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
i means m y t be made or executed prikcto or simultaneouslr
i'
w i k t d.commission ofLtb~-frmd.
A h e offended party must h a y . e m d o n the false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; that is,
i
his money-ar.pro&Lbbe
591
 I
I',., ,. ..
:
.
, %.ll 1
.,~27
'
$,#;,:
"'-. <,
..
t .,'.... ,
.."
w:<,* CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
i .
cause of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
_:. means.
4 . That as a result, the offended party suffered dam-
age.
1498. A, having known that B was sent by C to get a sum
of money from D, went ahead of B to D and represented
to the latter that he was B, sent by C to get the money.
. D gave the money to A, believing the false representation
made by the latter. Once in possession of the money,
A spent it for himself. What crime was committed by
A? Explain your answer.
A committed estafa by means of deceit, using ficmous
name. D was induced to part with his money because
of the false representation made by A that he was E.
D was damaged or prejudiced.
1499. Y, an immigration broker, told C that he (Y) could help
. the M t e r bring his family into the Philippines, because
he had influence in Malacafiang, the Bureau of Immigra-
tion and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Upon these
representations, C entered into an agreement with Y
for thi! entry of his family for permanent residence in
the Philippines. C gave P2.000 to Y . After waiting for
a long time without hearing from Y, C went to the
Bureau of Immigration to check on the papers for the
entry of his wife and child, but he found that no such
papers had been filed. Is Y liable for estafa by means
of deceit? Explain your answer,
No. From the fact of non-compliance by Y with his
part of the agreement, it cannot be concluded that his
representation that he possessed influence was false. There
must be evidence that Y's pretense of influence was not
true. In the absence of pioof that his representation was
actually false, criminal intent to deceive cannot be in-
ferred. A mere promise t o perform a thing is not a repre-
sentation which constitutes a deceit, and failure to comply
with such promise does not change its character. Deceit
592
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
should be proved and established by acts distinct from;"'$
and independent of, the mere non-compliance with the :.
promise.
There ,must be a showing that when Y received the
money, he had no intention of rendering the service con-
tracted by him. Since i t was not shown that Y in fact
possessed no influence or that his inaction w a s due t o his
lack of influence, he cannot justifiably he held guilty of
deliberate misrepresentation. His failure or inability to
render the service could have been due to a change of mind,
if not to a lawful cause. 3 6 - p e r f o r m a n e e on his part
and his failure to return the money gave rise only to
liability (People vs. Wilson Yee).
/
a,
N o t e : In estafa by m a n s of deceit, the representations made
must be false.
1500. A represented to B that he had influence with the Pres-
ident and told B that if he would give him P500 he wodd
work for Itis appointment a s justice of the peace. B
gave A H500. Later, it turned out that A was not even
known to the President. Is A liable for estafa by means
of deceit? Explain your answer.
Yes, A is liable for estafa by means of deceit, because
he falsely pretended to possess influence. The false repre-
sentation made by A that he had influence ind&B @.-
p x t wch- hi>~~
~ ~ ~ lthereby
e y , c a G c L d m a g e t o the latter.
1501, A offered to sell to B twenty cavans of rice at P25 a
cavan. B agreed t o buy the rice. A asked for advance
payment of P200 from B, who gave the said amount.
A promised deliver the twenty eilvans of rice the next
day, but no rice was delivered to B, because frum the
beginning A had no rice to sell. What form of deceit .. .
was used by A to defraud B?
A used that form of deceit, by falsely pretending to
possess property.
Note: The phrase "by means of other similar deceits", after+<;
the enumcration of the different forms of false pretensewfd3f
subdivision No. Z(a) of Art. 315, includes such form of dw,$t$
693

CRIMINAL LA&- REVIEWER
by falsely pretending to be the owner pf the property which
the offender sold to the offended party.
The false pretense in any of its forms must be the induce-
ment and the offended party must have relied On the false
pretense. The tost is:/Did the defendant Q!?tain
offended p a r t y ' a n 5 S n g because o f the f $ ~ K ~ ~ g If~ .he
2% it is estafa by--E!ans of deceit.
tained something from thk offended party without any false
GGze and the false pretense made w a s e q - x & a t is'
ni-:=
a&= the defendant h a ~ h % + d y a<qg!y&
_ the thing, there 1s
case the offended party suf&@-damage
.-
from the h e n .
'Ji/502. A borrowed P5?DO_from B and after two months when
the la+ demanded from A the payment of the loan,
A falsely pretended that he was expecting to receive
from the Army the sum of P6,OOO as his backpay within
a period of one month and because of that repyesentation,
B, did inot ...press
.-. the immediate payment of the loan.
After
'r
one month when B did not receive the payment of
tfie loan, he went t o the omresponding office and inquired
whether or not A was entitled t o a backpay. It turned
out that A was not entitled to any backpay. Is A liable
for estafa by means of deceit? Explain your answer.
, . No, 'because when he made the f u r e t e n s e , A did
not receive anything from E. The loan of P 5 a w a e b :
,tained by A from B without any false.pcet.ea* I n estafa
by mea% of deceit, where theoffender makes a false $re-
tense, the.Jizw. requires that the f a k . w & p e should be
"escuted -prior_to.
-.. or @multaneous~ll with the commission
o m a u d . " As stated in the question,-the false pretense
/
.made h:y A was after he had received tke sum of 8500
from B.
1503. What are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
estafa by means of deceit committed by means .of fraudu-
lent acts?
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on estafa
by means of deceit committed by means of fraudulent acts
,. are, as follows:
594
P ,
"I ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
4 By altering t.he quality, fineness, o r weight of any- :*. '
thing pertaining to his a r t or business (Art. 316, par.
2 ( h ) , R.P.C.) .
from the
e ? A,' By postdating a check, or' issuing a check in pay-
endant oh- ment of an obligation when the offender $ad no funds:
in-t.he. bank, o r his funds deposited therein were n o t - .,,
ficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of ''
&e drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary y?
to cover his check within- three. ..(3l_aaJrsfmm receipt '
of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that
i::
said check has heen dishonored for lack.,or insufficiency
of funds shall be ~ ~ ~ i ~ u . . f a c Z e - e v i d edec_eitcon&i!L+
n~~..~~. ,~
__---
(,.
ing false pretense o r fyaudule.ntact.. (Art. 315, par. 2 ( d ) , .,+::!
as amended by Rep. Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967)
3 . By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommoda-'
tion at an hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house; lodging,
house, or apartment house, w&ut paying therefor, with
injent.~to_defrau-d, etc. (Art. 315, par. 2 ( e ) , R.P.C.).
1504. A, 'a goldsmith and jeweler, substituted a diamond stone;
of lesser quality than that which he received from I:
when he ( A ) made the ring for B. What particdar.;;,',.;
form of estafa. was committed by A?
. to the
Estafa by altering the quality of the thing pertaining
offender's a r t or business.
1505. What are the elements ,df estafa by postdating or isSUiW.
a check?
. ..$
They are : >
1. That the offender ctdated-_a-check, or a* .!'
twin oayment of an o b h e n ;
2. That snch post&dati-ng or m k l g a check was ~QIE
ylien the offender-fikno fugds-in the bank, or his funds.
depositcd theiein were n m € i c i e n t t o cover the amount
of the check.
1506. D w the amendment of Art. 315, No. 2 (d), by Republic
Act No. 4885, approved June 17, 1967, change the rule
 I , i I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
. that there is no
estafa if the check was postdated oir is-
sued in payment of pre-existing obligatioq? ' Why?
No. The phrase "By postdating a check, or issuing
such check in payment of an obligation" in Art. 315,
No. 2 ( d ) , is not changed by Repnblic Act No. 4886, ex-
cept that the word "such" is replaced by the article "a"
in relation to the check issued.
This kind of estafa is committed by means of deceit,
specifically by fraudulent act. The fraudulent act of post-
dating ii check or issuing a check in payment of an obliga-
. is n_o_ .e?.@& even if .there . a r e . n o _ s u f f i c i e n t _ f ~ .i~
'
tion should be the efficient cause of the defraudation and,
as such, should be either prior to, ~. or s i m d k e o u s l y with,
the a& of fraud.
Hence, as before the amendment, the act of postdating
a check o r issuing a check must be made in payment of
some obligation contracted by the accused at the time
he issued and delivered the check.
Thus, when.? check was_i_Ss&uel in_pay-ment of a de!?$
c o ~ f e d ( ~ r i o ~ - . t q s u c l l _ i s s u a n cthere
e , is -fa> eFn
if there is n a n d in the bank to cover ,the amount of
the chock (People vs. Lilius, 69 Phil. 339).
When check is issued in. substitution of a pwmissory
note, i t i.s.. in.- payment of pre-existing obligation. Thus,
when a person purchased merchandise, signed a promis-
sory note therefor, and on the date of .maturibj he gave
' a check for the amount stated in the promissory note,
but the check was dishonored by the bank for lack Of
funds, that person is not liable-foL&s&fa (People 7s.
c__-
Canlas, C.A., 38 0. G. 1092).
I or issued a check in pavment (If an oblig?tiO&.
The apased must bLa&le_ to2boIaj.F. something from
the offended partx by.meaes of the check he issues and
ci&vers. Thus, if A bought from the store of B goods
worth P200 and issued a worthless check for F200 in pay-
ment of the same, it appearing t h a t ' B w~u!&nd h w e
, .
__
delivered
-. the goo_da to^ A. were-jt~not for.the..check issued
, .
by the latter, the crime committed by A was-estafa. Note
:.'
that A obksin2cl the goods from E bec_aus.e .of. t h u h e c k .
596
.
. . ''
i
:,
CRIMINAL LAW REtlEWER
In a case where the accused issued a check to Lee Hua
Ilong in exchange f o r 84,000, but the check was dishonored
'
by the bank for lack of funds, i t was held'that the ac-
eused was guilty of .et& ($ng Tek Lian vs. Court of ,'
Appeals, 87 Phil. 383). Note that, the accused was able
to obtain the F4,000 because of the check he issued.
Exception: When the check i s s d ' i s Q ' i n Davmnl
of~an~~obli,ga_tion."When post-dated checks are issued and
/'iiitende,d'
-. . by the parties only as promissop notes,
bank to cover the =me (People vs. Roque Obieta,
52 0. G. 5224). . ,
When the clieck is isaced by a , gmraL.or, there is ,.EO
estafa. When the accused was persuaded to act merely
as-, p a r a n t o r by guaranteeing by means of a .check the
payment of the materials ordered by snother person, a
fact which was kiiown to the vendor of the materials,
and the check issued was dishonored for lack of funds,
the accused is not guilty of estaf8. The 'check wa&
igsued iri-mnt of an oJ.&zah. (People vs. Suarez,
2 C.A. Rep. 982)
1507. When does the act of postdating a check or issuing a check
in payment of an obligation constitute the crime of estafa?
When the offendey had no funds..in.the bank, or his
-_/-
funds deposited therein were not sufficient t o cover the
amount of the check, a t the time h: p o S ~ ~ a t e d ~ - c h e c l r
1508. State the difference, if any, between the provision of Art;
315, No. 2 ,(d), before i t was amended and its provision
after the amendment by Republic'Act No. 4885? ,
~
The difference consists in the elimination of the Dhras&
'(1) "the offender knowing that at the time he'. had'iio"
funds in the bank", and (2) "without informini.'the payee
597

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEi3
of such cii:ciimstances". These phyases are n o t found in
the provision as amended.
: 1509. When does t h e presumption of dereit in estafa by postdat.
ing a check or isvuing a check arise?
When the (Islc_qf~-the check fRiled to deposit the
amount ~ ~ ~ s s atol cover
l y his check within three (3.) days
from &&eip&.of no>ice.. from the .bank and/or the pa=
or hoidm that said check has been dishonored for lack
or insufficiency of funds, such failure of the drawer shall
be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pre-
tense 01' fraudulent act on his part.
,1510. A goldsnlbth received from B a ring made of gold and
diamond $;tone, to be remodelled and transformed into a
.new ring of modern style. Once in possession of the
ring, the goldsm'ith removed m d took the diamond stone
and aepla.ced i t with a stone of inferior quality when
the ring was remodelled. When it was deliveM to R,
he found out that the stone was different and of in-
ferior quality. What cr'me was committed by the gold-
sm'ith? I3xplak your answer.
The goldsmith coniinitted estafa by means of fraudulent
acts,'that is, by altering the quality of the thing pertain-
ing to his art o r business.
1511. A, after havirg occnp:ied a room and ordered meals three
times a day in an h,&l foir one week, surreptitiously
removed his baggage from the hptel witfiout paying for
his food and accommodation. Is A liable criminally O r
only &illy? Explain your answer.
A is criminally liable. He committed estifa by means
of fraudulent acts.
1512. .What are the forms of estafa committed thyough fraudll-
, lent means?
698
... I
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
The different forms of estafa committed through fraud-
ulent means are:
1. By i-&another, by means of deceit, o-t
any document.
~ .~
2 . By resorting. to some fraudulent-pr~ac~cet o i w
sxcess in a gambling game,
3 . By rynoving, co.n&Lng o r destroying, in whole ',
or in part, any cTu't regard, office files, documents o r
any other papers.
(Art. 315, No. 3:a), ( b ) , ( c ) , R.P.C.)
1513. If a person caused another, who did not kn,ow how to read, ,, '
to affix his thumbmark on a document containing sti-
pulations different from those which the other person
thought the document contained, when will it be estafa
through fraudulent means, and when will it be falsifi- ,
. ,,;
cation? Explain your answer.
It is estafa through fraudulent means. when the of-
fended party was induced to affix his thumbmark on the :
document by means of deceit, that is, the offender made
statements which deceived the offended party as t o the
nature of the transaction embodied in the document.
It is falsification, when the offended party made state ' ' .::
ments to be embodied in a document, but the offender in
preparing the document attributed to the offended party
'statements different from those made by the latter. .
1514.- During the trial of a criminal case for estafa, A tes
fied that he signed a conveyance sf his hereditary interest
to the accused, thinking that the document contained
a power of attorney. On cross-examination, A admitted
t h a t the accufied made no such misrepresentation. Is the
accused liable for estafa? Explain.
No. The accnsed did not induce A to sign the do
ment by means of deceit. The remedy of A would be a:,
civil action (U.S. vs. Barnes, 3 Phil. 704).
1515. When is the removing, conceal$?, or destroying of ,.
court record, office files, documents or any other pape
. '..
699
 \

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINA~LAW REVIEWER

'' versation of public funds, in that the latter crime may
(I) estafa, or (2) infidelity in the custody of document?
Explain your answer. take place if an accoimtable officer ''shall' permit any,
, ' e other person to take such public funds or property
It is estafa, when the offender has t h e T H i f € - t r d ? -
Such intent is not necessgy in infidelity in the or partially." Estafa and maheriation being both
custody of document. on unfaitldulness or abuse qf confidence of the
. r the absence of similar provision in the case of es%f
It is infidelity in the custody of docummt, when the not be devoid of significance; it clearly imports
offender is a p a i c .officer, o&i&LB-%ith-the
., .."- 'wstody of the document, that is, by reason of his office. case of estafa, Lhe profit or gain must be obtained
.the' accused personally,. through his own acts, and
In .ejk,fa, the offender is a p m n d j v c d ~ a l or
- even
' c',. . a publjc .officer who is not entrusted with the custody
mere 'negligence in' permitting another to take advan
of, or benefit fTom; the entrusted chattel cannot ConStitUt6.
of the document. estafa;, unless, of course, the evidence should disc)ose that
, ,. , . the agent acted in conspiracy or in connivance with the
, .1516. nprornissory note for 81,000 executed b r A in favor of
: B was annexed to the complaint which B filed with the
' one who carried out the actual misappropriation; when

.
.~'
.,. .
,
court to recover the 81,000 from A. A borrowed the
' , record from the clerk of murt and once in possessio11 of
the agent would be answerable for the acts of his co-
conspirator (People w. Nepornuceno, C.A.) .
the same, removed the promissory note from the record
and took it with him. What crime was committed by ,1519. To establish the liability of the defendant in th
. ' A? Elxplain your answer. of estafa, is ' i t ,necessary that there should be a demiyd
made by the comphinant to the defendant prior
A committed estak&ongh fraudulent means, because instit tion of the criminal action?
he wmwed a d o h n t from the c o m L w K d with i&nt
to_lleikaud. By removing the promissory note attached estafa with abuse.of confidenee, by misappropriation
t o thc complaint, A deprived. B, of his .evidence of A'S or conversion, demand by the complainant to the defend-
' / ant t o return the thing received or to account for the
indeht,edness, thereby defrauding B.
same Qsssary, only when there is no evidence of &
1517. Is material damage to khe offended party necessary in appropriation or c m s i o n of the thing received. Demand
t h e X x n e of esmfa? is necessary in such a case, because the failure to return'! ,'

the thing received os to account for the same is circum-

Material damage. to the offended party is ,not neces- stantial evidence of the fact that the defendant misappro-.
sary in estafa. Disturbance of property rights and fm: priated the thing which he had received from the com-
porary prejudice are sufficidnt damage or prejudice.
1_-___
plainant.
Note: Thus, ev0n if the property or money misappropriated
by the offender is recovered 'or paid to the offended party But in e s ~ b ~ m ~ i s ~ . o f - d e s deei at n, d is n~
t h o erimo still exists. quired, because of the tnann_-r the thizg. jEs_bt&ned by
the offender from the offended party. Demand in such
'~ 1518. Can estafa be committed through negligence? Expldn a case would be sepei-fluous..
your answer.
No. Art. 315 of thc Rcviscd Penal Code, in pcnal- 1520. A approached B and offered to sell .a piece of land to :
,. M r n wtnCn by ~iisnpp,.opl.inUon or convcrsion, differs the latter, showing to him a piece of paper contain&
, .i
riirtienlly from 4 ~ t 217
. of thc snnic Code, punishing mal- tbe description and the locati'on of the land. A told'.;
.,.3

GOO 601
 5
. . . .. .
., .,
. ,
,,.
I
...
CllIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,:. . B that he was selling i t for PIO,OOO. B agreed to buy No. A is not liable for other forms of swindlin
.. . it and asked A to execute the necessary deed of sale. did not stah? in the d e & o L d e that the p r m d Y
.. )

.._
.

',
,1

-. '
A
to
asked B to give a down payment of P5,OOO, promising
return the next day with the deed of sale. B gave
A P5,OOO. But A never showed up until he was arrested
,. .,
r. by certain detectives upon complaint of B. When in-
vestigated, A admitted t o the detectives that he mas nof
, . , the owner of the land which he sold to B, it being the
. . . property of C, who never authorized him to sell the same.
Is A liable for other forms of svindling? Explain your
answer.
.. No, A is not liable for other forms of swindling. In
: order that the crime of other forms of swindling may
he committed, it is necessary that the offender, who is
not the Owner of the real property, shouldDprescnt that
k e is the owner thereof (People vs. Lotivo, C.A.). A
did not represent to B that he was the owner of the
land he was then selling. His statement, that he was sell-
ing t.he land to B is not a misrepresentation. It is true
_. , ,. I that he was not authorized by the owner to sell the land,
, .. ' b u t A n s r - r s p r e s e n t e d to E that he was authorized
, ,
to se'il the land. Hence, there was not misremesentatian
* ode&
. Note: A i s not liable for estafa under Art. 315, because &re
wils nritber false nreteEa2 nor ,fraudulent act.
Deceit by false pretense requires that there he a false r q r -
- . . scntation t o a matter of fact, a positive assertion of falsehood.
Art. 315, par. 2, enumerates the fraudulent acts and the act
of A i s not one of them.
,2521. A, the owner of a piece of land, sold the same to B for
"
m m b r a n c e . To constitute other forms of sw
byTlsposlng of real property, knowing that the
encumbered. i t is necessary that there must be
re;oyesentation- by the o f f d e r that the real property' is . ..,
free .~
. from__%cumbrance
~ (People vs. Buencamino, t i.a
,:,
Note: Although Dimgraph No. 2 of Art. 316, R.P.C., s t a t e a ' ~
' that the crime, is committed "nlthough such encumtrance be '
not recorded," in solpe eases the Court of, Appeals held that
thc encumbranee must be legally constituted.
Thus, .it was held that an attachment or a mortgage of a
piece ' o f land, which i s not registered, or a usurious loan ':
with equitable mortgage, is not an encumbrance an the property. . .
1522. A pledged his watch to B, his roommate in a d o l d t o V ' ,
to secure a loan of P25. One. evening, when A was going .:
'
to a dance party, he wanted to wear his watch WMcb.,
he .had pledged to ,.B., Taking advantage of the fact 'i
'
that .B was sleeping, A pulled the drawer of the table:'
of B where the watch had been placed by B and took.>
the same, wore it, ana went to the dance party. When
A returned to the dormitory, he met B a t the door. B
angrily took the watch from A. Is A liable' for other:.
forms of swindling for wrongfully Wring his personal
property from its lawful possessor? Explain your answer.:
No. The law '(Art. 316, par. 3, R.P.C.) requires th;ae
the wrongful taking of one's pers- from 1tS
lawful possessor m>st..rplt in the ~ ~ ~ @ o f . A E & k r
or any third person.. B was nO_t preiudiced, because he
i&%veTcd the-wat.ch. The prejudice must be c e

'
~

. . P5,OOO. In the deed of sale that A executed, he stated

.-
pecun~a~~_e_stimation, because the penalty for other f 0 W
that the land was his property and that he 'was going of swindling is awesto m u g ~ ?in its minimum and medius!
periods and a fine of not less than the. value of the d-
. to defend the sale of that land in favor of B against the age caused and not more than three times such va1Ug
.,I

wl~ole.world. After 13 p&d the purchase price of P5,OOO As there is no actual damage- caused, thkre is' no bas,?
and had in his possession the deed of sale, he went to .^..
for fixing the amount of the fine a s a part of the penaltf;
.".
the office of the Register of Deeds QI~IYto find out that .%$
the kind which he purchased from A' had been mortgaged (Castillo vs. People). .;Ij

' . to C to secure an indebtedness of P1,OOO. Is A liable

~ Z523. A, who. had pledged his diamond ring to. B to.. .s,
y' 'for other forms ov swindling? Explain your answer. a loan or P500, by means of intimidationr took,thak

602 603
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . .:

CRInIINAL LAW REVIEWER >, .
, ..
, .
. who shall accept any compensation given him
., from ,Band sold it without paying, the loan. Is A liable belief that it was in payment of services rendered o
'~ '
'for other forms of swindling, robbery, or coercion? Ex-
plain ya& answer and state why it is not anyone of
labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actu
'
, .
perform such services or labor." Now, then, may
the othw crimes.
A is liable for grave coercion, because he compelled E
by me_an$o€ intimidation-to-do something against his will, your answer.
whether it be right or wrong. It cannot be other forms
of swindling, because intimidation was employed, which compensation given under the belief that it was in pa
stamps the act as grave coercion. It is not robbery, be- ment of services rendered or labor performed, when
cause in this crime the property taken must belong to an-
, ,
other. The diamond ring which A took from E was his
own property.
1524.
. . Give afi example of other forms of swindling committed
by a person who wrongfnlly took his personal property
from i1.s lawful possessor.
A pledged his ring to B to secure a-loan of P100.
,' ', One day, without the knowledge and consent of B, A took
his ring, thereby depriving E cf the security of the loan
- misappropriate the same he would be liable f o r , e
with abuse of confidence.
. But the provision of Art. 316 should b
given by him to A. ing a provision specifically covering the case.
N o t e : A person wrongfuliy took his personal property from
, . its lawful possessor, also, when he represented falsely to the 1527. What crime iv& committed by a person who, while bei
pmsessor that he would redeem the property and once in pos- a surety, in a bond given in a criminal
~, Bcssion of the Game, he did not pay the debt.
without express .authority' from tbe eonr
If a person has executed a fictitious contract to cancellation of his bond or before being re1
; prejudice of another, is he liable for the complex crime the obligation contricted by him, sold o r . mor
of other forms of swindling through falsification of a ' real property with which he guaranteed the
public document, assuming that the fictitious contract of' such obligation?
was, executed before a notary public? Explain yonr an- -The crime committed was other form of swin
swer. (Art. 316, par. 6, R.P.C.).
It is submitted that the execution of the fictit:,ous con-
tract, even assuming it t o have been executed before the 1528. A, sixteen years old, having been ch
notary public, is the very act constituting the crime of Por misbehavior, went to B, a friend of
other 'forms of swindling (Art. 316, par. 4, R.P.C.). ' borrowed 8100. A signed a reeeipt €or 8100.
Hence, the crime committed is other forms of swindling, been given the money, A left his home and
plain ,and simple.
26. One of the other forms of swindling m d c r Art. 316 of
the Revised Penal Code is committed by "any person
605
604
 ,.
. . , i
'.
,
, , ,
,

CRIMINAL LAW HEVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER .

of A became furious, telling B that for giving his
P100, the latter induced him to assume an obligatio-.
thereby swindling his minor son. Is B liable for swind--
ling a minor? State your reason.
:~ No, because B did n_ot induce u a s s u m t h - .
ten to his debiment. Had I: induced A to assume the
obligation and a d - u s u r i o u s - i n t e r e s t 'or m m sign
. a m ' . p t for ex- amount t w a t a c t a a h ~ y e 8
by him, B would have been liable for swindling a minor,
because it woulhresult in his d e t r b n t .
' - Note: To constitute the crime of swindling a minor, the of-
. ,. fender must take advantage of the inwrence or emotions
I.
or feelings of the minor and m u s t d i m - e m
obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of a n y
p r o p r t y right in consideration of some^ loan of money, rredit,
01 other personal property.
s~lf ' Pasay City to be used in a dance party in the house .of:
. A's sister. There was no written consent of B to,.sueh
removal of the piano from Manila to P m y City; Is A.
' .
. Iiable for'removing a mortgaged property under Art. 31$
of the Revised Penal Code? Explain your answer.'.
No. To constitute the crime of removing a mortgaged
,
property under the Chattel Mortgage Law, in violation
-
of Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Codc, 'it is necessary
that the s m s of the mortgaged, personal property &%
'
permanent,, Inasmuch as the piano would be used during,,
the dance party a t Pasay City, implying that it would
be returned to Manila thereafter, the removal of said piano
was not pennanent.
1532. A mortgaged his automobile under the Chattel Mortgage .
. Law in favor of B to secure the payment of the. balance A,

:. 1529., What crime was committed by a person who, knowing that of the purchase price of the car, the same having, been; :'
-: he hadl no money with him, rode id a taxi and when
' purchased fqord B. C knDwing that the automobile had
. . ' he reached his destination he could not pay the fare? been mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law in Manila '
, . in favor of B, with ,the consent of A, took the automobile:. , 'a
,. .' , , The crime committed was other_rdeLelts (Art. 313,
: R.P.C.). This case is not covered by Arts. 315, 316 an& to Cebu where it would be used there by the family of
,' ." 317 of the Revised Penal Code. Any person who shall
'
C. There was no written consent of B t o the removal ' '.
of said automobile to Cebu. Is C liable for removing
,' defraud or damage another by any other credit not men- ,..,
' . tioned in those articles is liable for other deceits. a mortgaged property under Art. 319 of the Revised
Penal Code? Explain your ;u!swer.
1530. What crime was committed by a person who made'fore- Yes, because this crime can be committed by any per-
cast of what would happen at a certain future time? son who removed any personal property, knowin
Explain your answer. the same had been mortgaged under the Chattel Mo&.
None, because to constitute other deceits (Art. 318, gage Law, to any province or city other than the o n e " .
2nd par., R.P.C.), it is required that the interpreting of in which it was located a t the time of the execution of
.. ' dreams, making of forecast, os telling fortunes must& the mortgage, without the written consent of the mort- ,'i
for m m a i n . Since that person did not make any f ~ ' gagec.
~
,..,, . profit or gain in making the forecast, lie did not commit Note: When the accused transferred his residence to a
other deceits. province and he removed in good faith to that provin
property mortgaged by him under the Chattel Mortgage
' . AChattel
mortgaged his piano in the City of Manila under t h e he is not crirninaliy liable since he could not just le
property t o anybcdy else. It was for the best interest
Mortgage Law in favor of B to secure a loam the mortgagor and the mortgagee that the forme+ k
---of P500,. Thereafter, A removed the mortgaged piaqo to property in his new residence. There is no criminal 3

606 607
, . ,.
.,
.~.
, ,... , ., ,, .
*,-?
. .
 -
., ' "
. .
i_
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
13, A mortgaged his jeepney t o B under the Chattel Mort.
gage Law. A sold the same jeepney t o c after securing ,
a letter from B consenting to the sale of the jeepney
to c, .because of the promise of A that after the Sale
of the jeepney he would pay the amount of .the loan he
&tracted with B. But A never paid B, notwithstanding
the fa& that he had already obtained the full purchase
, . price of the jeepney from C. May B successfhb' Pro-
' hecute A for selling personal property mortgaged under
' the Chattel Nortgage Law? Explain your answer.
Yes, because the consent of B was only contained in
a letter. Under the law (Art. 319, par. 2, R.P.C.), the
consent of the mortgagee must be written on the back of
".the mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the office
of the register of deeds of the province where the property
is located. I n order that the personal property already
, ,pledged under the Chattel Mortgage Law may be lawfully
sold or pledged again, those requirements must be COm-
plied with.
1534. May a perwn be held criminally liable for removing, Sen-.
ing or pledging a personal property--mortgaged, under
the Chattel Mortgage Law, even if there is nL&m!!g@
caused to the mortgagee? Explain your answer.
Yes, because the Code (Art., 319) do-es-notxequire
that there should .be damage caused to the mortqagee.
The penalty is awesto mayor or a fine amounting to twice
the value of the property. This form of penalty indicates
that the hasic, of the fine is not the damage caused but
the .value of the property involved.
1535. What is arson?
Arson is the x@icious dest;uctiL% of p29RfXty b m .
of the crime of arson always necessary to determre the
r
1536. Is the extent of the damage caused b y , the 'corn ission
roper penalty? Why?
No; because in destructive arson, as well as in other
oms of arson, where the offender knew that the build-
- 608
. .
-
i
.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
, ..
ing, farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port', ,+?. ./
.,@?:
was Occupied, at the time of burning any of them, by . ':'*f
one o r more persons, the extent of the damage caused .
to the property is immaterial. The reason for tliis is
%
:
that the law considers the kind, character and location
.,,
:' I_
of the property burned and the danger to human liyes.
. . . *.,:$i
*<,~
,;e&
.:',.,
1537. May a person be pd.:shed with a high penaity of re- ,>
elusion temporal to reclusion perpetua provided for other &,$ ,
. form of arson when there was no person inside tha~'3i
house when it was burned, but the culprit thought that '.<
it was occupied by one or more persons? ~~
Yes, because the culprit showed an utter disregard ' '
\ to human life, although there was no actual dangbr to ,:,,':j
any person. This view is supported by the fact that,even. , ::i
if there were persons in the premises but o f whose pres-,, 'a
ence the offender was not aware, the law prescribes e,: ~'iq
lesser penalty. It is not the actual presence of a person::
-
in the premines that aggravates the felony, but the knowl::
edge or the belief on 'the part of the offender that there <;$$
w w i i i the building which he burned.
,:a#
A person, intending to burn a wooden structure
lects some rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them
boside the wooden wall of the building. When he i s about
to light a match to set fire to the rags, he is discov
by another who chases him away. This is attem
arson.
If that person is able to light o r set fire to the
. but the fire is put out before any part of the buil
is burned, i t is frustrated amon (U.S. vs. Valdea).
x&,.of
But if before the fire is put out, it has bilrped.
the building, it is consummated arson,
 . .
."~ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
*w
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
When the U u e of the pw-erty hugxed is..&and
.. .the burning isAEe a t a time or under-cimr&ances ,' , erty of another person was burned o r destroyed as. 8'
which clearly excl.ude_ajl- danger of the fire spreadieg, result (Art. 325, R.P.C.).
the act shall be treated and punished as malicious mis- However, A is liable for setting fire to property ex-
' chief, and not arson (Art. 323, R.P.C.). clus' ely owned by him, because the thing burned was
_.,
*?.
building-' in a? inhabited place (Art. 326, R.P.C.).
1540, A, as an act of revenge to the people in the Io~vIand
.
, ,\
near the dam, dug a hole on the side of the dam and . /-Bp
1543. A was the owner of a sugarcane plantation, and B was '
ti
-buried in i t a high power explosive and caused it to the owner of a rice plantation which was adjacent to :,
y::;. ,,:,'explode, thereby breaking the dam and causing flood in the sugarcane plantation of A. A burned his sugarcane ";

, t h e town where properties were damaged. What crime
was committed by A? Explain your answer.
A committed crimes involving destruction, because he
caused destruction of the property by means of explosion
and inundation.
N o t e : Tho other means that the offender may use in causing
destruction are: (l).) discharging of eleebic current, (2) sink-
ing or stranding of vessel, (3) damaging of engine of vessel,
\{~~? (4) taking up rails from railway track, (5) changing of rail-
wsy signals, ( G ) destroying telegraph wires and posts or those
k~ of any other system, and (7) other similar effective means
of dcslruction.
plantation to remove the leaves of the sugarcane before
harvesting the same. Suddenly, the wind blew towards ._ .:
'
the plantation of B from the plantation of A, so t h a t ,
tho fire spread $0 the ricefield of B. The rice yhich :' ,;
for intentional arson?
It is submitted that A is not liable for arson,'because
there was neither intention to cause damage nor negli-
gence on the part Of A. It is true that there was actual

i541. When is the penalty of reclusion temporal to be imposed

damage or prejudice caused t o the property of B, but
arson where damage is actually caused, th_ere.must be dice
oc~w@iggncgon the part of the offender.
on the offender who committed crimes involving de- Erarnplr of w ~ o nt l w m g h negligence:
1
Y
-.; itructioni!

,i,: If the commission of the offense of crimes involving

destruction endangered the safety of any person, the pen-.
alty is reclusion temporal.
7.

1542. A, who htad a small house, and B, his neighbor who had
8 a new bil: house, burned his own house in order to cause
the destruction of B's house. But because of the timely
arrival of the fire engine and the firemen, the house property of another an
j .' of B was not burned at all. The house of A was eom-
pletely destroyed by fire. Is A liable for arson by burn.
ning his own property as a means to commit arson?
~.. ~- .
.... No, because in arson by burning one's own- property.
as 'a means to commit arson, it is necessary that the prop-
, .

. -..,

,
. ,
6 i
, ., . , ,
 ..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
e' e
No, because the law provides that malicious mischief
, ,_,, is committed by any person who sbLcidiberately-cause
.. to the property of another any damage. This phrase
, ;.. means that the offender should act under the impulse of
.. . -' a specific desire to inflict injury to another. According
. . to the.8upreme Court, "it follows that, in the very nature
, malicious mischief cannot be committed through
nce, since culpa and malice are essentially ineom-
passing by the side of a brand new automobile,
picked up a nail from the street and scratched the side
.: ..
. ,,...,. of the car with the nail from one end to the other end
~
1548. A, a good friend of the defendant in
went to the office of the clerk of court and bornowe&' '
the record, pretending t~ be a lawyer who wanted to
study the case. When the clerk of Lwurt left the'.offic%~
A removed the confession of the accus
introduced by the prosecution as evidence,
pocket and,left the office. Is A liable for special
of malicious mischief for causing damage t o the r
of the court? Explain your answer.
It is submitted that the record damaged
and removing the written confession of the a
covered by the provisions of the Revised Pena

.; . * of the car. That person did not know the owner of

. .. ,
the car or the driver and he had no reason to hate any tional Museum or National Library or to any
.,
I". of therm or to satisfy a desire for revenge. However, or registry OP any other thing used in commo
he enjoyed and found pleasure in scratching the sidc public.
, .of the car. Is that person liahle for malicious mischief? A,. is, however, liable for ordinary malicious mi
. Why?
l.l because he deliberately caused damage to the 'pr
Yes, because malicious mischief embraces those attempts of the court.due to evil motive, that is, to
w*. , ,. .
,. :., against another's property i A e d so-es by the .Bl!XB quittal of the accused even if he was guilty, .which .is
pleasure of destxwing. an evil motive.
.
. -' .
N o t e : Thus, in the ease of People vs. Siddagao, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the case of malicious mischief, because the
1549. A poured poisonous substance to the trough conta
. ,,
, ,., onhy evidence of the proxeufion as that th? accused shot two water for the animals of B. Before the animals
longing to another 'and that ,the motive for shooting
pigs was that the animals were th?n loose inside his
ntation. >he shooting of the pigs was n?g_ B prevented ppisoning of his animals by throwin
or desire forz-C:yge against thL owner and the water, cleaning the trough and filling it aga
t done for the m_ere pleasure of de3troying. fresh water. What is the liability of A - i n this
, while drinlring wine in a bar, quarreled and It is submitted that the special case of malicious m
fought against each other. A grabbed a chair and threw chief by the use of any poisonous substance pr.esuppos
. , ..
<
it at B who was not hit, but the chair found its waT that the use of poisonous substance resulted in the dea
to the showcase containing bottles of costly wine. The of, or damage to, the animalS of the offended party.
damage caused was worth 8300. Is A liable for malicious is not necessary, however, that the animals should have.
mischief? Explain your answer. died. It would be sufficient if the animals got sick as
No, because he did not h i t with deliberate OLE& a result of the poisonous substance.
, . ..
1 purpose of ,ca-damage. I-Ie is o_nlLGiY&- l i f o r The penalty for special cases of mapious mischief is
, ,, t.amS&md. based on the value of the damage caused. Hence, there

613

,, .
 ....
, .,~ ,
CRIhlINAL LAW REVIEWER c :

' .;
I must be damage actually caused which at least must be
,&&cation with multiple homicides.
However, if the possible damage could be estimated, .
liable for attempted special case of Malicious mis-
' 1553.' In what .felonies are the spouses, ascendants, descend
A or relatives by affinity in the same line, brothers
'sisters, and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if li
. ..1550i What crime was committed by a person who took from d together, exempt from criminal liability?
a,.' ,. -the Nationnl Museum the original of the "Last Farewen"
t
d They are exempt from criminal liability if thk

:/4"8..
i/
of Dr. Jose Rim1 and sold it to another for Pl;OOO? mittcd or caused mutually by them is theft, swindling , ,..
.t.i.
', . ~ Why?
'
i
..f ~
oz estafa, or malicious mischief (Art. 332, R.P.C.). .' ..

It is submitted that that person is not liable-for spe- 1 1 5 5 4 . A and B are son and father, respectively. A told 'their . - '
cases of malicious mischief, because he did .not cause
t o the property of the Natiord Museum. That
$> sewant ta, steal the watch of B, A's father. The servaht ,,i

7
I
i! e watch of B without the latter's consent and gave , .
person is liable for theft.
6
c
to A who sold i t and spent the proceeds of the @e:
Is A criminally liable? Is the servant liable? ,.
51. Several of the laborers of the Manila RaiIroad ComPanY b
A is not criminally liable because the crime committed ' ~ :
who declared a strike, cut dolvn a telegraph post, causing
the cutting of the telegraph lines. Because the com- by him, as .principal by induction, was theft and because ~ ' , '
of his relation with the offended party he is exempt from
munication between stations was disrupted, a collision
, .
of two trains resulted. Are those laborers of the Manila
Railroad Company liable for damages and obstruction to
criminal liability. a~$&J A ~ . "S9f6
But 'the agmption established by the Code for relatlves
,.

means of eommunication? W h y ? is not applicable to strangers participating in the c.om-

mission of the crime (Art. 332, last par.). Hence, 'the.
Yes, because they caused damage to means- of com-
, i s e m a n t is liable for qualified theft.
munication (Art. 330, R.P.C.). - I _

N o t e : If the damage shall resuit i n aiiy derailment of ca1'8,

collision, or other accident, without any intent to cause the
same, it is also damage and obstruction to means of com-
munication, buC the penalty is higher. The. reason for exemp
But i f there was an intention t u cause destruction fr? the

i. partpf the laborers, they should be held IiabIe for crime8 in-
yofiring destruction.

in the same question, some persons in the train

'
1556. A was a collector of a private comp

were killed, what would be the liability of those laborers?

Explain your answer. ' ~ ' '
Since the single act of cutting down a telegraph post
resulted in two felonies, namely: (1) damage and ob-
,:.
,
strnct.ion to means of communication and (2) multiple his portfolio and lost it in gambling.. Is the son. e
. . homicide, the laborers should be held liable for the corn-. inally liable for theft committed by him? Why7

614
 . .,
CRIMINAL LAW RWIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

/ es,' !&cause the money which he stole did not be- document which caused damage to the father. The %on
. ' , long to hjs father. The money belonged to the company.
dcrimo of theft.was not committed against the father.
exemption applies only when the theft, estafa or
icious mischief is committed or mztually caused by the
mentioned by the Code (Art. 332).

husband criminally liable for takiag from the barons valued at 8300. It was completely burned.
e the jewelry of his wife, which was inherited barong-barong was situated in a place 500- meters f
from her parents, after opening the said ward- the nearest house. Is A criminally liabl
11 a piece of wire? Explain your answer.
No, because the crime committed by the husband was
d therefore he is only civilly, but not criminally,

>and broke open the chest and took therefrom iminal liability f o r malicious mischief comm
~

the money which was the salary of his wife. Is the

husband criminally liable?
, . . No, because no crime was committed, the money taken A died leaving, among other property, a gdd.and, di
being .a conjngal property, of which the husband is a ring worth P3,000, which he inherited from his- f
/ . I n robbery, the property taken belongs to an- The *ife took it, sold it, and spent the proceeds
ei'. sale for her o w b benefit. Is
or only civilly liable?.
9. A, who was constructing a new house, sent his son to Since the ring did not yet pass i n t o
the hardware store to buy 120 sacks of cement. The
,':- ' son bought from the hardware store 100 sacks of cement another person when the wife took it, she is only c'
liable. The widowed spouse is exempt from criminal
. , and signed the invoice_ for the same, cash on delivery.
...I . , The son went with the' truck on which the cement was bility when the property of the deceased is stolen 0
'maliciously destroyed by him or hcr
loaded and on the way the son altered the invoice by
increasing the quantity of cement from 100 to 120 sacks have--.passed
-: into the possession of
.,, ', , '
and increasing the total price ,thereof. The son showed
1 5 4 leaving properties, among which ~ v ce
i
to his' father the invoice a s altered and succeeded in
, . getting the amount for 120 saclis of cement. Then, the
'', .:. son delivered to the truck driver only the price for the
: . . . ,. 7 100 sacks of cement and pocketted the difference. Is the
son criminally liable or onIy civilly liable? Explain your
session of all the 'properti:s.
.pbssession of the administrato
B took the jewelry, from
:-I
B criminally liable?
.~i

' '
'If is submitted that the son is criminally liable, be- No, because although the jewel
. ' session of the administrator,' it b
cause the crime committed was falsification of a private

616

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
was a co-owner, she did not commit theft
it without the consent of ,the administrator.
house of his said sister, A saw
,took therefrom a 20-peso
illy liable? Why?
qimindJy liable, because brothers and sisters
hers-in-law are a m 2 2 from criminal liability for
ng the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mis-
ief only wh_en..they areE%i&=.
with his sister.
A was not liv-
ook the coconut shell full of 20-centavo coins belong-
to his mother, and carried it to a place behind the
ere A broke it open and took all the contents.
swer.
inally liable in this case? Explain your an-
liable, because the crime com-
theft, the coconut shell contain-
similar t o a l&ed or sealed receptacle.
whose marriage is bigamous, in the sense
that she married a man who was already married, be
.,. . held liable for adultery if she had sexual intercourse
with another man?
This question is not yet settled. In the case of U.S.
:. ' vs. &lata, it was held that until the marriage is declared
to be null and.void by competent authority in a final judg-
ment, the offense to the vows taken and the attack on
the family exists.
But in the cases of People vs. Mendoza and People
vs. bragon, it was held that a subsequent marria% COD-
tracted by any person during the lifetime of his first-spouse
". is illegal a n d ,void from its performance, and no judicial
is_&misa% to_e&a~bli@ it is^ ln.va!idity, ' a s distin-
guished f rom mere annullable marriages.
;.. , .' IIence, in the light of these recent decisions, the phrase
in the law, "even if the marriage be snbsequently declared
618
..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
void;" refers only to annullable marriages...':,Sue
the case, the woman referred t o in the question:
liable for adultery.
1566. A surprised his wife in a room of a hotel with:
man ,while bnth of them were already undre
were not yet performing the act of sexual
when they were thus surprised. Did the married
and the man commit adultery?' Why? Explain 90
A .
answer
be woman did not commit consummated ad
merely commenc,ed the commisbion of adultery .d'
overt act and did not perform all the,acts of
which would produce it, by reason of a
the timely discovery by the husband o f the
her spontaneous desistance. She was liable for
adultery. ,'
man was also iiable for attempted a
. Ihe woman was married.
k 2 ' that
Note: There is n&&~&e,Lad"'k~w, I r e c ~ ?of the
of t!?e felony.
1567. A, knowing that a married woman and her paramo
would have sexual intercourse in' the conjugal home, ':
stood by the gate of the yard to watch f o r the r e t u r n > $
of the husband'and to warn them just in case the hus- :
band would. be coming. The married woman and . h e r
paramour succeeded in having sexual intercourse. Is A
liable for the crime of adultery cummitted by them
Explain your answer. ..,wq
.~
No, beca,use of Ithe nature of the crime of adu1tery;'j
-Is
' yhich is prosecnted and pmniahed upon the complaint'$$
' . . the husband against his wife and paramour, and since it'::
myst be understood in the restrictive sense, other person$&
c p n o t be included in the complaint./!dy, A parti-;;
cipated in the commission of adultery as an
but legallx.he c&.be p=c&ed as such f o
of adnltery.
619
 ;
1

\
I,,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVI.EWER.<#~

, . , . . . J. ,
, , ,,,
Note: Only the act of adzLltw by the principals miLy be the It would seem that it is not. applicable, because’.the
subject of the hushand’s complaint, and not the participation Second paragraph of Srt. 333 states that the “person guiftji
of other persons in the crime. Even in the case of pardon ’,’
of adultery” is “abandoned without justification by the
, ’
, of the&, R-
of the offenders in adultery, the law contemplates the ardon
and npt~of.~.~he.~affender;.(See Art. 346, u’ s h offended spouse,” who must be the husband. 1

omits adultery and concubinage, to acconlpliees punished ., .

as principals.) 1572. What is the effect of the death of the husband upon.:
with B. the prosecution of his wife aiid lrer paramour ,for add:
1568. A caught his wife tery?
Because of :pity for his wife, A pardoned them and did
not file an:y complaint for adultery. Soon thereakter, It depends. IC the husband died.afterhe had signed;,
A caught them again in t.he act of sexual intercourse. and €iled in court the complaint for adultery, the criminal ,.
~,
~’
.
’
When prosecuted for adultery, his wife and B conteiided
. action can still proceed to its termination; because by
that they were not liable for adultery, because A pardoned then the court has acquired jurisdiction over the offe
and, therefore, he had consented to the But if the hushan.d died !&we the compl
of his wife. Is their contention tenable? adultery could be filed, the crime cannot be p
No, because in the first place, the p$dm.of the hus- any more, as n>b>dy.can. sign a n . a t h e complaint..,

A, wife of B, surprised the latter and anothe

in a hotel in the act of sexual intercourse. A
sults you to find out if’she can file a compla
gist of the crime of adultery? prosecute them for concubinage? What is your
explaining your views on the matter? .. , t -
:
T

It would advise her not to file a complaint for con-

cubinage as it will not prosper. The reason for my view. .,
UL is that the act of her husband is not covered ‘by any
not his own. of the three ways of committing the felony of concubinage.
&
,e husband did not keep the woman in the conjugal
degec? Is it applicable to the paramour? dwelling, the place being a hotel: the
. wsmLr.Lo&e undec scandalous GiLc
If the person guilty of adultery committed the offense erson in the hotel kne-wLt; and
while being abandoned without justification by the of- only time they were found in the
i,‘-fended spouse, the penalty is lowered by one degree (Art.
h g t z as husband and wife.
333, par. 2, R.P.~.).
.. The provision is applicable t o the paramour, ‘because is the woman liable for concubinage?
the act i s only one, judicially speaking, since the individual
.,
i: act in itself does not constitute the felony.
’
When s h e - e a t the man was married, <hen
she was kept by him as a mistress in the conjugal
1571. Suppose that it was the man guilty of adultery who ing, o r ( 2 ) she had sexual intercours; with him’
was abandoned without justification by his wife, is the tcandalous chmskances, o r (3) she c o M i k d wit
.,provision applicable? in. any other place.

621
 CRIllfINAL LAW REVIEWER
/ w i t h her at noon time, a
575. The husband, whenever his wife was not in their con- but would always go home in the evening a
jugal dwelling, used to have sexual intercourse with
~ female semant. Is the husband liable ?or concu-
their
- - .~~ / stay Witlt his wife and children until the next
Is A liable for concubinage? Why?
binage? Explain your answer.
No. He is not cable for concubinage, because the
/ No, because he did not cohabit with her. The
"cohabit" means to dwell
..:; >. &id was W t a m m . kept in the conjugal dwelling band and wife, for certain
.I
(People vs. Hilao). It is necessary that the woman is month, a year, or longer. I
taken by the accused into the conjugal dwelling as a . his house with his family, h
concubine (People vs. Eacon) . o@riomag in the. manner-
But if the female servant was under 18 years of age
and she wa~.~-a-&rsin, he would be liable f o r q3!@5! ,= What are the limitations upon the right of the
seduction.

1576. 'A and B, huzjband and wife, respectively, had legal separa-
pmtY t o institute crinlinal pros
of a d u l t e r y d concubinage, e n in the

tion, the husband keeping the conjugal dwelling. He t z h? ; :F& k; the kuilty parties must be
brought into that house a new woman and there they
lived as husband and wife. The neighbors were aware That b o r she has not con- to the offen
of' the illicil: relations between the two, which were the 0' pardoned the offenders.
kbject of xossips and talks in the neigRborhood. Are
._
...LA --._the .... woman liable for concubinage? why? p 3 0 . Does the acquittal of one defendant operate as a
; Yes. Although it may be said that the h>me of A for the a uittal of the other in the crimes of ad
t o be a conjugal dwelling upon his legal =Para- or con&age?
tion from his wife, he is still liable for concubinage, be- -6,
because in adultery the man may not know t&(;<: '.44
cause he had sexual intercourse with the other woman ad is married and in concubinage the woman maX@
that the man is married. There is no ioin%;$,,,&#
.i .I

although there is a -hysical act,?$$#

$:$A
i?.,.,&

1581. A .lvoman was sIeepingt When she wolte up, she found:';
..j ,- concubinage? Explain your .answer.
.~
Yes, because that is k&in-~~~~>~ig the conjugal
dwelling and scandalous circumstances are .nataecess=v
The home remained the conjugal dwelling. Of A and his
wife, even if the latter senarated from him.
a man on top of her with his'priwte part in her private
part. Realizing that it Gas futile to resist and t o scram''' :ti
for help, She consented until the man accomplished hfs
' $1
sexual desire. 1s the man liable for rape? Why? >?*
YSSs,because when he began inserting his private pa@
i4
into the Private part of the woman, s b * u n ~ w & ..:
S&Q%ebaslecp. The crime of rape is consummated from
the nlQInent the private part of the man is in the ]ibis ?:'

622 623
 . .,.

CRIMINAL LAW EEVIEWER CKIMINRL LAW REVIEWER .,. ,

,~

of the private part of the offended woman. The slight-

commit rape against h i s wife? E~phh~~:,'':
~, ,
est penetration is sufficient. Her e%n>e& to the s&e.&
&-of the man did_n&-alkw o r in any v a y affecb his /As i a principal by direct participakion, ,the husband , :
rihimal liability.
.8"
*;:;, 1' 2. What degree of force or intimidation is required t o es-.
r

*-..:
' tablish the crime of rape?
There is no fixed rule as regards the degree of force
kannot be held liahle for rape, because of the matrimonial
consent which his wife gave when she assumed the mar-
riage relation, and the law mill not permit her to retract
in order to charge her husband with the offense.
But if the husband is a principal by indispensable co-
,

'9

.. or intimidation used in tha commission of rape. It has operation or an accomplice, or a principal by induction,
i-
been held, however, that as long as it was the cause of he may be held liable as such for rape of his own wife, ''
-','
sufficient.
2
the woman's fa' ure to resist the act of the man, i t is
t when the victim is the offender's daugh-
ter, the rl_gree of Eorce-.o.r &timidation used nesLn.ot-be
irresistible in view of the ascendancy and.-aathority that
because the e g e of the husband is a personal .one
and even though in marriage the wife gave Up her body
to her husband she is not by him, to be m d to
Another.

,' d'
F-.~
he exercises over his daughter.
N o t e : But strong evidence m d indications rf preat weicht lf a man raped a wanian and thereafter me&
will alone prove force and violence in rape. Consent and not eliminate a witness against him, must he he pmushed
. . ~.
.: , .,
physical force Is the common origin of acts hetvreen man and
woman
for two crimes or for one crime only? Explain
Whcn the woman i i nnder twelve gears of ape, the sexual He should be punished for one indivisible, special eom- .A:

'jntereourse with her is always raw, even if she is the one ,,.I' plex crime of rape with homicide,

./
who liroposos the sexual intercourse. /'' was committed by reason of the rape
In rape, the r e z - o f the woman is .immaterial.
" 1587. A young lady while sleeping was approached by another
15 When ir. the use of drugs a constitutive element of woman and inserted her finger into her private parts.
rape? When the young lady woke up, the oilier woman laughed
Use of drugs may give rise to rape, if-wmm .k&. at her. hat crime was committed by the other woman?
cLmes p ~ 6 m X T c Z i ibe.&ause_.of the. .drug and wh&e-un- Whf
c&us the ma_n has sexual .intercourse with her. But le other woman committed acts of lasciviousness be-
if the drugs only'\excite-&-liE.. se~ual.i?&si$o there is' .%E cause the offended party was then unconscious, being'
' , rape committed i n having sexual intercourse with her. asleep, when the other woman performed o n , her acta
.
~~

/"of lewdness. .~
1584. For the purpose of the crime o i rape, when is a woman / , *, .i
i
said to he deprived of reason? 1588. A, while passing on the sidewalk, in front of the window'

'.
'./

A woman is deprived of reason at the time of sexual of a house, saw a woman about twenty-five years old,,,
, ..
intercourse, if she is insane or imbecile or sufferiw $TO& , ,.*. ' ' lyhg on the fIoor near the sliding window under the'
illness which diminishes the ex&ss- of h e m p a w e ? window sill. She was reading a magazine then. A G-:
such as feeblexhdedness or mental abnormility or defi- serted his hand into the opening and held the 'p
; ciency. parts of the woman. The woman screamed for -,,

624 626
E.
I
CRIMINAL LAM' REYIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

: ,. I I . and hef companions in the house caught A. What crime.^ Yes, because the boy was under twelve years old and
.: ' ,~: was committed by A? Explain your answer. the woman performed acts of lasciviousness on him. In , .
1 ., , .
It is submitted that A committed acts of lascivioos-
I
I
acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the can- , '

%" sent of the offended party, the victim may be a person, ' ::
..,:,
. , ., ~' ness. Although A did not use force or.intimidation to I

.I-l.& of, either sex. ..

,%w.,'.,
A+- . accomplish his purpose of performing acts of lewdness,
&:<,~. .. there was violence
-- in the act.
,$>-*
I-
, .:
. ,. ~
,_
1592. A was courting B, a woman. The latter did not want
".."'
. .~',
.i , In the case of People vs. Collado, it was held that the A as her accepted lover, but she was not unwilling to
.,~.I< _.. .. .,. ,, I

acts of stealthily embracing, kissing and holding the girl's receive, attentions from him. One day, A forcibly em-
. breast constituted acts of -lasciviousness.
- braced'her and kissed her a number of times and took
other unwarkanted liberties with her person. IS A liable '.,
r .

1589. .A, becoming angry with an ugly and dirty woman, for the crime of acts of lasciviousness? E x p l h your
. grabbed her by the neck with his left arm, touched her answer.
' ., breast and private parts in a public place, only to put No, because a ~lv- cfs an-ses.are no
her to shame. A had no desire to satisfy his lust. Is ci~v>nns (US. vs. Gonez).
A liable for acts of lasciviousness? Why?
,: . . \_
Yes, because the motive is immaterial in the
.~ crime
~ ~ . of
.- l$,93. What are the elements of qualified seduction? .
.,*,

acts of lasciviousness. The essence of lewd- &in-& The elements of qualified seduction are: *?
.,q
very act itsalf.
1. That the offended party is virgin which is pre-.?,:
.,
1590. A, who wanted to satisfy his lust, by means of force sumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation;
" ' 2. That she must be over twelve and under eighteen, ,
tried to embrace and kiss a woman but the latter re- ,: , I

sisted and prevented A from touching her breast and 7' ,'..years of age;
' . ' private ,parts and from kissing her. Is A liable for at- 3.. That the offender lias sexual intercourse with her;
' tempted or frustrated acts of lasciviousness? Explain and
gour an!iwer. 4. That there is abuE-ofauLh>rity, c m i c e or&-
It is submitted that it being his intention to perform t i ~ ~ ~ $ hpni pthe part of the offender.
acts of lasciviousness and that he commenced the com-
mission of the crime directly by overt acts b r t he did not 1594,. What makes the crime of qualified seduction?
: perform all the acts of execution. A is liable for attempted In qualified seduction, the acts would not be punishe
,.. acts of lasciviousness. .were it not for the character of the person committi
There i u f3wt-d acts of lasciviousness in view the s e e on account of the excess of power or abuse
con€idence of which the offender availed himself (
,.. .
.., of the nature of the crime.
vs. Arlante).
' 1591. A woman, thirty-five years old, called a bo>, seven years
6595. Who could be the offenders in qualified seduction?
of age, in her r,oom and then and there played with' his
,
,
,.
.
. private parts. The boy enjoyed it. Is the woman liable , Any of the following may be liable for qualified sednc-
- i.
.,d!;. for acts of lasciviousness? Explain your answer. tion :

. , 626 627
,,.:tj ,
~ :
.. .,
 8

CRIMINA& LAW REVIEWER

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
,I' ; 1. Those who aQused t h e k a u t h a r i t y :
Nota: Abuse of authority, of confidence, or of relationship' la
, .

a . Person in public authority, I

immaterial when the offender had sexual intercourse with a
\ b. Guardian, ,.

6
c . Teacher, and
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with
"
the education or custody of the woman seduced.
1.~
6.':
...
a :
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them:
a. Priest,
b. House-servant, and
C. Domestic.
,..
3. Those who a+usLdLtheidationship :
..
a. Brother who seduccd his sister, and
b. Ascendant who seduced his descer.dant.
- having been dismissed already. The teacher kissed and
1596. The mayor of a town succeeded in having sexual inter-
course with a girl who was seventeen years of age and
a virgin at the time when that girl was asking the mayor
to help her secure a job. The mayor did not make any
promise of marriage as he was a married man. w h a t
crime was committed by the mayor? Explain your answer.
The mayor committed qualified seduction, because he
was a peason in P U I ~ Q & Land he had sexual inter-
course with a virgin
I__.. . undcer-eighteen years..,
over t ~ 9 l v eand
of age.
1597. A girl, eleven years of age, went to the office of the
justice a'f the peace to find out if her brother would be
tried in connection with a case pending in the court of
said jusi.ice of the peace. The justice of the peace, with
the consent of the girl, had sexual intercourse with her.
What crime was committed by the justice of the peace?
, Explain your answer?
Although the justice of the peace was a person in
public authority, since the girl was under twelve years
old when he bad sexual intercourse with her, the crime
committed was rape. One of the elements of qualified
seduction is that the offended party must be over twelve
and under eighteen years of age.
I -
*'
628
girl under 12 years old.
1598. The mayor of a town had sexual intercourse with his
secretary, a widow seventeen years old. Is the mayor
liable for qualified seduction? Why?
must be
-
No, because in qualif&L&uction
-- the o f f e u
In this case, the woman is a widow
and therefore n a o n g e r a yirgin..
1599. One afternoon the teacher and his pupil, a virgin four-
teen years old, were aIone in the classroom, the class
embraced the girl, touched her private parts and her
breasts. When he was abaut to lie with her@the parent
of the girl surprised them. The teacher admitted that
he wanted to have sexual intercpurse with her. Is the
teacher liable for acts of lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended 'party or attempted qualified seduction?
Why?
It is submitted that the crime committed was a m t e d
q u a w e d u c t i o n , not acts of lasciviousness with-the con-
sent of the offended party under Art. 339 of the Revised
Penal Code. The crime of acts of lasciviousness .with
the consent of the offended party wouid have been the.!
crime committed by the teacher, &aA&~e--bA3&-;'.
te&n to-hcvyLsexual interc~oursem1.h .her.
1600. What crime was committed by a pokeman who pretend-
ed to be arresting a girl, fifteen years old and a virgin,
for .vagrancy and then the girl was taken t o a certain.
house where he had sexual intercourse with the girl witli.'
her consent?
The policeman committed the crime of qualified seduc-
tion
.-L because he is a person in p-uhlicltuthority.
Note.: It would seem that the term "any person in public aui
thority" does not refer only to persons in authority. It includes
a3spperson e x ~ i ~ g _ p ~ b lauthority,
person iq authority.
ic although as agent of
629
 CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER /' CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

1601. May qualified seduction be committed even if the girl
is no lcinger physically virgin?
Yes, because as long-as she is..unmarried_ and %woman
of & a p n t a t b n , she i e c s i d e r e d a virgin. Thus, in
the case of US. vs. Casten, the Supreme Court held that
even if the defendant had prior sexual intercourse with
the girl, since that girl did not have any relation with J1606.
other men but only with the accused, she was swla
7 ~ v w n in the ey%.of the law.
'_ 1602. A, virgin and seventeen years, old, was living in the
..
. . house of B and his wife, C, a first cousin of A. While
A was sound asleep in a room adjoining to that of the
spouses B and C, she was suddenly awakened because B
-
was on ton of her. For fear o r shame and because C.
her consin, had just given birth, A did not scream for
help, so B succeeded in satisfying his carnal desire&
Is 13 liable for rape or for qualified seduction. Explain
your answer.
B committed qualified seductta. 'Even though B was
,pat clearly o r formally..entnlsted with the c&ody of A,
since she was serving i n the house o f , B and the latter
took advantage of his authority and abused the confidence
and trust reposed in him as head of the family and master
of the house, B was criminally liable for the crime of
qualified seduction.
,' B is n&l&&lG_fonape. It is true that s e e x i s t e c ? ,
.but her-rssistance was no_t__te.naci:o
. . struggie did not tax her' powers to
603. What crime was committed by the father who had sexua)
intercourse with his daughter, forty years old and a
Qualified seduction, by an ascendant who seduced his
descendant.
What crime was committed by a brother who had sexual
intercourse with his married sister, knowing her to he
,'f605. Suppose that she was a widow, what would be the crime
committed by the brother?
Qualified seduction. In qualified seduction by a n as-
cendant or brother, the virginity of the ascendant or sister
,' seduced is not required.
What are the etements of simple seduction?
The elements of simple seduction are:
1. That the offended party is over twelve and under " '
eighteen years of age; ., .
2. That she must he of good reputation, singIe or
-
w%w ;
3 . That the offender ha$ sexual intercourse with her;
and
4. That it is e e d by m~ of- %$
Note: D S usually takes the forni of unfulfilled Dramiee of ,.,~
mzrage. The promise of marriage must be the =e that :
@ the woman tokgive~.up.herself_ to the man. A promise of ,*
marriage after the sexual intercourse cannot be considered. a .' .
deceit if the man subsequently refused to comply. with his
promise. The promise of marriage by a man whom the girl,
h e w to be married cannot be a deceit, because the girl opght
,'
to know that B married man cannot marry'again while '?he
,/ firat marriage is existing.
1694. May the man who is willing and ready to marry the girl,
sixteen years of age, whom he seduced be held liable for
I
i' simple seduction? Explain your answer.
i Yes, because the willingness of the man to marry th
i' girl may still amount to deceit not by itself .but by th
attending circumstances v m u c h - s , as whe
the man A m that the girl cannot lezally consent to
marriage, and yet he makes a proniise of marriage to
virgi,nity required in simple seduction? Explai
swer.
No, because in si_mp!e seduction the offended party ma
be a widgw o x t w e l v e and uwLebghteen-JLears-df

630 631
I i
.~
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
In such a case, the offended party, who is a widow, is
not a virgin.
..’
, 1609. What i s the purpose of the law in punishing simple se-
duction?
The purpose of the law is not to punish illicit inter-
course, but to punish the seducer who, by means of a
promise of marriage, d e s t r g y the chastity of an unmarried
female o f previous chasteccharacter and who thus &s
her asid2 from the pa_th_ofofvirtu.e-anhreetitude and then
fails and refuses to fulfill his promise, a c&ra&!cr.~des-
m l e in the eyes of every decent, honorable man.
,:T
a t is the difference between acts of lasciviousness
against the will or without the consent of the oftended
party znd acts of lasciviousness wiih-&hLcons.ent. of the
offended party?
:> I n acts of lasciviousness against the will or without
the consent of. the offended party, the c r k e is committed
. .
by the qse offorce.or-intimidation, or when the offended
@&y is de$:ked-!eason or Qtherwise u e o u s , or
when the offended party is under twelv-e. yeais-efage.
In acts of lasciviousness with the._consent. of the offended
party, the crime is committed by abuse _of_auth!?rity, Con-
fid:nce, rela$nship, or by means
-~ .~ of deceit.
In. a d s of lasciviousness against the will or without
the consent of the offended party, the age and reauta&n
of the offended party is i m a t e r i a l . In acts of lascivions-
ness with the consent of the offended party, the offended
party must be a woman y h o is a&& oy-single or, a
w i & x of good r e p s a o r n , under eighteen years of age
but over twelve years, or a sister or a descendant, regard-
less of her reputation or age.
In acts of lasciviousness against the wi!l or without
the consent of the offended party, the victim is a person
a,., ;.. . ..
--
of either sex; in the other, the v&m is a woman.
In both crimes the offender performed a n a$&h!d,
. ,’ .
-
ness on the person ,of the offended party.
632
.. ...2 ~ e - F, ’ .
-...I< . ~.
,
I
,,..
,. .
L , &
,/ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
A611.
I
Was the crinie of acts of lasciviousness committed
man who, while alone with his ,sweetheart, a girl
teen years of age and a widow of good reputation, t
her private parts and her breasts, embraced and
her? Explain your answer.
No. Since the girl was a widow, and not a virgh, ,~
and over 12 years old, the crime of acts of lasciviousness ’:,
can be committed only if there was deceit (Art. 339) ; 07
there was force or intimidation, or if she was deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious (Art. 336).
/
1612. Was the crime of acts of lasciviousness committed b;
3 man who performed acts of lasciviousness on the p
/’
I - of a married woman with her. consent? Explain’
answer. ..,,
No, because in acts of lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party,’ the offended party is either, (1) a
virgin, (2) F wido=-,.of good reputation, or (3) , a sister
or descendant of the offender.
Note: A married voman can be the victim of acts of lasciviom! ,1
ness, if the offender ,uses force or intimidation, or if she was r,
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when acts Of 18s-
/ chiousness were performed on her person (Art. 336).
,/
,d&. A went to an employment agency run by B, A’s friend.
y A asked a Sirl, fifteen years old and a virgin, to work
in his house as a msid: bnt while in his house for several
days, A succeeded in satisfying his lust with her. Is A
liable for corruption of minor? Explain your answer.
No, because, in the first place, the crime of corruption
of minors requires that the offender should promote or
facilitate the prostitution or corruption of a minor to
satisfy the lust of another. Since he satisfied his o m
/ lust, he cannot be held liable for. corruption of minor.
,’’,.
1614. A, a girl fifteen years old and a virgin, i s living with
B in the latter’s house. A rich Chinaman, a good friend
of B, one time paid a visit in the house of B and saw
the girl. The Chinaman whispered to B that he ma8
633
 ., ..
-?-t." CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER
2 illing to give P500 if he could sleep with the girl. . Then
induced the girl to sleep with the Chinaman and
offered .her PIOO. But the girl refused and even cursed
7
d the Chinaman. Is B liable for attempted or con-
. su imated corruption of minor? Explain your answer.
B in liable for consummated corruption of a minor,
ecause he a t least promoted the corruption of the girl
.i
' ~ '
with abuse of confidence, which the girl gmWd-i=hinl
as head of the family and master of the house. In cor-
ruption of minors, i t is not necessary that the unzhaste
acts~shall have beeen & ? ? o r that the woman should have
- acceded to the proposal. ,.
, /1615. Suppose that A, the girl, was living in the house of B's
brother and the Chinaman saw that girl and the China
man talked to B and the latter induced the girl t o have
sexual intercourse with the Chinaman by giving her
P100. and the rirl acceuted the money and asreed to
~ ~I
'(
spend the n i g h t w i t h the Chinaman, is B liable for cor-
ruption of minor?
No, because it is np_t habitual. for B to promote or
fac.ilit,ate the prostitution .or c o r r u p t i o d mi-nors and he
did not act with abuse of~-authority
..~~. o r abuse~ofc~n&&n?4
the girl not liZng with him.
Note: But if the father or the master proposed t o his daughter
or servant that the latter should satisfy the lust of another,
/
the 6 1- makes him &&bAor corruption of minors
because there is abuse of authority or _a&Ie_Af_.cmfidence.
A pimp or the owner of th; house of prostitution who
proposes to a minor that she satisfy the lust of another is
liable f o r corruption of minor, because there is habituality
in, the act.
616. An Amefican sailor went to the house of prostitution
and ssked for a woman, but the manager had no woman
to give as all t h e prostitutes were busy. In that house
of prostitution, there was a boy, eleven years old, who
was good looking and of good body, and the manager
told the American sailor that the boy could satisfy his
lust and, when the sailor agreed to have hmi, the man-
...,
:.<,A. ,
634
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
ager proposed to the boy to satisfy' his lust. Is the :
manager IiabIe for corruption of minor?
,.
Yes, because the crime of co_rruDtion of minors r n q '
/"e committed by promoting. or- facilitating-the corzupt& I
of minors of either. mx,_
1617. What is the difference between white slave trade and
slavery?
White.@ve trade is a crime against chastity, coni-
mitted by a person who engaged in the business of, or
profited by, prostitution or enlisted the services of women
for the purpose of prostitution (Art. 341, R.P.C.).
ga~.ery is a c i h e against Uxxty, committed 6y a
person who purchased, sold, kidnapped, or detained a hu-
man being for thkpurpose of enslaving him (Art. 272;i~, .
..
qh R.P.C.).
'
9
White slave trade may become the crime of slavery$
p f the woman to be assigned to some immoral traffic is$
purchased, sold, kidnapped, or detained (Art. 272, par. 2,
,/ R.P.C.). In such a case, the penalty for slavery is higher.',
/ k L What are the elements of forcible abduction?
The eltments of forcible abduction are:
,l', The person abducted is ,~ny&ornaGL reg&&? of
sier age, civil status, or reputation.
/ 2. The abduction is against her will.
3 . With lexd..designsl
- -. .was. e-0-mmitted JJy-_.A_.whoF-wi-
What .crime
'4 of two companions, forcibly Lo.ok and carried a marria ''
6. woman in an automobile and while they were on t
way. to a certain &ee .g_e=b!Ee$
&-woman? Expl$n your an
and &sed th
b - a n d his companions were liable for forc
duction, notwithstanding the fact t
married woman, because the law def
as "the abduction o f - a w - w o n ~ a n
with lewd designs."
'636
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
and that there wz~no..legal impediment between him and
In forcible a!xh &ion, s e a l . i n _ t e r r a s e is not neces- that woman, his caxluct while in the jeepney in em-
s_a~. Lewddesirm_issufficient. bracing and kissing her abundantly sh~xedlewd designs.
Since the girl was abducted aggin.&he-iULand with
that the offcnder succeeded in having s$.xud 'lew designs, the crime of forcible abduction was a m -
.,

..
intercourse with the married woman after forcibly ah-
ducting: her, what crime is committed?
Forcible abduction with rape. Rape can be committed
/---itted.
162d. Snppose, in the same question, A did n!&.k?E& the i,,
/
~

against a married woman.
N o t e : Rape may ahsorb forcible abduction if the main objective
was t o rape the victim (People vs. Toledo, 83 Phil. 777).
the intention to contract marriage on the part
of thc! person accused of abduction evidence of lewd
girl a t anytime, can he and his Companions be pro-
secuted criminally? If so, for what crime?
Y?. They are liable for kidnapoing and serious illegal
detention, bewuse that would become a case of kidnapping
o z o m a n which was not prove11 to have been corn-
,
'
'

design and when does it negative lewd design? mitted with p i c h a s t e designs. Abduction, being one of
,the ways by which illegal detention can be committed; , '',
The intention to contract marriage may, on certain ,)' especially quaIified by lewd intention, the kidnapping of
occasions, constitute lewd designs in the crime of forcible a woman w&h-altL_unchaste designs must, according t o
,'
or consented abduction, as in the case of a b d g o n of a Via& and to our Penal Code, be considered as illegal
" ' , .*, where the offender that she c m m U x
detention.
g m e m e n t to the marriage. ,,.But whenAhe woman
'.
is of.:gcand, therefore, could give consent to the mar-
riage and there is no legal impediment between her and
,/ le24. What is the
tkk abductor and the abductor did not perform any inde-
u e s s , the intention to marry will negative

_- ,.
of other persons, forcibly took and
carried1 in a jeepney an unmarried woman, thirty years
of age, from the City of Manila to Pasig. R i d . On the
way, l.he man kissed and embraced the woman against
her mill. In Pasig, the man tried to arranze the marriage 1. Rape.
between him and that woman. But because she. refused 2 . Acts of lasciviousness a m - t h e will p or without
.. . to marry him, the solemnizing officer did not perform the
the consent: of the offended party.
marriage ceremony. The woman who was rescued by her
. Qualified seduction of a sister by a brother, or of

;"
relativ,es filed a complaint for forcible abduetion against
the man and his companions. Do you believe that a descendant by an ascendant.
eompla.int for forcible abduction will prosper? Explain 4 . Forcible abduction.
your answer. . .,
1 6. Can there be a complex crime of rape through kidnap-
Yen, because although A had the intention tQ-maKry ping? Explain your ansx'er.
the y m a n - w h o could give her c c n ~ n t -to the marriage
637
636
 , ._ ,!:.$
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

No, the crime is not kidnapping with rape, bUt.fOrd-

ii CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

had ' sexual intercourse with the consent of the girl.

. . ~~., ble . abducti~n-w~th..rape. When the yiolent-.La&@g of a
_I
What crime was committed by A?
. . woman is nmti-va&d by lewd designs, forcible abduction .Forcible abduction with rape, because when the victim
.,'.:r, ,? . . is the offense. When it is not so motivated, such taking is under twelve years of age, the takgg-of that girl, even
, .,.., . constitute:; kidnapping. One oifense is agaiqst chastity; ! with her ?onsZnt;~ is -still..raBtpeand forcible abduction. is_a
,+&L',. . the other, against personal liberty. E;idnapping-x&n?!oL i n.ecessary. m e a p ~ t ocomi$.._it, it is comulex crime of
.
*& ?4
,.: ~

. r. he__a.neCess_zry_.meansfor committing rape.

Suppose that in the same question the original purpose cajolerp- and deceit that they would only
of the accused was to kidnap the woman, but later succeeded in taking a girl who was a
when the woman was already under his control and gin and sixteen years old to a joy ride in his automo-
deprived of her liberty the idea of raping her came to bile as far as Tagaytay City and then returned to
his mind, and then and there raped her, what would Manila. Is A crinu'natty liable for taking the girl?
be the 'crime? Why? No, because there was no Iewd design.
Two distinct crimes of (1) kidnapping and serious il- 1632. A induced l3, a girl sixteen years of age and a virgin,
legal detention and (2) rape. The accused tWL.&f-
to go with ,him to the hotel where they had sexual
ferent
__.___criminaii.nt.ents.
~-- intercourse. There was no promise, of marriage made
@ by A to her before the sexual intercourse. Afterwards,'
What are the elements of consented abduction?" the girl was returned t o 'her home. What crime wm
The dements of consented abduction are: . . committed by A?
1. The offended party must be a &kn. Consented abduction, because according to the decisions
I____

2. She must be oyer tye& and un~dzc&!&een_y_e's
,' . of-age.
3 . The taking-away must be wJ&hsr-c.onsent,
s o s t a t i o n or c&ry from the offender.
4. ?'he taking away must be with lewd designs.
1629. A, who was the sweetheart of B, a widow 17 years of
age, through cajolery and enticement succeeded in hkiW
her way with lewd designs. Is A liable for consented
abducti,on? Explain your answer.
.. No, because i n consented abduction the offended Party
must be a virgin.
1630. A, who was courting a girl eleven years and six monthtf
,/- old and a virgin, after solicitation and cajolery, took
~
'..
her away to a certain town and in a house there they
i.
of the Court o€ Appeals, citing recent decisions of the
Supreme Court of Spain, the &king of-a-xirgn, need
&e? not- have. the character of permanency. N o matter how
short is the taking away, the crime exists.
1633. Suppose that in the ,same question, A succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with I3 in the hotel, because of promise
of marriage, and then refused to fulfill the promise,
' what' is the crime?
-
It. is still consented abduction, the s$ple seduction
I which is p u n i s h T T w 3 awesto muynr being-ed in
the crime of consented abduction which is punished with
p&sio% coweecional in its minimum and medium periods.
i
The crime of consented abduction is committed. when
the cpnsent of the @ n a n m l e to being t w is
due to- honey&
-~ promises.of ..maxrJzge of the offender: The

638 639,.
 I ,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

' II CRIMNBL LAW REVIEWER

sexual intercourse after the taking of the girl is o g y

~
evidence of lewd design.
Note: But where u 15-year old girl was induced to leave her
home and later forcibly violated bp the four accused, they are
guilty of consented abduction with rape (People vs. Amante,
49 Phil. F79). The reason for the ruling is probably based
.. on the fact t h a t consented abduction cannot absorb the serious
offense of rupo.
..
1
public trial (Samalin vs. Court of First Instance, 57 Phil.
238).
1636. A girl was raped when she was eleven years old. The
girl refused t o sign and file the complaint against the
-man who raped her. Can her father sign and file the
complaint for rape committed against his daughter?
Yes, because the rule now is that when the offended

1
In what crimes against chastity is sexual intercourse party is a minor and she does not file the complaint, this
with the offended party not necessary? may be done by her parents, grandparents or guardian
In the following crimes: in the order named.
1. Acts of lasciviousness, either under Art. 336 or
under Art. 339. 1637. A was the victim of qualified seduction committed by
B against her when she was seventeen years and eleven
2. Forcible abduction.
ntonths old. Three months after the commission of qua-
3 . Consented abduction.
lified seduction, the father of the sir1 took her to the
4. Corruption of minors.
fiscal's office to file the necessary complaint against her
1635. What crimes cannot be prosecuted except upon com- seducer. The girl refused to sign the complaint. c a n
plaint. of the offended party or of her relatives men- the father sign the complaint f o r qualified seduction -to
tioned by the Revised Pcnal Code? State the reason be pled with the court? Explain.
which underlies this requirement. Yes. She did not yet reach her 21 years at which'
be prosecuted upon com- majority begins. Alone, therefore, she was without capa-
city to protect herself (see Tolentino vs. De la Costa, 66
Fhil. 97).
Nota: It is a rule now that if the offended girl is already of
age (21 years), and is in complete possession of her mental
, and physical faculties,no one should dis- her-
duction r e t o avenge the wrong %iiTGTiSiizx&sion. of her usrent%",*
anLotker-_reiatives mentioned .in..tbe law.

Defamation imputing the commission of any of the

crimes against chastity precedin'gly mentioned.
It is patent that the provision requiriig t l a t the pro-
must' be initiated upon the complaint filed by
the offended party or her relatives mentioned by the Code,
/,
1638. Suppose that the girl who was then already over twenty- ,~
one years of age was suffering from menta1 illness,
can the father sign the complaint for qualified seduc-"'
tion? Why?
Yes, because the rule which excludes the parents or
was enacted ogt .of-c.msideratig for the offended party the guardian from signing and filing the cornplaint when":::
, .. . -_
and :her family who might prefer tosuffer ihe autrage the girl is already of age also requires that the girl mu#!?&
I.
i&&ce rather than go. &rough-with the scandal of a be it: full possession of her mental and physical faculties. ,'
~..
<y.: . ', 641
.. 640

r
 i639. When
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
m8.y a person who committed adultery or con-
cubinage he punished for the crime even if pardoned
by the offended party?
When the pardon by the offended party came after
the institution of the criminal prosecution, such pardon
is not a ground for the dismissal of the complaint. Only
pardon'before the filing of the complaint may be a ground
/
for the dismissal of the case.
640. Explain briefly why in the prosecution of the offenders
for the crimes of adultery and concubinage, both the
guilty parties, if they are both aIive, should be in-
cluded, and in case the offended party desires to give
pardon that both offenders have to be pardoned?
The reason for the requirements is that. in the first
case, the Code recognizes the fact that the %c&j.-mly
judicially speaking, .&:e the &.diy%.ual.a&in .itself
does no~_co.nstiWe_the.felony: and, in the second -case,
the Code :speaks (Spanish text) of pardvn of the adulterous
act itself, which in effect is a pardon that extendsxto~~both
1.
defsndants (People YS. Mendez, et al., C.A.).
1641. Art. 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution for
' adultery and concubinage if he or she shall have con-
sented to the offense. Is there any difference as to
their effect between prior consent and subsequent con-
I .
sent to the offense? Why?
No, because prior consent is as effective as subsequent
t,o bar the offended party from prosecuting the
(People vs. Schnechenburger, et al.). ~
(pardon) whioh bars the
the offense' is that made
eleven years old and the victim of rape
pardon the oifender? Explain yonv
642
L" '/As a general rule, the pardon by the offended pa; y >:
who is a minor musf be cgmJLeme.nb!z.bL&e concur& e
of her^ parents .(Benga-Oras vs. Evangelista, et al.). 'I e
r&on for this rule is that the cxi~mestrikes a t the famil s
hcnor and i n B s i n i u ! - n & m & to, the offended aa: Y
.- to her^ pareats...
bnt .dso~ ~~
But if she has no parent to concur with, her, as, for
/"I
stance, when the u&n&r is her father and her mother
is already dead, s h e m e can pardon the offends.
/
1643. May the father done legally pardon the offender who
raped his daughter eleven years old?
No, because the pardon must be &Kan$ed db,&-by
. ~- -. -.
the offended ~ party, and it is._o-n& when she is &d or
otherwise
-. ..~incapac&died to grant it that her parents, grand-
/parents or guardian may do so for her.
/ 1644. A, knowing that B, a boarder in her house, was in
' love with her daughter 16 years old, left the house to
enabl? B t o sedriee her daughter. When A was away.
B had sexual intercourse with A's daughter. When the
husband of A learned of the crime committed by B and
of the cooperation &ven t o him by his wife A, the
husband filed a complaint against A and B. What is
i the criminal liability of A?
She is an a c E p l i c e in the crime of qualifiedseduction
,/ but to be punished as.principa1
\..~.. (Art. Tm.
/'UM. What is the civil liability of persons guilty of the crimes
against chastity?
Persons guilty of rape, seduction or abduction shall
also be sent.enced:
__ . ., . tine offended woman.
1. To i&mnify
2. To aclmno~~~ledge~th~.of~s~ri-ng,unless the law should
preyent him from so doing.
3 . In kvery case, to suaport the offspring.
.~
The adulterer and the concubine may also be sentenced
t o indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
643

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1646. May the accused w h o is iound guilty of acts of 18s-
civiousness also be sentenced to indemnify the offendea
party? Explain your answer.
/f&hough the Revised Penal Code does not provide
f o r the civil liability of a person guilty of acts of lascivious-
ness, the new Civil Code provides that mo~.al damages
may be recovered in “other lascivious acts.” Since every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable
(Art. 100) and civil liability includes indemnification for
consequential damages (Art. 104), the accused found guilty
of acts of lasciviousness may also be sentenced to pay
moral damages to the offended party.
/
Note: Subsidiary penalty cannot be imposed for non-payment
of thc civil liability for moral damages, because they arc not
imposed by the Revised Penal Codc.
1647. What are the crimes against the civil status of person?
’?&::&ion o f births, sitbstitution of one child for
another, and concealment or abandonment of a legitimate
c h i l k i i r p a t i o n of civil status.
3 . Bigamy.
4 , Mwriage contracted against provisions of laws.
5. Premature marriages.
6 . Performance of illegal marriage ceremony.
Note: Tho crimes from No. 3 to No. G are called illegal mar-
riages.
8. A, woman without a child, pretended to be pregnant
when in fact she was not, and on the day of the sup-
posed delivery, with the consent of A’s husband, took
the child of a poor widow who could not support that
child, the purpose o f A being to rear the child like her own
and for its own benefit as that child would be the uni-
versal heir of A’s property. Is A liable for simulation
of birth? Why?
644
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIIWER
/’
,’’ Yes, because by simulating the birth of that child, A
-’ created a false civil status for the child and caused that
child to lose ‘its civil status in the family of the woman
,who really gave its birth.
The fact that there is no damage, wh&ther immediate
or remote, 0; that it is beneficial to the child, is not a
’ defense.
1649. A, mother b u t not a wife, told her sister to place her
child two ,days old in a basket, to take it to, and to
knock at, the door of the house of a rich man before
leaving it there. The sister took the child t,o the door
of that house, knocked at the door, and left the child.
The owner of the house took care of the child. Are
A and her sister criminalIy liable for abandoning that
child? Explain your answer.
No, There are three provisions of the Revised Penal
Code that may be considered in connection with the ques-
tion.
It cannot be a crime against civil status by conceal-
ment or abandonment of a child, because the child aban-
doned was not legitimate. The child must be l e m a t e ,
to constitute the crime. It cannot be the crime against
security by abandoning a minor under Art. ,276, because
the child who was found by the owner of the house was
not deprived of^ the care^ and pyotection. which it needed.
S& is not liable for the crime against security under
A r d 2 7 7 , because she was the mother of the child. The
person liable for abandonment of minor under Art. 277
~
is one having only charge of the rearing-or education of
~\ 1 2 minor.
I 16 0. A had six children .with his first wife who died. A
married B, n poor woman. When l3 gave birth to a child,
C, the sister of A’s first wife, to preserve the property
of the family for her six nephews, caused that child
to be taken to the door of a convent where the sisters
found it. What crime was committed by C? Explain
your answer.
d
645
 I 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
She committed the qige ,,against-civil-status by_cc,n-
c&ng o r abandoning a,\@ltimate~khiidl because the pur-
pose of C was t o cause that child to lose its civil statu,%
1651. Why is substitution of oiie child for another made a
crime?
Substitution of one child for another is made a crime,
because such act would create a f&c..si.viL.status for one
child and w& cause the loss_.of the civil status of the
other and vice versa.
1652. IIow is usurpation of civil status committed?
*It is committed when a person represents himself to
be another and assumes the filiation, parental or conjugal
rights of the latter.
1653. A, who was courting a girl, told her that he was th
son of B, a millionaire, which was not true. Is A liable
f o r , uslirpation of civil status? Why?
/" 0. There must be & l t e n f o l d . r u l s e a r d eniov the
ci~viight, which is not apparent in this case.
1654. What are the elements of the crime of bigamy?
They are :
I. The offender has been legally marcied.
2. The said mariage bas not heen legally dissolved,
or in case his spouse is absent, there has rot-bee1i.a judi-
I I
ciaxleclaration that the absent spouse is pr~s!!mptiyely
dead.
3 . He contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
4 . !Che second or subsequent marriage has all the es-
sential requisites for validity.
1655. A rnari*ied D in 1930. In 1935, A married C. In 1945,
I3 died. In 1946, A married D. Is A liable for bigamy?
Explain your answer.
It depends upon which marriage of A is the basis of
the prosecution. If A is prosecuted for b i g m y for con-
646
I
i
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEVER
tracting the second marriage with C, he is liable f o r
bigamy, because he contracted that marriage before his
marriage with €3 had been legally dissolved.
If A is prosecuted for bigamy €or having contracted
the subsequent marriage with D+e is not liable, because
-when he mdrried D, his marriage with B had already
I been legally dissolved by. the death of B; and his mar-
riage with C, being a bigamous marriage, was non-existent
His marriage with C may be considered the first mar-
riage, for the purpose o f the crime bigamy. But the first
marriage must be valid in order to hold a person liable
. for bigamy for contracting a second or subsequent mar-
1I /
1656. -riage.
A .was married to .R. One day, A succeeded in per-
suading a minister t o authorize a marriage between
him and C, promising to bring the marriage license the
i next day as the treasurer was out of town. The min-
ister performed a marriage ceremony between A and C
I and received the marriage licenso the next day. Is A
liable for bigamy? Explain your answer.
The marriage between A and C, being without mar-
riage license, was void and of no legal effect. In bigamy,
the second or subsequent marriage must have all the re-
quisites for validity ahd would have been valid were it
* not for the fact that it is bigamous.
Nota: But A is liable for contracting marriage knowing that
.
the requirements of the law were not complied with under
Art. 350.
,'1657. A, a Moro, divorced his wife B in 1950. Then, A mar-
ried c. Is A liable for bigamy? Why?
It is submitted that in view of Rep. Act No. 394,
which recognizes for a period of twenty years from dune
18, 1949, divorces granted in accordance with Moslem
customs and practices, A is not liable for bigamy, be-
caube bis first marriage may be considered already legally
dissolved when he contracted the second marriage.
647

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1658. May the crime of bigamy be committeu through ne@
ligence? Is good faith a defense in bigamy? Explain
your answer.
This is not a settled question. The Revised Penal Code
provides that the crime of bigamy is also committed by
a person who contracted a second marriage “6efore his
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by
means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings.”
In view of this provision, it would seem that the crime
of bigamy cannot be commitred through negligence.
On I-he other hand, under Art. 83 of the new Civil
Code, marriage subsequently contracted during the life-
time of the first spouse is not illegal and void from its
performance (1) when the first spouse had been absent
for seven consecutive years a t the time of the second
marriage without the spouse present having news of the
absentee being alive, or (2) if the absentee, though he
has been absent for less than seven years, is generally
considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse
present at the time of contracting the subsequent mar-
riage, or (3) if the absentee is presumed dead according
to Arts. 390 and 291 of the new Civil Code.
It i;3 submitted that in view of the provisions of Art.
83 of the new Civil Code, good faith may be a defense
in bigamy. Bigamy may be committed through negligence
or imprudence.
, or weakeiis the confidence of the people in the govern-
1659. Is the person who contracted marriage with another
wlio was already married also liable for bigamy?
It depends. If he or she knew that the other ‘was
alrcady married, then he o r she is iiable as accomplice
in the crime of bigamy. If he or she did not know that
the other was already married, then he or she is not
liable.
‘1660. Are the witnesses to a bigamous marriage criminally
liable?
648
I
CRlMlNAL LAW REVIEWER
~
1 It depends. If they knowingly ,and falsely vouched
for the capacity of ei’cher of the contracting parties, they
are liable as accomplices. If they merely acted as attest-
ing witnesses, they are not liable.
1661. May a pekon who contracted a bigamous marriage he
held liable for bigamy even if he did not have any
sexual intercourse with the victim in the bigamous mar-
riage?
Yes ( U S . vs. Eernardo, G. R. 13102, unpublished).
Sexual intercourse is not an element of the offense.
1662. What are the crimes against honor?
/‘
Th4y are:
A’. -Libel by means i f writings o r similar means.
2 . ,Threatening to publish a libel and offer to prevent
such publication for a compensation.
.3, Prohibited publieation of acts referred to in the
course of official proceedings.
4. Slander.
5 . Slander by deed.
ti, I;icrimiiiating innocent person.
7 . Intriguing against honor..
I
1663. What crime is c o n d t t e d by a person who ,published
libelous article against the government which undermines
ment?
Seditious libel. This is not an ordinary libel defined
and penalized uuder crimes against honor. Seditious libel
i s one form of inciting to sedition. It is a crime against
public order.
1664. What imputation may be considered defamatory?
An imputation may be considered d&f&m&ry when it
!’,1 imputes-G-another (1) the qcmgi%ion_oLa_crime, (2) a
4 vice or defect, whether TealLorimaginary, or (3) any
Q
ag; bmission, condition, status, or circumstance, if any
643
I ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
of them ,t.egd~ to cause the dishonor, discredit, or con-
tegpt-of the offended party.
of the different kinds of imputations
the dishonor, discredit or contempt of
of a crime.-A said in the presence of
X. Such imputation will
cause the dishonor of B who was made to ap-
C always beat his wile.
Imputation of an OTW~&Z.-Asaid jn the presence
in the presence of B that C is a leper. Also, calling a
lawyer :‘a useless and ignorant lawyer; that his head is
ilre a drum; that his law office is visited only
Also, calling a physician “a doctor in bruta1-
in savagery and teaches brutality and in-
of a status.-A told B that he is a
bastard.
1666. A wrote a letter to B, a respectable ~ o m a n ,that the
latter was the querida o f C. The letter was in a sealed
envalelope and sent through the mail. 1s A liable for
libel?
No, because there is w-ty. N , o ~ i z L ~ s ~ I
it.
1667. Suppose that that letter was sent to E’s husband in
a s,ealed envelope and through the mail and the hutband
.,.. , rtad it, is A liable for libel?
660
I
CBIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Yes, because the sending of that letter to the husband
was defamatory of his wife, since the wife was defamed
and tlik 0.ublicity was made^ t o the husband.
~....~.
~
/
1668. &’’said publicly that the deceased wife of B was the
:’&erida of C during her lifetime. Is A liable? Why?
Yes, because Cefamation may be committed against
a person who is., dead. Such imputation would black.@!
the mcmo?y~of -one who is dead. \.
1669. Is it necessary in the crime of defamation that the
imputation actually produced the discredit, dishonor or
contempt of the person intended to be defamed?
No, because it Lq sufficient i f t h e imputation tends
to_._c_a-ugethe dishonor, discredit 01- contempt of the of-
fended party or one who is dead.
1670. What is innuendo and what is its importance in the
indictment for defamation?
Innuendo is a clause in the indictment or other plead-
ing containing an averment which is explanatory of some
preceding word or statement. I t is the office of an in-
nuendo to define the defdmatory meaning which the plain-
tiff set on the words, to shorn how they came to have
thet meaning, and also to show how they relate t o the
plaintiff.
1671. A wrote an article in which it ,\vas stated that the
judge with a mansibn in Grace Park was receiving bribe.
B and .C knew that X was the oinly judge living in Grace
Park. Is A liable for libel? Why?
i
i
Yes, because although the judge was not named, yet
he.was i a & k b y other persons and that fs suffi-
cient.
i Note: It is not sufficient if only the complainant testified that
he v a s the person referred to in the defamatory imputation.
1672. When a person makes an imputation which is defam?tory
‘of another, must the pcosecution or the plaintiff prove
651
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CkIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER *.

+
malice o!n the part of th,e person who made the im-
putation? Explain your answer.
No, because galise.is presumed from every defamatory
%.putation. I n such a case, proof of malice is not re-
quired as i t is already presumed.
1673. A called B a swindler in the presence of other ‘persons
It appears that B was really a swindler. 1s malice pre-
sumed from such imputation? Why?
Yes, even if it is true. that B was a swindler, itis.
presumed to .be malicious if no good intention a n b j u s t i -
fiable motive f o r . making it is shown. Hcnce, the pre-
sumption of malice may be rebutted only when the defend-
ant can prove the truth of the imputation, that it was
made with good intention and that he had justifiable
An absolute privilege is one where no remedy can be
had in a. civil or criminal action. Thus, for any speech
or debate in Congress no Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives shall be questioned in any other place.
A qualified privileged communicatjon is a p r i m facie
privilege which may be lost by proof of malice.
1677. In what eases is the defanratory imputation pot pre-
sumed t r ~be malicious?
In the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person t o
another in She performance of any legal, moral o ‘ social
duty; and
f
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, with-
out any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative \

motive for making it.
1674. If a person in publishing a
another has the intention
) p latter, can he successfully
latory imputation against
’ure the reputation of the
good intention and justi-
01‘ other official proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, reDort or speech delivered
in said proceedings, o r o€ any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.

y? iJfiable motive? Why?

No, because the law will not allow a person to injure
another by an injurious publication, under the cloak of
1G7R. When the defamatory imputation i s contained in a priv-
ileged communication, is the rvriter of the communication
liable for libel?
“good intention” or “justifiable motive.” Yes, if the prosecution or the plaintiff proves malice
IVhcn malice in fact is shown to exist in fact, which may be shown by proof of ill-will, hatred
offender has the intention to injure the, rep towards the offended party, o r purpose to injure the com-
l
offended party, the offender cannot be relieved from lia- plainant. Once there is pToof of malice in fact, the privi-
6,
,p %’ bility by pretense of “justifiable motive.”

1675. When is malice not presumed even if there is defamatory

leged character of the communication is destroyed and
the writer of the communication will he liable for libel.
Hence, the privileged character of the communication
.i
i .. imputation? merely does away with the presumption o f malice. And
Malice is not presumed even if the matter published vhen there is no proof of malice iu fact, that is, the
is defamatory of another, when it is contained in a p&y&ged defendant has no intent to injure the reputation of the
communication.
~-. ~ - complainant, he js not liable for libel.

1676. What are the kinds of privileged communication? 1679. It is a rule that if there is no malice in fact on the
Privilege is classified as either ab‘solute or qualified. part of the writer of the privileged communication, he

652 663
l i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
is not criminally liable for libel. What is the basis of
his exemption from liability?
The exemption from liability is predicated upon the
fact that it is the duty and right of a citizen t o make
a complaint of any misconduct on the part of public offi-
cials, which comes t o his notice, to those charged with
supervision over them. Such a communication is quali-
fiedly privileged and the author is not liable for libel,
even though the charges contained therein are not sub-
stantiated upon investigation.
But the author becomes liable f o r libel, if the charges
were made maliciously and that thcre was no reasonable
ground for believing them to be true.
1680. Does this rule apply to n conimunicatian involving a
person not a public officer?
Yes, as in the case of a written complaint to the
ecclesiastical authorities against a priest or pastor for acts
requiring disciplinary action. In the case of U.S. vS.
Caiiete, the Supreme Court mentioned the fact that the
American and British courts have extended the qualified
privilege by analogy to include a case in which a member
of a church makes a complaint against his minister fn
&,I
2,
their common ecclesiastical superior.
N o t e : The communication to he privilcsed must be made to the
persons who have the power to furnish protection or t o give
remedy.
Hence, a cammunieotian to the Secretary of Justice, seeking
to hnve the improper dismissal by t h o court of a robbery case
is meaningless, because the Secretary of Justice was not the
proper authority who could give the remedy.
16Sl. A w r o t e a letter t o the Secretary of Justice denouncing
a provincial fiscal for alleged bribery, stating therein
that he saw the fiscal receive money from a party in-
terested in a case then under investigation by him. A
showed copies of said letter to his friends. After b-
vestigation by the Department of Justice, the fiscal was
654
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
found guiity of bribery a s charged. Is A liable for
libel? Why?
Pes, because by g a g the ,pxL@Jeged.communicatian
u ~ ~ e s s a r y . ~ ~ ~the i ~ i t ~ character of the-com-
b lp:ivileged
mimication was.-.desi;r.oyed. Malice in !act having been
shown by the unnecessary~publicity.given by A to his
komplaint against the $seal, he c_annot claim good. inten-
tion and justifiable, motive for publishing it.
But i t has been said that when the accused proves
his imputation against a public officer, he renders the
public canse a serviee and should be acquitted. In this
case, i t is said that it is immaterial that the offender
did n o t act with good motives and justifiable ends.
/
1682d’A Senator, during a privileged speech in the Senate
mentioned the nanies of certain persons, some were public
officials and Ihe other private individuals, allegedly in-
volved in influence peddling to the detriment of public
interest. Suppose, the statements were false and the
persons mentioned wp?e not really involved in influence
4
peddli ’g, do you believe that the Senator was liable for
libe .Why?
No, because a Senator or a Congressman enjoys ab-
solute privilege. For any speech or debate in Congress,
tFey cannot be questioned in any other place.
16S3.,/Are the reporters who published the spseech in the news-
! papers liable for libel?
If the matters published are a fair and he-stakmmt
of the Senator, made iu good faith, w&h:o.uLany-coments
or. remarks, the reporters, as well as -the editors of the
~
newspapers, are not liable.
1684. /Suppose, the editar of a newspaper published an editorial
I
I
commenting on the statement of the Senator, stating that
those people ought to be hanged, would the editor be
held Iiable? Why?
Yes, because the editor made a comment or_r_emark
on the s& of the Senator made in legislative proceed-
655
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
ings. The law does not germit the making of comment
or remark on legislative, judicial o r official proceedings.
,Only a $air and true report of such proceedings, if not
of confidential nature, may be published.
1685. In a disbarment proceeding, A testified that B, the re-
spondent lawyer, received from him, as defendant in a
civil case, a sum of money to be delivered to C, the
plaintiff, in payment of A’s debt to C, but B spent the
money for his own benefit, thereby imputing to B the
commission of estafa. The disbarment proceeding is of
confidential nature. A reporter published the testimony
of A. Ik the reporter liable?
Yes, b.%ause judicial, legislative or other_official pro-
cgdings, which are of confidenti~al.nature, can not he
pblished.
1686. Although the complaint did not charge the defendant
with removing the money from the vaults of the firm
where he was employed and nothing was alleged that
he misappropriated it, a newspaper article stated that
the complaint made those charges. The writer had no
intention t o injure the reputation of the defendant in
the complaint.. Is the writer of the article liable for
libel?
Yes, because the article did not state a fair and
report.
I Nois: The reporter of n newspaper publieation, i n publishing
what passes in a court of justice, must publish the whole evi-
dence or testimony, and not merely state the conclusion which
he himself draws from the evidence.
The reporter or the editor of a publication who distorts o r
discolors the official proceedings reparted by him, or adds com-
ments thereon to east aspersion on the character a€ any of the
parties in a case, is guilty of libel, ntowithatanding the fact
that t h o defamatory matter is gmblished in connection with a
privileged matter.
A letter written and sent in the usual course of business,
for the purpose of upholding the writer’s interest, could be
considered prima facie 8 privileged communication.
656
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
!
The letter which contained the alleged defamatory im- ,
1
!
,
putation against President Quirino was written by defendant,
in response to insistent demands from his huyer for a n ex-
planation of the delay in the shipment of sugar, and also
with the end in view of securing a n extension of the period
to make delivery of the sugar. Having been made in the usual *
coarse of business, for the purpose of n,pholding the m’ter‘s
interest, and in the performance of at least a moral, if not
a legal, duty, the letter could be considered pl‘ima f&E a
privileged eomniunication (Art. 354, Revised Penal Code). That
the alleged imputations mere made, according t o the trial court,
as “an attempt to justify his failure t o live up to his part
of his supposed bargain,” needless t o say, does not take the
letter out of the category of privileged communication, since
the .?act that the writer had an interest to be upheld is we-
eisdy one of the essential elements t h a t makc a communication ~~
privileged (People vs. Rojas, G. R. L-8266, June 2, 1959).
1687. What is the extent of the privilege in judicial pro-
ceedings?
The publication in a newspaper of a complaint or of
an answer to a complaint filed in court, containing libel-
ous matter, is not privileged, where it appears that no
action has been taken by the court thereon.
However, 111 view of the provisions of the Rules of
I Court that the records of every court of justice shall be
public records, unless the court shall in any special case
have forbidden their publicity in the interest of rnoralitv
and decency, it would seen that it is not necessary that
the court shocld have taken an action on the complaint
or answer before it could be published by a reporter.
Note: In judie;al proceedings, parties, counsel, and witnesses
are exempt from liability in libel o r slander for words other-
wise defamatory, provided that the statements a r e pertinent or
1 relevant to the case.
1688. What i s the rule relative to the publieation of pleadingt?
in criminal cases?
The privilege in judicial proceedings in connection with
the publication of pleadings in criminal cases is not limited
in scope, because law euforcemerk is a matter of public
657

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
interest and the .people are entitled to know the state or
progress of the proceedings in criminal cases.
/
A 89. In a c r i m i i a case where a married woman was accused
-’
of adultery, the testimony of the husband in court re-
lative to i.be commission oE adultery by his wife was
published in the newspaper. The testimony of the hus-
band was quoted in full, witbout comment or remark.
Is the reporter liable for publishing the said testimnny
of tlie husband which was given in judicial proceedings?
Explain your answer.
Yes, boeause the Revised Penal Code (Art. 357) pro-
hibits the publication of facts connected with the private
life of another when such facts are offensive to the honor,
virtue and reputation of said person, even though said
publication be made in conuection with or under the pre-
text that it is necessary in the narration of any judicial
o r administrative proceedings wherein such facts have
been mentioned.
Hence, under this provision, the report-, editor or
manager of a newspaper, daily or magazine, who publishes
facts connected with the private life of another when such
facts are offensive t o the honor, virtne and reputation of
such person is liable for libel.
1690. During the trial of a criminal case, in which A was a
witness, the latter was asked on cross-examination
whether i t was not true that he was convicted of undust
vexation for having kissed a girl and he answered that
&.e. bad- keen convicted .~
by the machinations of the attor-
~~~~
ney wbo was then oondueting the cross-exam’
imputation that he was convicted by the ma
the attorney was false. May the witness
.. from criminal liability on the ground that the statement
he made is a privileged communication in a judicial
Qroceeding?
No, because the imputation was not true and was an
impertinent answer to the question asked.
I
i CRIMIKAL LAW RJWIEWER
1691. Is there self-defense in defamation?
Yes. While it is trne that in self-defense, retaliation
becomes unlawful a€ter the attack has ceased, because,.
there will be no further harm to repel, such is not the
case in defamation, because once the aspersion is cast its
sting clings and the one thus defamed may avail himself
of all the necessary means to shake it off.. Ke may hit
back with another !ibel, which, if adequate, will be justi-
fiable (People vs. Chua Hong). I
Note: The offended party pre-iioosly caused to be published ,,
in the Manila Chronicle an article entitled “Doubtful Citizen-
ship,” in which it was made t o appear that the accused in hie
petition f o r naturalization obtained a decision based on question-
able proofs. After the pubiication of said article, the accused
published a libelous statement to the effect that the offended
pirrty instigatd investigations in difFeerent povernment offices
against the accused, because of his persecution mania and in
the npirit of revenge; and that the offended party was the
mastermind beliind the t.hreatening letter of a certain person
sent t o tho accused.
, It was lieid that the alleged scurrilous imputations made
by tJw accused were not merely a n outgrowth of a capricious
imagination UP the accused. The statement vas intended to
eounternct the impression left in the mind of the public by that
article entitled “Dortblfnl Citizenship.” The accused acted in
self-defense and was acquitted.
I
i 1692. A, after aiigliting from a rig, went in front of the house
of three defendants B, C, and I), and in the heat Of
anger shouted a t thcm the following words: “You pimps,
i
women of ill-repute, thieves, paramours of my husband,”
to which D snsn.ered back, saying: “You are a woman
,’-
. of tlie street, you smell bad and your money was stolen
j ~c
from t h e . -p&.&?~ ,.x~ca&&,
A..
‘‘Ywi. are^^ &meless,
j blackmailer, murderer.” D replied: “You have a thick .
;.I face.. You are not legally married. You are the para-
4 mour of Father Baluyot.” Is there self-defense in de-
famation in this case? Why?
It was held that in this case the imputations made
by B, C and D were u_nnecessariIy_s~urr~l~s, because they.
659

CkIMINAi LAW RZVIEWER
were nj,tr_answers and were absolutely unrelated to
A's imputations upon thein.
R&M.ioGivindictiveness cannot be_~a..basisof self-
defense even in defamation (People vs. Rayo, et al.) .
'_ yr:r,I
I
-.
I PI1 ,':. _, , ,://!' .i
' ; L I
'6 1693. What :;e the different means by which libel may be
committed?
They are by means of (1) writing, (2) printing, (3)
lithograph, (4) engraving, (5) radio, (6) phonograph,
(7) painting, (8) theatrical exhibition, ( 9 ) cinemato-
graphic exhibition, or (10) any other similar means.
1694. A broadcasted defamatory matter by means of the.radio
without reading from a script. What crime is com-
mitted?
Most courts in the United States held that it is slander.
It would be libel if the broadcast. was made by reading
from written material.
But since the Revised Penal Code mentions radio as
one of the means of committing-the crime, there seems
to be no question that it is ,libelcl
Note: A defamation through amplifier is not libel, but .Wd
defam&ion, because it is not similar to radio which i s Of p e p
manent nature as a means of puhlieation.
1695. What is blackmail? What is extortion? Are their
punishable by the Revised Penal Code?
I n common parlance, blackmail and extortion
synonymous, although the latter term may have the
signification. Blackmail, in its metaphorical sense, i s
unlawful extortion of money by an appeal to the fears
of the victim, especially extortion of momv by ihreats of
accusation or exposure. Extortion is committed by ob-
taining property from another without his consent, induced
by wc,ngful u s $ . o f f e a r (U.S. vs. Eguia, et al.).
They are punished by the Revised Penal Code as lght
thce.at.;, a crime against security, and as threatening. to
/
publish a libel and offering t o prevent its publication f o r
'.
compensation, a crime against honor.
660
/
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1696. A, a woman murried to D, used to write love letters
i to B. These letters were stolen by C' from B. Then,
C showed the letters to A, demanding P1,OOO from her
and t!ireatening to show them t o her husband D, unless
she paid the amount. A gave 1*1,000 to C in exchange
for the letters. What crinie was comniitted by C? EX-
plain your ansyer.
C committed the crime of threateningLpublish a libel
and offering t o prevent its publicaticn for a compensa-
tion.
1697. A told B in a room where they were the only persons
Inside that the latter stole the jewelry of C. What crime
was committed by A?
Unjust vexation. It is not slander, because there was
no publicity.
1698. A told C, in the absence of X, a woman, that one time
she climbed on his back and rested in his arms. Con-
sidering that X was not present, was A liable for slan-
der? w h y ?
Yes, because A imputed to X lack of morality, and
the fact that X was absent is jmmaterjal. It is sufficient
that there was publicity which was mafie when the i m p u b
tion was told t o C .
1699. What are the kinds of oral defamation?
They are: (1) grave oral defamation, which is of a
serious and insulting nature; and ( 2 ) simple slander.
1700. What is the difference between the two kinds of oral
defamation?
Words of a similar tenor uttered under analogous cir-
1 cumstwces may constitute either (1) grave oral defama-
tion or (2) simple slander, depending on the intention
OP the offender and the circumstances under which they
are uttered.
Thus, the imputation of unchastity to a woman which
ordinarily is a grave oral defamation may be considered
661
 I 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
''.
simple slander when the intention of the offender is to
correct an improper conduct of tine woman. So, also, an
" ""
I
~f.:? imputation involving the honesty and integrity of a per-
??) son is ordinarily grave oral defamation, hut when uttered
during election time i t is considered as simple slander,
. because it was uttered during the period of excitement
' when feelings were running high. An imp2tation which
i: . is highly defamatory, if made in the heat o l anger, may
,. .
.. be considwed as simple slander.
1701. If the defamatory imputation is directed against t,wo or
more persons, is there only one crime of libel or slander
or as many crimes a s there are persons defamed?
,. . In the case of People vs. Del Rosario, et al., i t was
held that for each person libelled, there must be one in-
formation, even if the several persons libelled are men-
tioned in one article. The decision in this case is pre-
dicated on the theory that in libel or defamation the
policy of the law is to redress the injury to the individual
rather than the injury t o the peace and good order of
society. However, in the case of People vs. Aquino, the
Supreme Court abandoned the theory of redress to the
injury to the individual and indicated the rule a t com-
mon law, according to which "a libel on two or more pcr-
sons contained in one writing and published by a single
act constitutes but one offense, so as to warrant a single
I indictment therefor," This rule is based on the reason
that the law makes the publication of libel puiiishable
as a crime, not because of injnry to the reputation but
because the publication of such articles tends to affect
injurious the peace and good order of society.
This is the reason why in the case of People vs. Aqulno,
it was held that if the utterance was made but once against
a family of lawyers designated by their one surname, not
separately mentioned, there is only one offense.
,'1702.What is; slander by deed and what are the two k*
i...
of slander by deed? i ~
&I.:
662
I
CRIMINAL LhW REVIEWER
Slander by deed is a felony against honor, committed
by any person who shall perform any act not inclxded
.
and punished as libel or oral defamation, but which &a!
cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt on another person
(Art. 359, R.P.C.).
Slazder by deed is of two kinds, namely:~(1) slander
by deed where the act is not of a serious nature, which
is called simple slander by deed; and (2) serious slande?
by deed, where the act performed by the offender is of
a serious nature.
1703. What is the criterion for determining whether slander
by deed .is of. a seri~ousnature?
Whether a certain act constitutes slander by deed of
a serious natnre or not, depends on (1) the social stand-
ing of the o€fended party, (2) the circumstances under
which tine act was performed, and (3) the occasion, etc.
Thus, slapping a priest while saying mass in the church
I
is a serious slander by deed, because there certainly could
Iiave been no other circumstance under which greater dis-
honor, discredit and contempt could be cast upon him
before the faitnfuls over whom he held so high a dignity.
In'such a case, the defendant may also be prosecuted
for the crime of o€fending the religions feeling.
But slapping a prostitute in the presence of another
prostitute is simple slander by deed.
1704. If a big and husky fellow in a public place assaulted
a person who could not fight him because of his small
/ size and weak physical eonstitutiou, i s the offender liable
for slander by deed, assuming that 110 physical injuries
. were inflicted?
It depends upon the purpose of the of€ender. If his
purpose in attacking the offended party was to place him
in ridicule or to cast discredit or cuntempt upon him,
,,, then it is slander by deed. However, if the offender had
no such intention, because he was only. provoked to a$-
~ f '
6
663
I
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
‘ d
sault the offended party, it might constitute ill-treatment
only, if n,o physical injuries were inflicted.
,. ,
Note: .A party to an agreement to marry who backs out, after
the agreement NBS made known to the public, cannot be held
liable f o r the crime of slander by deed, for, otherwise, that
would be an indirect way of compelling said party to go into
a marriage without his or her free consent, and this mould
contravene the principle in law that what could not be done
directly can not be done indirectly; and said party has the
right to avoid the evil of going through 8 loveless marriage,
pursuant t o Article 11, par. 4, a i the Revised Penal Code
(People vs. Hernandez, 66 O.G. 8465).
1705. When is kissing a girl and touching her breast in public
slander 6,y deed and not acts of lnsciuiousness?
When the acts were performed without lewd designs
by a rejected suitor t o east dishonor on-thegirl (People
vs. Valencia, C.A.).
1706. Who are liable for libel?
The following are liable for libel: (1) any person who
shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition
of any defamation in writing or by similar means, (2) the
author or (3) editor of a book or pamphlet o r (4) the
editor or publishing manager of a daily newspaper, maga-
zine o r serial publication (Art. 360, pars. 1 and 2, R.P.C.),
and (5.) any other person or persons who have something
to do wiYh the publication or exhibition of a libelous matter.
1707. A received a letter from B, a woman and A’s sweet-
heart. C happened to get hold of the Better of B and
as it contained a statement of their meeting in a hotel,
C showed it to D. Is C liable for libel? Why?
Yes, because the person liable for libel is the 0-
puhlkhe~d,exhibited or caused the publication or exhibition
of defamation jn..writing or by similar..means. It will
be noted that although somebody else composed the libel-
ous letter, and the one who published it had nothing to
do with the making of the same, the mere act of publish-
-
.>
ing that. letter constitutes the crime of libel.
,e..
664
i
!I
i( CRl;\IINAL LAW Rl3V’IEWEIt
1708. State the venue of aetion, whether criminal or civil,
for libel. -.
The criminal o r civil action for damages in ‘eiise of
libel shall he filed with the court of first instance of the
province o r city (1) where the libelous article is printed
and first published; or (2) where any of the offended
parties actually resides at the time of the commission of
the offense. Where one of the offended parties is a public
officer and the other a Drivate individual the action may
be filed with the court of first instance of the province
or city where the public officer held office, or where
the private individual actually resides, at the time of the
commission of tbe offense. -
1709. May the offaided party file a civil actEon for libel in one
court and a criminal action for libel based on t h e same
publicntion in anotber court? .
No, becaus? the court where the criminal action or
civil action €or damages is first filed shall acquire jurib-
diction to the exclusion of other courts.
A wrote and published a statement that B is a b a s h d l
If .B shall have decided to hring a criminal action against
A, must the prosecution be conmenced by filing’an in-
farmation or by filing a cmiplairrt?
It should be by information filed by the fiscal, be-
cause the imputation does not involve the commission of
a crime vhich cannot be prosecuted de ofin’o. There is
a ease where the Court. of Appeals held that a n imputatiou
which does not constitute a crime, like the imputation
that the offended party in a bastard, shall be prosecuted
upon complaint signed by the oflended .party. With due
.respect, I submit that there is no legal basis f o r the
ruiing.
Nota: In the case of People vs. Santos, et al., 52 O.G. 205,
it was held that a libel attribntine a defect or vice, real or
!d imaginary,.which does n o t constitute a crime but brings into
/I disrepute, scorn, o r ridicule or tcnds to cause the offended.
1 party dishonor, discredit, or contempt, does not come under
665
I :
CRIMINAL LAFV REVIEWER
'_ .. ;the last paragraph of A d . 360 and the information filed by
the fiseiil is enough to confer jurisdiction upon tho court.
'.
1711. %,,Asaid publicly that B wcls in possession of a firearm
without License. If B filed a criminal action against
"'
A for defamation, may A prove the truth that B was
in possession of firearm without license? Explain your
. - answer.
Yes, because proof of the truth of an imputation of
. . an act or omission constituting 'a crime may be admitted,
, ' , a s the State is interested to know the commission of the
,crime to the end that the guilty party may be punished.
, , .
1712. A s i d in the presence of other persons that B is syphili-
. . , tic.
If B has decided to file a criminal action for .&fams
tion against A, may the latter prove the truth that B
' mas syphilitic? Why?
No, because proof of the truth of an&putation not
I. z-0c a crrme shall nXbFadmitted. The State is
not intermted to know that B is syphilitic.
1713. Suppose that A told his sister that B, who was courting
. her, was suffeking from gomrrhea and B filed a eom-
plaint egoinst A for defamation, can the latter pirove
the truth of his imputation if it was made by A with
. . g o d motlva and for justifiable ends? Explain your
answer.
, Under the law, if the defendant proved the truth of
the imputation and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall
be acquitted.
. However, in the case of People vs. Chaves, the Court
of Appeal!; held that an imputation that a person has a
contagious disease might, under ordinary circumstances.
be defamatory, but loses such character when. made with
good inrention and justifiable motive. In this case, the
truth of the imputation that the husband was suffering
, . from gonm-rhea with which his wife was contaminated,
GGC;
I
J
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
was not considered. It was a private communication made
by one person to another.
i
In view of this decision it wouId seem that if there
is good motive and justifiahle end, proof of the truth is
not absolntely necessary and, therefore, the same may
be dispensed with.
1714. In what cases is proof of the truth admissible in the
trial of x case involving defamation?
In the following cases:
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime, regardless of whether the offended party is a private
individual or a puhlic officer.. . . .
2 . When the offended paaty is a government employee
even i f the act or omission imputed does not constitute
a crime, provided it is related to the discharge of his
official duties.
Note: Thus, if A published an article that the treasurer of
a city frequented the Jai-Alai and horse races, in violation of
a regulation prohibiting amountable pnblic officers from gohg
t o those places, if the treasurer filed a complaint against A
f o r liSel, A can prove the truth of the imputation, because both
public interest and the good of the service demand that such
a puhlic officer should be barred from the service.
\
1715. In or& to discomage A, who was engaged to marry
B, the accused wrote a letter to A in which, referring
to B, he said: "We have always considered each other
a s wife and husband for five yeais now. Can she still
have the pride t o marry another man? She is my wife
when she is near me but 'yours when she is near you."
When accused of libel for writing the above letter, the
. accused testified that he wanted t o break-off the engage-
ment of A t o B s o that he could marry lier for himseIf,
and contended that he should be freed from criminal
liabiiity having been actuated by good intentions and
justifiable motives. Is this contention tenable?
No, because &&m&e&in$ntations impired by.&&
seeking. motives ar,e..ineompatible with gs.&intmEons.
667
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
1719. A and B were two Chinese who were competitors in
1720. Distinguish incriminating 5nnocent person from perjury.
then has been the policy cf Governor X? A policy of
intrigue, of cowardice, when confronted by another man
more powerful than himself, and a policy of suppression
toward his fellow creatures. He made many promises
before the election, but he carried out his promises in
the same manner as Judas.” Is A liable for grave oral
defamation7
Yes. The first charge, while apparently involving the
1721. A , v the commission of murder by B. After the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
business. A hired C to put a can of opium in the bed-
room of B’s house. After this was done, A reported
to the police that B was keeping opium in his house.
When the place w‘as searched, the can of opium was
found in the house of B. What is the crime committed
by A? Explain your answer.
A is liable f o r incriminating an innocent person, be-
cause by causing the putting of the can of opium in the
honse of B and reporting to the police that B was in
possession of opium, he thereby directly incriminated or
imputed to B, a n innocent person, the commission of the
crime of illegal possession of opium.
1. Incriminating a n innocent person is committed by
performing a n act by which the offender directly in-
criminates or imputes to a n innocent person the com-
mission o f ’ a crime; while in perjury the gravamen of
the offense is the imputation itself, falsely made, before
a n officer.
2. Incriminating an innocent person is limited to t h e
act of planting.evidence
-. and the like, in-grderto incriminate
au innocent person; while perjury is the g i v L n L o f _ f a k
statement under oath against a person accused -of a.cc@e
or the making of false affidavit in cases in which the law
requires the execution of an affidavit.
J
commission of the crime, B left the place and proeeed-
ed to a ditch where he threw the murder weapon. A,
who saw J3 when he threw the murder weapon into the
ditch, hid himself behind a tree until B went away, and
immediately thereafter took the weapon from the ditch
and after sometime buried the said weapon under the
house of B. A reported to the police the fact that the
murder weapnn could be found under the house of B.’.
Is A liable for incriminating B by burying the murder
669
 I
CRIMIiAL LAW IlEVIEWER
weapon under the house of B and reporting it to the
police? Why?
No, because B was not an innocent person. What
363 considers as a felony is the doing of a n ~ ~ a s
which directly imiminates or imputes to an ,&noceniL
pgson the cozimission of a xrime.
act of falsely and maliciously charging a person
in the justice of the peace conrt with a crime of theft
/constitu,te the crinie of incriminating innocent persun?
/
Why?
No, because the crime of incriminating innocent per-
son is li.mited to planting evidence and the like.
3.J
1723. What crime was committed hy a person who f d s e b
I . accused another of the commission of a crime?
- If the false accusation was made under &h before
a competent officer authorized to receive and administer
oath, the crime was W r ; , If it was not under oath
. .and the purpose was to e&dishonor, discredit -on, or
contempt of, the offended party, it is e i h d i b e l 01
sla-nder, depending upon whether it is in writing o r orally
made.
Note: It is necessary in lihel or slander that the offender has
i,
the intention to injure the reputation of the offended party.
Thus, it was held that if the matter, charged as libelous, is
only an incident in an act which has another objective, Sueh
8s t o prosecute the 0ffende.d party, the crime is not lihel.
1 1724. What is the difference between intriguing against honor
and orcdinary defamation?
1. I n both, the aim of the o€fender is to blemish the
honor or reputation of the offended party.
2 . They differ as to the means employec'.. The means
employcd in intriguing against honor must consist in
some tricky and secret plot against the offended party.
The means employed in defamation is the use of written
.
. o r spoken words, openly and publicly.
670
CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER
whispered to B that C was the concubine of D. What
crime was committed by 4, intriguing against honor or
slander? Explain your answer.
The crime of slander was committed by A. It is not
intriguing against honor, because A did not use means
which consists in some tricky and secret plot. He availed
directly of spoken words to ridicule C. Intriguing against
honor is almost akin to slander by deed, in that the of-
fender, does not avail directly of written or spoken words,
pietureg or caricatures to ridicule his victim.
are qwdsi offenses?
Quasi offenses are those felonies committed t h o u g h
imprudence and negligence. :;I
1727. What are the quasi offenses penalized by the Revised
Penal Code?
They are:
1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act
which, had i t been intentional, would constitute a grave
or 1css grave felony or light felony.
2. By committing through simple imprudence or neg-
ligence an act which would otherwise constitute a grave
or less serious felony.
3 . By causing damage t o the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or neg-
~ ligence.
' 4 . By causing through simple imprudence or negligence
some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have eon-
stitnted a light felony. ' ' .-I
1728. What is the difference between imprudence and neg-
ligence?
Imprtidence indicates a deficiency of action. Negli-
gence indicates a deficiency of perception. Hence, failure .~
in precaution is termed imprudence. Failure in adver-
tence is known as negligence. . .
671
 I ;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
A person who failed to pay proper attention to fore-
see the consequence is negligent. He may have foreseen
/’
the consequence, but if he did not take the necessary pre-
caution to avoid it once it is foreseen, he is imprudent.
1729.
,-,. What is reckless imprudence?
Reckless imprudence consists in vdg&ily, b u t -
. , ,~ out_malice, doing or failing to do an act, from which
material damage results, by reason of inexcusable lack
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing t,o perform such act, taking into ccnsideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, t i e
and place.
,1730. What is simple imprudence?
Simple imprudence consjsts in the 15ck of precaution
displayed in those cases in which the damage impending
/i
to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly
manif est,.
1731. What is the difference between reckless imprudence and
simple imprudence?
In both, there is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender. While in reckless imprudence the damage im-
pending to be caused is immediate and the danger is
clearly manifest, in simple imprudence the damage im-
pending to be caused is not immediate and the danger
1
is not clearly manifest.
Note: Negligence or quasi-delict in the civil law, which is the
omission to exercise the diligence of a good father of a f a d 7
which ia required by the naturc of the obligation and corresponds
with the circumstances of the persons, of the time, and of the
place, is 2es8 than criminal negligenee. Criminal negligence,
besides being a violation of a civil right, also affects the public
order and the public safety. The so-called simple negligence
in the Bevised Penal Code, being criminal negligence, is more
than civil negligence, a quasi-delict. Where there is no simple
negligenee in the criminal law, there may be a quasi-delict i n
..
the civil law. But where there is no quasi-delict in the civil
law, there can be no simple negligence in the criminal law.
672
I
I
i
CRIMLNAL LAW REVIEWER
Where the death of the victim was entirely due to his own
fault in siddenly darting across the road as the truck, which
was “going slowly,” came abreast of him, something which
the accused, as driver of the truck, did not reasonably fore-
see or could not have reasonably foressen, the accused i s neithw
guilty of homicide through simple negligence nor of civil negli- ’
ence or quasi-delict (Feople v.q. Calbefigan, C.A., 69 O.G. 3792-
3793, citing U.S. vs. Knight, 26 Phil., 224; and US. vs. Tayong-
tong, 2 1 Phil., 4161..
.///
1y2. If a driver of an automobile, which was following another
vehicle, overtook it and took the left side of the road
although he saw a rig coming from the apposite direc-
tion and thereby colliding with and destroying the rig,
is the drivex guilty of damage to property through reck-
less imprudence or through simple imprudence? Why?
The driver is guilty of damage to property through . .
recklefis imprudence, becanse the damage impending to be
cause$mas immediate and the danger was clearly manifest.
hat is the fiature of the penalty provided for damage
1733.
.// to property through reckless imprudence or simple im-
prudence cr negligence?
When the reckless imprudence o r simple imprudence
or negligence resulted in damage t o property of another,
the penalty is only a fine, not imprisonment, ranging from
an amount equal t o the value of said damage to three times
such value, but shall not be less than twenty-five pesos.
When death and physjcal injiiries are caused, the penalty
is imprisonment.
Note: Penalts is fine, when arson through reckless imprudence
, resulted only in damage t o property.
The first garagraph of Art. 365, pursuant to which “any
person who, by reckless imprudence shall commit any act which,
had it been intentional, would have constituted a less grave
felony,” Bhali suffer the penalty of “awesto mayor i n its mini-
mum and medium periods,” merely eslnblishes a general rule.
The same is subject to the exception found in the third para-
graph Of the same article, namely, when the execution of Said
act “shall have only resulted in damage t o the property of.
another, the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from
673
I. 1
., t

/' ,*-,~*
..,. . .
_I.^-

_~...,.
.
'
'
CkIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER

an amount equal to the value of said damage to three tinies

such value, but which shall in n o case be less than 26 pesos"
(Pmple VE. Bueno, C.A.).
In the ease of People va. Valmonte (CA-G.R. No. 6266-R),
the Cou.rt of Appeals did not consider the third paragraph
CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWEk

But if there is proof of negligence on the part o f the

automobile driver, he cannot invoke the emergency rule:.
Thus, the act of a motorist in attempting to pass a car
in front of him a t a moment when another vehicle is &IF
-.... .... . . of Art. 3FG. proaching, constitutes gross negligence and renders him .'
liable for any damage resulting, from said act.
3734. .May the court take into consideration the mitigating
and aggravating circumstances in determining the proper
~
I 1737. A entered the house o f B for the purpose of s t e p
..
. , ,. . .. penalty to be imposed for crimes committed through same personal property inside. When he 'was about to
",. ~ ,..
imprudenc,e and negligence? enter the room of the house of B, A saw B inside the
, Z . . ( , . '~ Art. 365 provides that in the imposition of the penalties, room cleaning his pistol. A hid himself on the other
.
. .. ., the. court shall exercise its sound discretion, without re- side of' the wall of the room, waiting for 33 to leave
. . gard
.:i.i.
to the rules prescribed in Art. 64. This means that the room. While cleaning the gun, B happened 60 touch
the court is not bound to consider mitigating and aggravab the trigger thereof causing i t to explode and a SIR
ing circumstances. was fired to the direction of the wall where A was.-
ing. The slug passed through the wall and
Is the doctrine of "last clear chance" applicable to erim-
I

During the investigation made by the police, it

?.:,.: ' --ha1 negligence?
that B had no license to possess the firearm.
In accordance with the doctrine of "last clear ,liable foi homicide through reckless imprudence? Why'f
~.. chance," the c.wt&blltoryaegligence of the pa&iniuKed
-?, will not defeat the action if it be shown that the accused
I
No, because a person is not criminally liable..for:the
might, by the execeiss- of. due . c z e and pre.ca&ion, have death or injuries caused by his reckless and negligent acts ,
B?,:-.'.. -avy&kL&ie c o ~ s ~ e n c e s o the
f negligence of the injured to trespassers whose presence in the'premises he i s not
..,.,~ . party. aware of. In the case of People vs. Meir, when a boy, :i

,. .
~

,-._. eleven years of age, who in childish frolic clang to,$hak

. (. Thus, if it appears that the accused kad_timc+and-op side of a vehicle for a joyride, without, the knowledge or

"+
z.:- . e n i t y , t o avoid the injury or damage caused h&he
:-
"
consent of the defendant, and who was crashed 'againd:i
been suff W t k c a r e f u l and_c a u t i ~ u s ,the negligence of the concrete post of the hospital gate when the yehic
y.':;.,. t h e injured party will not relieve him of criminal respon- passed through it, the Court of Appeals held that n
sibility.
can be punished for not taking precaution to prev
G -What is the meaning of the w g % & $ i t h 'ref- 'juries to persons who .act at his back.
vp+3
erence
,: . '
to crime through negligence?
What is the classification of election offenses?
, The rule states: "An automobile driver who, by the
,..
n/.-,.. negligence of another and not by his o y negligence, is ' Violation of any of the provisions of the Revised E l
:*.. .." suddenly placed in a n emergency and compelled to act in- tion Code i3 either (1) serious election .offense, or (2).re
.{,: '.
, ,stantly to avoid a collision op injury, is not guilty of negli-
-07-
&. gence if he makes such a choice, which a person of ordinary
3o .i:.:~ prudence placed in such a position might make, even though
~

..
$i&:-xnhe. did not make the wisest choice." .- . ..
.. .,
674
. .

, ,..
 1 . 1,,, . ,,
, -
4 , ..
, ,. .
... ,
... . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

,: .1 The principals, accomplices, and accessories shall be The rules relat,ive to the repeal of penal laws are:
criminally responsible for election offenses and for attempt
t o commit the same.
fendes in whole or in part: of the penalty a h
1740.. What are the penalties for election offenses?
The penalty for serious election offenses is imprison-
' I
ment of not less than one year and one day but not more (US. vs. Soiiman, 36 Phil. 5).
, . ','.::&han five years. The penalty for less serious election
* , ' . .offenses is imprisonment of not less than six months but 2 . The general rule is that the repeal of a penal-law
does not obliterate criminal liability, but when.the reB@
not more than one year. In both cases, the guilty party is absolute, and not a reenactment or n o t a repeal by S-.
,shall be further sentenced to suffer disqualification to hold pliq.ntion, ?LOT is there aby saving clause, the offense-ceases
,a public office and deprivdion of the right of suffrage to be criminal (People vs. Tamayo,, 61 Phil. 2551: ' , ,
: . .~ for not less than one year but r o t more than nine years. 3. Where the repealing law who
. If he were a foreigner, he shall, in addition, be sentenced
to deportat,ion for not less than five years but not more the acts which constituted the offense defi
c a n ten years which shall be enforced after the prison
term has been served. If an entity is found guilty of
election offenses, it shall be sentenced to pay a fine of k n e e persons charged with violations of the old law
not less than F5,000, but not more than FlO0,JOO. to the repeal (People vs. Sindiong & P a
Phil. 1000).
ll,4l.:Who can make preliminary investigation of violation of
:" the provisions of the Revised Election Code? 1744. What are the different effects of repeal of Wnai law?.&
The Court of First Instance has the exclusive original The ifferent.effects of the repeal of penal l a w ~ a r e : :,
'
jurisdiction t o make preliminary investigation of viola- A t h e repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new "
I' tion of the provisions of the Revised Election Code. law, the p.ew law shall be applied, except when the f-
...
. . ..%, . Note: The other offense is violation of the Anti-Subversion A d . . ' fender is a habitual delinquent or when the new law is
The Court of First Instance has the exclusive original juris- made not applicab!e to pending action or existing causes
, ,: . diction to make p?eliminary investigation when the penalty for of a c t i o d .,<
the violation of the Anti-Subversion Act is from prisiOn mayor
, J:+
to death. /If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law'
in fosce at the time of the commission of the offense shall
the prescriptive period of election offenses?
on offenses shall prescribe after two years from
be appli (r' . a;?
&;he new law totally repeals the existing law so
of their commission, b u t if the discovery of such that the act which was penalized under the old law is no' ,'
' '
offenses be made in election contest proceedings, the period
' longer punishable, the crime is obliterated.
~

of prescription shall commence on the date on which the

'judgment in gueh proceedings becomes final. 1745. State t,he rule of construction of criminal statutes. ,
-1143; S&te the different rules in connection with the repeal Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed against
., !
of penal laws. the government and liberally i n favor o f the accused.

676 677
i
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Definitions
.
No person should be brought within the terms of c r h - :>y
_T

. . inal statutes who is not clearly within them, nor should

- DEFINITIONS OF TERMS IN CRIMINAL LAW,,: ~ ’ . ~
j , . 1 I .’.&
any act be pronounced criminal which is not clearly made v
7
.,
;, , 80 by the statute (US.vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243); . .,<;;*
.
.~~.~ . ,.
1746.:’ The Revised Penal Code has a Spanish text and English
--
Crime is defined as an act tomnmitted or omitted ‘h
violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it
’

, : , :‘text. In ease of a conflict between the Spanish text and Law Dictionary, Rawle’s Third Revision4 VOI..;~
.’. ?* *the English text of a particular provision of the Revised
-& !
I

2. Criminal Law, defined.

,,<
_ . , , L?.i
, -,
.>
,;,
...?’ ;r;
. ,._
:

.,-,. . Penal Code, which shall prevail? Why? ;,!

~

.’.* . ~,,
,:.: .; .
The Spanish text i s controlling, because the Revised Criminal 12w is that branch or division of lam which i?;
.’ .--
.,/ Penal Code was approved by the Philippine Legislature
. ,. defines crimes, treats of their n z h r e , and provides for,

+
b. +in its Saanish text.
-T ~ ~~
their punishment (12 Cyc. 129). . I

, .
..,:.’ : The clause, “sufVieddo privaeion de libertad,” was
- ’ > -,:erroneousl:i
I

translated as, “during the term oi his im-

crimen, nulla poena sine w. ‘,

’.prisonment,” in Art. 157 of the Revised Penal Code. This is a maxim, which means that there is no
Considering that the Spanish text is controlling, the Su- where there is no law punishing the act. , i

.preme Court held that there is evasion of the service of .._. b

the sentence, even if the pen.alty is destierro, because 4. “Actus non facit reum nisi k e n s s a a ” .
there is deprivation of liberfy in that penalty, though This is a maxim, which means that the a c t does.,
,partial, as the convict is not free to enter the prohibited the person a criminal unless his mind b e ’ c
/ . ,,
area.
. . What is ‘wo” or IS"?-'
..

H
It is 3 misapprehension of fact on the part of-t$&$c,$&?$
owing lack of intent or malice i n the doing ofthe:zact-.:~,
,,,

. - I $ Subjective phase, defined.

. .
It is that portion of the execution of the crime, s t a e i,

I the point where the offender begins to .ihat-,:;h

where he has still control over his a c t s , “ i n c l h ~ g 9
eir (acts’) natural course.
:&,e , i

I Objective phase, defined.

/ It is that portion of the acts of the offender;,
he has no‘more control over the same. AI1 the a
execution have been performed by him.

678

,, ..%
 I

CRWINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER

DoPinitions Definitions

pecial law, defined. It is a subsidiary personal liability t o Le suffered, by^

A ":q~eciallaw" is defined in U.S. vs. Serapio, 23 Phil. the convict who has no property with which to meet.
ch punishes acts not defined and . pecuniary liabilities for the reparation of the ' dam

'/-L
aused, indemnification of consequential damages and, f
penalized by the Penal Code.
a t the rate of one day for each 2 pesos and 60 centa
Special law is a statute enacted by the Legislative subject to the rules provided by law.
branch, penal in character, which is not an amendment I
to the Revised Penal Code. r: . 16. Plurality
' .-fo
, .

. .
Imputability, defined.
uality by which a n act may be
its author or owner. It implies
?€%urality of crimes consists in the successive
1 by..,the same individual of different criminal
y of which no conviction has yet been declar
'I

has been freely and consciously , defined.

and may, therefore, be put down to the door as his When a single act constitutes two or more gr
less grave felonies, or when'an offense is a necessary
fpr committing the other, the penalty for the most
/crime shall be imposed, the same t o be applied:
_ Responsibility is the obligation of suffering the con- maximum period.
.sequences of crime. It is the obligation of taking the
penal and civil consequences of the crime (Albert.).
/18. *&ke+f
' ' A continuing
- ined.
(continuous or continuedY:- crime
Single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all a

, ,&
..
I
.
. .
I:
/ ~,
]i:
responsibility, for a man cannot
e consequences of a crime unless
he is guilty of it (Albert).
,I'; from one criminal resolution.

19. Define each: (1) aberratio ictus, ( 2 ) error in

(3) praeter intentionem.
ALXEC-LS is a mistake in the blow, that is,
Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the State the offender intending to inflict a n injury on a p
f o r 7 h x n s g r e s s i o n of a law. actually in'flicts it on another. .,*'
,"*$

:;q
I Error ,in personae is mistake in the identity o

/'
,i
cessory penalties, defined. victim.
-
Principal penalties those expressly 'imposed by the Praetor htentimem means that the injurious rem
court in the judgment of conviction. greater than that intended.
Accessory penalties -those that are deemed included in
imposition of the principal penalties. 0. Proximate cause, defined. -//
Proximate cause is "that cause, which, in natural
15. Subsidiary penalty, defined. continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient inte$?e$

680 I 681
0
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Definitions
g cause, produces the injury, and without which the re-
u l t would not have occurred.”
. Com~pl~expenalty, defined.
I t is a penalty prescribkd by law cornpixid of three
’. distinct penalties, each forming a period; the lightest pf
them shall be the minimum, the next the medium, and
the most severe the maximum period.
Amnesty, defined.
It is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion
’
I or a general pardon for a past offense, a d is rarely, if
ever, exercised in favor of single individual, and is usually
: exerted in behalf of certain classes of persons, who are
. .. . or administrative case wherein it must first be settled
”
subject to trial but have not yet been convicted.
-Pardo.n; defined.
,’ , /
It is an act of grace proceeding from the power en..
trusted with the execution of the laws which exempts
the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punish-
’, ..’ // ment the law inflicts for the crime he committed.
2 4 Define prescription of crime and prescription of penalty.
Prescription of the crime is the forfeiture or loss of
the right of the State to prosecute the offender after
the lapse of a certain time.
Prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture
of th’e right of the Government t o execute the final sen-
i. . / tence after the lapse of a certain time.
Commutation of sentence, defined.
., J5.
It is a change of the decision of the court made by
the Chief Executive by reducing the degree of the penalty
inflicted upon the convict, or by decreasing the length
of the imprisonment or the amount of fine.
682
CRIhIINAL LAW REVIEWER
Definition8
Parole consists i n the suspension of the sentenc
a convict after serving the minimum term of the inde
.minate
penalty, without granting a pardon, prescribin
the terms upon which the sentence shall be suspende
If the convict fails to ohserve the conditions ,of
parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole is authorize
tg direct his arrest and return t o custody and thereafter
to carry out his sentence without deduction of the time
a t has elapsed between the date of the parole and the;
.~
I ,.: ,.
ined. , , ’~,.
.(
A prejudicial question is. one that may arise in a ci$:
before a criminal case in which it is involved can be tried.
It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime lout so intimately connected with it that it deter- ‘9
~
ines the guilty or innocence of the accused.
Industry, defined. &$
is a department or Lranch of art, OCCU$:
tion or business; especially, one which employs so much
labor and capital and is a distinct branch of trade.
29. AUigiance, defined.
By the t e r n “allegiance” is meant the obligation .of
fidelity and obedience which the individuals owe to th:
governmcnt under which they live or to their s o v e r e i ~
I
in return for the protection they receive, (62 Am. .@<a
797). ‘8
“i
.!,
30. Adherence to the enemy, defined.
The phrase “adherence tq the enemy” means inbni
.f, . to betray. There is “adherence to the enemy” Wh@$<J
oitizen intellectually or emotionally favors the enemJ:
harbors sympathies or convictions disloyal t0 h i g C 0
683
.7‘
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFA CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Definitions Definitions I .

;. ‘,..5
.’$
policy or interest (Cramer vs. U.S., 65 S. Ct. 918, April d the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally j u s t
23, 1945). proper (U.S. vs. Addison, 28 Phil. 580). t4’.’,
.T
(I.

37. “ T u m u l t u o u s ” , ~ i ~ d .
31. Aid and comfort, defined.
The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused
, .. The phrase “aid or comfort’’ means an act which
1
by more than three persons who are armed or provided
’ . strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy in the con-
. / with
. means of violence. ,~

,, duct of w,ar against the traitor’s country and an act which

~

Ij, weakens or tends to weaken the power of the traitor’s

....’;. country to resist or to attack the enemy (Cramer vs.
3 --
“Outcry”. defined.
The word “outcry” means to shout subversive or pro-’
U.S.,supra). vocative words tending to stir up the people to obtain .. .’
’
by means of force or violence any of the objects of re-
.
32. Neutrality, defined. bellioa o r sedition.

?
A nation or power which takes no part i n a contest
of arms 5:oing on between others is referred to as neutral k,’1-A “RiQe$. defined.
riot is a violent confusion in a crowd.
1 ,

.. (Burril, L.D.).
33. “High seas”, defined. $I. :Charivari”, defined.
,, , It means any waters on the sea coast which are with-
3 The term “charivari” includes a medley of discordant+--. ?.’
’voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles,. ,;;

,
out the boundaries of low-water mark, although such waters
may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign govern-
ment (48 $:J. 1207; footnote 13-a).
i tin, horns, etc., designed t o annoy and insult.
41. Counterfeiting, defined.
4%
7. , .

Counterfeiting, in relation to coins, means the imitation:; .’,<

:44: Piracy, defined. of a legal or genuine one. It is done by diminishing the ’,
It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, /amount of silver os copper. It may contain more silver
without lawful authority and done with- unirn,o furandi than the ordinary coin.
and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility (Peo- ‘I

ple vs. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 19). ,

means to take off part of the metal, either:’
‘35. Mutiny on the high seas, defined. it with another meti1 of inferior,
It is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or
the raising of commotions and disturbances on board a
ship against the authority of its-(Bouvier’s
L w Dic., Vol. 2, p. 2283). A document is any w i t t e n statement by which a right

Just cause, defined.

iI is established or an obligation extinguished (People
Moreno, 38 O.G. 119).
I It is such reasons, suppo,rted by facts and circumstances, A document is a writing or instrument by which
as will warrant a cautious man in the belief tnbt his action, fact may be proven and affirmed; .... ~ , . . .
. .
684 68.6
.ii
i
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Definitions
$. False testimony, defined. J
49. “Prohibited drug”, defined.
F a k e testimony is committed by a person who, being
hder oath and required to testify as to the truth of a
matter at a hearing before a competent authority,
/
the truth or say something contrary to it.
45. Material matter, defined.
-.1 It is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry,
..‘,
‘5% .
,
or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact, or.
“>* any fact or circumstance which tends t o corroborate or
:,T,. ,,
r,/-; ,
..%* ...,.‘ , strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry,
.I .~. or which legitimately affects the credit of any witneas
who testifies (U.S. vs. Estrafia, 16 Phil. E20).
46. Trade-mark or trade-name, defined. 41. “Indian
It is a word or words, name, title, ~ymbol, emblem,
sign, or device, or any combination therdof, used as a n
advertisement, sign, label, poster or otherwise, for the pur-
pose of enabling the public to distinguish t h e business of
the person who owns and uses said trade-name or trade-
mark (@. *. 188, 2nd par.; Subdivision 4 ) .
A,. Service-mark, defined.
A service mark is a mark used in the sale o r adver- 52. “Narcotic drug”, defined.
tising of services to identify the services of one person
and distinguish them from the services of others, and in-
cludes without limitation the marks, names, symbols, titles,
designations, slogans, character names, and distinctive
features of radio or other advertising (Art. 188, 3rd par.,
53. Gambling, defined.
subaivision 4).
48.Yhfair competition, defined
‘ It consists in employing deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off 54. Lottery, defined.
the goods manuf&ctured by him or in which he deals, or
his business, or services for those of the one havjng estab-
,.
lished goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to pro.
~
duce such result .(see 2nd par., sec. 29, Rep. Act No.166).
086
k.
CRtRlINAL LAW RSVIEWl3R
Definitions
“Prohibited drug” includes opium, cocaine, alfa
beta eucaine, their derivatjves, m d all preparations
/from them or any of them.
defingl.
“Opium” embraces every kind, class and character of
opium, whether crude or prepared; the ashes o r refuses
uf the same ; narcotic preparations there24 or therefrom;
morphine or alkaloid of opium; preparations in which opium,
morphine, or alkaloid of opium, enter as an ingredient, and,
,also opium leaves 01’ wrappings of opium leaves,
,,’ prepared or not, for their use.
.
hemp” or “marihuana?’, defined.
“Indian-hem$’, oth’erwise known as .marihuana, canna
lis Americana, hashish, bhang, guaza, and ganjah, em-
braces every kind, class and character of Indian Bemp,,
whether dried or fresh flowering o r fruiting tops of the
pistillate plant cannalis sativa1 from which the resin has
. not been extracted, including all .other geograuhic Varieqgs
whether used as reefers, resin, extract, tincture or i n a@\’
other form whatsoever. h
By narcotic drug is meant a drug that produces a condi-
tion of insensibility and melanchoIy dullness of mind with ,
delusions and may be habit forming.
It is a game or scheme, the result of which depends:;$+
wholly or chiefly npon chance or hazard. .i:
I I
’
It i s a scheme for the distribution of, prizes by c k e e .’
among persons who have paid, or a s e e d to pay, a valu-gi:
able consideration for the chance to obtain a prize *ad, (US’.:
vs. Filart, et al., 50 Phil. 80).@hs*..
,
I
\,
L&gj>;
.
. ,:.
? “687
a .
. .
..
 . , . ,..-
.I ,. ,

I~~

~.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW.ER
CRININAL LAW REVIEWER
Definitions Definitions

63. Mutilation as a form of physical injuries, defined.

The word “obscene” means something offensive to
chastity, decency or delicacy (U.S. vs. Kottinger, 46 Phil.
A pimp is one who provides gratification for the lust
of others (US. vs. Cruz, 38 Phil. 677).
m’isfeasance’?is the improper p e r f o m s e of&e
& w+ch mirrht lawfully he done.
The term “mutilation” means the lopping or the c l i p
ping off of some part of the body. See Art. 262 for th6
i two kinds of mutilation. ,
4. Deformity, defined. /
By deformitg is meant physical ugliness, permanent and
definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible.
defined. 1
Slavery is the state of the entire ssbjection of one’s
person t o the will of another (Bailey YS. AlabanaJ 219‘@
/ U.S. 219).
66. Dwelling, defined.
J .A

Dwelling place means any building og*structure ex-

the cerformance of some act w
&h elusively devoted for rest and comfort, as:’ distinguished
from places offices,
.”
etc.
.
Premises, defined.
.-*
L

“Premises” signifies distinct and definite locality. It

omission of some act which ought may mean a room, shop, building or definite area, but in ”

either case, locality is fixed (Words and Phrases, Val. 33);

vexation, d e f i n e d l c
odern sense of the term, means Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which,
.,- the actual commission of the crime charged (People VS. although not productive of some physical or material
would, however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent p
Madrid, G. R. No. L-3023, January 3, 1951, cited in People
vs. Yee, C.A., 52 O.G. 4297). Large cattle, defined./
I The term “large cattle” includes carabaos, cows, horn&,--,
61. Aborl.ion, defined. mules, asses, and all the other members of the bovine..
Carrara has defined abortion as the willful killing of family.

./
, .
the foetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the
defided.
foetus from the maternal womb which results in tlie death
, . of the foetus. It is a clause in the indictment or other

j,
.> .,

.:

..
62. Duel, defined.
If.is a formal or regular combat previously concerted
. ~, taining an averment
ing word o r statem
is explanatory of
t is the office of
to define the defamatory meaning which the p
on the words, to show how they cam to have th
. between two&rties in the presence of two or more seconds
of lawful age o side, who make the selection of arms
4
ing, and also to show how they peato to the p
(Bouvier’s Val. 1, 3048).
fix all tlie conditions of the fight.
E89
688 . .‘i
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CIUMIKAL LAW KEVIEIVER

Distinctions , .., ).;
,~,.
Distinctions .,, -3
DISTINCTIONS IN CRIMINAL LAW 1
Criminal irtent is not necessary where the aet.isr
'.
hibited for reasons of public policy, as in illegal possess
istinction between general intent and specific intent.
of firearm (People vs. Conosa, C.A., 45 O.G. 3953).
In felonies cornmitied by dolus, the third element o€
(2) The term mala in se refers generally to fel
~

;. , voluntariness is general intent: whereas, in some partic- i defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code. &e
of of particular or specific intent is re- I term mala piohibita refers generally to acts made criminal
certain crimes against property, there
t to gain (Art. 293 -robbery; Art. 308 - /by special laws. .~

kill is essential in frustrated o r a t
(Art. 249). In forcible abduction (Art.
intent of lewd designs must be proved.
ntent to commit the crime and intent to penpetrate the
act, distinguished.
A person may not have consciously intended to commit
crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act
is, by the very'nature of things, the crime itself (U.S.
vs. Go Chiso, 14 Phil. 128).
In the first (intent to commit the crime), there must
be criminal intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate
''
' ' the act), it is enough that the prohibited act is done ,freely
. Mala in se and nmla prohibita, distinguished. ' !
, There is a distinction between crimes which are mala
ul from their nature, such as theft; rape,
-homicide, etc., and those that are mala prohibita, or' wrong
I merely because prohibited by statute, such .as illegal pos-
session of firearm.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects
on society as to call for the almost unannnous condemna-
i
.
Intent, distinguished from motive. "
1 Motive is the moving power w!iich impels one to
I for a definite result. Intent is the purpose to use B
ular means to effect such result.
!
/Attempted or frustrated felony, distinguished front:
j, ' .
possible rime.
(8' In both, the evil intent of the offender is not
c.omplished.
(,&)<But while in impossible crime, the evil inte
,! the offender cannot be accomplished, in attempted or
i
trated felony the evil intent of' the offender is pos
of aceompiishment.
i ( y f r n impossible crime, the evil intent of the 'offen , ,
cannot be accomplished because it is jnherently impossibf; .,.,
of accomplishment or that the means empl
offender is inadequate or ineffectual; in a
frustrated felony, what prevented its accom
the intervention of certain cause 'or accident in
. the oflender had no part.
8. Frustrated felony, distinguislie,d from attempted felon$ ,"

tion of its members; while crimes mala prohibita are vio-
lations of mere rules of convenience designed t o secure a
more orderly regulation of the affairs of society (Bowlers
Law Dictionary, Xawles 3rd Revised).
(1) In ac$,~.inala in se, the intent governs; but in
those mala pdiiibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been
(1) I n both, the offender has not accomplished hie
crimina? purpose.
( 2 ) While in frnstrated felony, the offender has peri
r
formed all the acts of execution which should produceit&$
felony as a consequence, in attempted felony the offen@
merely cuniniences the commission of a felony directly .b$
overt acts and does not perform all the acts of .:execuY
, I ,

691
F 9
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
, .
-'.7. Distinguhh frustrated felony from consummated felony.
,
,^ .-
I+,'
,.,~ In both stages of execution, the offender performs all
. . the acts of execution.
<:.., :i: But while in consummated felony the fdony is pro-
. ,.,.
... .
. ,,,
duced, in frustrated felony the felony is cot produced.
"
In ,,consurnmated felony, all the elements necessary for its
. execution and accomplishment are present; in frustrated
i felony, not all the elements of the felony are present.
8. Distinguish conspiracy as a felony irom conspiracy as a
manner of incurring criminal liability.
In both, two or more persons come t o an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to com-
mit it. Hence, the definition of conspiracy in Article 8
applies to both.
When the conspiracy relates to crimes other than treason,
rebellion or sedition, it is not a felony but only a manner
of incurring criminal liability. When the felony is com-
mitted after the conspiracy, the act of one offender is the
act of all the other offenders.
Even if the conspiracy relates t o the crime of treason,
rebellion or sedition, if any of the latter is actually com-
mitted, the conspiracy is not a separate offense, but only
a manner of incurring criminal liability in treason, re-
bellion o r sedition. The offenders are liable f o r treason,
rebellion or sedition, as the case may be, and the con-
spiracy is absorbed.
When conspiracy is only a manner of incurring crim-
inal liability, it is not punishable.
9. Imputability distinguished from responsibility.
'
While imputability implies that a deed may be im-
puted to a person, responsibility implies that the person
must take the consequences of such a deed' (Albert).
10. ImbeciRity distingu%hed from insanity.
> I
'.. ,
'
692
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
, ,
Distinctions
.. .
While the imbecile is exempt in all cases from criminal, .
liability, the insane is not so exempt if it can be ahox$?. ...;
that he acted during a lucid interval. ' .-
,., ,(
11. Entrapment and instigation, distinguished.
There is a wide difference between entrapment and
instigation, for while in the latter case the instigator prac- , ;
tically induces the would-be accused into the commission 5
of the offense and himself becomes a'colprincipal, in e&
trapment ways and means are resorted t o for the purpose
of trapping and capturing the law-breakers in the exeeu-
tion of his criminal plan. Entrapment is no bar t o the
prosecution and conviction of' the lawbreaker. But- when
I there is instigation, the accused must be acquitted (People
\
vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476).
i 12. Distinction between justifying and exempting cireum-'
stances. . " .~.
,
(1) A person who acts by virtue of a justifying eir-
1 , cnmstance does not transgress the law, that is, he does
not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because
there is nothing unlawful in the act or conduct of the
. actor. The act of such pei'son is in itself both just and
lawfcl.
In justifying circumstances, there is neither a crime. .
nor a criminal. No civil liability, except in par. 4 (caus-
ing damnge to another in state of necessity) of Art. 11.
(2) On tho other hand, one who acts by virtue of an
exempting circumstance is not wholly exempt from civil
1
$
liability (,Art. 101).
i
In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no
criminal. There is civil liability, except in pars. 4 and 7 -
(causing an injury by mere accident; failing to p e r f o m
an act required by law when prevented by some lawful I ,
or insuperable cause) of Art. 12.
._
, .,~
13. Ordinary mitigating and privileged mitigating' circumj,,?
,
stances, distinguished. .."
%
693
 3
i
, -
' . CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CXIMINAL LAW llEVlBWEK
Distinctions Distinctions
9%

' ~ - .
4 Oi%dinarymitigating circumstance is susceptible of
being offset by any aggravating circumstance; while privi-
i
( 2 ) Passion or obfuscation cannot give rise to an ,ir-
resistible force, because irresistible force requires physical .i

leged mitigating circumstance cannot be offset by aggravat- force.

ing circumstance. (3) Passion or obfuscation is in the offender himself,
2. Ordinary mitigating circumstance, if not offset by while irresistible force must come from a third person.
, , ,
an aggravating circumstance, has the effect only of apply- (4) Passion or obfuscation must arise from Iawful senti-.
. .,
ments : whereas, the irresistible force is unlawful.
'

, . ing the penalty provided by law f o r t h e offense in ita

' ' .*
'

minimnni period; whereas, privileged mitigating circum- I

1 16. Passion or obfuscation, distinguished from provocation.
. , .. : stance bas the effect of imposing upon the offender a (1) Provocation comes from the injured party; pas-
, .
penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided sion or obfuscation is produced by an impulse.
,, .. by law For the offense (Arts. 68 and 69). ,
(2) Provocation must ,immediately precede the com-
mission of the crime; in passion or obfuscation the of-
-14. Distinguish provocation from vindication. I . fense which engenders perturbation of mind need not ,%e
(1) In the mitigating circumstance of provocation, the immediate. It is only required that the influence thereof. -
provocadion is made directly only t o the person commit lasts until the moment the crime is committed. . , ...
..
. ": ting the felony; in vindication, the grave offense may be (3) In both, 'the effect is the' loss of reason and self-
committed also against the relatives of the offender men- control on the part of the offender.
tioned by the law.
(2) In the mitigating circumstance of vindicati,on, the
/ 17. Qualifying aggravating circumstance distinguished
generic aggravating circumstance.
... offended party must have done a grave offense to the
, ,
offender or to any of his relatives mentioned by the law; (1) The effect of a generic aggravating circumstan
, .
in provocation, the cause that brought about the provoca- not offset by any mitigating circumstance, is to increase:.'.
, . the penalty which should be imposed upon the accused t o
.,,. tion need not be a grave offense.
.a ~, : 'j I the maximum period, but without exceeding the limit pr? ;
(3) In provocation, it is necessary that the provocation I scribed by law; TFhile that of a qualifying circumstance+
or thre:rt immediptely preceded the act, i.e., that 'there be j ' is not only to give the crime its proper and exclus
no interval of time between the provocation or threat and but also to place the author thereof in such a
the commission of the crime; while in vindication, the a 21s t o deserve no other penalty than that specific
8,
vindication of the grave offense may be proximate, which scribed by law f o r said crime (People vs. Bayot, 64 Phil
9
admits of an interval of time between the grave offense 269).
.,
:'. 2.. .done by the offended party and the commission of the (2) A qualifying aggravating circumstance can not be:
crime hy the accused. offset by a mitigating circumstance; a generic aggravating
_.,.
., ~

circumstance may be compensated by ri mitigating ci

15. Passion or obfuscation, distinguished from irresistible
(1) While passion or obfuscation is a mitigating cir-
' cumstance, irresistible force is an exempting circumstance.
i.
stance.
( 3 ) A qualifying aggravating circumstance to be,,qu,&l
must be alleged in the information. If it i s not alleged;
it becomes a generic aggravating circumstance ody. 5 3

694 695
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
..+. ,
buse of confidence and obvious ungratefuluess, distin-
In abuse of confidence, the offended party must have
confidence in the offender: in obvious unpate-
the offended party extended some favors t o the
who should be grateful t o him.
With the aid of armed men, distinguished from by H
t 46 O.G., Sup. 11, 190).
By a band requires that more than tbr% armed male-
X'
factors shall have acted together in the com%ission of an
. .
. ,' , offense. Aid of armed men is present cven if one'of
the offenders merely relied on their aid, for actual aid
is not necessary. The armed men givinp the aid need
not be more than three, as two armed mer, would be suf-
ficient.
0. Recidivism and reiteraciou, distinguished.
The circumstance of rejteracion may be distinguished
from recidivism, as follows:
(a) In reteraci6n, it is necessary that the offender
shall have served his sentence for the previous pffense;
wheress, in recidivism it is enough that a final judgment
has been rendered for the first offense.
(b) I n reiteracion, the previous and subsequent of-
I
fenses must not be embraced in the same title of the Code;
whereas, recidivism requires that the first and second
offenses be embraced in the same title of the Code.
(c) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circum-
stance; whereas, recidivism is always to be taken into
consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon
the accused.
' .
~ ;: Note: Xeiteracibn or habituality should n o t be considered a3
aggravating when the penalty would be death.
chery, abuse of superior strength, and means em-
to weaken the defense, distinguished.
696
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
,
, ,
. ~ . . >
,. *...
Anypne of these aggravating circumstances majr &$i- ;1
tate tKe commission of the crime. .',;.,+. ."',.. L :,;
~ I
d
In treachery, means, methods or forms of attack are;;;
,/' employed by the offender to make it impossible or hard,$
for the offended party t o put up any sort of resistance
(People vs. Ducusin, 53 Phil. 280; People vs. TurnBob,,,
' In abuse of super.ior strength, the offender does not
,
. ., ~ . , . @
!:
employ means, methods or forms OP attack, for he enjoys e!
superior 'strength of wbich he takes advantage. . ..
In means employed to weaken the defense, the offender, ?~
like in treachery, employs means but the means employed
only materially weakens the resisting power of the of-
f e w ? .party.
Distinguish accomplice from principal in general.
An accomplice is one who does not take a direct part
in the execution of the act, who does not force or induce
others to commit it, o r who does not cooperate in the corn-;
mission of the crime by another act without which it would
not have been accomplished, yet cooperates in the execu-
Gf the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Pe&
le vs. Silvestre, 66 Phil. 353).
3. Distinguish an accompIice froni a principal by direct
participation.
(1) In both, there is community of criminal design.
Ey the overv?helming weight of authority; the same
community of purpose and intention is necessary to justify
the conviction of an accused person in the character of
accomplice that is necessary to sustain conviction in the
character of principal (PeopJe vs. Tamayo, 44 Phil. 83).
' . We must bear in mind that unity of purpose and of
,' action must exist, not only among the principals them-
selves, but also between the principals and the accom-
/" plices, and t h i t what distinguishes the latter. from'.the:
former in that accomplices cooperate in the execution of
697
 .. .,
' 1 , ., j:
,,>,c,
, '.,I_
"I\)
;:,"!
CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWEll CRIAiINAL LAW REYIEWEH
Distinctions Distinctions
..
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts other than (1) Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes the
, ,
. . those which would characterize them as principals, pur-
criminal liability of the offender; such is not the case
,. when the parcion is given by the offended party.
- suant t o article 17 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs.
. ~.. . Maiiala,c and Viacruces, C.A., 46 O.G. 111). ' ( 2 ) Pardon by the Chief Executive cannot include civil
(2) As to the acts performed, there is no clear-cut liability which the offender must pay; but the offended
-.
, distinction between the acts of the accomplice and those party can waive the civil liability which the offender must
' ': -

of the principal by direct participation. That is why in pay.

', ,'
, ,..
(3) In cases where the law allows pardon by the of-
. . . of doubt, it shall be resolved in favor of lesser iespon- ,
fended party (Art. 344), pardon should be given before
:~i' -i ,' sibility, that is, that of mere accomplice.
the institutiou of criminal prosecution; whereas, the Chief
i..

(3) Previous agreement os previous understanding is ,Executive cannot grant pardon before conviction.
, required of principals, but not between a principal and
:
:,, an accomplice (People vs. Aplegido, et al., '76 Phil. 571). h-d'/ real nr material Dlurality . .n g
. . .., . ..
crd.
24. Distinpish an accomplice from a principal by cooperation.
I
'

, . ' In real or material plurality as well as in continuiya,,

i I.
The cooperation of an accomplice, although' necessary, crime, there is a series of acts performed by the offender.**
. I i
, . is not indispensable as in the case of a eo-principal by While in real o r material plurality, each act performed
: , cooperation. For example, if one lends his dagger or by the offender constitutes a separate crime, because each
: pistol to a murderer fully knowing that the latter will act is generated by a criminal impulse; in continuing crime,
.. commit murder, he undoubtedly cooperates in the commis- he different acts constitute only one crime, because all

/
,
sion of the crime of murder by a previous act which,
however, cannot be considered indispensable for the rea-
son that even though the offender did not lend his dagger
o r pistol, the murderer could have obtained it somewhere
else or from snme other person. I n such a case, the CO-
eration of the offender is that of an accomplice.
df the acts performed arise from one crimina1 resolution.
28. Ellity of crimes, distingnished from recidivism.
In recidivism, the accused must he convicked by final
judgment of the first o r prior offense; in plurality of
' crimes, the accused successively executed different criminal ,.

a 5 upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared::,:

'
The cooperation of a principal is indispensable, that
is, without which the commission of the offense would
not have been accomplished. 2 'J- 'nqnsncy, distinguished from recidivism.
(I) A s t o the n&rn.es committed-In recidivism, it
,

id)
.I.

.1

25. Accessory, distinguished from principal.
(I) The accessory does not take direct
ate in;or induce, the commission of the
(2;) The participation of the accessory
ays takes place after the commission of
Pardon by the Chief Executive, distinguished, fmm par-
by the offended party.
.. 698
sufficient that the accused at the time of
part or conper- J have been previously convicted by final judgment of
other crime embraced in the same title of
crime.
habitual delinquency the crimes are specified.
in all cases al-
the crime. (2) As to the period of time the crimes
--In recidivism, no perind of time between
conviction and the last conviction i s ' fixed
'habitual delinquency; the offender is found guil
 CRlMINAL LAW RET'iEWER
Distinctions
>. .'
,?of the crimes specified within ten years from his last re-
lease or last conviction.
( 3 ) .As t o the number of crimes committed.-In reci-
divism, the second conviction of an offense embraced in
the same title of the Code is sufficient; in habitual de-
linquency, the accused must be found guilty the third time
p.?.,-,.. ' or oftener of any of the crimes specified (People vs. Ber-
nal, 63 Phil. 750).
.;..
( 4 ) As to their effects.-Recidivism, if not offset by
" .
.~,, ,,, / a mitigating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty
only to the maximum; whereas, if there is .habitual delin-
quency, a n additional penalty is also imposed.
, ~ ' , '30. Distinction between a fine with a minimum.and a f i n s
. .
without. a minimum.
(1) In both, the law fixes the maximum of the fine.
(2) Whcn the law fixes the minimum of the fine,
the court cannot change that minimum; whereas, when
,. .
the law does not state the minimum of the fine but only
~~,'.
the ma.ximum, the court can impose any amount not ex-
ceeding such maximurn.
v i s a recidivist, because i t produces the extinction
( 3 ) When the law fixes both the minimum and the
maximum, the court can impose a n amount higher t h a n
. the maximum; whereas, when only the m-ximum is fixed,
It cannot impose an amount higher than the maximum.
I
31. Causes of extinction of criminal liability, distinguished
front causes of justification or exemption.
Extinction of criminll liability arises from causes
which occur after the commission of the offense; while
the cmses of justification or exemption from criminal Iia-
bility arise from circumstances existing either before the
commission of the crime or at the moment of its con-
summ,ation.
;..
32. Amnesty and pardon, distingnished.
(1.) Pardon includes any crime and is exercised in-
..'?~.,
,.
.,
.. . dividually by the President; amnesty is a blanket pardon
700
CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
granted to classes of persons or communities who may be
guilty of political offenses. . . .,
,i
( 2 ) Pardon is exercised when the person is already
convicted; amnesty may be exercised even before trial or
investigation is had.
(3) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender
from the consequences of an offense of which he has bee
,convicted, that is, it abolished or forgives the punishment
and for that reason i t does "not work the restoration'
the rights to hold public office or the right of suffra
.
unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms
the pardon." On the other hand, amnesty looks backvpa
and abolishes and puts in oblivion the offense itself; it
overlooks and obliterates the offense with which the:;
fenaer iri charged that he stands before the law precis
as though he had committed no offense (Earrioqui
et al. va. Fernandez, et al., 46 O.G. 3031).
Thus,-
(a) Pardon does not alter the fact that the accused.
only of the personal effects of the penalty (U.S.,
vs. Sotelo, 28 Phil. 147).
(b) Amnesty makes an ex-convict no longer a recidivist,
because it obliterates the last vestige of the crime
(US.vs. Francisco, 10 Phil. 185). ,
(4) Both do not extinguish the civil liability of the
offender (Art. 113).
(5) Pardon, being a private act of the President, must
be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned; while
amnesty being by Proclamation of the Chief ,Executive
with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which
the courts should take judicial notice (Barrioquinto, et' al.
vs. Fernandez, et ai., supra).
33. Conditional pardon, distinguished from parole.
.
(1) Conditional pardon, which may be given at any
time after final judgment, is granted by the Chief .Ex-
701

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
ecutive under the provisions of the Administrative Code;
..
. . , .
parole, which may be given after the prisoqer has served
the 'mhimum penalty, is granted by the Board of Pardons
and Parole under the provision of the Indeterminate Sen-
.i.
tence Law.
~.
(2) For violation of the conditional pardon, the con-
vict may he ordered rearrested o r reincarcerated by the
Chief Executive, or may be prosecuted under Art. 159
of this Code; for violation of the terms of the parole,
the convict cannot be prosecuted under Art. 159. He can
.be rearrested and incarcerated to serve the unserved por-
tion of his original penalty.
Civil liabilities, distinguished from pecuniary liabilities.
Art. 104, providing for three forms of civil liabilities,
and Art. 38, providing for the order of payment of pecuniary
liabilities, may be distinguis_ke$ as follows:
, ' ' ( 1 ) Both ' dude ( e $ & o f d c a u s e d ,
----=F. icatlon for consequential damages;
and (bJ4ndemm
(2) While civil liabilities include restitution, pecuniary
liabilities do not include restitution, because the latter refer
to liabilities to be paid out of the property of the offender.
In restitution, there is nothing t o pay in terms of money,
as the property unlawfully taken is returned.
(3) Pecuniary liabilities include (a) fine, and (b) the
costs of the proceedings. Civil liabilities do not include
1 them.
......s;.
,. 35. State in general the circumstances relating to the persorls
.
,fi
''
co hitting the crime and distinguish them from the cir-
consisting in the material execution of t h e
act or in the means em,ployed to accomplish it.
The circumstances relating t o the persons committh3
the crime are: (1) mitigating and aggravating circum-
stances which arise from the moral attributes of the of-
fenders, ( 2 ) those that arise from the private relation
' of the offender with the offended party, and ( 3 ) those
'which arise from other personal causes.
702
.. . .
'I
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
.,...>, ::J
, .,.A
Note: Examples: (1) passion or obfuscation and evident, prv.q
meditation; ( 2 ) servant and master; ( 3 ) miiority and recidivism. ,.
They are distinguished from the ciriumstances con- 2:
sisting in the material execution of the act or in the meane:;
employed to accomplish it, in that the circumstances. re- :.
lating to the persons committing the crime are personat;.?
that is, they aggravate or mitigate the liability of the'.
principals, accomplices, and accessories to whom they are,;'
attendant; wherea.s, the circumstances which consist-in the
material execution of the act or in the means employed ',
to accomplish it, serve to aggravate or mitigate the lia-
bility of those persons who have knowledge of
the time of the commission of the crime or during
cooperation, therein.
Note: The examples of the latter are: (1) nighttime,
ery, (8) cruelty or ignominy.
..<
36. Distinguish prescription of crime from prescription of
penalty as to (1) when they commence to run, (2) when
they are interrupted, and (3) when they commence t o
i run again.
i
i (1) The period of prescription of crime commenca to
run from the day the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents; whereas, the period
of prescription of penalty commences to run from the day
the convict evadcd the service of the sentence.
(2) The running of the period of prescription of the
crime'is interrupted by the filing of the complaint or in-
formation; whereas, the running of the period. of pre-
scription of penalty is interrupted when the convict is
1
captured, gives himself up, goes to a foreign country with:
which we have no extradition treaty, or when he commits:
a crime before the expiration of the period of prescription.
(3) The period of prescription of crime which has been
interrupted may commence to run again when the proceed-~..;
z ings terminate without the accused having been conyi&di,
or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any rkasons
not imputable to the accused ; whereas, the running:g$t@~
,..., ~i"
703
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
r
period of prescription of penalty which has been inter-
upted shall commence to run again when the convict
evades the service of sentence again.
~--
~.
,
%.
,
37. Espionage, distinguished from treason.
Treason is committed in time of war, while espionage
may bo committed both in time of peace and in time of
'
war. Treason is limited t o two ways of committing it-
levying war, and adhering to the enemies giving them aid
o r comfort; while espionage may be committed in many
ways (Com. Act No. 616). Treason is committed usually
by a citizen ; whereas, espionage is generally committed
. .
',,. by a foreigner.
38. Piracy, distinguished from mutiny.
In piracy, the persons who attack a vessel or seize its
cargo on the high seas are strangers to the said vessel;
while in mutiny, they are members of the crew or pas-
sengers.
While the intent to gain is essential in the crime of
/
piracy: in mutiny, whether the offenders merely intend
to ignore the ship's officers o r are prompted by a desire
to commit plunder, is immaterial.
9. Piracy, distinguished from robbery on the high seas.
When the offender is a member of the complement or
a passenger of the vessel and there is violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon thiEgs in taking the
property in the vessel, i t is common robbery; if the of-
fender is an outsider, i t will be piracy.
.Both in piracy and in common robbery on the high
sedsi,,there is intent to gain and the manqer of committing
1 .i
t crime is the same.
40. rbilrary detention by arresting and detaining a PerSOR,
istiriguished from arbitrary detention by delaying the
delivery of the person arrested l o the proper judicial
authorities.
704
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
/'
In the €irst, the detention is illegal from the beginning:
;
I
in the second, the detention is legal a t the beginning, but
the illegality of the detention arises from the expiration'
of the periods of time respectively specified by the Code
1' Art. 125), without the person detained having been de-
livered to the proper judicial authorities.
/'
41. Rebellion, distinguished from treason.
(a) The levying of war could constitute treason when .
performfd to aid the enemy, as such would also constitute
'
ail adherence to him, giving him ajd or comfort. IIence,
! where the purpose of the offenders in levying war agaihst
the constituted authorities is the delivery, in whole or i n
part, of the country to the enemy, then it is treason.
Otherwise, the mere act of levying war to overthrow
the Government would constitute rebellion.
' f b ) Rebellion always involves taking up arms against
be committed by mere ad-
him aid or comfort.
i '42. .Propsal to commit rebellion, distinguished from inciting
to rebellion.
(1) In both, the offender induces another t o commit ,,
rebellion.
C2) In proposal, the person who proposes is decided.to
codmit rebellion; in inciting to rebellion, it is not required
r the existence of the crime.
(3) in proposal, the person who proposes the e x e c u t i g '
of the crime uses secret means; in inciting to rebellion;
the provocation is done publicly.
43. Sedition, distinguished from treason.
Treason, in its more general sense, is the "violation
by a subject of his allegiance to his sovereign or liege;
lord, or to the supreme authority of the State." (Centy$
3 Dictionary) Sedition, in its general sense, is "the raising..
of commotions or disturbances i n the State" (U.S. vs.
Abad, 1 Pbil. 437). .. , .
705
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
Sedition, distinguished from rebellion,
In both rebellion and sedition, there must be public
uprising. While in rebellion, there must be taking a m
against the Governqent; in sedition, i t is sufficient that
the public uprising is tumultuous.
While in sedition, the purpose of the fiffenders may,
be political o r social; in rebellion, i t is always political.
Specifically, the purpose of the offender in rebellion
is any one of the following:
(1) To remove from the allegiance to said Government
o r its !aws (a) the territory of the Philippines or any part
thereof, or (b) any body of land, naval or other armed
forces; or
( 2 ) T o deprive the Chief Zxecutivc or Congress, wholly
or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
The object of the offenders in sedition is any o f the
following :
(1) To prevent the promulgation or execution of any
law or the holding of any popular election;
( 2 ) T o prevent the National Government, or any pro-
vincial or municipal government o r any oublic officer there-
of from freely exereking its or his functions, or prevent
the execution of any administrative order;
(3) To inflict any act of hate o r revenge upon the
person or property of any public officer o r employee;
I (4) To commit, for any political or social end, any act
of hate or revenge against private persons or any social
class; aad
( 5 ) To despoil, for any political or social end, any
person, municipality os province, or the National Govern..
ment of a11 its property or any part thereof.
If the purpose of the uprisirig is not exactly against
the Government and not for the purpose of doing the things
defined in Art. 134 of the Revised Penal Code, but m9reIy
t o attain by force, intimidation, or by other means out-
side of legal methods, one object, to wit, to inflict an act
of hate or revenge upon the person or property of a public
706
CNIXIIVAL LAW REVIEWER'
Distinctions
I official like the town mayor, it is sedition (People vs.
et a:., G. R. L-6803,Nov. 29, 1954).
..
association, distinguished from illegal assembly,'
(1) In illegal assembly, it% necessary that'there. i s4
an actual meeting or assembly of armed persons for th@:
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable under?
1 the Code, or of individuals who, although not armed, are ,
incited to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition; '
or assault upon a person in authority o r his agent.
Such requisite is not necessary in the crime of illegal
association.
. . In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and attend-
(2)
I ance a t such meeting that are punished.
In illegal associations, it is the act of forming or or-
ganizing, and membership of, the association that are
punished.
(3) If the purpose of the meeting is to commit crimes
J punishable by special laws, such meeting is not a n illegal
assembly.
In illegal association, the purpose may include the com-
mission of crimes punishable by special laws, because when
the purpose of the organization is contrary to public morals
the cts which are contrary to public morals may constitute
imes punishable under the special laws.
/ '
Rehellion, .
distinsuished from a violation o f the Anti-
Subversion Act.
When the purpose of taking up arms against the Gov-
ernment is to overthrow and supersede the existing govern-
ment, i t is rebellion; when the purpose is to establish in
the Philippines a totalitarian regime ana place the Gov- .:
ernment under the control and domination of an alien power#. :
it i s a violation of the Anti-Subversion Act.
!
I
E 47. Illegal association under the Revised Penal Code, .dis-.;::
tinguished from illegal association under the Anti-Sub- ,'
version Act.
7 707
.-,
 I ,i
:. _,
:

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMIN.AL LAW K E V I ~ W E R

Distinctions Distinctions

. ;e:. / When the purpose of the association is to commit a n y

..'
! ..
'i'iolation of conditional pardon does not cause hartn
'. Of' the crimks punishable under the Revised Penal Code

1
or injury t o the right of other person nor does it disturb
or is contrary to public morals, it is an illegal association the public order; it is merely an infringement of the:terms,
,
'
r
.
%
, . under the Revised Penal Code. If the purpose is to over- stipulated in the contract between the Chief Executive and
throw the Government to establish in the Philippines a the criminal.
totalitarian regime and place the Government under the
Evasion of the service of the sentence is an attempt
'. control and domination of an alien power, it is an illegal
s: I,.: a t least to evade the penalty inflicted by the courts upon
G association under the Anti-Subversion Act.
0 . . . criminals and thus defeat the purpose of the law of either
@:'Direct
L I

assault, distinguished from resistance. reforming or punishing them for having disturbed the

/
, .. ,. public order (Alvares vs, Director of Prisons, 80 Phil. 43).
(1) In resistance, when force is employed against an
ent of a. person in authority, the force is not serious, 51. Distinction between use of fictitious name and concealing
there is no manifest intention to defy the law or its true name.
I
icers. 'In direct assault, the force employed must be
(1) In use of fictitious name, the element of publicity
,:,, ,..;
serious.
~
must be present; in concealing true name and other per-;.. .
,. .' If the force consists in laying hands upon a person
."' sonal circumstances, that element is not necessary.
' in authority, such force, even if not serious, would con-
(2) The purpose of the offender in use of fictitious :i

/
. , stitute direct assault.
<
),; ~,
k,, (2) In direct assault, the person in authority or his
I,
agent must be engaged in the performance of official duties
o r that he was assaulted by reason thereof; but in resist-
ance, the person in authority or his agent must be in the
actual performance of his duties.
49.' -Inciting t,o sedition or rebellion, distinguished from pub-
lie disordcer.
For a speech or the displaying of emblems or placards
3 -
t o constitute provocation to commit rebellion or sedition,
i t is necessary that the offender should have done the act
.5 ;, : with, the idea aforethought of inducing his hearers or
!.
readers. to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition.
I.
But if they are more or less unconscious outbursts
ich, although rebellious or seditious in nature, are not
entiondly calculated to induce others to commit rebelIion
name is to conceal a crime, to evade the execution of a
judgment, or to cause' damage; in concealing true,,name,
' -''merely to conceal identity.
y/? istinguisb perjury from false testimony in judicial pro-'
ceeding.
Both false testimony in judicial proceeding and per-
jury are perversions of the truth.
While false testimony is supposed to be given.under
oath in the course of some judicial proceeding, perjury-.
is any n,iilful and corrupt assertion of falsehood on some
material matter made under oath and not in judicial pro- ..
1
ceeding.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other
. than those taken in the course of judicial proceedings
(US. vs. Estrafm, 16 Phil. 621).
j.

sedition, it is only pubiic disorder. False testimouy in judicial pr6ceeding contelaplates. an.,::
i. i actual trial .where a judgment of conviction or ac
iolation of conditional pardon, distinguished from eva- is rendered, and not merely a preliminary invest
on of 13ervice of sentence by escaping (People vs. Bautista, C.A., 40 O.G. 2491).
,.
708 709 ,,, ..
,2:

>*

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Digtinetions
53. Trade-name, distinguished from trade-mmk. I In this regard, the two felonies a.re similar.
Trade-name is a name used in trade to designate a
, ' particu1a.r business of certain individuals considered 88
: an entity: whereas, trade-mark is used to indicate the
origin or ownership of the goods to which it is affixed.
1.
-.
One of the distinguishing characteristics of a trade-
name is that, unlike trade-mark, it is not necessarily a b
tached or affixed t o the goods of the owner (U.S. vS.
Kyburz, 28 Phil. 475).
i 5
64. Infringement of trade-mark or trade-name, distinguished
from unfair competition.
..,
(1) 'Unfair competition is broader and mrre inclusive;
infringement is of limited range. In unfair competition,
the trade-mark or trade-name of another m&y be involved.
(2) I n unfair competition, fraudulent intent is an es-
sential element; i n infringement, it is not necessary (Al-
I
,' hambra vs. Mojica, 27 Phil. 266).
(3) In infringement, the infringed trade-,nark or t r a d e
name must be registered in the Patent Office (Ogura VS.
Chua, 59 Phil. 471); in unfair competition, it is enough
-ff& g"&+]h 'EA%?&-&d!.i&eSl. o n the x-oods or service
of the offended party.
(4) In infringement, the same particular class of goods
or service is involved: in unfair competition, different
classes of goods or even nou-competing goods may be in-
volved.
(5) In fraudulent use of trade-mark, the offender US@
the trade-mark of another manufacturer or dealer in sell-
ing his goods: wheseas, in unfair competition, the offender
gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of an-
other manufacturer or dealer and sells the same.
55. Prevaricacion, distinguished from bribery.
The third form of direct bribery (Art. 210) is COm-
J tion from the prisoner by means of violence, the act is
mitted by refraining from doing something which pertains ..
to the official duty of the officer. Prevaricacion (A&
"
208) is committed in the same way.
710
<'- , ., ,,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
, .>I
. ~. .I
r But they differ in that i n bribery the offender re-
frained from doing his official duty in consideration of a~
gift received or promised. This element is not necessary
e crime of prevaricacion.
,. Direct . .
,/" bribery, distinguished from indirect bribery.
(1) In both, the public officer receives gift. .
(2) While in direct bribery there is an agreement be-'^:
"'*$
,.-,
,.,
tween the public officer and the giver of the gift or present; ,:
i indirect bribery, usually no such agreement exists.
(3) I n direct bribery, the offender agrees to p e r f o m
/p os performs zn act constituting a crime, or not-consti-
tuting a crime but unjust, because of the gift or promise.; ';
in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer
should d o any particular act or even promise to do an
act, as i t is enough that he accepts gifts given t o him,,.
r
by reason of his office. -
.i,
57. Distinguisb indirect bribery from direct bribery of the ,.
second form.
The case of People vs. Pamplona, C.A., 51 O.G. 4116
&&h +&z4fi+&mZfrs, a.cae-.d-direct bribery under the
2nd paragraph of Art. 220, because there was an W e *
/ ment between the public officer and the giver of the gift
; and that the act which the public officer executed did not
constitute a crime. But in direct bribery under the 2nd
I
paragraph of Art. 210, the act executed must be unjust.
In the Pamplona case, where it was held that the crime
,', . committed was indirect bribery, the act executed by the
accused (preparing the voucher) was not unjust.
t
I 58, Maltreatment
! -
of prisoners, distinguished from grave CO-
ercion.
In extorting a confession or in obtaining an informa-
similar to that of grave coercion; but the difference lies.:?
in the fact that in the crime of maltreatment of prisoners"
711
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
’/
,,
.. . the offended
i,.~:: party is a prisoner. If the offended party
is not a prisoner, because he was only under arrest and
not et placed in jail or booked by the police, the offense
. I : , w uld be grave coercion.
‘59 Attempl.ed and frustrated homicide, distinguished from
physical injuries.
In both, physical injuries are inflicted.
Where the intent of the assailant t o kill his, victim is
clear, the act of the accused in inflicting physical injuries
.’/.?’
upon the offended party constitutes the crime of attempted
or frustrated homicide, not merely physical injuries.
60. Abortion, distinguished from infanticide.
A mother, who had aborted for taking “pociones amat-
gas,” buried near her house a living foetus. The expelled
foetus had already a human form and about six months
old. But it did not have jts own life, independently of
that of the mother. It could not subsist by itself, out-
side the maternal womb, A foetus under these conditions
, . had necessarily to succumb a few moments after its ex-
pulsion from the maternal womb.
HeZcl: Abortion, not infanticide, was committed. If
/)
the foetus (I) could sustain an independent life, after
its separation from the maternal womb, and it (2) is
killed, .the crime is infanticide (People vs. Detablan, C.A.,
I 40 O.G., Sup. 5, 30).
’ 61. Mutilation, distinguished from ordinary physical injuries.
The mutilation must have been caused purposely and
1 wild-animal tamer, or circus manager, o r to accompan:
deliberately to lop or clip off some part of the body; this
special intention is not present in the other kinds of physical
injuries.
* inducing a minor to abandon his home under Art. 271.,1
62. Unlawful arrest, distinguished from other illegal detentibn.
.. . If the purpose of locking up or detaining the offended
. party is to deliver him to the proper authorities, and it
,. . ,
.,. ’
., . ,, 712
I’
:1
. !.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIFWER
Distinctions
I
develops that the detention is unlawful, then the offense”
committed is unlawful arrest.
In any other case, the detention a€ the offended party.
ill render the culprit, who must be a private individual,
liable for other illegal detention.
!f Slavery, distinguished from kidnapping or illegal detention:
When the act or manner of committing the offense is
by kidnapping or detaining the offended party, the crime
of slavery is distinguished from kidnapping or illegal de-
1
tention by the purpose of the offender. If the pum’ose
is to enslave the victim, i t is slavery; otherwise, it is
kidnapping or illegal detention.
I 64. Abandoning a minor, distinguished from kidnapping and
failure to return a minor.
(1) In both, tho offender has the custody of the minor;
( 2 ) In abamdoning a minor, the minor is under seven
years of age; in kidnapping and failure to return a minor,
the victim is any minor under 21 years of age;
(3) What is punished in kidnapping and failure to
return, a minor is the deliberate faiZure to restore the
minor to his parent or guardian; in abandoning a minor,
it is the abandoning of the minor endangering his life
/which, is punished.
6$. Exploitation of minors, distinguished from inducing I
J minor to abandon his home.
(1) If the purpose of inducing the minor t o &an&]
the home is to follow any person engaged in any of t$
callings of being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, dive!
any habitual vagrant or beggar (Art., 278, par. 5), it i
exploitatim~of minors; if there is no such purpose, it‘!,
(2) In inducing a minor to abandon his home,;@
victim is a minor under 21 years of age; in exploiki”8
of minors, he must be under 16 or 12 years.of::aget:.jag‘ ,.
I.
!
713
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
66. Trespass to dwelling, distinguished from other forms of
':
trespass (trespass to property).
(1) In trespass to dwelling, the of€ender is a private
person; in other forms of trespass, the offender is any
person.
( 2 ) I n the first, the offender enters the dwelling house
' . of another; in the second, the offender enters the closed
premises or the fenced estate of another;
(3) I n the first, the place entered is inhabited; in the
second, the place entered is uninhabited.
( 4 ) In the first, the act constitnting the crfme is en-
tering the dwelling against the will of the owner; in the
second, it is entering the closed p r m i s e s or the fenced
estate without securing the permission of the owner or
caretaker thereof:
. (3) In threats, the intimidation may refer t o the pe~$
,.;/
( 5 ) In the first, the prohibition to enter is express or
implied; in the second, the prohibition to enter must be
' '. manifest.
" $7:. ,.Grave
.... cocrcion, distinguished from unjust vexation.
Where the first and the third elements .of the Crime
of grave epercion under paragraph 1 of Art. 286 are present,
but the second element thereof, which is th? use of vie-
knee upon the offended party in preventing him from
doina; or compelling him t o do, something azainst his Will,
is lacking, the crime committed by the axused is light
i
coercion o r unjust vexation under the secund paragraph
?'
~
of Art. 287 (People VS. Sebastian, et ai., C.A., 40 0.G.
2498).
' , : ,, 68. Grave coercion, distinguished from grave threats.
Both i n grave coercion and in grave threats, the of-.
fended party is compelled to do something against his will.
i In grave coercion, the compulsion is made either by means
of violence or by means of intimidation; i n grave threats,
it is made by means of intimidation only.
But in grave coercion, the violence o r intimidation is
5'~,
.
actual, immediate and continuing; in grave threats, the
714
CKlirliNAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions
intimidation only promises some future harm if the condi-'
tion imposed is not complied with by the offended party>;.
In grave coercion, the violence or intimidation is intended
produce immediate effect.
to extort money, distinguished from robbery w$h
intimidation. ..
I n both, there is intimidation against the offended party:
The purpose, which is to obtain gain, is likewise identieat
The differences are:
(1) In robbery, the intimidation is actual and
mediate; whereas, in threats, the intimidation is cond$
tionai or future, that is, not immediate;
( 2 ) In robbery, the intimidation is personal: while '
threats, it may be through an intermediary;
son, honor or property of the offended party or that 0;
his family; while in robbery the intimidation is d'
only to the person of the victinl;
( 4 ) I n robbery, the gain of the culprit is inimecIiatF
whereas, in threats the gain of the culprit is:not'~@i
mediate (People vs. Moreno, C.A., G.R. No. 43635, Apa
violence, distinguished from grave coereior
, .,
(1) In both, there is violence against the
party.
(2) While in robbery there is intent to gain, such ,
ment is not present in grave coercion. .&
I
The only distinction between these two crimes is j$
j a matter of intention. If the purpose of the accusedy
taking somebody's property by force or intimidation is ,I
obta.in gain, the crinle is robbery; but if his purpose'!
to compel anotser to do something against his will or !
; prevent another from doing something not prohibited 1:
law, without authority of law, but believing hmself toii
the owner or creditor, and thereby seizes property, th;
715
 CRIMINAL L.IW REVIEWER
/
Distinctions
.,,. A ,~
...,.><?., r the crime is grave coercion (PeopIe vs. Zanoria, et al.,
' '
,$&$**:,., .'
1C.A..
,,.:.,..:~;;'.i 53, O.G. 5 2 6 6 ) .
Robbery, distinguished from bribery.
(1) It is robbery when the victim did not commit 8
. ,crime and he is intimidated with arrest and prosecution to
deprive him of his personal property: it is bribery when
the victim has committed a crime and gives money or gift
to avoId arrest and prosecution. The reason is, when tho
victim did not commit any crime, there is nothing that
would have required the public officer to exercise his duty
o r function. On the other hand, if the victim committed
a crime and the public officer accepted bribe, the latter
thereby agreed to refrain from doing something which it
was his official duty to do.
(2) I n robbery, the victim is deprived of his money
or property by force or intimidation; in bribery, he parts
I .
with his money or property in a sense voluntarily (U.S.
vs. Flores, 19 Phil. 178).
./
Robbery by execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation, distinguished from grave coercion.
If the offended party has no obligation to execute, sign
or deliver a document and, ruitb intent to gain, the bf-
fender compelled him to execute, sign or deliver the docu-
ment by mcans of violence or intimidation, the crime com-
mitted is robbery.
CI When the offended party has obligation under the law
t o sign, execute or deliver the document, i t will, be grave
coercion if violence is used in compelling the offended party
to sign, execute or deliver the document.
Thu:;, a person who bought and fully paid the price
.
of a car and compelled the seller by means of violence
or intimidation to sign, execute, and deliver the correspond-
ing deed of sale, would be guilty of grave coercion, not
robbery, since there is no intent t o defraud. But if he
75. versation.
,
,.
. . ~., had not yet paid the price of the car, he would be liable
for robbery.
716
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER - ,~.,.
, . ~.
..t
Distinctions -,
>I
..z,..
Brigandage, distinguished from robbery in band. ..
.<
Both brigandage and fobbery in band requee that;,&!
offenders form a band of robbers. There must be at least
four armed men. : 7:
In brigandage, the purpose of the offenders is any'of
the following: (1) to commit robbery in the highway, 01
(2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion o!
to obtain ransom, or (3) for any other purpose to be a t
tained by means of force and violence. In robbery
band, the purpose of the offenders is only to commit e
particular robbery, not necessarily in the highway.
If the agreement among more than three armed mer
was t n commit only a particular robbery, the offense it
not brigandage, but only robbery in band (US.vs. Feli,
ciano, 3 Phil. 422).
I n brigandage, the mere formation of a band for an3
of the purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient, as 11
would not be necessary to show that the band actuall~
committed robbery in the highway, etc. In robbery i 1
band, i t is necessary t o prove that the band actually com.
itted robbery, as a mere conspiracy t o commit robber>
is not punishable.
4. Estafa, distinguished from theft.
In estafa, the offender veceives the thing from thc
offended party. The offender does not take the thine
without the consent of the offended party. I n theft, th(
offender takes the thing without the consent of the o$
fended party. In theft, where the offender receives thi
thing from the offended party, the former acquires on!:
the physical or material possession of the thing. In 'estafa
the off nder has the juridical possession of the thing h(
rece' ed from the offended party.
' j"
stafa with abuse of confidence, distinguished from mal
(1) In both, the offender is entrusted with funds$
7
property.
717
 CRIAfISAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER :, i
Distinctions .,'I. .
Distinctions

( 2 ) Both are continuing offenses. individual 01' even' a public officer who is not officially
(3) But while,& estafa, the funds or property are entrusted with the document. I .
z,

! ' ~,
private, in malversation they are public funds or ProPeW- ') In estafa, there is intent to defraud. This element'
required in infidelity in the custody of documents.
. __. . (4) In estafa, the offender is a private individual or
, -
even a public officer who is not accountabie for public
funds o r property; in malversation, the offender must b e d estafa
Violation of chattel mortgage law, distinguished from. .
by disposing of encumbered property.
a public officer who is accountable for public funds o r
In both o-Cfenses, there .is the selling of a mortgaged.
property.
property. In estafa (Art. 316, par. 2), the property in-
(6) In estafa with abuse of confidence, the crime i s volved is real property; in sale of mortgaged property
committed by misappropriating, converting, or denying (Art. 319), i t is personal property.
having received, money, goods or other personal property:
But to constitute the crime as estafa, it is sufficient
in malversation, the crime is committed by appropriating,
that the real property mortgaged be sold as free, even;,
taking or misappropriating, or consenting or, through
thoogh the vendor may have obtained the consent ,of 'th5
abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person
mortgagee in writing.
to take the public funds or property.
/ (6) While malversation can be committed through neg-
ligence; estafa cannot be committed through negligence.
Selling or pledging of personal property alre
or mortgaged is committed by the mere fail e to obtaip
d i di

the consent of t h e mortgagee i n b r i d e e e

fender should inform the purchaser that the thing sold,.g.
' ' /6; Estafa by inducing another to sign a document, d i g
mortgaged (People vs. Alvarez, 45 Phil. 472).
tinguisheil from faIsifieat'ion.
.'..d... .
In estafa, the offender uses deceit to induce the of- The purpose of the law in Art. 319 is to protect . ,
",
8 'fended party to 'sign a document which contains stipula-
. 'e mortgagee; in Art. 316, the purpose is t o protect the-pur;
, .
'
whether the first or the second.
tions. different 'from those represented to the offedded
party. In falsification, the offended party made state- us, even if the mortgagor under Art. 319 has ad-;
ents t.o be embodied i n the document, but .the offender, purchaser that the personal property being sol
in preparing the document, attributed t o the offended party without the written consent of the mo
statements other than those made by him. agee, he is still criminally liable.

by removing, concealing or destroying a document, chastity, distinguished from offe

distinguished from infidelity in the custody of document. against chastity.
(1) The crime of infidelity in the custody of docu- c
Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) is committed by,
... .,, ' ments, as defined in Art. 226, and this kind of estafa a r e public officer, and that a mere immoral or indecent p r
:. -similar in that the manner of committing the offense i s posal made earnestly and persistently is sufficient; w h a
.,...*
_ . ,, : ,

the same. as, in crimes against chastity (Art. 3 3 6 ) , the offend

(2) But while under Art, 226, the offender is a public in the majority of cases, a private individual, and
;,
p<. . . who is officially entrusted with the custody of the
,.officer necessary that, at least, some actual act of lasciviou
;. document; in thishkind of estafa, the offendar is a private should. have been executed by the .offender.

719
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

I CRIMINAL LAW REVII$WER
Distinctions
Distinctions

/ ..
0. Acts of lasciviousness, distinguished from attempted rape.
The manner of committing the crime is the same, that
. is, force or intimidation is employed, or the offended party
is unconscious or deprived of reason, or under 12 years
Revised Penal Code is the offense. When
motivated, such taking constitutes kidnapping under
267, as amended, Forcible abduction is against chas
kidnapping is against personal liberty (People
c la, 53 0. G. 384).
,
ii
, i s not

.VS.
.
of age.
T,he performance of acts of lascivious character is com- / Criticism. dist.inguished from dcfam a t'ion.

.*
.e . ' mon to both.
The differences are:
Criticism deals only with such things a s shall invi
public attention o r call €or public comment. It does n
(I) If the acts performed by the offender clearly in- foliow a public man into his private life nor pry unt
.,.;.. ,.. .
.
,>I

his domestic concerns. ,.* - .

: 7 -
.:.;, .
.,. , ., dicate that his purpose was to lie with the offended party,
,:.>... it is attempted or frustrated rape. Hence, if the criticism follows a public officer in e.,;
.," private life, which has no connection with the p e r f o r m , '
,/,,i (:I) In the case of attempted rape, the lascivious acts
,. . . ance of his public duties and falsely charges him Wit?:
:
,: r
. are but the preparatory acts to the commission, of rape:
.evil,motives, clearly designeCl to destroy his reputation or..'!
. whereas, in the other, the lascivious acts are themselves
i,_1
,_,.
the final objective sought by the offender.
( 3 ) While acts of lasciviousness m w be committed S$
/
b mirch his name, there is defamation.
Slander by deed and maltreatmellt distin,wished. . ,
.,. $
,,~

.. . on the person of either sex, attempted 0: frustrated rape /

The act of holding a school teacher by the hair and,:,
i committed always upon a woman.

;'
. .
,:J S . Acts
tion.
of lasciviousness, distinguished from unjust vexa-

When the accused merely kissed and embraced the com-

i
plainant, either out of passion or other motive, touching
the girl's breast as a merc incident of the embrace, it is
unjust vexation.
~~ Bnt when the accused not only kissed and embraced
the complainant, but fondled her breast with the partic-
. . ular design to independently derive vicarious pleasure there-
f r m, the element of lewd designs exists and the crime
shaking him violently in the presence of school, children'
and other teachers, because he had stopped a boy who;
had been pursuing another, is not maltrcatment under par.
3, Art. 266, but slander by deed, because (1) of the public
office held by the offended party, and (2) the nature ,
and effects of the maltreatment inflicted upon him (Peo-
ple vs. Velez, G.R. No. 41234, Aug. 31, 1934).
Striking the priest on the face with the hand in the
presence of the faithful is slander by deed, because there
certainly could have been no other circumstance under
which greaier dishonor, discredit, and contempt could be

./
cast upon h:m before the laithfui over whom he held SO
c mmitted is acts of lasciviousness (People vs. Panopio, high a dignity (People vs. Nosce, 60 Phil. 895).
A, 48 O.G. 145).
The act of slapping the teacher, who refused to dance

<
,:.
',I
. Forcible abduction with rape, distinguished from kidnap- with the accused, constitutes slander by deed, in view of
the shame and humiliation she must have suffered at being
ping.
When the violent taking of a woman is motivated slapped during a dance where many people were present
(People vs. Roque, C.A., 40 O.G. 1710).
y lewd designs, forcible abduction under Art. 342 of the ' ,

721
720 , ,
..>I

".
I ,

i.4
',
..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Distinctions

Incriminating an innocent person, distinguished from per-

CRIi\IlXAL LAW REVlEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

AUGUST, 1946
,

. jury.
I i
1. (a) In 1945, a citizen of the Philippines was accused be- ''
(1) Incriminating an innocent person is committed by fore the People's Court of treason against the United States for .
performing an act by which the offender directly in-
having aided Nazi forces in the Buropean theater of war. Should
,~ . criminates or imputs to an innocent person the commission the case be dismissed after the inauguration of the Republic?
of a crime; in perjury, the gravamen of the offense is the Give reasons. (h) What is war treason?
1 , imputation itself, falsely made, before a n officer.
(a) No. Treason, as it is defincd in the Revised Penal
',. . ( 2 ) Incriminating an innocent person is limited to the Code, is committed by any person who, owing allegiance to the
i,.;~,. act of planting evidence and the like, in order to incriminate United States or the Government of the Philippine Islands, n o t .
. I,
an innocent person; while perjury is the giving of false being a foreigner, levies war against them o r adheres to their.
.,,.
,: ., statement o r the making of false affidavit in cases in enemies, giving them aid or comfort within the Philippine
"/ .: : ., which the law requires the making of affidavit (People Islands or elsewhere.
1 ,: ":,
~ .. vs. Rivera, 69 Phil. 236). While it is true that after the inauguration of the Republic,
Falsely accusing a person, made under oath, is perjury. levying war against the United States or adhering to ,her

. . ..,.
.
~;'Jd
..
t is not incriminating an innocent person.

Incriminatory machinations, distinguished from defamation.

In incriminatory machinations, the offender does not
avail himself of written or spoken words in besmirching
. , . . the victim's reputation, as would be the case of defamation.
, .
The offender in incriminatory machinations performs acts
j ' - to incriminate an innocent person or to blemish the honor
. . and reputation of the offended party.
87. Intriguing against honor, distinguished from defamation.
(1) In both, the aim of the offender is to blemish
, .
. ' the honor or reputation of his victim.
( 2 ) They differ as to the means employed. The means
employed in intriguing against honor must consist in some
tricky and secret plot against another. The means em-
. , ployed in defamation is the use of spoken 'or written
. words, etc., openly and publicly.
. .
eriemies, giving them aid or comfort, has ceased to be treason
under the Revised Penal Code, the fact remains that the crime,',
was committed in 1945, when treason under the Code could'-be
committed by a citizen of the Philipp'nes against the United
States.
Even if tile provioion of Art. 114, R.P.C., relative to treason
against the United States, is considered repealed by im~lication
after the inaugnralion of the Republic, crjmjnal liability under
the repealed law subsists when the repeal is hy implication.
(bi War treason is committed by citizens of the Philippines
or aliens residing in the Philippines who, owing allegiance .to.
the Government of the Philippines, levy war.against it. Treason ;
'being a war crime, t,here must he a war in which the Philippin
is involved when the offenders levy war against the Goveimme
of th'e Philippines.
11. Give (a) five circumstances which exempt from cr
liability; (b) seven circumstances which mitigate criminal
ity ; and (e) ten circumstances which aggravate criminal lia
(a) The five circumstances which exempt from crimin
liability are: That the accused is-
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the latter
acted daring a lucid interval.

722 723
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.,.,

2. A person under nine years of age.
3 . A person who acts under the impulje of an uncontrollable
fear of an equal or greater injury.
4 . A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresietible
force.
5 . A person who, while perform'ng a lawful act with due
care, rauses an i n j n w by mere accident without fault or
nte:ntion of causing it.
/'
2. Tlhat the crime be committed in contempt of or,witl
insult to the public authorities.
3 . That the act be committed with abuse of confidenh
or obvious ungratefulness.
4. That the crime he committed in consideration of a price$
reward, or promise.
5. That the act be committed with evident premeditation.
6. That craft, fraud, or disguise be employed. .)I
. %

::. ' b) The seven circurnstanccs which mitigate criminal Ilabii- 7. That advantage be taken of superior strength, or meane. ,@
:,:,:&y are: be employed to weaken the defense. ,n :
"
.-?I

.)p 1. That sufficient provocation o r threat on the part of the

.e';
offended party immediately preceded the act. '
8. That the act be committed with treachery.
9. That the eecused is a recidivist.
4
.'
..
I; 2. That the offender is under eighteen years of age or over 10. That the crime be committed in the nighttime o r ~ i n
,
'
i-.. . seventy years. ... an uninhabited place, o r by a band, whenever sue4
., : 3 : That the offender had no intention to commit so grave circumstances may facilitate the commission o f the,
.feme.
. ..,
a wrong as that committed.
4. That of having acted upon an impulse so powerful, as 111. A group of 20 men belonging l o the PKM or Huk-
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. balahap organization was required by an MI? patr,ol, also of 20
,
,
5.
.
That the offender had voluntarily surrendered himself men, to surrender their firearms. Upon the Hulc's refusal, the
to a. person in authority or his agents, or that he had MP?s fired at them, and the latter roturned the fire. One
. . Voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to MP was killed, while oce Hnlc was captured. With what crime
the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. may the eaqtured Hulc he charged?
6. That the offender is dcaf and dumb, blind, or otherwise The captured €Iuk may be charged with the crime of re-
.. .
~

.. suffering some physical defect which thus restricts his
. ~. means of action, defense, or communication with his fel-
Iow beinEs.
7. That the act was commtted in the immediate vindication,
0% a grave offense to the one committin? the felony, his
spouse, ascendants. descendants, legitimate, natural, or
adopted brothers or sisters, o r relatives by affinity with-
in the same degrees.
(e) The ten circumstances which aggravate criminal liability
are :
,.~ 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public
position.
724
bellion. The PKM or Hukbalahap organization has a knoG
purpose of overthrowing the Government by force of arms:
There was public uprising and taking arms against the G o v e d
ment, as shown by the fact that the Huk returned the fire when
the MP's fired at them upon their refusal to surrender th&
firearms.
IV. ( a ) What is the duration of reclusion perpetua? (.b).
What is the duration of arresto mayor? (c) What is the range..
of arresto mayor in its nicdinm degree?
(a) Reclusion perpetua has no fixed duration. Any person
sentenced to reclusion perpetua shall be pardoned after under-
going the penalty for thirty years, unless such person by reason
725
&i.i,
.....i'
y-ea..~flhis
.I*$. .*,
'?""by~the
. .
CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER
nar Examinations in Criminal Law

conduct or some other serious cause shall be considered

Chief Executive as unworthy of pardon. In such case,
1-
1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
nar Examinations in .criminal L a w

(c) No, an attempt to conceal the crime of damage$o

nronertv throwh imgrudence is not an offense under the Reiris&,t%
three-fold rule, the maximum durat'on of recZusi0.h f Pedal Code.

has the duration of from 1 month and i

arresto mnyoJol. in its medium degree
,
21 days to 4 months and 10 days.
tlimugh negligence. X admits
for the damage done which
amounts to P200. Z, however, l e k X that, unless the sum of
Fl,500 be paid, Z would insist on a complaint being filed againsf
X for damage to property through imprudence. Wkereupn, X
pays Z the P1,500. (a) What crime, if any, could be imputed
payment, still prosecute
to property through imprudence? (e) Can both
and Z a s accessory who
could be imputed to Z.
It is true tha.t when Z told X that, unless the sum of 81,500
. b e paid, Z would insist on a complaint being filed against X for
damage t o property through imprudence, Z thrcatened or inti-
3
VI. What is a "prejudicial question" and give an example
of a case in which it may properly be invoked. . .
A "prejudicial question" is one that may ai-ise in a civil .
or administrative case wherein it must first be settled before
i
t
a criminal case in which it is involved can be tiied. It is based
on a f a h d i s t i n c t and separate from the crime but so intimately,
connected with i t that it determines the guilt o r innocence of,'
i the accused.
Example: In the prosecution for bigamy, if the accused
& i m s that the first marriage is null and void and the right
to decide that question is vested in another tribunal, the civil^
action for nullity of t h e first marriage must first be decided
before the trial of the climinal case for bigamy can Proceed.
! VII. M asked It to buy a quantity of rice a t P30 a cavan.
M assured R that he (ill) had a buyer for the rice at 840 a
I cavan. After the rice was bought, it turned out that M had
no buyer for it. May M be prosecuted ffor estafa?
On the supposition that the market price of the rice was
Fa0 a cavan, I submit that M may not be prosecuted for e s t a f a ' '

Estafa committed by means of deceit has two elements, namely:

I (1) deceit, and ( 2 ) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary

. him would be an exercise of a right on the part of Z. The ire-

I estimation. While i t is t,rue that M caused R to buy, rice by
means of deceit. there is no actual damage caused to R since he
mand of .Z for 81,500 for the damage which amounts to P200 kept the rice. The expected profit of 810 a cavan which wa&
" '
only,.and the payment of PI,500 by X to Z , do not alone and not realized does nut constitute the element o€ damage or prP-
judice in estafa. ..
e:, constitute a felony. Moreover, had X not paid
to Z, the court would have deterniined the proper I

Yes, the Fiscal can still prosecute X for damage to
the payment, because while
the civil liability arising from
VIII. Define: (1) publir officers, (2) indirect bribery, (3) ,:,
destierro, ( 4 ) alternative circumstances, (5) infanticide, . ( 6 ) , br/-
gandage, (7) concubinage, (8) probation, (9) white slave traffic;
and (10) treachery. , , >.
,

an 'offense, such compromise shall not extinguish the public (1) Public officers are those persons who, by direct
a&on for the imposition of the legal penalty (Art. 2034, C.C.). vision of the law, popular election o r appointment by comp
1 . ., .i .
~ .. ..
. % ,, . . ..
. . . 727
726
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions
in t h e Government of the Phil'ppines, or shall perform in said
o r in any of its branches puhlic duties as an em-
or subordinate official of any rank or class.
is a crime committed by any public
to him by reason of his office.
a penalty which prohibits the convict to
designated in the sentence, nor within
which shall be not more than 250
from the place desimated.
are those which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating according to
and the other conditions
against person, committed by any
than three days of age.
( 8 ) Brigandage is a crime against property, committed by
more than three armed persons who formed a band of robbers
for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kid-
papping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom.
other purpose to be attained by means of force and
is a crime against chastity committed by
a mistress in the conjuga: dwelling, or
had sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with
s.woman who was not his wife, or cohabited with her in any
other place. The concubine is liable for the same crime, t o
suffer the penalty of destierro, if she knew a t the time of the
of the act that the man was maiTied.
which was provided in the Probation Act
a suspension of the sentence in certain cases
after conviction. In that Act, the Legislature decreed that in
certain cases no punishment ut all shall be suffered by the
convict as long as the conditions of probation are faithfully
observed tiy him. The Probaton Act was declared unconstitu-
tional, on the ground that said Act was violztive of the .prin-
728
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
ciple o f non-delegation of legislative power and was contrary
to the guarantee of equal protection under the Constitution.
( 9 ) While slave traff:c (trade) is a crime against cha&y,
committed by any person who, in any manner or under any
pretext, engaged in the business of prostitution, or profited by-
prostitution, o r enlisted the services of women for the pumme
of prostitution.
(10) Treachery is an aggravating or qualifying circum-
Stance; and there is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods,
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.
IX. A messenger was sent to the Post Office by his em.
ployer to buy a money ordcr. Instead of buying the monex ,,
order, the messenger spent the money on biniself. What crime
has been committ,ed?
The messenger committed the crime of theft. When he re- ' ,
ceived the money from his employer, the messenger acquired.'?$
only the material or physical possession of the money. His-;.:
misappropfiation of that money constituted theft, not estafa. 'Y
,?.:
X. By using identical facts as far- as possible, distinguish: ,
(a) rebelllm from treason, (b) frustrated homicide from phy.
sical injucies, and (e) robbery from coercion.
(a) Rebellion is distinguished from treason in that in the^',;'.
former the purpose of the offenders in resorting to public up#
+sing and taking arms against the Government is to overthroy+g
it, by force of arms, or specifically: (1) to remove from the
allegiance t o said Government or its laws, the territory of the .',
Philippines o r any part thereof, or any body of land, naval or :
other armed forces, or (2) to deprive the Chief Executive oz,.:
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of theIr powers or
rogatives; while in the latter, the purpose o f the offenders i ~ t
levying war against the Government, which must be done in t$e$
. . .._,"'.
.'S
of war, is t o collaborate with a foreign enemy. r,
729
 CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Rar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.. .
(b) In frustrated homicide, the physical injuries are in- imputation, Jeopardy means exposure to conviction, ;or- sit-:.j:
d by the offender with intent to kill; in physical injuries, uation of an accused person when being tried; thus, no pernor@'$
there is no intent t o kill on the part of the offender. shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the Same..::
~,~,,.~
, -.
~.
,,:' , ,~$(., (e) In robbery committed with violence against person, the offense. ,,.%
der had intent to gain; in grave coercion, the offender (b) Rafael del Pan was a member of the Code Committee :'
other to give personal property by means of created by Act No. 1841, who prepared the "Correctional Code!' ;
.
*f l9l6. / /-a
IIL'A gave R policeman 8300 with the 'request that the 'j
..
, .
.

NOVEMBER, 1946
surprises his wife in an act of adultery. He
ded revolver at her and pulls the trigger, but
latter leave his post on the Eseolta so that he (A) could steal
a jeep parked nearby. The policeman accepted the money and, ';
i
apparently acceded to A's proposal but after leaving the Escol@
he immediately returned hy another way and arrested A in the

2:'
'
yes defective and does not fire. What criminal
responsibility, if any, is incurred by the man?
None. Had the man inflicted upon his wife slight or less
ground of entrapment? .
act o f stealing the jeep. Can A defend successfully on the

No. Entrapment is not a defense. Entrapment is no bar

. , ~

'.

serious physical injuries, he would have been exempt from
punishment, the same having been inflicted under exceptioIla1
circumstances. Even considering the act of the man as con-
stituting an impossible crime, the means employed being in..
effectual, I submit that he should be exempt from punishment.
The oEfense of less serious physical injuries and impossible
crime being punished with almost the same penalty, and the
law (Art. 247) does not punish less serious physical injuries
when inflicted under exceptional circumstances, i t is believed
that the commission of an impossible crime under such cir-
,
/
cumsta ces should not be punished.
I. (a) Define or explain: corpus delicti; mutiny; charivari;
malice in law; jeopardy. (b) Who was Rafael del Pan?
to the prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
IV. (a) How is criminal liability t.oi.dly extinguished? (b)
w h a t i?. the difference between justifying and exempting cir-
cumstances?
(a) Criminal liability is totally extingnished-
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs before final judg-
ment ;
2 . By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty
and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
. ...

(a) Corpus delicti, in modern sensa of the term, means the 5. By prescription of the crime:
,' actual commi::sion of the crime charged. Mutiny is the unlaw-
6. By prescription of the penalty;
ful resistance to a superior officer, or the raising of commotions
and.disturbanees on board a ship against the authority of its 7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as provided '.
commander. The term "charivari" includes a medley of dis- in article 344 of the Revised Penal Code. . ,

cordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on (b) The difference between justifying and exempting cir2
1; kettles, tin, horns, etc., designed to annoy and insult. Malice cnmstances may be stcted, as follows: (1.) A person who ack ,
..
'in.ilaw
' ~ % .
/ t
is malice which is presumed from every defamatory .by virtue of a justifying circumstance docs not transgress the.' ..
~,I
~

731
 I
..
CRIMI?fdh LAW REVIEWER
~ a ~ran&iibns
r in Criminal Law
am, that is, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of t h e
law; because t h e r e is nothing unlawful in the act as well as
in the intention of the actor. In justifying circumstances, there
is neither a crime nor a criminal. There is no civ:l liability,
except i n , the justifying circumstance of state of necessity.
. ,,(2) In exempting circumstances, there is a crime, but no crim-
inal. The act is not justified, but the actor is not criminally
liable. There is civil iiabllity, except in the circumstance of
accident and in the circumstance of failure to perform an act
by law because of a lawful or insuperable cause. , proved by a
.A policeman offered, For a consideration, not to arrest
wh,o had purchased what he thought was opium but
which the policeman knew to he molasses. The policeman was
paid BSOO. Did the policeman conunit bribery, estafa, coercion,
or
.., robbery?
The policeman committed robbery. The offer of the police-
man not t o arrest the person who had purchased what he thought
was op'um would naturally incite fear in the mind of such person
that if he would not come across with a sum of money he would
he arrested. That offer of the policeman, eoup!ed with the
thought on the part of the person that the policeman knew he
had purchased opium constituted sufficient intimidation. The
policeman had intent t o gain when he took the P500 paid t o him.
The policeman did not commit bribery, because he had n o
duty t o perform. He lrriew that the person purchased molasses,
not opium.
, . He d'd not commit estafa, because there was no abuse of
or deceit. The polkernan took the money through
commit coercion, because the policeman had intent
!/ VI., (a) What are the elements of oonsented abduction?
(b) With respect to damage to property, may criminal neg-
ligence be distinguished from "civil" negligence?
-. . .' (a) The. elements of consente.&labduction are: (1) the of-
:-, ,.
$ended,party,must be a virgin; ,&?,she must be over 12 and
..
1 ,~,
732
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exnminations in Criminal Law . .
under 18 years of age: (3) the taking a w a y m u s t be y i t h her
consent, after solicitation o r cajolery from the offender; and
(4) the taking away must be with lewd designs.
(b) The Penal Code does 'not d r a 6 a well-defined demaSca-
tion line between negligent acts that are delictual and t h o W
wh'ch are quasi-delictual. It is possible that a negligent act:
may be delictual and quasi-delictual a t the same time, ,,
However, there are numerous cases pf criminal negligence
which cannot be shown beyond reasonable doubt, but can:bd:
preponderance of evidence. In such cases, the.
defendant can and should be msde res onsible in a civil action'
und+:vil Code. 7
.. .,
VII. A, after making out a cash check, lost the same. B,.
finding the check, prcsentcd it for payment and was arrested
b,efore any money nclually was delivered to him. (a) What.
crime nmy be imputed to B? (h) Is the crime attempted, frus-%.
.. -. .~ "
trated or consummated? , , :~ ,.
,.,,:
The crime of estafa may be imputed to E. It is attempted:
estafa, because when be presented the check which he found
for payment, B commenced the commission of the crime of:,
estafa,;by means of deceit, directly by overt acts and did not.
p e r f o p all the acts of execution which should produce the[
felon,$ by reason of some cause or accident (the timely d's-
covefy of the lost check in his possession), other than his'
spo taqeous dcsistance.
I
VIII. (a) What is the difference, if any, between illegal.
d tention and arbitrary detention? (b) Slate five ( 5 ) ruler;,
. .
g verniqg subsidiary imprisonment. .
(a) The difference between illegal detention and arbitrary
detention is that while the fcrmer js committed by privatc.
individual. the latter is committed by public officer.
both cr'mes the offended party is deprived of his libe
the offender, the former is a crime against liberty,w,h
latter is a 'crime against the fundamental laws ,,of the '8%
(6) The five rules governing subsidiary imprisonment
733
 I
!
/'
CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
, ' 4.
If .the principal .penalty imposed be prision corseccional
or a?r&o and fine, he shall remain under confinement until his
fine and pecuniary liabilities are satisfied, but his subsidiary
imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the
sentknce nd in no case shall i t continue for more than one
year, a no fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the $er.
When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the
imprisonment shall not exceed six months, if t h e
have been prosecuted for a grave or less grave
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
the principal penalty imposed is higher than p k k o n
no subsidiary imprisonment shall be imposed npoxt
principal penalty imposed is not to be executed
by. confinement in a penal institution, but such penalty is of
' : f&ed duration, the convict, during the period of time established
receding rules, shall continue to suffer the same de-
as those of which the principal penalty consists.
The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may
have suff,ered by reason of his insolvency shall not relieve him
'' .from reparation of the damage caused, nor from indemnification
nsequential damages in case his financial circum-
~ ' ? ~ n ~ ~improve;
~ u l but
d he shall be relieved from pecuniary
IX. An alien was arrested because he entered Olongapo ita
order to obtain confidential information relative to the disposi-
tion of U.S. Armed Forces in that reservation. He has turned
,. . over to the Philippine Governlnent afterwards. May the alien
be successfully prosecuted for espionage?
Yes. Although, the offense was committed within a base
against t h e security of the United States, i t is also an offense
against the security of the Philippines. Under the Base Agree-
i ~ ment between the Philippines and the United States, our civit
court has jurisdiction over such offense even if committed with-
:.--
., . _,_ .in. a base. It is no defense that the offender was an alien,
..
734
CRIMINAL LAW REVIElVER
Bar Examinations in Criminal LRW
for oux criminal law has general application. As a general nile,
all person living or sojourning in the Philippin
not fall under any of the exceptions. . ,
the following questions have already" b
and if so, indicate the view ad
by the Philippine Supreme Court: (a) Is poker a
chance? ;(b) Is it possible for a minor between 9 and
of age to act with discernment in respect of quasi-
(e) Can writs of attachment be issued in-eriminal cases?,,
Philippine courts have jurisdistion over crimes committed
foreign merchant vessels while anchored in Philippine
(e) Can'a person be charged as an accmmplice in the crime,
adultery?
(a) This question has not been resolved in this, jurisdiqtion
However, in the opinion of the Department of Justice, .19
it is stated that poker'is not a game of chance, f o r the play
to win.
a greater degree of skill rather than chan
('e) Yes. A criminal court having jurisdiction over, several: y.
actions arising from the offenses charged is permitted to i s s u e "
all the auxiliary writs necessary to carry such jurisdiction, into:!
effect (Eraiia vs. Panzani) .
(d) Yes. An offense committed aboard a foreign merchant..
, .,..?,:
. , our.,:
vessel while anchored in Yhiljppine waters is triable before
court. But crimes not involving breach of public order ~m ','
mitted aboard a foreign merchant vessel in transit are not triable3
by our courts. Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public
order.
(e) No. However, in the decision of the Supreme Court
of Spain, June 3, 1x74, i t was held that if a person perfoms
the acts of an accomplice by informing the accused of the ab-,\
sence of the husband of the ma,rried woman and by watching
for his .return, sflid person cannot be punished as an a
plice because of the nature of the crime of aduItery which i s ' -
punished upon the complaint of the husband alone ag
.:. ,
. .
735 , ii '1
., .,
..,,
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Lax.
. . his wife and the paramour which must be uderstood in the
restrictive sense and, thereforc, cannot include m y other person.
AUGUST, 1947
I. (a) In what class of felmies are accessories not liable?
:(h) Wbat is meant by impssible crime? (c) A and B agreed
. &d determined to kill C who a t that time was passing in front
0f.the hous8ewhere A and B were. The next day both of them
Gent out to seek their victim, and having found C lying down
in a shaclc situated in open conutry, they fired against hiin
in the belief that be was merely asleep when in fact he had
‘,. ,,. died on the preceding night. DId A and B commit any act or
acts punishable under the Revised Penal Code?
:(a) Accessories are not liable for light felonies.
4) An impossible crime is one where a person performs
an act which would be an offense against persons or property,
were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment
or on ajdount of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
Thcy committed an impossible crime. The act. .
performed would have been murder, an offense against person,
but i t was inherently impossible to kill a dead person. A and
B acted with evil intent.
11. (a) Define the different stages in the wmmission of
i .
a crime. (b) A enters surreptitiously the store of B in order
%;
*. to take away Tvith him mme articles and hides himself behind
or, hut due to the watchfulness of B he did not .dare to
out of his hiding place, where he was discovered. Does
consummated, frustrated or attempted offense?
A, intending t o rob I3 of a ring which B i s
to he carrying, holds up B on the highway and by
subjects him to search. It turns out that
and lie is permitted to go on his way. .Can A be
convicted of frustrated or attempted robbery? State reason for
. .
736
.;’
!
1 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER *
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.. .
fa) A felony is consummated when all the elements neces:;;
sary for its execution and accomplishment are present. It is
frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execption
which mould produce the felony as a consequence but which, never-
theless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the:
will ,of the perpetrator. There is an atteinpt when the offender.,
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts; and:
does not perform all the acts of execution which should aroduce
. .~~~~~
the felony by r e a s h of some cause or accident other than his’own
spontaneous desistance.
(b) A does not commit even an attempted offcnse. A’s act
of entering surreptitiously the store of B is not an overt act of
any offense. The place being a store, which is open to the public,
he cannot be held liable for trespass. It is true that A’s purpose
is to take away with him some articles, but the external Bct
performed by A has no direct connection with the crime intended
to he committed. I n order thst the simple act of entering the
store of another may be considered an attempt to commit the
crime of theft, it must be shown that the offender clcarly intended
to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of some personal prop-
erty belonging to another. Such intention must be inferred from
~
_. .
.
the nsturc of the acts executed. The act executed by 4 will
not necessarily ripen into the concrete offense of theft.
(c) A can’ be convicted of attempted robbery, because he,
commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt ,acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of a ’ c a u s e or accident (that B
has no ring) other than his own spontaneous desistance.
i It is not frustrated robbery, because A does not perform
all the acts of execution. In this kind of robbery (hold-up),:
in order that it he in the €rustrated stage, the offender must
be in the act of getting possession of the personal property of
I the offended party, short of taking it, when his act is stopped
i Ey causes independent of his will. , ,,
:
111. (a) Into how many classes are circumstances affecting:;:;
4 criminal liability divided? Define and give examples of eac-g;
.,k (b) What are the essential elements of selE-defense? . ( e ) If,;
~
,d ,.
’
.., 1?1 I1
737
 I
I
f ,,,*

,
'CPIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CILIMINAL LAW REVIEWER "- ,~
Rar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Cxaminations in Criminal Law \ ' , '

of these circumstances are present, in what

affect the criminal liability of the offender?
affecting criminal liability are divided
i
I
and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same d e g r m ! ,
with the single exception of accessories falling within the pro- ',:
visions of paragraph 1 of Art. 19. 0 ~:,
mto, five classes, .namely: (1) justifying circumstances, (2) Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in the :
exempting circumstances and other absolutory causes, (3) miti- I crime, do not entirely free the actor from .::
gating circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and ( 5 ) serve only to reduce the penalty. ~

alternative circumstances.
. .:. Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a per-
.;" ~~

had no intention t o commit so grave

son is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person is a wrong as that committed.
and is. free from both W'&t sufficient provocation or threat on the p a r t of the, '

offended party immediately preceded the act.

~,

ny person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in Aggravating circumstances are those/ which, if attendant in '

the commission of the crime, serve to increase the penalty with-

to an order issued by out, 2iowever, exceeding the maximum of the penalty provided
a superior for some lawful purpose. by law for the offense.
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are those
grounds f o r exemption from punishment because there is want- be taken by the offender of his public
conditions which make *
he committed in contempt of or with
insult to the public authorities. .(
Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due Alternatipe cireurnstances are thosa which must be taken
without fault or intention into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according t o tKe~
nature and effects of the crime and the other condition
compulsion of an irresisti- ing its commission.
ble force. relationship, (2) intoxication, a
, '' .;:.,,Absolutory causes are those where the act committed 'is a and education of the offen
for reasons of public policy and sentiment there is The essential elements ' of self-defense are: fi
reasonable necessity of the me
employed to prevent or repel it; and third, lack of suffic
of the person who commenced provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
before he could perfo,,m all the acts (c) If on1y.a majority of the elements of self-defense
present, the offender will be liable f o r homicide, bdt the pen
The penalties prescri5ed for accessories shall not be irn- is one or two degrees lower than that prescribed by law.
,,
such with respect to their spouses, homicide. He is, therefore, entitled to a privileged mitigat
, ' ascendants,
.. descendants, legitimate, naturaI, and adopted brothers circumstance.
. . i.
7.18 739
 I
'CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Crimina! Law
. (a) Distinguish between generic aggravating. and qua-
ircurnstances. (b) Can a qualifying Circumstance .be
without having been alleged in the information? Why?
The effect of a generic aggravating cir-umstance, not
ny mitigating circumstance, is to increase the penal&
d be imposed upon the accused to the inoximum period,
t exceeding the limit prescribed by law; while that
ying circumstance is not only to give the crime its
per and exclusive name but also to place tlx author thereof
such a situation as to deserve no other pcnalty than that
ecifically prescribed by law for said crime.
' .. A qualifying aggravating circumstance canrLot be offset by
~
a ..mitixating circumstance; a generic aggravating circumstance
.A ; may be compensated by a mitigating circumstance.
(b) No, because a qualifying circumstance i s an element of
the offense which it qualifies. It is a rule that every element
1
of the of ense must be alleged in the information.
V (a) Who are considered principals, accomplices, and ac-
: ' ,.
, .E ries in a crime? (b) Who are criminally liable in the
,*':: commission {of a crime? (e) A band of malefactors composed
,~
of eight persons, through force and intimidation, enter a house
one night. Three of the hand station themselves a t the door
, .of the house t o prevent the entry of any persons who might
, ' come to help the person attacked, while three of the band search
. .
2 ', the house aind take away therefrom money and jewelry belong-
I
, -
3 ' ; jng to persons living therein, and the remaining two of the
band rape two women who live in the house. What crime or
. , crimes have been committed, and in what capacity did each
"'. of the ma1e:factors participate in the commission thereof. State
for what crime they should be penalized, and the degree of the
penalty to be imposed.
(a) The following are considered principals: (1) those who
,take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those who
force or induce others to commit it: and ( 3 ) those who
te in the commission of the offense by another act with-
ch it would not have been accomplished.
$
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
Accomplices are those persons who, not being
(Art. 17);cooperate in the execution of the offense
or simultaneous acts.
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the co
mission of the crime, and without having participated
I.
either as principals or accomplices, take part s u b s e w
commission in any of the following manners: (1) by p
themselves or, assisting the offender to profit by the
of the crime; (2) by concealing o r destroying the bod
crime or the effects o r instruments thereof, in order to prevent'
its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in''
the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessor)r:
acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the suthor'
! of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or a n at-
tempt to, take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
habitually guilty of some other crime.
(b) The folluwiug are criminally liable in the commission
of a crime: for grave and less grave felonies, principals, accom-
plices,. and accessories; and for light felonies, principals and
accomplices. '
(e) All of the eight persons, if a t least four of them are
armed, are liable for robbery with rape as principals. When
more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission
of robbery, any member of the band who is present a t the c
mission of the robbery shall be punished as principal of
of the assaults committed by the band, unless i t be shown'thafi
he attempted to prevent 'the same. The degree (period) of the
penalty t o be imposed is the medium period of the penalty for.
the crime of robbery with rape.
The penalty is not the maximum period of that correspond:.
ing to the crime committed, because it does not appear that an%,
of the arms used in the commission of the offense is an. & I
licensed firearm; and the fact that the crjme is committe&"
a band does not raise the penalty, since by a band does
qualify t h e crime of robbery with rape.
VI. (a) I n what cases are 'accessories not penalized?
While A was coming home one evening, he was attacked ~' ~.
r
741
 I
@%;$;y
., .~
,
--,,
k ~ I M I N A LLAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
,. . * ed by I1 who had been lying in wait for him. C, brother
af B, and I) a first cousin of B, came to the scene and saw the
Jde& body of A. Upon the suggestion of C, the cadaver of A
, :was
*.~ buried by B, C and D to prevent the discovery of the
crime. B, C, and D are caught. What is the criminal respon-
sibility of B, C and D?
(a) Accessories are not penalized in the following cases:
if they are such with respect t o their spouses, ascendants, des-
cendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters,
or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, and they take
quent to the commission of the crime in any of the
body of the crime or
thereof, in order to prevent its dis-
or assisting in the escape of
the accessory acts with
abuse of his public functions or whenever the autlior of the
crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an a$tempt
.the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be
guilty of some other crime.
a principal, having taken direct part in the execu-
constituting the crime. Although, he took part
subsequent to its commission, by helpiltg in the burial of the
of A, B cannot be held liable as accessory, because he
as principal in the crime.
being a brother of R, is exempt from criminal liability.
cousin'of B, is liable as accessory.
VII. (a) Can an accused be punished under a law enacted
after the date of the conmission of his crime? (b) When do
'penal laws have retroactive eifect? D,oes such retroactive effect
benefit a convict who is serving his sentence?
(a) Yes. The general rule, however, is that only that pen-
81ty prescribed by law prior to the commission of tine felony
.;,%:may be imposed, and felonies are punishable under the laws in
:1 force-at the time of their commission.
!r.;?*<</-
742
2
/'
'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
/ (b) Penal laws have retroactive effect in so f a r a5 they
favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual crim.
inal, and-the penal laws do not provide that they are not applicable
to p y d i n g action or causes of action. .._;
"Yes, because the law (Art. 22, R.P.C.) states that pend
laws ahall txyvc retroactive effect, "although at the time OX? the
o f such l a m a final sentence has been pronounced
the same."
is parricide, a d how is i t distinguished
from homicirle and murder? (b) A intends to kill B, a stm'ng
kllls C, his father. What crime did A commit
What is the period of prescription in crimes7
,' (a) Parricide is the killing of the offender's father, mother;
o r child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, o r any of his ascend;
. ...
or his spouse, who must be legitimate: " ;
from homicide and murder in that, in
parricide the victim must be any one of the relatives menti:nf,%
In other words, the relationship of the offender w i t h . t h e ' v x d
is' the essential element of the crime of parricide. '.
lf the victim is not any one of the relatives mentioned ig
the definition of parricide, the killing is homicide, or murded
if any of the quaiifying circumstances of the crime
(b) Parricide, the victim being the father of the of
The fact that A intends to kill a stranger and kills his
by mistake does not change the nature and name o
It merely affects the penalty to be imposed on the o
period of prescription in crimes is,
reclusion perpetuu or red
in twenty years; crimes punishable
prescribe in fifteen years;
able by a correctionaI pena,lty shall prescribe in ten
the exception of those punishable by arrest0 mayor,
prescribe in five years: the crime of libel or other sim
fenses .shall prescribe in two years; the offenses of o
famation and slander by deed shall prescribe in
light offeuses prescribe in two months.
743
 I
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
B i t Examinations in Criminal Law
robbery and theft. (b) What a r e .the es-
estafa? (e) A property owner in a province
gent a gold bar to be taken to Manila to be
amined by a. goldsmith, later io be returned to the owner,
stead of fulfilling the order of his principal,
nd converted the value thereof to his own
a t crime has the agent committed in this case?
.-
is committed by any person who, with intent
any personal property belonging to another,
ce against, or intimidation of any person, o r
',Using force upon anything.
~' "-!Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain
lolence against, or intimidation of, persons nor
shall take personal property of another with-
of estafa are: (1) deceit or abuse
or prejudice capable of pecuniary
only the physicpl or material
the custody of personal prop-
,;.
temporary purpose or for a
short period, the juridical or constructive possession remains
in'the owner. The fact that the offender was the agent of the
~..
,o&er of the gold bar does not make him liable for estafa. In
vs. Contreras, the Court of Appeals mentioned
where the agent was said to be guilty of theft.
defamation defined by the Revised Penal
of committing the offense. (b) A, a
of B, his fiancee, cuts her hair off.
shaving her hair entirely. Of what crime is A guilty?
.. .
( a ) Defamation is defined by the Revised Penal Code as a
public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or de-
fect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status,
or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or eon-
1 ,tekipt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory
o t o n e who is, dead.
.
P+
CRIMINAL LAW REVIETVER
Bat Examinations in Criminal Law
of committing the offense are: (1) by ma
by means of writing, printing, lithography,
graving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or :cine
graphic exhibition, or any similar means: and (2)
the i.mputation orally.
(b) A is guilty of slander by deed. He performs.an-a
which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon
A'' AUGUST', 1948
I. ( a ) hat is the scope of the Revised Penal Cod
ing the.dpplication of its provisions? (b) What are the
of a felony? (e) Do civil coorts have jurisdiction .
committed by persons subject to military law? ,
'
. (a) The ecope of the Revised Penal Code regarding:.
application of its provisions is stated in Art. 2 thereof,.
follows:
Except as provided in the treaties and laws of prefere
application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced
only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outs
jurisdiction, against those who: (1) should commi
while on the Philippine ship or airship; (2) 'should
counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippi
or obligations and securities issued by the Governm
be liable for acts connected
into these Islands of the obligations
above: (4) while being public
an offense in the exercise of
commit any of the crimes ag
law of nations.
(b) The elements of a felony are: (1) there must
act or omission; (2) the act or omission must
by the Revised Penal Code; and ( 8 ) the act or omi
be committed by means of dolo o r CulrJa.
(e) Yes. Civil courts have concurrent jurisdi
military courts or general courts-martial over cri
745
 CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER
Elar Examinations in Criminal L R W
by'soldiers of the Philippine Army. Even in time of war, the
civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the military eourtS
or general courts-martial over crimes ccmmitted by soldiers of
the, Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the com-
mission of the crime no hostilities are in progress and civil
courts are functioning.
When the person subject to military law is a soldier of the
armed-forces of the United States stationed in the Phil:ppines,
the provisions of the Base Agreement between the Philippines
and the United States app1Y.
Our civil courts have no jurisdiction when (1) the offense
is-committed by any person within any base, except (a)' where
the offender and the offended party are both Philippine citizens
(not members of the armed forces of the US. on active duty)
o r (b), where the offense is against the security of the Philp-
pines; (2) the offense is committed outside the bases, but the
offender and otfended party are both mentbers of the armed'
.forces of the United States; and (3) the offense is committed
outside the bases by any member of the armed forces of the
United States against the security of the United States.
In time of war, the United States shall have the right to
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over any offenses committed by
members of the armed forces of the Gnited States in the
Philippines.
' .. a. (a) Define (1) consummated crime, (2) frustrated
crime and (3) attempted crime, and give an example of each
class (b) Are light felonies which are not consummated pun-
ishable? Mention a few of the light felonies covered by your
answer. (e) Is the offer of ,a bribe which is declined ai1 at-
temmpted or frustrated crime?
. (a) Same answer as in No. I1 (a) o f 1947 Bar Questions.
Example of consummated crime: A shot B who died as a
consequence; that of frustrated crime: B was mortally wounded
by A who had the intent t o kill, but due t o the timely and
sble:,,isurgicaloperation and medical treatment B did not die;
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
and that of attempted crime: A, with intent to kill, shot
but missed, B.
(b) As a general rule, light felonies are not punishable ,',;
when they are not consummated. But when the light felonies,.."
are against persons o r property, they are punishable even If,,
they are in the attempted o r frustrated stage.
Some light felonies w e bettinglin, sports contests, intribming
against honor, slight physical injuries, and theft where the
amount involved docs not exceed 85.00 and -the offender acted '
under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or difficulty of earning
a 1:velihcnd for the support of himself o? his family. The first
two light felonies are not punishable when they are not con-
summated. The last two light felonies are punishable even if ,:.'
they are not consummated. 1 '
( e ) The offer of a bribe which is declined is an attempted
crime. When t h e erime requires the intervention of two persons
to corpmit it, it is either consummated when the offer or
proposal is accepted, or attempted when the offer or proposal
is declined or rejected. But in a case decided by the Supre&$-..
Court, it was lie18 that where the defendant fails to c o r k p t a.
public officer, because tine latter returned the money given by' '.
the defentlant, the crime is frustrated corrupticn of public of- .,
ficer. With due respect to the Supreme Court, I submit that it
should have been attempted corruption of public officer. ,.
.:
111. (a) Explain the difference between a justifyi
an exempting circumstance. (b) To what class do the
ing circumstances belong: (1) self-defense, (2)' acting
compulsion of an irresistible force, (3) accused being
years old and (4) acting in obedience to an order given^ by
superior for some lawful purpose. (e) Menti'on four mitii:
ing and six aggravating
.~ circumstances.
(a) Same answer as in No. IV (b) of 1946 (November
Ear Questions.
(b). (1) SeK-defense - justifying circumstance, (2)
under compulsion of irresiatible force - exempting circum
(3) accused being eight years old - exempting circum
747
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWFA
~~r Examinations in Criminal Law
acting in obedience to an order given by a superior f o r
lawful purpose - justifying circumstance.
m e four mitigating circumstances are: (1) that the
had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as. that
d, (2) that sufficient provocation or threat on t h e
pa& of the offended party immediately preceded the act, (3).
. ' that of having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally
't :to" have produced passion or obfuscation, and (4) that the
/
'--offender had ,voluntarily surrendered himself to a person in
authorit or his agents, or that he had voluntarily confessed
his lty before' the court prior to the presentation of the
e$d ce for the prosecution.
The six aggravating circumstances are: (1) that advantage
be taken by the offender of his public position, (2) that the
mmitted in contempt of o r with insult to the public
orities, (3) that the crime be committed in consideration
reward, or promise, (4) that the act be committed
of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, ( 6 ) that,
e committed with the aid of armed men or persons
or afford impunity, and (6) that the crime be
n the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck, earth-
mic, or other calamity or misfortune.
) What is a continuous offense? Assuming that the
cts constituting the same are performed in different places,
shall acquire jurisdiction? (b) What is a complex
A was kidnapped in Manila and murdered in Batangas,,
court o,f first instance shall have jurisdiction to try the
nappers? (e) Defendant forced a girl to have sexual inter-
e with him at the 'point of a gun. Sufferiqg from gonor-
he infected the girl, who later complained btense pain in
and as the result oE peritonitis she died. Of what
nies would you accused him and why?
ontinuous offense is a sicgle crime, consisting of
ries of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution.
e courts of the different places where the facts consti-
the continuous crime are performed have concurrent
CIZIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinatiqns i n Criminal Law
jurisdiction. Whichever of these courts takes . cognizance of'
the case first acquires exoliisi<e jurisdiction over the offense?.
(b) There is a complex crime when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or lesR grave felonies, or when an bffens!
Es a necessary means for committing the other.
Either the court of first instance of Manila o i that of
Batangas shall have jurisdiction to try the kidnappers, but$
whichever takes cognizance of the case first acquires excldsi *i,
jurisdiction.
(c) I would accuse the defendant of rape with homic
the rape.
in relation t o Art. 385 and Art. 249 of tlie Revised Penal Code.
V. (a) Is habitual delinquency a crime? What
person hahitnal delinquent? (b) Describe briefly' the
tion. and sc,ope of the Indeterminate Sentence L
benefits of said. law applicable to all offenses and offend
Is the application of the same mandatory? (e) How i s
liability. arising from crime extinguished?
(a) Na, habitual delinquency Is not a cri
a fact or circumstance which, if present in a gi
rise t o the imposition of an additional peaalty.
A person i s ' a habitual delinquent if within
years from the date o f his (last) release or last eo
the crimes of (1) serious or less serious p
!(2) Tobo, ( 8 ) hzcrto, (4) estafa, or ( 5 ) falsi€ication;he is f o
guilty of any of said crimes a third time 01% oftener.
(b) The Indeterni'nate , Sentence Law covers crimes-.
~:,:;,
bhable either by special law or by the Revised
the application of the law, the court must, instead of
fixed penalty, determine two penalties, referred to in
749
 CIlIMINAL LAW IZEVIEWER
Bnr Examinations in Criminal Lnw
is punished by a special law, the court shall
t o an indeterminate penalty, the maximum
exceed the maximum fixed by bhe special
shall not be less than the minimum
by the Revised Penrl Code, the
to an indeterminate penalkg,
be that which, in view of
be properly imuosed under
and the minimum term of
Law are not
from confinemerlt o r evaded sentence (7) those who violated
the t e r n s of conditional pardon granted t o them by the Chief
Executive, (8) those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does .not exceed one year, (9) those who, upon the approval
of the Iaw, had been sentenced by final judgment, and (10) those
senteneed t o the penalty of destierro or suspension.
The application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
mandatory, except in the cases specified therein, for it employs
the phrases "convicts shall be sentenced" and "the court shal1
sentence the a'c.cused to an indeterminate sentence".
arising from crime is extinguishes 4n the
obligations, in accordance with the
What are the forms of
(b) What is perjury;
prosecuted for perjury
statements?
750
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w
(a) False testimony is committed by any person tvho,;-be"
under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a ce
matter at a henrinx before a competent authority, shall
. the truth or say something contrary to it.
The forms of false testimony are: (I) false testimony*
criminal cases, (2) false testimony in civil cases, and (3) fa
'testimony in other cases.
(b) Perjnry is a crime committed by any person who,
ingly making untruthful statements and not being incIu
the provisions for false testimony in judicial proceediigs, s
testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any mate
matter before a competent person authorized to administer
oath in cases in which the law so requires.
The elements of perjury are: (1) there must be stateme
under oath or affivadit upon a material matter; (2) before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath;
(3) willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood by the of:
fender; and (4.)that the sworn statement containing the falsity
is r e q u i r y law.
the prosecution must prove which of the two state- ,.
false, and must show that statement to be false by , '
other than the contradictory statements.
VII. ( a ) Distinguish arbitrary detention from '' illegal de-
tention? May a public officer wrest without warmnt? If so, . .
Discuss briefly the principles govern,.
circumstances. (c) What is a search
requisites for issuing a search wag
rant? '.: .&W
answer as in No. VI11 (a) of 1946 (November) 3
4
-A+
.. :*.
A public o€fficer may arrest without warrant in the 'follow- %
:
ing instances: (1) when the person to be arrested has commit-.:.$
. -.&
ed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an offense'.,..;.,
in hi, presence; (2) when an offense has in fact been corn;!@
mitted, and he bas reasonable ground to believe that the persofg.
to be arrested has committzd i t ; and (3) when the person *&
.+&
.*,,;y
, _.*
751
 I
I 1

.
' , . , J
/ CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

be:arrested i d ' p r i s o n e r who has escaped from a penal estab-

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal I,aw

is other ascendants or descendants, or his spouse,,.

where he is serving final judgment or tern-
while his case is pending, or hafi .. escaped while
from one confinement to another.
suspicious circumstances is justified, if the
concur: (1) that there is reasonable ground
' , , of suspicion that a person has committed or is about t o com-
mit an offense o r breach of the peace; and (2) that the person
' . making the arrest acts in good faith. When these two requi-
'
sites are,present, even if the suspected person is later found t o
officer is not liable for arresting him.
committed in the presence of the peace
a well-grounded appearance of guilt
is an order in writing issued in the
. .. Philipp'nes, signed by a judge or
to a peace officer, command-
.i
,$>;
.is-
this offense is the relationship of the$
The illegitimate spouse is not included in the definition'of
parricide, because the meaning of the definition is thab the.i
spouse must be legitimate. .i
.~,
(b) Murder is committed by any person who, not falling
within the provisions of t h e Code for pamicide and infanticide,.,
shall Id11 another with any of the following attendant circum-.:
stances: (1) with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means t o weaken'
the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford im-,
punity; ( 2 ) i? consideration of a price, reward, or promise;
(3) by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,:.
stranding o f a vessel, derailment of o r assault upon a street
car or locomotive, fall 3f an airship, by means of motor vehicles,;:$
or with the use of any other means involving great waste and I

ing h m t o search for personal property and hying i t before
the court.
' . The requisites for issuing a search warrant are: (1) i t
must be issxed upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause
must be determined by the judge or justice of the peace, (3) in
the determination of probable cause, the judge or justice of
ruin; (4). on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated Here?
jnabove, or of an eartiguake, ,eruption of a volcano, destructive 2
cyclone, epidemio, or any other public calamity; (5) with evident21
premeditation; (6) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanl$z ''i
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoff-:::;
ing at his person o r corpse. ' ,*..
!

two will qualify the crime to murder:^. .,,

, '.d
the peace must exam'ne, under oath, the complainant and his
witnesses, and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe of the crime of iiifanticide are: (i)
the place to be searched and the things to be seized. that the deceased child is less t h m ' t
, .
is parricide committed? What is the basic and (3) t h a t the accused kills
/
Is the illegitimate spouse included
(b) How is murder committed?
premeditation are present in the
of these two circumstances
are the elements of the the elements of (1) robbery, (2)
of the mother. to con- The accused, after inflicting serious
Z.', ' thc death GP his victim, took.,
,
:$. eeal her dishonor, an essential element of this offense?
: +*-+
% . .' (a) Parricide is committed by any person who shall kill
1
of the deceased. The lower ,c
:$&s father, mother, or child, whether legitimab or illegitimate, double crime of murder..!

752 753
I I ,

4
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ., CIEIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.,-.;
.I

a person has in his possession the recently stolen

property, he is presumed to ha the thief, in the absence of
satisfactory explanation of his possession.
:.
,
I
If he has in his possession part of the recently stole
..
{ (1) FtobberY- property, he is presumed to be the thief o f all.
aa) Personal belonging to another; But when all the recently stolen effects have been fou
and recovered, one from the possession of the accused
(animus lucrandi) ; e place not owned or controlled by the accus
iolence against, 01'intimidation had no access, the presumption cannot ris.e,
or using force upon anything. 'i
X. (a) What are the essential elements of adultery and '
mynbinage? (b) In a prosecution for adultery, can the
qnittal of the paranlour prevent the conviction of the wife
the the offended party, on the ground of the indivisibility
that crime? (c) What are the civil liabilities of persons fo
of the owner. guilty of crimes against chastity? Can a married man
'omplishsd without vio- victed of rape be sentenced t.o acknowledge the offspring?
midation af persons o r (a) The essentia+elements of: .. 1

the woman is married;

e of confidence; and ( d T h a t she has sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband;
. (3,),46at
, as regards the man with whom she hw
e accused in killing sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married. . .
- 8

king the personal property of another with
e to the mind of the offender after he had
cases, i t was held that the taking of the personal
f the deceased was theft, not robbery.
:
Concubinage-
(1) That the man must be married.
( 2 ) Tha e committed any of the following ad
Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;,
b , Having sexual intercourse under scandalous.'
circumstances with a woman who is not his
wife:
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
(3) That as reg'ards the woman, she must know
him to be married.
 T
'.i

/
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Lrw Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.-...
' ' . : ( ) No, because- (b) No, because the husband acted under the justifying
(I.) There is no joint criminal intent although there circumstance of defense of a relative. Since the armed ma3
is joint physical act; was engaged in a. murderous attack in his own home in the~pre4,
(2) Thus, one of the parties may be insane and the ence of his wife whose life was exposed to peril, there was un:
l o t h e r sane, in which case only the sane coulcl be lawful aggression on the part of the deceased. Considering thf
nature of the unlawful aggression (murderous attack), I assums
that the means employed by the husband was reasonable. l2.m
is nothing mentioned in the question about provocation by thd
wife in which the husband took part. All the three requisites
m o n s guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction, shall
of defense of relatives are present.
/'
Wbere the defendant set fire to a sack. and ram
,, . To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should pre- kerosene oil which he had placed near one of th6
posts and partition walls of the house, and the burning of whid
:::
,,,:: .. 3. In ever case to support the offspring. was immediately noticed and ,prevented by another. %?!a1
,':j. .The adulterer and the concubine may also be sentenced, crime, if any, has been committed by the accused? State Y O &
a separate civil proceeding, to reasons. (b) Does the fact that the oEfended party had he&
to the offended spouse. a person of an unchaste character constitute a good defense'?
of rape .cannot be sentenced to the charge a€ rape?
offspring, because the law prevents him from
I (a) It depends upon whether or not a part of the housi
doing so, was burned. If no part of the house was burned, the crime .OM:
mitted by the accused is frustrated arson. If a part of the posh
ATJGUST, 1949 and partition walls of the house, even how small that part.??,
is burned, it is consummated arson. I n arson, i t is not neces.
and demands sary that the building set o n fire is completely burned. .-.;.
It is Prustrated arson when no part of the house was bu
because the defendant already performed all the acts of I

tion which would produce the crime of arson a8 a consequ

:. fires against him, this time hitting and killing him. 3s the
policeman criminally liable? State your reasons. (h) A hus-
band, upon hearing the screams of his wife calling for help,
' a n d coming, as he did without previous knowledge, upon nn
armed man engaged in a murderous attack in his own home
in the presence of his wife, killed the intruder. Is t b husband
'criminally liable? Reasons.
(a) No, because the policeman killed the fugitive from jail
in the fulfillment of a duty. He did not incur any criminal
.' liability, having acted under a justifying circumstance.
.< , .
but the crime was not produced by reason of the fact
burning sack and rags was immediately noticed and the bu
of the house was prevented by another, which was independ
of the will of the defendant.
(b) No. In rape, the offended party need not be a
or a woman of goad reputation.
e 111. (a) Mention three (3) different instances in w
man may be legally convicted of the crime 'of L ~ C
mage. (h) When may a person charged with the crim

756 757
1
 ",/
.~.. f
'
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
trated homicide he found guilty of the crime of unlawful
discharge of firearms against another, whether .any wounds
, were inflicted or not upon the offended party? Reason out your
answer.
:wried man may be legally convictcd of 'the crime
e in any of the following instanccs:
he keeps a mistress'in the conjugal dwelling;
he shall have sexual intercourse, hnder scandalous
ircumstances, with a woman who is n3t his wife;
.' .
. d
' ( d V h e n he cohabits with her in any other place.
. ( . A person charged with the crime of frustrated homi-
eide may he found guilty of the crime of unlawful discharge
of firearms against another, when the prosecution fails to prove
intent to kill on the part of the accused. The essential element
' . of frustrated homicide is that the offender has the intent to kill.
When the offender shot at another with any firearm without
. .intent to kill, he is liable for discharge of firearm.
IV. (a) What crime, if any, was committed by the police-
who arrested an innocent person, charging him falsdy
having violated the opium law for the purpose of extort-
g money,, which was given? State your reasons. (b) If the
: property stolen or robbed is contraband, such as opium, will
the defendant he exempt from criminal responsibility? State
-:I your reasons.
. . (a) Robbery with intimidation of person. Falsely charging
an innocent person with having violated the opium law is a form
of intimidation. The policeman, with intent to gain, took m.oney
:''1,, from the offended party by means of such intimidation.
, ' (b) No. In theft and in robbery, the personal property
taken by the defendant may be contraband, such as opium. All
,~ tliat.the law requires is that it he personzl property, belonging
t o another, and taken with intent to gain.
, .
V. (a) If the cattle stolen by the defendants have died
from rinderpest, while in the possession of the constabulary
during the pendency of the trial in case of conviction. are the
758
CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exnminatione in Criminal Law
accused likewise liable civilly for the reasonable value. of : t
said cattle? State your reasons. (h) If a n . agent ~receiv
from his principal a sum of money, for a, specified purpose 1n
connection with the business established by the two, and on ac:
count ~f certain controversies between them with reference 'to
the said business, he retained the said funds for his own .pro-
tection against his principal, until there conld be an adjustment
of their aecofl may the said agent he. legally held. responsibte
for est? &ate
0 your
I , reasons. , ,
(a Yes. Wher- it appears that a person has been deprived
of the possession of his property, the malefactor is responsible ;'
to the owner either (1) for the return of the property or (2) for' '
the payment of its value if it cannot be returned, and tkiri
whether the sroperty is lost or destroyed by the act of the ~.
malefador or t h a t of any other person, o r as a result of any
other cause or causes ( U S . YS. San Kupang, 36 Phil. 348; see
Arts. 1268, new Civil Code).
(b) No. The agent in good faith rekined the funds for
the purpose of necessary self-protection against. his principal.
There is neither misappropriation nor conversion of the money
received, nor denial of having received the same. This element
of estafa with abuse of confidence is lacking.
VI. (a) If the treasurer of a corporation took large sums
of money from the cashier working under him, for his-own
personal use, leaving in lieu thereof his personal checks with
instructions not t o deposit them on the current account of the!
Company, until the end of the month, what crime, if any, -\vas
committed by said treasurer? State your reasons. (b) When
the complainant signed a notarial document, which had heen
misrepresented to him by the defendant to be a power of at-
torney, when in truth it was a deed of sale of certain property ',,
belonging to the complainant, what offense has heen committeq $
hy the accused? State your answer.
(a) Estafa. This is not a case where money was exchanged.:,
for the checks drawn against existing funds and available for
immediate prezentation to the bank for payment; and since, .the
checks were not to be deposited on the current account of.
759

CRIMINAL LAW I~EVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal. Law
company until the end of the month, there was a t least tem-
porafy prejudice caused to the company. I n - th? case of U.S.
Vs. Sevilla, it was held that the crime of estafa was committed
even if the accused had no intention to permanently misappropriate
the fund!: to himself, because the law is clear and makes no dis-
tinction between permanent and temporary misappropriations.
(b) Estafa. The accused committed estafa by inducing an-
other, by means of deceit, to sign any document. The elements
of this form of estafa are: (1) that the offender induced the
offended party to sign a document; ( 2 ) that deceit be employed
to make him sign the document; (3) that the offended party
personally signed the document: and (4) that prejudide be caused.
Although, the question does not state that the defendant
induced t.he complainant to sign the document, it could be in-
ferred from the fact that the defendant made misrepresentation
t o him. Since all the elements of the crime are present, the
offense of estafa was committed by the accused.
B for homicide? Reasons.
. . VII. (a) What crime, if any, has been committed by the
policeman and janitor, who aided the defendant municipal treas-
urer, in removing the safe from the municipal building and its
contents afterwards? State your reasons. (b) In case of an
undetermined victim, considering the threats made by the dc-
fendant who had lost a fishing-boat that either he or the
thieves would be turned into ghosts, can .the killing 'of the
thief afterwards be legally considered a s murder? State your
reasons.
( a ) The policeman and janitor, who aided the municipal
treasurer in removing the safe from the municipal bnilding and
, if+ contents afterwards, committed the crime of malversation.
'.Even private persons who participate as eo-perpetrators in the
' offense of? malversation can be penalized for the coinmission of
such crime. When the law clearly defines rt crime, as it has
here defined the crime of malversation, those who in any way
participati? therein must be principals, accomplices or abettors
thereof. Since the policeman and janitor took direct part in the
gxecution of the crime, they should be held liable as principals.
760
I '.'
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law -
(b) No. The killing of the thief cannot be legally con.
sidered as murder qualified by evident premeditation, becap88
there was merely a threat which is not of a direct and specific
character. Between the time when the defendant made the threat
and the time when the thief was killed by him, there was no act
performed by him manifestly indicating that he clang to 'Gt
determination to commit the crime. That requisite of evident
premeditation is not present.
VIII. (a) And from the fact that the defendants who werti
soldiers that had mutinied, had deliberately planned to atGc5
the town, using their firearms, for the killing of two per ,,. ))
who had volunteered to help in defending the town, ean,::th$
culprits be legally found guilty of murder, with the
circumstancc of premeditation? Sfate your reas
during a quarrel, the defendant endeavored to kill
but by mistake killed another, will his mistake i
man instead of another relieve him from criminal responsibili
(a) Yes. For premeditation to exist, it is not nec
that the accused planned to kill a particular person.
was held by the Supreme Court that a general attack
village having been premeditated and planned, the kil
any individual during the attack was attended by the aggravatin;
circumstance of evident premeditation, which qualifies the c r i d
t o murder.
(b) NO. This is a case where .the wrongful act done
different from that intended. Under Art. 4, paragraph'l
. , the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred
person committing a felony, although the wrongful act
different from that which he intended. When the defen
deavored to kill his adversary, he was committing a felony.-,.;
killing of another person was the direct, logical, and neces
consecpence of the felony committed.
IX. (a) Is the accidental killing of a bystander, w
fendant was acting in self-defense, punishahle? If
what crime? State your reasons. (b) If some of the d
761
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
ants. attacked the deceased, one of them inflicting mortal wonnds,
while the other two inflicted wounds which were not mortal,
but all of them helped in burying the victim, what will be the
.criminal responsibility of the accused? Reasons.
(a) No. This is another case where the result was not in-
tended by the defendant. In order that a person may be held
"criminally liable for the result not intended by him, it is abso-
lutely necessary that he committed a felony, and that the result
was the direct, logical and necessary consequence of the felony
1: ,
,.,.committed. While the defendant vras acting in self-defense, he
was not committing a felony, for the act of such person was
in accordance with law, so that he is deemed not to have trans-
:. gressed the law.
>
(b) If all the defendants who attacked the deceased, includ-
'',:ing the other two who inflicted wonnds which were not mortal,
.?,were in conspiracy, they are principals, because they participated
.hthe criminal resolution and they took direct part in the execu-
tion ,of the act. But if the other two, who inflicted wounds
which were not mortal, merely concurred in the criminal pur-
-pose of the others, then those two are on14 accomplices. The
fact that a11 of them helped in burying the vidkn does not make
them accessories, because they o r some of them already participated
as principals and the two of them as accomplices. Accessories
are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime
and withont partcipating therein, either as principals or accom-
plices, took part subsequent to the commission of the crime in
any of the manners enumerated in Art. 19 of the Revised Penal
Code.
X. (a) While it is true that a civil action may be maintained
by an employer to recover money misappropriated by his em-
ployees, without the prior institution of a criminal proceeding,
nevertheless if a criminal prosecution based upon the same mis-
appropriation is in fact instituted against the emcployee and he
is acquitted, what would be the effect of such acquittal upon
any subsequent civil action? Reason your answer. (b) In the
commission of the crime of falsification of a public or official
document, is it necesary that there should have been an
r
CRIMINAL LAW REVLEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
original document, falsified or imitated by the defendant? State
your reasons.
(a) If the employee charged with misappropriation in :S
criminal case is acquitted, such acquittal has no effect
any subsequent civil sction based on the same misappropri
because in case of fraud, and there is fraud in misappropriation,!
a subsequent civil action is an independent civil action (Art:.33,?
C.C.), which may be instituted although the defendant is
held criminally liable.
(Is) In falsification of a public or official document, it
not necessary that there should be an original document falsiy
or imitated by the defendant. In enumerating and describi
the eight different acts of falsification, Art. 171 o f the
Penal Code mentions "genuine document" and "genuine o
only in acts of falsification by altering or intercalating
ment or by including in a copy a statement contrary to,
ferent from, that of the original document.
Therefore, it is only when the act of falsification
in making alteration 01- intercalation or in including in the
a different statement that there should be an original docu
AUGUST, 1950
I. (a) What relation do the generic circumstances h
the 'imposition of ~penalties? (b) Name two exempting and two.
aggravating circumstances. ( e ) Give the reasons underlying the:
provision of the law that one who kills another in self-defe
is exempt from criminal liability.
(a) Generic circumstances or mitigating and aggravati
circumstances shall be taken into account f o r the purppse of
diminishing o r increasing the penalty in conformity with the,,
following rules:
(1) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves const
tute a crime specially punishable by law o r which are incl
by the law in defining a crime and prescribing the penalty th
for shall not be taken into account for the purpose of incr
ing the penalty.
763
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
bg
t
(2) The same rule shall apply with respect to any aggravat--
c’wmstance inherent in the crime to such a degree that it
mus of necessity accompany the commission thereof.
(3) Aggravating or mitigating circumstances which arise
from the moral attributes of the offender, or from his private
relations with the offended party, or from any other personal
cause, shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of
the principals, accomplices, and accessories as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.
(4) The circumstances which consist in the material execu-.
tion of the act, or in the means employed t o accomplish it, shall
serve to aggravate or mitigate the liability of those persons
only who had knowledge of them at the time of the execution
of the act or their cooperation therein.
(b) The two exempting circumstances are: (1) An imbecile
or an insane person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
interval; (2) A pemon under nine years of age.
!. The two aggravating circumstances are: (1) That advan-
tage be taken by the offender of his public position; (2) That
the crime be committed in contempt of or wilh insult to the-
public authorities.
(c) The reasons underlying the provision of the law that
one who kills another in self-defense is justified and does not
.. incur any criminal liability are stated, as follows: “Because i t
~ y o u f dbe quite impossible for the State in all cases to prevent.
aggression upon its citizen (and even foreigners, of course) and
offer protection to the person unjustly attacked. On the other
hand,
an cT o t be conceived that a person should succumb t o
it 1 aggression without offering any resistance.”
unlawf
!
11. iUiam Lee, a resident of Hongkong, counterfeits there
one-pe o currency notes of the Central Bank of the Philippines.
There is no treaty between Great Britain and the Philippines~
protecting Philippine currency against falsification in the ter-~
: zitories of the former. Later, William Lee comes to Manila on-
;$:, a business trip and is arrested and prosecuted here for the crime
&committed in Hongkong. His defense is that the penal laws o f
.. t , ’,
764
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
I ’the Philippines do not apply in Hongkong. If ymu’were the
judge, would you acquit or convict hint? %‘Thy?
If I were the judge, I would convict William Lee. Art. .2
of the Revised Penal Code provides that except as provided in
the treaties and laws of pyeferential application, the provisions of
that Code shall be enforced outside of the jurisdiction of the
Philippines against those who should counterfeit any currency
-.’.
I
iI
note of the Philippines or obligation and security issued by the
Government of the Philippinas. The one-peso currency notes of
the Central Bank of the Philippines are national bank notes
which are among the obligations and ,securities issued by the
Government of the Philippines. The,countcrfeiting of such obli-
1
i gation and security is punished by the Revised Penal Code. It
is not necessary that there be a treaty between Great Britain
and the Philippines protecting our currency against falsification ’:
in the territories of Great Britain to enforce the provision of t h e ,
Revised Penal Cnde against William Lee who counterfeited in
Rongkong our one-peso currency notes.
4 The “treaties” mentioned in Art. 2 of the Revised Penal
/ Code have reference to agreements that may be entered into by
and between the Phi!ippines and a foreign country against the
1 application of the provisiom of the Code to offenders and crimes
I mentioned in said Art. 2, when committed in that foreign country.
3 111. Juan and Pedro, disappointed jobseekers, agree and plan:
t o assassinate the Head of the State: Juan would watch the^,
Chief Executive’s movements, would tell Pedro the opportune.
time and place for the assassination, and would furnish Pedro:
a .45-caIiber pistol; and Pedro would shoot the intended victW4
at the time and place to he indicated by Juan. Fortunately,;;
the plan is discovered by the vigilant agents of the NBI, w h o
immediately arrest and investigate Juan and Pedro, and ,the$
voluntarily confess.to the foregoing facts. If you were the f i 4 f
to whoni the NBI agents present the case, what action
you take against Juan and Pedro? Why?
wad$
..‘.,...%;+>,+& 3
If I were the fiscal, I would droll. the case against,
and Pedro, bkcause they merely agreed and decided to.co
a felony, which is not treason, rebellion o r sedition..;i
765
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exsminationa in 'Criminal Law
cbnspiracy i s ' n o t a felony punished by the Revised Penal Code'
or any other penal law. Conspiracy alone, without the execu-
tion of its purpose, is not a crime, except in few and rare
eases, that is, in treason, rebellion, or sedition.
IV. (a) Give an example of subornation of perjury. (b)
Can the suborner be penalized under the Revised Penal Code?
(c) Define libel under the Revised Penal Code, and give its
essential elements.
. .
(a) A, accused of physical injuries, paid B PlOO to testify
.in his (A's) favor in a preliminary investigation to be con-
ducted by a fiscal, even if A knew that B did not know any-
thing about the case. B, under oath, testified falsely before
ttle,fiscal in favor of A. This is an example of subornation
of perjury.
:i. (b) Yes, the suborner (A) can be penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, as principal by inducement in the &me Of
perjury.
.. (e) Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime,
o r o f a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending t o cause the dis-
honor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person,
or to black'en the memory of one who is dead.
,IIts essential elements are:
.'.. ,. , (1) There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice
or defect, real or imaginary, o r any act, omission, Condition,
status, or circumstance.
..,.;,
"..' . ( 2 ) The imputation must be made publidy.
, .
,, , (3) It must be malicious.
(4) The imputation must be directed at r. natural or juri-
dical-person, or one who is dead.
( 5 ) The imputation must tend t o cause tne dishonor, dis-
credit or contempt o f the person defamed.
t V. (a) A was killed by his wife I3. C, a stranger, aided
1, B in killing her husband. Is C guilty of parricide? Reason out
i.'
766
>. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
your answer. (b) What premature marriages are punishable
under the Revised Penal Code?
( a ) No. C is not guilty of parricide, even if be aided B ,'
in killing her husband, because the private relation o f B with .,'
her husband, which qualified the crime t o parricide, was not
attendant to C who was a stranger (Art. 62, R.P.C.).
(b) The premature marriages which are punishable ,.
the Revised Penal Code are those by-
(1) A widow who married within 301 days from the date
of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if
she was pregnant a t the time of his death.
(2) A woman who, her marriage having been annulled o
dissolved, married before her delivery or before the, expi
of the period o f 301edays after the date of the legal s
VI. (a) Are there persons exempt from liability
ling (estafa)? If so, who are they? (h) Distinguish sedition
from rebellion.
(a) Yes. The persons exempt from liability for swindling'
are:
(1)Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or re
affinity in the same line;
( 2 ) The widowed spouse with respect to the prop
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same
passed into the possession of another; and
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law
in-law, if living together.
These y r s o n s are only civilly liable.
(b)' Sedition is distinguished from rebellion, as follows:
(1) As t o the roanner the crime is committed. - In s
tion, the offenders rise publicly and tumultuously, emplo
force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal metho
In rebellion, the offenders rise publicly and take arms again
the Government.
-
( 2 ) As t o the objects o r purpose of the uprising.
sedition, the object of the uprising is any of the followi
 I
:..,:. .
,.,
.,.,, ,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ' '
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
(a) t o prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or
the holding of any popular election; (bb) to prevent the
B relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects o
National C:overnment, or any provincial or municipal govern-
ment, or any public officer thereof from f-eely exercising its
' ' or his functions, or prevent the execution Lf any administra-
~..: tive order; (a)t o inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
the person o r property of any public officer or employee;
(dd) to commit, for any political or social. end, any act of
,.' hate or revenge against private persons o r any social class;
I and (ee) t o despoil, for any political or social end, any perssn,
.municipality or province, or the National Government of all its
property o r any part thereof.
." In rebellion, the purpose of the uprising is any of the fol-
lowing: (1.) To remove from the allegiance to the Govern-
ment o r its laws (aa) the territory of the Piikejpines o r any
part ther of, or (bb) any body of land, naval o r other armed
iJ
:*, forces; or (2) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
.I who o r partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
VII. Elvaristo Flores, a collector of antiques, saw in a
" ,~
,
"Chinese store a silver coin tor sale, which according to his
.2>?, catalogue (of antiques is worth $100. The price askeB by the
..&owner was P8. But by false representatiops he convinced the
...
.:%,.' owner to sell the coin to him for PI.
~
Several days later the
seller found out that the real value of the coin was $100 and
he engaged you as his counsel. What would you advise your
i
"' client? Reason out your answer.
were the counsel engaged by the seller, I would advise
forget the whole thing, as Evaristo Flores committed
.
Being the owner of the silver coin which he offered
er knew or ought to know the real value of
found out later that the real value of the
$100, that was his own fault for which he can have
sh may lose all they have to the wise; but that
that the law will give i t back t o them again.
follow one every step of his life and extricate
768
CRIMINAL. LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
him from bad bargains, protect him from unwise investme
foolish acts. Coui-ls cannot constitute themselves guardian of;
persocs who are not legally incompetent." (Vales vs. Villa,
/
Phil. 769)
PI. (a) A surreptitiously placed a firearm in the premises.,
of B and informed the police agajnst B for illegal possession.
of Nrearm. What crime did A commit? (b) Give two exam+.,
ples of a complex crime. (e) What can mu say about the.
penalty for a complex crime? ~ ,.
'
(6 committed the crime of incriminating innocent per-
son, because he performed an act which directly incriminated
or imputed to an innocent person the commission of the crime.
of illegal possession of €irearm.
+The two examples of complex crime are:
U A , with intent t o Bill, shot a t B; the slug fired Trom
A's gun hit B, Idlljng him: and the same slug which passed
through and through B's body, hit and seriously injured C
who was standing behind B. This is a complex crime of ,.,
homicide with frustrated homicide.
.L2) Pr falsified a check f o r P500 by counterfeiting the
signature of B thereon and presented i t to the bank f o r pay-
ment. ' A received F500 from the bank. This is a complex
crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document.
4 e ) The enalty for a complex crime is intended to favor
:ii;
the cnlprit.
In di ecting that the penalty for the graver offense shall.
be impo ed. in its maximum period, Art. 48 could have had no. .:'
other 9 rpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the ag-
gregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately.
The reason for this benevolent spirit of Art. 48 is readily ''
discernible. When two o r more crimes are the result of a :
single act, the offender is deeenied less perverse than when he' ,;'
commits said crimes through separate and distinct acts (Pee&
vs. Hernandez, et al., 52 O.G. 5506).
769

/r/ CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw
X. A Irleptontaniac was prosecuted for the theft of jewels
committed in several stores. The doctors who examined her
and observed and analyzed her behavior and past experknees
reported that the accused knows what is right and what is wrong
'and that she even knows that to steal is wrong, hut that
whenever she has a chance she cannot overcome her impulse
to steal, pa~ticularlyjewels. Is the ;mused criminally reapon-
sible under our Code? Give reasons.
This is not a settled question. Since the accused knbvzp
.+.t,,** 3.
zc;yhat is right and what is wrong and that. she even knows that
steal is wrong, she is not deprived of consciousness of her
aets. Viewed in the light of these facts, a kleptomaniac is
c h i n a l l y responsible under our Code. She is entitled onls
to the mitigating circumstance of illness under Art: 13, par.
Y of the Rovised Penal Code.
There is an opinion to the effect $#at since a kleptomaniac
-cannot overcome her impulse to steal, there is not only e
@minution of the exercise of the will power, but a depriva-
tion of the will power, which may be an exempting Lwcum- '
the first view I have stated is the
. A, who was a cashier in a department store, falsified
National Bank in 'the amount of PZOO
by forging the signature of his friend B, who had only PlOO
deposited in the Bank in current account. A bought from the
store wherein he was employed certain goods and merchandise
amounting to F150 which he paid with the falsified check
(which he endorsed) and received as change 850 in cash. After
several days A stole the check and concealed it. At the end
of the month A was found short in his accounts in the amount
of €200. For what crime or crimes can A be prosecuted?
A can be prosecuted for a complex crime ef estafa through
i, fdxification of commercial document, because the falsification
.,:e
::"of"the check was a necesasry means for committing the estda:
stealing and concealing of the cheek is not a separate
I
;<. ~' ,
I .
770
I
B
i
i
CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal LRW
crime, because the check, being falsified, had no value either
to the supposed drawer or to the department store and, there-
fore, there is no jiersonal property taken.
il
e.
. d
I
:1 ,dDistinguish theft and estafa.
I In theft, the offender takes the thing; in estafa, the of-,
fender receives the thing from the offended party.
But a person who misappropriated the thing which he had'..'. '
received €rom the offended party may be guilty of theft, not
estafa, if he acquired only the material or physical possesssion
of the thing.
the thing from the ofi'ended party, t h e of- , '
the juridical possession of the thing, and'
it, he would be guilty of estafa.
assaults upon persons in authoritj.'
i
There are two ways of committing the crime of direct a@
saults. They are:
(1) Without public uprising, by employing force o r in-
q timidation .or the attainment of. any of the purgoses enu-
memted/b;f defining the crimes of rebellion .and sedition.
Without public' uprising, by attacking, by
fore or by serious!y intimidating or by seriously res
person in aufhority or any of its agents, while engaged
the perfor nce of official duties, or on the occasion of su
' "Ik;fis the crime of illegal association d
f r o that of illegal assembly?
The distinction between the crime of illegal associat'
and that of illegal assembly may be stated, as follows:
(1) In illegal assembly it is necessary that there '
actual meeting or assembly of armed persons for the pu
771
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMIKAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
;,,; ., f
,,.:
., of .Committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code, If I were the judge called upon to decide the case, I would ~

'I,. or. of.individua1s who, although not armed, are incited to the resolve the issue in accordance with the decision of the. Supreme:
:'<: commission of treason, rebellion, sedition, or assault upon a Court. .,

pkrson in authority or his agent. In the case of People vs. Hernandez, el al., 52 O.G. 5606;
quisite is not necessary in the crinie of illegal 89- the Supreme Court held that there is no complex crime of ie-
.IC- bellion with multiple murder, arson and robberies. The reason
'* .:I

illegal assembly, ii is the meeting and attendance
ting that are punished.
associations it is the act of forming or organ-
embership of, the association that are bunished.
e purpose of the meeting is to comm'it, crimes
by special laws, such meeting is not an illegal as-
egal association, the purpose may inclucle. that of
. . imes punishable by special law% because when
' ~'
the purpose of the organization is contrary to public morals
'&e acts hich are contrary to &blic morals may constitute
for the ruling is stated, as follows:
One of the means by which rebellion may be committed,
. .in the words of Art. 135, is by "engaging in war against, the
forces of the government" and "committing serious violence72.
. in the prosecution o€ said "war". These expressions imp$ 'j
everything that war connotes, namely: resort t o a m , requisi-'
tion of property and services, collection of taxes and contribu-' :
tions, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical., in-, '1
juries and loss of life, x x x. Being within the purview'.of:
"engaging in war" and "committing serious violence", said re-
sort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction ofW

/";
life and property, constitutes not two or more offenses, but;
crimes unishable under the special laws. q
3 only one crime--that of rebellion plain and simple.

'
, ,: 4. Whal. are the essential elements of the crime of forcible
abduction?
The essential elements of the crime of forcible abduction
are:
i
4
Inasmuch as the acts specified in Art. 135 constitute one.
single crime, it follows necessarily that said acts offer no 'oc-'.
casion for the application of Art. 48, which requires therefor-
the cominission of, at least, two crimes.
,(1) The pel'son abducted is any woman, regardless of her A mere participant in the rebellion, who is not a public
age, civil status, n r reputation. officer, should not be placed a t a more disadvantageous posi-
tion.
(2) The abduction is againiit her will.
,,
>
.
. ( 3 ) Witlith lewd designs.
I ,

6. State in wbal ways concubinage m a y be committed. 1;

.",. 5. I n an action filed in Court against certain dissidents,
the latter have been charged with the crime of rebellion cant-
"> ' plexed with miiltiple murder, arson and nob,beries. Tbe de-
fense raised as one of the main issues in the ease that the
murders, robberies and arsons alleged in the information are
.,.
inherent and essential elements of the crime of rebellion. If
I
Concubinage may be committed in the following ways:
(1) By lceeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; o r :
( 2 ) By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous cir:
cumstances, with a woman who is not his wife; or ,. ,
,.
(3) By cohabiting with her in 'any other place.

', . you were the Judge called upon to decide the case, how woulil ' 7. What is the distinction between habitual deliquency and

gou resolve this issue? State your reasons. recidivism? ., :

,..a*
,
<:.~ .
772 773
 ' I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

habitual delinquency and recidivism When b, reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide,

,(I) As t o the crimes committed. - In recidivism, it is

sufficient that the accused on the.date of his trial, shall have
*/tcy
is commit d the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
W n f i e rape is frustrated or attempted and a homicide
is ey)R a Litted by reason-,or on the occasion thereof, the penalty

J'
*- been previo ly convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced ihe same title of the Code; in habitual delinquency'
t h e cri s are specified.
( As t o the peiiod of time the crimes are committed. -
In r cidivisrn, no period of time between the former convic-'
shall be reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim
has become insane the penalty shall be likeaise ?'ecZmion per-
petm.

//
tion and the last convietion is fixed by law; in habitual de-. 9. (a) State the npeessary elements of the crime of h-
lenquency, the offender is found guilty of any of the crimes

viction.
ten years from his last release or last con-

the number of crimes committeci. ,- In reci-

'I
i
fide' y in the custody of documents. (b) Is tbe mere act of af-
fi'ating with, and becoming. member of, the communist party
,, f the Philippines, constitntive of a crime under the Revised
Penal Code? Why?
conviction for an offense embraced in the (a) There are three different forms of infidelity in the
same title of the Code is sufficient; in habitual delinquency,
the accused must be found guilty the third time or oftener of f
6

(i
custody of documents. Tliey are:
(1) Removal, concealment or destruction of documents
any of the crimes specified. (Art. 226).
( 4 ) As to their effects. - Recidivism, if not offset by a (2) Officer breaking seal (Art. 227).
mitigating circumstance, serves to increase the penalty only (3) Opening of closed documents (Art. 228).
to the maximum; whereas, if there is habitual delinquency, an
additional penalty is imposed.
1
/;
Since the question does not specify the form of infidelity
in the custody of documents, I suppose that the elements of
@ the first form of the crime of infidelity in the ccstody of
When and how may rape he committed.
documents axe the ones called for.
ape, may be committed by having carnal knowledge of a
under any of the following Circumstances: The elements of the first form of the crime of infidelity
j in the custody of, documents are:
(1) By using force or intimidation:
6..
:t (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
4 (1) That d e offender be a public officer;
(3
?&% unconscious; and (2) T p d h e r e be a document or papers removed, destroyd;
or conceded ;
(3) When the woman is under twelve years of age, even ,,.
i though neither of ;the circumstances mentioned in the two (3) The said document or papers should have been eon-
shall be present. fied or entrusted to such public officer by reason of his office;
(4) That damage or prejudice t o the public interest, or td
a third person, should have been caused.
two or more persons, the penalty (b) The mere act of affiliating with, and becoming
ber of, the commu~~ist party of the Pldlippines is spy!
, , . I

<~. 774 775

 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinationa in Criminal Law
,yuni: under the Anti-Subversion Act. Althouxh,- . -wior t u
the enactment of the Anti-Subversion Act membership in the
communist party is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. it
being covered by the crime of illegal associations, after the
enactment of the Anti-Subversion A d affiliating with, ana
becoming member of, the communist party of the Philippines
should be punished under the mid Act.
. .
10. IInto how many classes are circumstances affecting
criminal liability divided? Define and give examples of each.
The circumstances affecting climinal liability are divided
jnto five .groups, namely: (1) justifying circumstances, ( 2 )
''2 exempting circumstances and. other ahsolutory causes, ' (3) miti-
,,2 gating circumstances, (4) aggravating circumstances, and (6)
: alternative circumstances.
~. Justifying circumstances are those where the act of a
person is said to be in accordance with law, so that such person'
.<,is deemed not to have transgressed the law and is free from
: both criminal and civil liability. The examples of justifying
circumstances are self defense, defense of relatives, defense
5 <30f;strangers, and state of necessity.
,I:
, .
~ ...."; Exempting circumstances are those grounds for exemption
, " ~
.?:''from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the
crime any of the conditions which make the act voluntary, 01'
negligent. The examples of exempting civcumstances are im-
. becility or insanity, minority, jrresistible fore?, and uncontrollable
, fear.
. " Absolutory causes are those where the act committed is
:i a crime but for reasons of public policy and sentiment, there
is no penalty imposed. The examples of absolutory causes
', are spntaneous desistance of a person who commenced the
commission of a felony before he could perform all the acts
of execution, and legal grounds for arbitrary detention.
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if present in
the commission of the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the penalty. The
examples of mitigating circumstances are incomplete justifying
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Ernminations in Criminal Lay
or incomplete exenipting circumstance, and that the offendei!'
had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that corn--
mitted.
Aggravating circilmstances are those which, if attend
in the commission of the crime, serve to increase the pe
without, however, exceeding the maximum of the penalty
vided by law for the offense. The examples of agg
circumstances are: that advantage be taken b$ the
of his public position, and that the crime be- committed
contempt of o r with insult t o the public authorities.
The alternative circumstances are those which mu8
taken into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating ai:
ing to the nature and effects of the crime and the o
ditions attending its commission. The examples of a1teW.a
circumstances are intoxication and relationship.
/ AUGUST, 1952
./
I. From the definition given in the Revised Penal $2
(1932) that "acts and omissions punishable by law are f e
(Art. 3), the word VOLUNTARY of the previous code,
was eliminated, as well as tho phrase THAT ACTS OR.,
SIONS PUINISHABLE BY LAW ARE ALWAYS P R p
TO BE VOLIJNTARY UNLESS THE CONTRARY
APPEAR. (a) Considering such eliminations would yo
hold that even acts and omissions punishable by law
INVOLUNTARY are felonies? State your opinion on
(b) Is .there any voluntariness on the part of the o
cases of felonies committed through reckless negligence
prudence? Why do yon say so?
(a) No. Acts and omissions punishable by law which,
involuntary are not felonies, notwithstanding the eliminat
of the word "voluntary" and the phrase to the same ef
found in the previous code, from the Revised Penal Code.
Revised Penal Code continues to be based on the classical th
according to which the basis of criminal liability is free w
777
 CKIXINAL LW REVIEWER
B a r Examinsti r in Criminal Law
The elimination of the word and the phrase mentioned in the
question is justified, because the law premmes that acts or
omissions punishable by law are voluntary. The accused may
overcome the presumption by shon4ng that his act or omission
.is not free, intelligent, and intentional, or thnt i t is not due t o
his negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skjll.
(b) Yes. Even in cases of felonies committed through n e e
Iigence or reckless imprudence, there is voluntariness on the
part of the offender, because reckless imprudence, as defined
by the Revised Penal Code, consists in 'voluntarily, but without
malice, doing or failing to do an act 'from which material damage
results, etc.
4) When is a felony said to be (1) consummated;
( 2 ) frustrated; and (3) attempted? (h) Can the crime of
frustrated bribery he committed? Reason your answer.
(a) A felony is consummated when all the elements neces-
sary for its execution and accomplishment are present; and if.
is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of,pxecu-
tion which would produce the felony as a consequence hut which,
nevertheless, do not produce i t by reason of canses independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when .the offender commences the'
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his o m
$pmtaneous desistance.
(b) No. The crime of frustrated bribery cannot be conk
mitted, because bribery is a felony which requires the inter-
vention of two persons to commit i t 'and is consummated by
mere agreement. An offer of brihe which is accepted by the
public officer is a consummated corruption of public officer.
If such offer js rejected, it is attempted corruption of public
officer.
In a case, the Supreme Court held that when the public
officer who had accepted the bribe returned it, the crime com-
mitted by the giver of the bribe is frustrated corruption of
778
:,*....,
,'.
.i'
, ,:;,.,
..
CRIMINA LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examin m e in Criminal Law
-public officer. With due respect, I respectfully submit that it^
ishould have been attempted corruptiox of public officer.
111. State the differences existing between the circumstance
%of"laving acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force",
and that of "having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
-naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation".
The differences existing between the circumstance of "hav-
5ng acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force" arid
-that of "having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturalllly
to have produced passion and obfuscation" are:
(1) While passion or obfuscation is a mitigating circum-
stance, irresistible force is an exenipting circumstance.
(2) Passion or obfuscation cannot give rise t o an irresist-
ible force because irresistible force requires physical force.
(3). Passion or obfuscation is in the offender himself, while
irresistible force must come from a third person.
(4) Passion or obfuscation must arise from lawful senti-
-merits; whereas, the irresistihle force is .unlawful.
IV. Juan de la Cruz, chauffeur of a jeepney, while driving
it along Taft Avenue, Manila, through recldess imprudence
caused his said vehicle to hump and collide with one 6 x 6
.army motor truck going in the opporiite direction, with the
result that 2 of his passengers died instantaneously and the
jeepney. the property of Pedro Garcia, valued at Pl,OOO.OO, mas
-completely smashed and rendered useless forever. The accident
occurred on December 1, 1950. If you were the Fiscal in charge:;
a f the case, would mu prosecute Juan de la Cruz for the. cam:"'
;plex crime of double homicide and damage to property through, ;
reckless driving, a s mming within the purview of Art. 48 of-'
the Rev. Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 4000 of the ' Corn-.
monwealth? State the reason of your answer. . , +.;
;A
. $:?.
If I were the Fiscal, I would not prosecute Juan de la C,*ii
-for the complex crime of double homicide and damage.,toyt#
'property through reckless driving under Art. 45 of the Revisi$%
.Penal Code. .~<&j
::fa >
,&j
779
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
The accident having occurred on December 1, 1950, t h e
Motor Vehicles Law was applicable when death or serious
bodily injury to any person resulted 'from negligence or reck-
less o r unreasonably fast driving by a motor vehicle driver.
Republic Act No. 687, amending such provision of the Motor
.Vehicles Law and making the Revised Penal Code applicable in
such cases, took effect. on Januam 11, 1951.
Since the single act of reckless driving produced a viola-
tion of the Revised Penal Code (damage to property through
reckless imprudence) and a violation of a special law, Art. 48
of the Code is not applicable; because this. article speaks of
h a v e o r less grave felonies resulting from a single act, and a
violation of a special law is not a felony.
V. In a criminal case john^ Smith was sentenced by t h e
Municipal 'Court of Manila to suffer the penalty of 2 years,
four months and 1 day of destierm (banishment), and thus
I
fl
forbidden to enter any place within the radius of 100 kilometers
from the City of Manila. Subsequently and duringbthe period
of service of his sentence, John Smith was caught in the
City of Manila and was therefore prosecuted before the Court
of First Instance of this capital for evasion of service of .sen-'
teuce. I n his defense John Smith claimed t h a t ' h e was not
criminally liable because his case did not coine within the
1i
scope of the penal code, particularly of Art. 157 thereof which
5'.
punishes the evasion of sentence, for the reason that, accord-
ing t o him, this article refers only to persons who are im-
prisoned in x penal institution. W h a t is your opinion? Why?
My opinion is that John Smith was criminally liable f o r
evasion of the service of the sentence. Although, the English
text of Art. 157 refers only t o persons who are imprisoned i n
a penal institution, the Spanish text of the same article uses
the phrase "sufriendo priwacibn de libertad". Destierro is a
deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the ,sense that as
.,,,. ...
.,,in,,the present case, John Smith was deprivsd of the liberty
?:to enter the City of Manila.
780
CRIMINAL LAW. RZVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
VI. Pedro Ingles, a bill collector of the Metropolitan~AWater
District, was prosecuted in the Municimpal Court of Manila in
11 separate cases for the light felony of unjust vexation eom-
mitted against 11 distinct persons in 11 different dates of
t h e month of July, 1952. The Rev. Penal Code punishes the
light felony of unjust vexation with arresto menor or a ,fine
ranging from 5 to 200 pesos, or both. The guilt of the del
fendant in the 11 cases was.proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) If you were the Judge, would you render a verdict of guilty
and sentence him to the corresponding penalty in each o f , the
11 cases? (h) Assuming that the proper penalty that should.
be imposed in each case upon the defendant were 11 days of
1 axresto menor, what would be the length of the ,period of
sentence that Pedro Ingles could be compelled to serve? Why?
(a) If I were the Judge, .I would render a verdict of guilty!- *
and sentence Pedro lngles to the corresponding penalty
of the 11 cases. The rule is that all the penalties corresponding,
to the different crimes of which the accused is found guilt
should be imposed on him.
(b) Pedro Ingles could be compelled to serve'only 33 d
1 imprisonment. Under the threefold rule, the maximum duratio
of the convict's sentence shall not be more than threefold
i
length of time corresponding to the most severe of the 'be
ties imposed upon him.
VU. A, E and C, employees of a rice dealer who..ha
warehouse situated at Dagupan street, Manila, where hundr
of sacks. of rice were usually stored, surprised X,
'
when they were one morning inside the warehouse. Up0
a u g h t there the 3 intruders fired upon and killed all sa
employees and ran away thereafter. The police subseque
arrested Z who was charged in the Court of First Insta
Manila with the crime of robbery with triple homicid
the hearing the prosecution failed to prove any robbery,
because no explanation was given of the intruders' motives
being in the warehouse, or because on 1.hat occasion t h e '
house happened to be empty. If you were the Judge,
you convict %. If so, of what crime o r crimes? Why?
781
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER ClIIiMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Crimlnal Law

If I were the Judge, I would convict Z of three crimes-
of homicide, the prosecutibn having failed to prove any robbery.
Considering the circumstances, I submit that there WBS
. .: conspiracy among X, Y and Z in the killing of A, B and C.
The fact that they were together in a place where they had no.
right to be, and that they fired simultaneously -with their guns
at, the three employees who had surprised them, shows that
.,::.,. .they had a common purpose and. were united in its execution.
IX. ( a ) What are the elements of the crime of occupation ’
of real property ox usurpation of real rights in property? (b) -:
“A” t@wner of a house and lot situated a t N,o. 100 Taft ‘.:
Avenue Extension, leased this property to “B” and family, ‘ q d ..?
because the lessor and the lessee quarelled at the club on certain ,’,:
Qersonal matters, “A” went to said property, forcibly entered ’,
therein and by means of violence against and intimidation of ’
the occupants thereof .seized it back from “B”. Has “A” corn--
~

mitted in this case the crime of occupation of real property

’ . When there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.
or usurpation of real rights in property? Give reasons for your
’, Even if Z <$id not kill all the three employedc and X and Y
answer.
killed the others, 2 is still liable for the three crimes of homicide. ,
.. ( a ) The elemknts of the crime of occupation of real property

I
,’
P500,1‘’
VIII. a) What is the main feature t‘lat differentiates
the cri e oE estafa from that of theft? (b) “A” delivers two
bills to “B”, his employee, with instructions to go to
the Central Bank to.exchange them with bills of smaller deno-
minations, :md to bring back the change to him afterwards- [J
or usurpation of r e d rights in property are:
(1) The offender takes possession of any real property or
usurps an? real rights in property.
(2) That the real property or real rights belong to another.
(3) That violence against or intimidation of persons is
,i
’%’’ receives. the two 8500.00 bills from his employer, but ‘f used by the. o f h d e r in occupying real property o r usurping
instead of ,complying with the latter’s instructions, disappears real rights.
with the money which he appropriates for himself. “B” axil- (4) There is intent to gain.
rnitted qualified theft or estafa? What is your opini,nn and
the reasons therefor?
(a) In esta€a, the offender receives the thing from tho
i (Is) No. “A” did not commit the crime of occupation
of real property or usurpation of real rights in property, be-
’. cause “A” was the owner of the real property and he had
offended party. In theft, the offender takes the thing without no intent t o gain. Elements Nos. 2 and 4 of the crime are
the consent of the offended party. Even if the offe5der receives not present.
the thing from the offended party, but the former acqnires
only the physical or material possession of the thing, his X. “A” and ‘€3’’ were mortal enemies. They occasionally, .
misappropriation of the same would constitute the crime o f
theft. IIence, in estafa the offender has the juridical posses-
sion of the thing which he misappropriates or converts to the
J
met a t a arty that their common friend “C” gave in his:’
hous nowing that there would be a game of poker and
availing himself of the first opportunity, “A” picked up the

d
prejudic of another.
‘. ( My opinion is that “€3” committed qualified theft, not
est a. The reasons for my opinion are that although “B”
received the two PS00.00 bills from his employer, be had only
the physical or material possession of the same and the con-
wallet of C containing P1,OOO.OO and surreptitiously put it in
the pocket of “B’s” coat. When the guests were called for the
ganie “C” discovered the loss of his wallet and money and
“A” told “C” that he had seen “B” in the act of suspiciously
placing in his coat a wallet with a bulged sheaf of paper bills.
structive possession thereof remained with the employer untiE I‘
B,, is searched despite his protests of innocence and “C’s’”:,
the misappropriation of the two F600.00 hills. wallet and money is found in the coat of B who is brought to
::q
.I\

782
. .
I83

; L
 I
... .
..
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
the police station for investigation and proper action. Is the
trick or scheme of "A" punishable by law? If you think so.
" b y which law a n d what is the name of the criminal offense
,.A
.;committed? State your reasons.
..,
'? Yes, the trick or scheme of "A" is punishable by the Re-
~ vised Penal Code and the name of the criminal offense is
' incriminating innocent person, because he performed an act
:"which directly incriminated o r imputed to "B", an innocent
person, the commission of a crime (theft).
.. .
'1
AUGUST, 1953
I. ( a ) Enumerate the characteristics of Criminal Law
, (b) Explain briefly what they are.
(a) Criminal Law has &reo main characteristics, namely:
i (1) generality, ( 2 ) territoeiality, and (3) prospectivity.
2 , (b) Generality means that i t is binding on a11 persons who
" reside o r sojourn in Philippine territory.
Territoriality means that i t undertakes to pnnish crimes
committed within the Philippine territory. As a rule, penal
lawk are enforcible only within the territory of the Philippines.
Prospectivity means that a penal law cannot malie an act
punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when'
committed. In other words, crimes are punished ,-rider the
laws in force a t the time of their commission.
P GATING circumstance the fact that the offender is ,una
, 11. (a) Define conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony.
(b) When are conspiracy and proposal considered as felonies?
( e ) Enumerate the crimes of conspiracy and proposal that can
be committed. (d) When does conspiracy not constitute a crime
and is oinly a means or manner of incurring criminal liability?
(e) In the latter case, what is the liability attached by law
to those who take part in the conspiracy?
( a ) A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
': t o ' an ameement concerning the commission of a felony and
"ii decide to commit it.
,";
't 784
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER.
Bar Examinations in Crimihal' Law
There is proDosal when the person who has decided to'
commit a felony propoees its execution to some other persoq"
or persons.
(b) Conspiracy and proposal are considered as felonies'
only in the cases in which the law specially provides. a penalty
therefor (Art. 8, par. 1, R.P.C.).
( c ) The crimes o f conspiracy and proposal that can be
committed are: (1) conspiracy and proposal t o commit treason,
(2) conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, and (3) con-
spiracy t o commit sedition. There is no proposal to commit
sedition.
(cl) Conspiracy does not constitute a crime and is only a , '
means o r manner of incurring criminal liability, when the crime ::
which the conspirators agreed and decided to commit is not
treason, rebellion or sedition. Even if the crime involved in
the conspiracy is treason, rebellion, 01- sedition, but any
said crimes is actually committed, the conspiracy is only a'
means or manner of incurring crimina1 liability. The reason
for this rule is that in conspiracy as felony, the offenders must
only agree and decide to commit treason, rebellion or sedition:
(e) Those who take part in conspiracy are equally liable fop
th ctually committed after the conspiracy. When there
is. y, the act of one is the act of all.
he Revised Penal Code considers a GENERIC .wT,
years of age (but over 15) a t the. time of the commissi
the offense, but another article of the code provides that:
a person oyer 15 and under 18 years of age, the penal
lower than that. prescribed by law shall be imposed, but
in the proper period". In view of these provisions, .c
generic mitigating circumstance ever be appreciated in
of a minor delinquent over 15 but under 18 years ,of a
the time of the commission of the offense? Explain
answer.
Yes. The age over 15 but under 18 years i s . ~ . , a . g e
mitigating circumstance in two cases:
785
 . .,
,”: ,.% ,,
CRIMIINAL LAW ILEVIEWEK CRDIISAI. LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law ,/ Bar Examinolions in Criminal Law

. (1) When the offender is 1G years or over but under 18 tetieed in case their guilt is shown, could John Doe receive th
years, because the other article of the Code may not then be benefit of the special or privileged circumstance designed, fa
applicable, since that article should apply only when the offender juvenibweffenders under 18 years of a@ provided in Art?%
has been proceeded against under Art. 80 and while in the . e 6 Revised Penal Code? Why?
reformatory institution or in the custody of a responsible person This is ,not a settled question. In one case, the Supr
he becomes incorrigible. The offender is not entitled to a eus-
pended sentence under Art. 80 when he is 16 years o r over.
i Court held that Republic Act No. 47, reducing from 18 to 1
the age of juvenile delinquents, does not apply to A r k $

matter.
The question involved in the first case is not yet settled
b y ’ t h e Supreme Court. There are conflicting decisions on t h e
i
I
which provides for the special or privileged circumstance dt
signed for juvenile offenders under 18 years of age. Undi
the ruling in that case, John Doe could receive the benefit of %$
special or privileged mitigating circumstance even if h e wa

9/”
(2) When the offense committed is a light felony, because
Art. 80 Is applicable only when the offender who is under 16
of age is accused of a grave o r less grave felony.
IV. (a) What are the laws referred to as “special lavis”
1 17 years of age.

68 is not
.’
held that since
when the offen@
.,A
under Article 1 0 of the RevisJtd Penal Code? (b) When a special
law declares the commission of a certain act a criminal offense, 80 is applicable o
providing a penalty for its penpetration, could a violator there- when the offender is under 16 years of age, the offender
of be convicted ‘of a frustration or attempt to commit such years of age is not entitled to a penalty one degree.lower:
act? Explain your answer. ,
It is submitted that the ruling in the second case has le6
basis and, therefore, is the correct one,
(a) The laws referred to as “special laws” ‘under Art.. 10
-.ofthe Revised Penal Code are those penal law6 enacted by the
VI. (a) What are the elements of the crime of
,
.,~.
illem
.
.:,
legislative body (now Congress), which do not form part of
or a r e not amendments to, the Revised Penal Code. marriage? (h) Antonio was married legally to Josefa, an
( b ) ’ A violator of a special law cannot oe convicted of a during the existence of this marriage Antonio married .,Peh
frustration or attempt t o commit the act defined by that law
as a criminal offense, unless the special law provides a penalty
for the frustration or attempt t o commit the act. The reason
yor this ruling of the Supreme Court is that the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code on attempted and frustrated felonies
, , a r e not applicable to special laws. ~. against Antonio f o r said offense. Aft,
-?
V. John Doe committed the crime of theft of one Parker’s hearing all the foregoing facts were duly established. Z ’ y j
were the judge, would you convict Antonio of the crime,;.!
set of fountain pen and pencil valued at t40.00 when he was ‘J
bigamy? Explain your answer.
17 years of age. Considering the provisions of Rep. Act No. -.: I

47 amending Art. 80 of the Revised Penal Code, by reducing marriages under the Revised Penal Col
from 18 t o 16 the age of juvenile delinquents who may be sen- are: (1) b y y, (2) marriages contracted against provisioi

786

,, c?f I&,
/ CRIMrXAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal t a w
*
(3) premature marriages, and (4) performance of il-
legal marriage ceremony,
’ . ,. I suppo:ie that the question calls for the elements of bigamy,
which are: (1) That the offender has been legally married;
(2) that the said marriage has not been legally dissolved, or
,... i n case his spouse is absent, there has not been a judicial’de-
claration that the absent spouse is presumptively dead; (3) that
he contracts a second o r subsequent marrjage; and ( 4 ) that
the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites
for validity.
(b) If .I were the judge, I would not convict Antonio of
t h e crime of bigamy. Since Petra is the complainant, I assume
that the basis of her complaint for the crime of bigamy against
Antonio is her marriage with him. If that is the case, the
c+e of bigamy cannot legally exist, because her marriage
with Antonio was bigamous and void ab initio.
The ma.rriage \of Antonio with Catalina is not bigamous,
even if the/basis of the prosecution is his first marriage,
n he contracted marriage with Catalina, his marriage
had already been legally dissolved by the, death of
a Civil Service examination Alex Jones filed the
corresponding sworn application feigning to be one Richard Roe,
who was Jiis friend. After being accepted the former took.
the exaniination in the latter’s name and behalf. He answered
the questionaires in writing. His compositions were his per-
sonal and private papers until he submitted the same to the
Civil Service Examiner for revision, rating and filing in the
archives of the Bureau. Has Alex Jones committed any crime?
If YOU think so, state the nature of the same and the reason
for your opinion.
Yes. Alex Jones committed the complex crinte of falsifi-
cation of oEficial document through perjury. He falsified a
document (the compositions) by causing it to appear that
~.
Richard Roe participated in an act or proceeding, when in truth
abd in fact he did not. Although, his compositions were his
788
I
Ir
J
$?
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Ctimirlal Law
and private papers, yet they are official documents,’
.i
.”
Civil Service examination ia given by t h e Bureau?
as required by law. Alex Jones had ‘to file
sworn app!ication feigning to be Richara’
Roe to enable him to take t h e examlnation for the latter:^;
In doing this, be committed perjury. He made a sworn state-
ment upon a material matter; before a competent officer au--
thorized to receive and administer oath; there was a willful
’ and deliberate assertion of falsehood; and that such sworn
statemsnt containing the falsity is required by law.
perjury was a necessary means for committing the falsi-
fication of official document.
VIII. John Smith and William Winters were friends and
i neighbors, living on Economia street, Sampaloc, Manila. On
August 1, 1 2, John had t o move his residence to Ayala Bou-
l e v a r d l , Manila, and having no money to hire a truck
for t transportation of his furniture and belongings, he ap-
’ proached his neighbor William with the request that he he
2 . allowed t o use William’s truck for said purpose. William denied
, d the request, and John, enraged, got his rev,olver and at the
point of his gun and through violence and intimidation, took
William’s truck, a personal property that the latter had under
his house, against his will, made the transfer of his (John’s)
things t o the new residence, spending about 30 liters of gasoline
i contained in the tank of the truck, valued P7.20 and after-
wards returned the truck without gasoline to William Winters.:
Considering this set of facts, state what crime has John Smi
.4 committed, givin the grounds of your conclusion.
Jod c o m m i t t e d grave coercion, because. he
# pelled William Winters to do something against his will, t h
is, t o allow him t o use the truck, by means of violence or ’
timidation. The crime committed is not robbery, because,
there was intent to gain in using the truck, the element
“taking” was not present. The element of “taking” in robb
as in theft, means the act of depriving another of the pos
aion and dominion of movable thing coupled with t h e ih
tention, a t the time of the “taking”, of withholding it with
789
:,$
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

character of permanency. The fact that John Smith returned
tlie truck after using it shows that he did not have the in-
tention to own it.
The next question to determine is whether or not John
Smith could be held liable for robbery for consuming the 30
liters of gasoline contained in the lank of the truck. It is
submitted that there was no taking of the gasoline. It was
AUGUST, 1954
d '
%ate briefly what is the fundamental principle on which
the right of the State to punish or impose coercitive measures
upon ci;iminal offenders is based.
To secure justice. The State has an exislence of its own
t o maintain, a conscience of its own to assert, and moral prin.
ciples to be vindicated. Penal justice must therefore be exere

/d"
spent in e use of the truck. John Smith is only civilly liable
for i value. cised by the State in the service and satisfaction of a duty,
and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of the punishment
IX. Jokn Doe, driver of an automobile coming from Santa inflicted.
Cruz, Lagung while passing through Calantba saw hundreds of
coconuts piled up along the side of the road in front of the
estate of Pete Poe, ready for transportation t o Manila. John P( ention 2 circumstances of each of the following classi-
ficat' n: a ) justifying; (b) exempting; (e) mitigating, (a).,
Doe stopped his car and without the knowledge or consent of

P
the owner took 24 of said coconuts, put them in t e automobile
.'
and continued his trip to Manila. Is the theft ommitted ,by
John Doe simple or qualified? Why?
The theft committed by John Doe is simple, not qualified.
Theft of coconuts is qualified theft, when the coconuts 'are taken
aggravating; and (e) nlternative.
(a) Two justifving circumstances. - The following do not
incur criminal liability: (1) Anyone who acts in defense of S i -
person or rights, provided that the following circumstance;
concur: first, unlawful aggression; second, reasonable necessit&
of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and third, l a #

/"'
from t coconut plantation. The side of the road, where the
eocon s were piled up, was not part of the plantation.
X. Can the TAKING of an automobile for a joyride, pun-
Ished by the Motor Vehfcle Act, ever constitute the crime of theft,
simple or qualified, of that automobile? Why?
In the case of People vs. Fernandez, decided by the ,Supreme
purt, and in the case of People VY. Martisano, decided by the
Court of Appeals, i t was held that the takiiig of the motor
, vehicle belonging to another for joy-ride or to use i t only
i; as a meanir of transportation is aqualified
vehicle.
theft of the motor
of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defendink
himself. (2) Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
1
I rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimatg;
!' natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives bJi
affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinitr w i t b i
the fourth civil degree, provided that the first and second I$
quisites prescribed in the next preceding circumstance ,+p
present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation w d
given by the person attacked, that the one making the defe
had no pa$ therein (Art. 11, pars. 1 and 2 ) .

In other cases decided by the Court of Appeals, it was

held that i t was not theft, simple or qnalifi.d, of the motor
exem 8( b ) wo ezcmpting circumstances. - The following
from criminal liability: (1) an imbecile or an ins
person, unless the latter has acted during a lucid
(2) A person under nine years of age (Art. 12, pars, 1
.. ..vehicle, because the accused in taking the motor vehicle for
''
a joy-ride did not have the intention to own it or of withholding (e) Two mitigat,hg circumstances. - (1) That all
8,'-,/itwith the character of permanency. quisites necessary to justify the act o r to exempt from
' ' I submit this view is the correct one. liability in the respective cases are not attendant. (
:
790 791
. .
...
,.
, ,
~..
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criiminnl Law

‘the offender is under eighteen years of age or over seventy give such bond, shall he be DETAINED for a period not‘
years (Art. 13, pars. 1 and 2). eeeditig 6 months in cases of grave or less grave felonies,:&4
(d) Two aggravating circumstances. -
(1) That advantage not exceeding 30 days if for a light felony, as provided i.:g
be taken by the offender of his public position. (2) That the 85 of the RPC, or shall he be SENTENCED to destierro (banish6
crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to the’ public ment), as provided in Art. 284 of the same Code? What ’@
.. .
authorities (Art. 14, pars. 1 and 2 ) . Ihe reason of your answer?
(e) Two alternative circzmstances. - (1) Relationship and (a) They are: .
.~
- (2) intoxication (Art. 16). (1) Grave threats; and
.,.,
.?, .
..
. ( 2 ) Light t h r k t s .
III. What are the exceptions to the allowance of one-half
L+~..\
:?.of
the period of preventive imprisonment undergone by criminal (b) B e should be sentenced to destierro, because Art. 284
’ ~ offenders? which is the one applicable specifically so provides and, morever,
’::
They are: Art. 35 which provides for “bond to keep the peace” applies,
‘. only to other crimes, it being a general provision intended to:
. (1) When the offenders are recidivists, or have’ been con-
cover other cases.
victed previously twice or more times of any crime;
(2) When upon being summoned for the executjMl of their VI. Sam was pl-osecuted and found guilty of the crime OR
sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily; malicious mischief under Art. 329, No. 3, of the RPC as amended:
(3) When they have been convicted of robbery, theft, estafa, by Act No. 3999 of the Legislature and sentenced to pay a fine
malversati ad of public funds, falsification, vagrancy, or pros- of P200, value of the damage caused, and to indemnify William,

/
titution
V. In what cases the execution of the death penalty must
be suspended?
. In the following cases, the execution of the death sentence
the offended party, in the sum of P200, o r to suffer the cor-
responding subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus
the costs. Sam has money to satisfy both amounts, but he is
stubbornly unwilling to pax them and prefers t o serve the sub-
sidiary imprisonment. (a) Has Sam the right to choose between
must be suspended: thl? payment of said am,ounts and the service of the subsidiary
(1) When the convict is a woman, within the three ygars imprisonment? ( b ) Does not such subsidiary im,prisonment
next following the date of the sentence. amount to impris,onmeiit for debt and is, therefore, unconsti;
.. (2) When the convict is a pregnant woman, until after tutional? Reason out both answers.
delivery. (a) It is submitted that Sam has no right to choose between
. (3) When the convict is a person over 70 years of age. ‘the payment of the fine, the damage, and indemnification, and
(4) When the convict becomes insane after final sentence the service of the subsidiary imprisonment, because the op
of death has been pronounced, until he recovers his reason. ing sentence of Art. 39 says: “If the convict has no prope
, V. What are the only crimes punished under the Revised with which to meet the pecuniary liabilities”, which means
.Penal Code for which the Court, in addition to the penalty if the offender has property with which to pay the pecu
;~:.aJ@ched by the code, may sentence or require the ,offender liabilities, he can be required t o , pay, which may be done
PtL-tn give r bond for good behavlor? (h) If the culprit fails to writ of execution.
$
Q
:
$
”“..’
3:. 792 793

\
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Rar Examinations in Criminal L a y
(b) No, because the prohibition that no person shall be im-
prisoned for non-payment of debt does not relate to cases seelc-
ing the enforcement of penal statutes that provide for the pay-
ment of money as a penalty for the commission of crime.
VII. At the corner of Rim1 Avenue and Zurbuan street,
M a n h ’ P e t c r and Paul stopped Alex and a t the ,point of their
respective rNevolvera the former ordered the lat.ter to $eliver
to.them his wallet containing $500 iii the paper money. Alex
handed them the wallet and then the robbers went away in
the direction of two detectives who saw the misdeed from a
distance and arrested the pair and seized from them the wallet
and the money as well as the two revolvers for the possession
of which Peter and Paul had no license. The crime committed
by these two malefactors is frustrated or consummated robbery?
9’
(b) Could they be accused and convicted of a co lex crime o f
robbery through unlawful possession of unlicense firearms in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 48 of the RPC as amend-.
ed by Act No. 400 of the Philippine Legislature? State briefly
the reasons of your answers to these two questions.
(a) The crime committed is consummated robbery, because
the asportation or unlawful taking was complete the moment
they had poissession of the wallet and its contents, even if the
culprits had had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
(b) It is submitted tha,t they could not be accused and
convicted of a complex crime of robbery through unlawful pos-
session of unlicensed fireaims under Art. 48.
Reason: Art. 48, in defining the second form of complex
crime, provides that “when an offense is a necessary means
I must carry to be considered as armed men. It merely: me
2 for committing the other, the penalty for the more serious
crime shall be imposed.”
While this form of complex crime does not seem to require
that the crime intended to be committed and the crime coni-
mitted as “necessary means for committing the other” must be
both felonies, nevertheless in the case of People v6. Araneta,
48 Phil. 650, it was held that both crimes must be punished
under the same statute. In the problem given, the possession
794
1
CRIMINAL LAW, REVIEWER
Rar Examinations in Criminal Law
-of firearm without license is punished under a special law,
while robbery is punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Therefore, they should he prosecuted for two crimes, namely:
(1) robbery with intimidation, and (2) ea,ch f o r illegal possen-
sion of firearm. .,*
..
VIII. ( a ) State the difference between the crime9 :b@fG-
ANDAGE and ROGBERY IN BAND. (b) What arms &$ve+-
pons the malefactors must cawy to be considered as armed n%n?
(a) If the agreement among more than three armed ‘men
w a t o commit only a particular robbery, the offense is-’
brigandage, but only robbery in band.
Both in robbery ir. hand and in brigandage, the offen
m u s t be a.t least f o z o uwned persons who form a band of robbers. . ;
The intent to gain is likewise common to both. , .. .
In robbery in band, the purpose of the offender is only t0 f
commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway; whereas, in ,~
brigandage, the purpose of the offenders is anyone of the fol-
lowing: (1) to commit robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap ’,,
persons for extortion or to obtain ransom, or (3) to attain , ~
%y means of force and violence any .other purpose.
In robhery in hand, the crime of robbery must be actuallyi
mmmitted; whereas, in brigandage the existence alone of the
pnrpose to commit robbery in the highway is sufficient, because
what the law punishes in brigandage is .the formation of a band
ef robbers for any of the purposes mentioned by the law.
n
(b) Neither Art. 306 nor Art. 296 of the Revised Pena
Code specifies the kind of arms or weapons the malefacto
tiow “armed persons”. Hence, any arm or weapons like kni
or boloes will be sufficient.
IX. John asked James to exchange him a check for
sum of B1.,000, and upon receiving this amount from the lat
John, with deliberate intent to defraud and for the purposet
musing the Philippine National Bank, against which it ;.
a w n , to dishonor the check, executed the same by Wri
‘796
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
his' signature very differently from that registered in the Bank.
John had funds to meet the check when James presented i t for
collection, but, a s i t was expected, the bank refpsed payment
'_ because the signature of the drawer was not his registered sig-
nature and John declined to issue another good check or to
return the money he received from James. Has John committed
~. ,
~
the crime of "estafa"? State briefly your opinion and the
.-' riasons-on which it is based.
P,,
.. -Yes, because by signing his name very differently from
that registered in the Bank for the purpose of causing the
.Bank to dishonor the check which was exchanged for cash, to
,the prejudice of the payee, h e committed estafa bf means of
B
~.deceit. It is like signing the check with a ficti ious name.
X. Blackmailing for the purpose of extorting .money from
the party threatened constitutes what offense? Under what
classification of crimes does it fall in the Eevised Penal Code?
. , It constitutes either (1) light threats under Art. 283, or
(2, ,threatening to publish a libel and offering t o prevent such
gublieation for compensation under Art. 356. .
. Light threats falls under crimes against security. ' Threat-
ening to publish a libel and offering to prevent mch publication
for compensation falls under crimes against lionor.
AUGUST, 1955
I. (a) Describe the various classes of principals (autores),
accomplices and accessories (encubridores) under the Revised
Penal Code. (b) To which of these classes belongs a mn-
spirafor who talres no part in the material commission of the
crime, but remains to guard his companions from a surprise
by the police? Explain.
(a) The following . are considered principals: (1) Those
who take a direct part in the execution of the act; (2) those
who directly force or induce others t o commit i t ; and (3) those
who cooperate in the commission of the offense by another act
without which i t would not have been accomplished.
. ,
796
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
Accomplices are those persons who, not being principals,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simul: ..
taneous acts. . ,,~_
..,, .
Accessories are those who, having knowledge of the corn.':
mission of the crime, and without having participated %herein;;
either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to 'StS;
cornmission in any of the following manners: (I) hj. p r e
fiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by. t h e
effects of the crime; (2) by concealing or destroying the bo&
of the crime or the effects o r instruments thereof, in order
to prevent its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing,,,
pr assisting in the escape of the principal. of the crime, pro-
vided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or
whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, ,par-
ricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief
Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime.
(b) A conspirator who takes no part in the material corn-~
mission of the crime, but remains to guzrd his companions
from a surprise by tbe police, is a principal by direct partici-
pation. He is a principal by direct participation, because hav-
ing participated in the criminal resolution (he is in conspiracy
with the others), he carries out their plan and personally takes
part in its execution by an act (acting as guard) which directly
tends to the same end.
11. Define, explain and illustrate the following: (a) aber-
ratio ictus; (b) subornation of perjury; (e) miswision of treason.
(a) Aberratio ictus means mistake in the blow, that is, the
offender intending to inflict an injury on one person actually
inflicts i t on another, For example: A fired his revolver at
B with intent t o kill the latter, but missed and the same slug
fired from the revolver hit and killed C , a man standing behind
B.
(b) Subornation o€ perjury is a crime, formerly punished
under the old penal code, committed by any person who know-
ingly and wilfully procures another t o swear falsely in a manner
797

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
that the&itness suborned does testify under cireumstanes ren-
/
deri him guilty of perjury. For example: A induced B to
te ify falsely against C in a preliminary investigation. B, a f t e r
eing duly sworn, knowingly and wilfully testified falsely against
C that the latter raped D.
(e) Misprision of treason is a crime against. national secur-
ity committed by a person owing allegiance to the Government
,' of the Philippines, without being a foreigner, and having knowl-
' ' edge of any conspiracy against it, who conceals or does not
disclose and make known the same, as soon as possible, to the
governor o r fiscal of the province or the mayor o r fiscal of t h e
city in which he resides, as the case may be. For example:
During a war in which the Philippines is involved, A, a Filipina
citizen and knowing that several persons are in conspiracy against
the Gover fhent of the Philippines, keeps silent about it.
Tomas Cruz, a cargador riding on
o/ milkasbelonging
;4 truck hauling cases
. 850.00 the truckto passed
Sikat Co., threw street.
a certain out /twoA cases valuedwit-
policeman at
nessing the act immediately places Cruz under arrest. Disc-
whafl offense has been coniuiitted, and whether it is consum-
mated, frustrated or attempted, giving reasons in full:
Tomas Cruz committed theft. It is consummated. T h e
'
fact that he was all the time'on the truck and that he merely
threw o u t the two cases of milk as the truck passed wecertain
street, is immaterial. In a juridical sense, the consummation
of the crime of theft takes place upon the voluntary and'mali-
cious taking of the property belonging to another which is
:' realized by the material occupation of the thing whereby t h e
'a thief places it under his control and in such a. situation as h e
could dispose of it at once.
IV. D'Areutiate the following circumstances, giving t h e
/
necesar illustrative examples: (a) Treachery (alevosia) , craft
(astu a ) and use of means to weaken the defense. (b) Band
@J.drilla), aid
. of armed men, and brigandage. (c) Recidivism
(reineidenein), repetition (reiteracion) and habitual delinquency-
. .
I
CKIhIINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Xxaminations in Criminal Law
a'i
/' Treachery, craft and use of means to weaken the de-
fen e are differriitiated. as follows:
Any one of these aggravating circumstances may facilitate
the commission of the crime. In treachery, means, .methods or
forms o f attack are employed by the offender to make it im-
possible or difficult for the offended party to put up any sort
e. In craft, the offender resorts to intellectual trickery
In use of means to weaken the defense, the of-
. treachery, eniploys means but the means employed
weakens the resisting power of the offended party.
Examp!es: Treachery - A waited until B fell asleep in
the latter's house and then and there stabbed him to death.
Craft - A, with intention t o commit robbery, hailed a taxi
pretending t o be a bona fide passenger so as not to arouse the
suspicion of the driver, and when he was taken as passenger,
the driver if the latter would not give
4
?
in his possession. A succeeded in getting the
Use of means to wenken the defease -
E, threw a handful of sand t o the eyes
of B and, when the latter could not see, A boxed him on the
face and different parts of the body.
d
1
.*(
'(h) Band, aid of aimed men, and brigandage are dif-
ferentiated, as follows:
Rand and aid of armed men are aggravating circumstances,
while brigandage is a felony. Band is composed of at least
four (4) armed persons who act together in the commission
of a crime. In aid of armed men, i t is not necessary that there
be at least Sour armed men. Two o r three armed men would
(4) armed persons form a band of robhers for the purpose
of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persona,
for the purpose o f extortion or to obtain ransom or for any
other uurpose t o he attained by means of force and violence.
Examples: Band, - A, B, C and D, all armed, held up k;
, , and Y, depriving them of their personal belongings. AX of
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
i ,. . . . .,
armed men- A, accompanied by B and C who were both armed
.with knives, killed D when B and C were .standing nearby acting
as guards to prevent any help {.hat might come to D, B&g-
z%ndage- A, B, C, D and E, all armed with guns, went upon
'::the highway and roamed upon the country for the purpose of
kidnapping rich persons to obtain ransom or robbing them.
., . (c) Recidivism, repetition and habitual delinquency are dif-
ferentiated, as follows:
. . Recidivism and repetition are generic aggravating circum-
stances, w'bile habitual delinquency is an extraordinary ag-
'.: gravating circumstance.
Repetition or reiteraeion is distinguished from recidivism,
in that-
(1) I n reiteracion, it is necessary t.hat the offender shall.
.have served his sentence; whereas, in recidivism it is enough
that a final judowent has been rendered in the first offense.
',. 1
(2) Ln reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses
' . ~ must not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas,
recidivism requires that the offenses be included 'in the same
y title of the Code.
( 3 ) Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance;
whereas, recidivism is always t o be taken into consideration in
iixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.
There is habitual delinquency when 5 person within a period
of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of any of said crimes
a third time or oftener. In habitual delinqxency, the offender
'1 is either a recidivist or one who has been previously punished
. . f o r two or more offenses (reiteracion). He siiall suffer an addi-
'.i tional penalty for being a habitual delinquent.
Examples: Recidivism - A was on trial for theft. He was
,'
.,. then already convicted by final judgment of estafa. Convicted
of theft. Repetition- A was on trial for homicide. Ne pre-
viously served sentence for rape. Convicted of homicide. Habit-
-
. . ,, ual delinquency In 1950, A was convicted of estafa and served
,.'. sentence therefor. In 1954, A was convicted of theft and served
9, ,
, :
800
CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWJ~R
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
sentence for that crime. In 1960, A was prosecuted, tried f o r , , ,
and convicted of serious physical injuries. Upon his conviction
of serious physical injuries, A is a habitual delinquent. ,and
i',l
he shall be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to the cnme
of serious physical injuries, in the maximum period, and %o':iln'--
additional penalty for being a habitual deiinquent.
V. A, knowing that his master €3 used to carry a very Val: '
uahle watch, waylays him one night, wearing a mask t o %void
recognition, and demands surrender of the watch, threatening '~
B with a revolver. When searched, B is found to carry only a :
pocketbook with B50 that, A does not take. When B tells."A ,
that the watch was left a t home, B is albowed to g o withoyt';
further molestation. What offense is c'ommitted by A and IS
his responsibility aggravated? Why? Reason out your answer..,.
A commits the crime of attempted robbery with intimid&;
tion, attended by the aggravating circumstance of disguise (wear- I,
ing a mask to avoid recognition). When A waylays B and de:'
' mands surrender of the watch, with intent t o gain, threatening.:
the latter with a revolver, he thereby commences the mmmis;':;
sion of robbery with intimidation directly by overt acts and does
not perforrii all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of a cause or accident, that is, that B left the
watch at home.
It is not an impossible crime, because the crime of robbery
is possible of accomplishment, B having a pocketbook with P50
in it. ..
/ VI. If a person is convicted of a crime penalized with pfi$
sion mayor maximum t o reclusion perpetua, and there are no
aggravating circumstances, is the accused entitled to the bene-
fits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law? Reasons.
/
Yes. The enalty provided for the cnme being a compleq
penalty, con ' ting in three different penalties each forming .a
period, a there being no aggravating circ.umstances, the penal:
i y imposable is reclusion temporal, the medium period., ,Th$,
penalty imposable not being death or life imprisonment and'"it
not appearing that the crime committed is one of those men:
801
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINBL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law'

.tioned 1
. . . in th exceptions to the application of .the Indeterminate
'-Sentence Law, he is entitled'to the benefits of that Law.
the duplicate receipt is merely a priva
no such complex crime of estafa throdg
_...
... ,. ' i

: I t is the penalty imposed, not the penalty provided by law,
which determines whether or not the Indeterminpte Sentence Law
'is-applicable. I'
VI Yielding to Maria's insistence upon marriage, Pedro
''&
:'~:./ er to his friend Juan, who upon previous arrangement
,.$thPedro poses a s a duly authorized minister of the Gospel.
Juan performs an alleged marriage ceremony that Maria believes
good faith to be real, and Pedro and Maria sign a marriage
certificate, with Juan signing as "Minister". The couple live
,'together as husband and wife for some time, but later Maria
discovers the scheme and complains to the fiscal. For what
crime may Pedro and Juan be held liable, if Maria is only 16,
and it 'turns out that Pedro was already married t o another
woman? Explain Jlour answer, giving reasons.
Pedro and Juan may be held liable or the complex crime of
s@ple: seduction through usurpation of official \f
. . functions. . Since
they were in conspiracy, that act of one was the act df both. .
'Without legal authority, Juan performed an act properly
pertaining to a person in authority by. assuming the official
character of a minister of a religious sect in order t o malte the
girl believe that she was legally mavried t o Pedro who had the
intention to seduce her. The girl .would not have been seduced
by Pedro were it not for the act of Juan. The crime of ususpa-
tion of official functions' was a necessary means f o r commit-
ting the crime of simple seduction.
document. In fahification of a private
crime unless another fact, independent'
of that of falsifying the document, is proved: Le., damage'<or
intent to cause damage. If the fdsification of a Brivate docu-
ment was committed in connection with the crime of estafk, the
falsification is not another crime to be coinplexed with: estafa, ,
because there was no damage or intent to cause damage in the, '.
act of falsifying the document. The intended damage t,h,a t.
resulted was caused by the commission of estafa.
hi the second place, the falsification of the duplicate, re:
ceipt was not a necessary means for committing the estafa; 'be-
cause X had the money in his possession and it would not hb'
necessary for him to falsify it to misappropriate part of thk'"
money. The falsification and the estafa were not produced b..y
met and pursued his enemy U, who took cover h ewn
time that B showed his head, A fired at him
bullets bit and killed Pedro, who was seated
a t a nearby store, and one bullet hit Y in the left thumb, caus-
ing injuries that required two weeks to heal. Three informa-
tions are filed against A: one for frustrated murder with respect
to B; one for homicide by reckless imprudence a s to Pedro and
one for illegal discharge of firearms as to Y. Convicted in all
three cases, A appeals. Are the convictions correct? Reasons.
The convidions are not correct. The conviction of A for

.'d/
VI1 X, a duly authorized collector of "ATC Inc.," receives
P5,OO from Q in payment of an account, and entered the said
sum in ihe original recei.pt; but in the duplicate receipt delivered
t o the Company, X makes it appear that he received F4,OOO only,,
frustrated murder is not correct,, because B was not wounded at
all, A h a v h g missed, and there is nothing mentioned in t h e
problem that will indicate any qualifying circumstance
der. T$re being int.ent t o kill on the part of A, as s
of weapon he used and the persistence in hls a
and pockets .the difference. The Court convicts X of the com- B, A committed as regards B only attempted ho
plex crime of estafa through falsification of private document. A was not properly and legally convicted of homicid
Is.-cthe
,;._
~.,..
,. .sentence correct?
,I.. Reason out. the answer. reckless imprudence as to Pedro, because A acted with 'm
,I :;..,:,-No. The sentence is not correct, for two reasons. He is liable for all the consequences of his malicious a d , altho
-..
,v
, I I

. . ._ i .

802
I , .
803
 .,.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law

t h e wrongful act done be different from that which he intended (a) The effects of civil interdiction as accessory penaltg
(Art. 4, pa;. 1, R.P.C.). are:
A was not properly and legally convicted of illegal discharge ( I ) 'Deprivation of the rights of parental authority o s guard-
the offender must not ian9hip of any ward.
(2) Deprivation of marital authority.
(3) Deprivation of the right to manage his property and
of the right to dispose of such property by any act or any
conveyance inlev vivos (Art. 34).
(b) The penalties which include civil interdiction as an acces-
sory penalty are: (1) death, when not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon ; ( 2 ) ,reekisio?~pe?Petzba: and (3) ~ e c l u s i m
mitted by them? And considering that M and N are married, te~~pold.
but P is single, to what civil liability should the court sentence
. "; 11. (a) What crimes are geualized by death a s maximum:
each of the accused? Reason out your answer. 4
M, N and P committed robbery with rape. The robbery
was accompanied by rape.
&J/
penalty? (b) If a man or woman becomes insane after he OS
sentenced to death, what does the law provide regarding
t h execution of the death penalty? (e) Give your opinion i s...
P who is single should be to whether or not the death penalty should be abolished. Give
woman and to support the reasons.
gave birth to an offspring (a) The crimes which are penalized by death as maximum!
. .
penalty are: (1) treason, (2) certain acts of espionage under
All the three must support the offspring, because a n d u e Commonwealth Act No. GI.6, ( 3 ) correspondence with hostile
each and every one of them country when it contains notice os information and the intention'
contributed to, and cooperated in, the giving birth of the child. of the offender is to aid the enemy, (4) qualified piracy, ( 5 ) cer-
Not one of the three may be required to recognize the off- tain violations of thc Anti-Subversion Act, (6) parricide, (7))
spring of the offended woman, it being impossible to determine
' murder, (3) kidnapping and serious illegal detention, (9) robbery;,
the paternity thereof, and as regards M and N who >re married with homicide, and (10) rape with homicide.
."the
.& ,.
law prevents them from so doing. (b) If d a n or woman becomes insane after be or she '
,~
'j
I .. ,They should return the jewelry to the owner thereof, if pos-
sible; otherwise, to indemnify him in the amount of P1,000.
/
s e n h d to death, the law provides that the execution of t
penalt,y shall be suspended only with regard t o the perso
penalty. If at any time the convict shall recover his reason,:
his sentence' shall be executed, unless the penalty shall have; .,'
AUGUST, 1956
prescribed. , ,*

the effects of civil interdiction as accessory .Art. '79, being a general provision on the suspension of
penallies include civil interdiction as an ac. execution and service of the penalties in case of insanity,,
ory penalty? there being no^ specific. provision as r e s r d s the suspensio
;

804 805

. , ,;.>.,* .
 CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
the execution of death penalty in case of insanity of the convict,
said article is applicable.
(e) My opinion is t h a t the. death penalty shpuld not be
.,i
abolished. Social defense and exemplarity justify the penalty of
death.: Thi penalty has deterred many a dangerous’.enemy of
society f m committing serious offenses.
I . , subversive papers of communist wigin. At midnight “B?,
. ...
.I. (a) What do you understand by parliamentary immun-
‘ ,A7; ity?
i
(h) Under what c&umstances can a senator or represerl-
a,,,
tative of the Philippine Congress be arrested and convicted?
(c) :-Does parliamentary immunity mean exemption from criminal
. ~. liability? Enplain fully these three points.
. -’ . (a) Parliamentary immunity, under the Revised Penal Code,
”
ns that no public officer or employee shall, while Congress is
lar or special session, arrest or search ‘any member there-
pt in case such member has committed a crime punishable
’’
‘uiider the Code by a penalty higher than prisiun mayor. Under
the:ConstituRion, i t means that the members of Gongress shall in
~,.,
. .ai cases, except treason, felony and breach ?f the peace, be
.,
.>. .
pnvileged from arrest during their attendance ‘ at tKe session
.; : ’Bf;.Congress, and in going. to and returning frvm the same.
’ .
(b) A senatw or representative of the Phijigpine Congress
cin he arrested and searched under the following circumstances:
’ . (1) When Congress is in regular or special session, gut the
crime committed is punishable under the Revised Penal Code by
a penalty hi,gher than prision mayor; ‘and
.. .
‘ ( 2 ) When Congress is not in session, regardless o f ’ the
penalty provided for the crime committed.
It is submitted that a member of Congress can bc convicted
by the court for any crime regardless of the penalty provided
:‘- by lavr for the crime and whether Congress is in session or not.
What the law prohibits is arresting or searchCng a member of
Congress under the circumstances mentioned by the law.
, (e) No. Parliamentary immunity does not mean exemption
from criminal liability, because the law merely provides for the
exemption from ayrest or search of memberr of Congress under
..c e ~ a i ncircumstances. The Constitution prmides that they are
806
CRIiilINAL LAW REYIEWBR
Rnr Examinations in Criminal Low
merely privileged from civil a w e s t during their attendance ‘at
the scssion of Congress, and in going to and returning from t)ie’.
same. ..
A (a) “A”, while visiting his friend Juan in the latteis ’
house, surreptitiously ,placed in the drawer of Juan’s table;some.,
.a
fake NBI agent, searched the house, by meam of a faysified
search warrant and found the subversive papers in Juan’s table.;
’I
B9, threatened and intimidated Juan, telling him t h a t unless he:
gives him P500.00, he will arrest him and charge him for.,being
a conimunist. Juan to avoid being arrestsd and taken to jail,
gave P500.00 to the fake agent. Outside of the house “B” gave
“A” part of the money he got from Juan. ‘What crime have :A’
and “B” committed? Give reasons. (b) Distinguish blaekmN
from threats as penalized by the Revised Penal Code. .’, ,
(a) ”A” and “B” commi.tted robhery with intimidation. The
placing of subversive papers of communist .origin in the drawer
of Juan’s table by “A”, the search made by “E?’,knowingly and
falsely pretending to be NBI agent, the use of a falsified search
warrant, and the threat made by “E’ are not separate offenses
of incriminating innocent person, of violation of domicile, of usur-
pation of official functions, of using falsified document with in-
ient to cause damage, and of grave threats. They are acts con-
stituting the element of intimidation in robbery. “A” and “B”
were in conspiracy. They are equally liable for the same crime.
(b) Blackmail is the unlawful extortion of money by air
appeal to the fear of the victim, or by threats of accusation or
exposure. I t is mid that light threats may amount of blacli-
mailing.
V. (a) 1%’ f penalties ale classifed a s afflictive? (b) Give
the p A e s c r i p t i n n o ~ crilnes
i punished with correctional
penalties.
(a) The penalties which are classified a s afflictive are:
(1) reclusion perpetua, ( 2 ) reclusion temporal, ( 3 ) perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification, (4) ’ pelTetual or temporary
. .
special disqualification, and (5) v i s i o n mayor.
807
‘3
 CRIMINAL LAW REYIEWER , .
Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w
(b) The period of prescription of crimes punished with cor-
rectional penalties is ten (10) years; with the exception vf those
maw?, which shall prescribe in five ( 5 )
29 years old, on her way back to her
.,
hoGe
, -.
.
in Polo, Bnlacan, accompanied by her sister, was forcibly
.abducted by Ernesto, one of her suitors. Ernest0 kissed her
se$eral times .while he was holding her in his arms to prevent
'her running away. The abductor took his victim away to another
I
._, . where' thiey were overtaken by Aurora's brother. Ernesto
"town
rd~easedhis victim and disappeared. Ernesto w a s Aurora's suitor
. . ,for
, several years. To his proposals of marriage Aurora has
:J.dways answered in the negative. So, he decided to, abduct her
'~ .fvith' no other intention but t o marry her. Which one of the
'following crimes, abduction by force, illegal detenti,on, coercion,
or,,unjust vexation, has Ernesto committed? Give your own
opinion and reason it out.
Ernesto committed abduction by force, becarise the abduc-
tion of Aurora was against her will and with lewd designs.
Although, he abducted her with no other intentidn but to marry
her, 'that they had the required age for consenting to marriage,
and that neither of them had any impediment to contracting
it, .yet Ernest.0 had lewd designs, as shown by the fact ,that
'he kissed Aurora several times while he was holding her in his
arms.
rcible taking of a woman cannot be.iliega1 detention,
had lewd
. . designs.
'What facts constitute indirect bribery? (b) When
is committed by reason or on the occasion
different and se-
(a) The facts which constitute indirect bribery are: (1) that
.the offender is a public officer, (2) that he accepts gifts, and
(3)..that said gifts were offered to him by reason of his office.
. ~.
. (.b) No: When murder is committed by reason or on occa-
&n.b.f the robbery, it is a special, indivisible complex crime of
808
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
robbery with homicide. The word "homicide", as used in de-
fining such s ecial complex crime, is to be understood .. in,its
.
,/
generic s e as t o include murder.
111. Pablo owns several hectares oC paddy land. Being un-
able to cul#.i,vate it for lack of funds he entered into a partner-
ship w i d Pedro, his brother-in-law, whereby the latter would
furnish money for seedlings and for t.he purchase of two cara-
baos and Pablo would prepare the land and sow the seedlings;
Pedro would traiisplant the seedlings and take care of and harvest
the crop. They further agreed that the profits, after deducting
the expenses, would be divided share and share alike.
At the time the crop was ready for harvest, Pablo was in
Manila attending other business and Pedro proceeded to harvest
the crop, stacked the palay and threshed it. Pablo upon his
return found out that Pedro has already disposed of the palay,
including the share that belongs to Pablq. (a) What crime h a s
Pedro committed, theft or estafa? (6) To what,extent is Pedro
liahle? Give reasons,
(a) Pedro comn-.it,ted eslafa with abuse of' confidence. Pedro
held in trust for Palslo the latter's share in the harvest. Pedro
had juridical possess:on of the share which belonged to Pablo.
When he misappropriated it, Pedro caused damage or prejudice
to the latter.
. (b) Pedro is criminally'liable, even if he is the brothei.-in7
law of Pablo, because they were not living together (Art. 332,
R.P.C.). Pedro is liable for estafs to the extent of the value
of the share of Pablo, because the other haif of the harvest;
belonged to him. I
While it is true that they entered into a partnership, they,+
not the paytnership, owned their respective shares which were
d e t e r m v - ,
IX., (a) Explain fully why is it that the ,penalties provided
in the Revised Penal Code are divided into arreslo menor, a-,;
resto mayor, prision correecional, prision mayor, etc.? (b). Dis!;
cuss whether or not this nomenclature or division of 'pen,@tie$i
, , ;,....i
should be abrogated? ,,
I
..L
i~'XZ1
,j..
."
809

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
(a) The penalties provided in the Revised Penal Code are
divided into urresto menor, arrest0 mayor, pision correccional,
Pr;rion magor, etc., for many reasons, namely: (1) one of the
juridical conditions of penalty, according to the classical school
on'which the Code is mainly based, is that it must be commen-
surate with the offense-differenl crimes must be punished with
'different penalties; ( 2 ) the Fravity of a felony is determined
,ky the penalty attached to i t ; (3) the respective severity of the
penalties is considered in the successive service of sentences; (4)
the penalties are classified in the graduated scales for the
,.purpose of determining a penalty lower or higher by one or
more degrees than another given penalty.
(b) The nomenclature or division of penalties in the Revised
Penal Code should not be abrogated, because t h e penalties that
may be imposed under the Code are subject 'to many rules
be eliminated if the division of penalties
the nomenclature or division of
Code is to change completely
.. , ~ .. . that he was attacked by
the,day before. fhd-
denly, he got up, took his bolo and killed 'his wife, qounded his
father and several other persons. Finally he stabbed. himself
' but did not die. Motives of the crime are not shown., Being
I.prosecuted for parricide, bis counsel alleges as defense the fact
@at the nian committed the crime under the influence of an
.:??@Uucination
, as an after-effect of his dream.' If you were the
.,I' ,judge,
- would you acquit or convict the defendant? Give reasons.
I i
If I were the judge, I would acquit the defendant.' The act
e o f the defendant was not voluntary, there being no intelligenffe
' ;and intent on his part. A person is not criminally liable if his
act is not voluntary (Art. 3, R.P.C.).
AUGUST, 1957
reference to penalties for offenses punishable
Penal Code, what is meant by degrm and
(h) Give (1) an instance when degree
810
,I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal L
is affected by mitigating circumstances, and. ( 2 ) two i
when degree is affec
( c ) F the rules
Se ence Law: (1) If the offense is punishable under.the:'
vised Penal Code or its amendments; and ( 2 ) if the offense
punishable under any other law.
(a) By degree is meant one entire
% or onp unit of the penalties enumerated in t
~ provided for in Art. 71. Each of the pe
perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
in the graduated scales o f Art. 71, is a degree. By period- is
meant one of the three equal portions, called minimum, medium
and maximum, of a. divisible penalty.
(b) A degree is affected by mitiga
there are two or more mitigating circumstan
ing circnnmtances are present. In such case, the court
impose the penalty next lower t o that prescribed by law
64, par. 6. R.P.C.).
A degree is affected by a privileged mi
(1) when .the offend
years of age and he
and (2) wpeii the majority of the requis
tify th act or to exempt from criminal liability is present.
) If the offense is punished by th
th JJcourt shall sentence the accused to an indetermi
the maximum teim of which shall be that which, in
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed
rules of the Revised Peual Code, and the minimum of
he within the range of the penalty next lower to that pmsc
by the Code for the offense.
In determining the minimum term, i t is left entirely w i
the discretion of the court to fix i t anywhere within the
of the penalty next lower without reference t o the periods
which it may be subdivided (People vs. Uucosin, 59 Phil.
The mitigating and aggravating circumstances are req
to be considered only in fixing the maximum term of 'th
determinate sentence. The court may disregard them in f
811
 I c:
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.; $)/minimum term of the indeterminate sentence, because it
is discretionary to the court to impose the minimum term any:
where within its range.
.. .. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, the
&
. , , :starting point for determining the minimum term of the in-
..~
',,* determinate penalty is the penalty next lower from that pre-
i. :.cribed b y the Code for the offense (People vs. Gonzales, 73
.'' Phil. 549).
If the offense is punishable under any other law, the k r t
shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
/
by said law nd the minimum term shall not be less than the
minimum rescribed by the same.
I (a) Who a r e criminally liable for light ,felonies? /h)
B ' ults C who sustains physical injuries which heal in five
days. D hides B in his house to prevent his arrest knowing
that he is wanted by the authorities for the assault on C .
What is D's criminal liability for hiding B? Reason out your
answer.
(a) Only principals and accomplices are liable for light
. felonies.
(h) D has no criminal liability for higing E, because D IS
an accessory and the crime committed by R, which is sliglit
physical injuries, is only a light felony. Accessories are not
liable for light felonies (Art. 16, R.P.C.).
111. (a) Bigamy is punishable with prisi6n mayor in its
full extent; Tried for bigamy in the proper court, A is found
*;..
. guilty of the crime charged. Applying the Indeterminate Sen-
:.
..
tence Law, within what penalty or penalties (not peri,od or
:? periods) should the minimum and the maximum of the sentence
'. .
to be imposed on him? ( I t is sufficient that you state- the
penalty or penalties without giving the periods thereof.) Ex-
,; plain your answer. (h) Possession of a revolver or a pistol
, . is punishabTe with imprisonment of from one year and one day
to five years, according to Section 2692 of the Revised Ad-
' ' ministrative, Code, as last amended by Republic Act No. 4.
si2
I
.;,
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal ]Law'
I
After trial, B is found guilty of illegal possesion of a pistol
and is sentenced to three years of imprisonment as maximum.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what is the minimum : . .
of the sentence that should be imposed on him?
i (a) The maximum of the sentence to be imposed on A should
be within p ~ k i o n.mayor, and the minimum should be within
prision correccionat.
The maximum should be within pvision mayor, because ac-
cezading to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, if the offense is
punished by the Revised Penal Code the maximum term of
. the indeterminate sentence should be that which according t o
the ruIes of the Code shouid be imposed upon the offender.
z2cUm&proper
'
If there is no privileged mitigating circumstance present, the
is the penalty provided by the Code , f o r the
period.
I
The minimum should be within prision correecional, because
1 according to the same law, the minimum term shall be within
the range of the penalty next lower t o that prescribed by the
Code for the offense. P?isidn eorreccional is the penalty next
lower to p r i s i h mayor, the penalty prescribed for the crime
of bigamy. It
(b) The minimum of the sentence that should be imposed
/ on B, found guilty of illegal possession of a pistol, is either
(1) one year, or ( 2 ) two-year imprisonment, because if the
offense is punished hy a special law, the minimum of the
,$* indeterminate penalty should not be less than the minimum .
of the penalty prescribed. One year or two-year imprisonment
is not less than the minimum of one year imprisonment prv..
Section 2692 of the Revised Administrative Code,
for illegal possession of firearm.
V. (a) L is ,prosecuted for homicide, with no aggravating
circumstance being alleged in the information. Upon arraign-
ment he pleads guilty a s charged. The fiscal concedes volun-
tary surrender to an agent of a person in authority as a mitigat-:
ing circumstance in addition to the voluntary plea of guilty.,
Taking into consideration the presence of two mitigating circuin:':
stances, and bearing in mind that homicide is punishable with.,
813
 I
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
in its full extent, within what penalty should
sentence to be imposed on him be? Ex-
(b) Charged with and convicted of theft
in the Municipal Court following his plea
to the Court of First Instance nf this
'
city. Upon arraignment in the latter court, he pleads guilty
as,charged. Is he entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
votuntary plea of guilty? Reason out your answer.
, . *'.(a) The maximum of the sentence to be imposed on L should
be,within prisidn mayor, because he is entitled to a penalty one
de&ee lower to that prescribed for homicide. Art. 64, par. 5,
- . of,"the Revised Penal Code provides that when there are two
o r 'more mitigating circumstances, without aggravating . cir-
cumstances, .the offender shall be sentenced to. the penalty
next lower in degree to that prescribed by the 'Code.
(b) No, because the plea of guilty should be made a t t h e
first opportunity and he had that opportunity when he was
arfaigiied 'in the Municipal Court. Plea of guilty in the Court
of"First Instance in a case appealed from the Municipal Court
is not a mitigating circumstance, becaiise the Code requires
that it should be made by the accused prior t o the pcescnta-
tion of the evidence of the prosecution. In the Municipal Court,
the prosecution presented its evidence.
under the. following informa-
day of March, 1957, in the
Province of Bulacan, and within the
a4sault M by stabbing
the above named accused, ?with intent
the
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
latter on the chest with a dagger,
:
thus inflicting upon him physical injmies which were the direct
and immediate cause of his death.'' At the trial, the fiscal
proved, 4vith0,ot objection of the defense, that the killing was
attended by evident premeditation. (a) Of what offense should
. .the court sentence C? (b) In what period (minimum, medium
.-'
or 'maximum) of the penalty for that nIfense should the court
,, i.mpose on C ? Explain your answers.
, . .
, : . , .&a 1.
_>. ,., 814
?
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Lalv
(n) 'l'Be court should sentence C of homicide, the crime
alleged in the information. Evideut premeditation proved dur-
ing the trial by the fiscal cannot qualify the crime to murder,
because i t is not alleged in the information.
(b) 'The penalty for homicide should be imposed in the
ium period. because of the aggravating circumstance of
emeditation which is not offset by any mitigating
Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (b) ., H
is the owner and operator of a drag store. Suspecting that she
@lis her medicines at prices above the ceiling prices fixed
by the government, government agents buy medicines from her
a t her drug store and pay with marked paper money. The
prices a t which she sells the medicines t o the agents are higher
than the ceiling prices and the agents apprehend her for viola-
i tion of the Price Control Law. Accused of profiteering by the
fiscal, she moves to quash the information on the ground that
she was induced by the agents to oommit the act for which she'
is being prosecuted. Assuming that the Price Control Law is
still in force, how should the court resolve.her motion to quash?
Explain your answer.
(a) Instigation is distinguished. from entrapment, a s fol-
lows:
There is a wide difference between entrapment and insti-
gation, for while in t,he latter case the instigator practically
induces the would-be accused into the commission of the.,of-
7"7 If'become a coprincipal, in entrapment ways and . ,':
means a resorted to for the purpose of trapping and captur-..
ing Lhe lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. en-^,
::
trapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction of the
lawbreaker. But when there is instigation, the accused must ',
be acquitted (People vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476).
In instigation a public officer or a private detective induces, . ,
an innocent person to commit a crime and would arrest him,: ,i
upon or after the commission of t h e crime by the latter:: it:.,^;
. ....., <
. i
is an exempthg circumstance.
815
 CRIMINAL LAW REVMWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w
(b) The court should deny the motion to quash the informa-
tion, because B: was not induced by the agents to commit the
act for which he was being prosecuted. When the agents
bought medicines from her a t her drug store and paid the
prices at. which H sold them, they merely resorted to ways
and means for the purpose of trapping and capturing her in the
exe&ition of h e r criminal plan. There is entrapment, which is
and the English texts of Article 157
Code are in part respectively worded as
con prision correccional e.1 sus grados
medio y maximo el sentenciado que quebrantare sn condena,
fgandose mientras estuviere sufriendo privadan de libertad
por:sentencia firme x x x.” “The penalty of ‘prision correcciorial
,‘In. its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon
any, ixnvict who shall evade service of his senter.ce by escaping
d+g the term of his imprisonment by reason 0: a final j n d e
ment x x x.” A is the accused in a criminal case in the Munie-
ipal.Court of Manila. After trial he is sentenced ;.o the penalty
of destierro and is ordered for the duration of his sentence not
to enter any pNlace within a radius of 100 kilometers from.said
city. He disobeys the order and comes back to live in Manila
before his sentence expires. Prosecuted for a violation of p art.
157 of the Revised Penal Code, be contends that he should, be
acquitted because the sentence which he evaded is not impri-
sonment but destierro. How should the court decide the case?
‘Explain your answer. (b) Art. 159 of the Revised Penal Code
provides: “The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
per,iod shall be imposed upon t,he convict who, having been
granted eonditionaI pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate
any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the penaltr
remitted by t.he granting of such pardon be higher than six
.’ years, the convict shall then suffer the unenpired portion of his
., original sentence.” F is convicted of homicide and sentenced
. t o 12 years and one day of reclnsion temporal as maximum.
After serving eight of the twelve years in prison, he is par-
doned by the President of the Philippines, on condition that
..’’. he.shal1 not again violate any penal law of the Pl1ilippines.
.~
, . ~ .
816
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exaninations in Criminal L a w
Re accepts the condition and is forthwith released from jail.
Five years after his release, he assaults another and is con-
yicted & sI&ht physical injuries by the proper court after
trial. w h e be convicted of a violation of Article 159 of the
I Revised Penal Code? Reason out your answer.
(a) The court should convict A of evasion of the service
of the sentence. Although, the English’ test of Art. 157 speaks
ing the term of his imprisonment,” the Spanish
de, which uses tne phrase “sufriendo privacion
uld prevail, because the Revised Penal Code was
!”
approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. The
phrase mentioned covers the penalty of destierro. The convict.
i sentenced to the penalty of destierro is suffering from depriva-
tion of liberty, though partial, because he is not free to enter
the prohibited area.
(b) No. When F was granted a conditional pardon by the
Presiden.t$of the Philippines, he had only four years of im-
prisonment to serve. Since the remitted portion of his sen-
tence is only four years, and he committed slight physical
inj,uries five years later, the condition was no longer operative
at that time. I submit that the condition “that he shall not
again violate any penal law of the Philippines” does not in-
dicate an intention on the part of the President to require F
t o observe that condition for a longer period of time.
VIII. (a),Distinguish violation of domicile from trespass to
3 When may a. public officer or etnployee commit
although that public officer or employee
is provided with a search warrant?
(a) Violation of domicile and trespass t o dwelling are com-
mitted in the same manner, that is, the oilendcr enters a
dwelling against the will of its owner or occupant. They differ
in that, while in violation of domicile the o€fender is a public
officer o r employee, in trespass t o dwelling the offender is a
private individual
(b) A public officer Gr employee may commit violation of
domic’le although he is provided with a search warrant in, the
following instances: (1) when the public officer o r employee
817 . .

CllI~lINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
procured the search warrant withollt just cause: (2) when he
exceeded his authority or used unnecessary severity in execut-
ing t h e searcli warrant legally obtained: and (3) when ha
searched the domicile, papers or other belongings of any per-
son, without the presence of the owner, or any member of his
family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality.
M. (a) Wow is parricide committed? (b) P and G are
hmhand and wife. They have had a stormy marital life, be-
=use P has had one concubine after another and often beats
G. Unable to stand her husband longer, G hires B to kill
&&,promising to pay B the sum of P1,OOO as reward for the
to the proposal and receives part of the reward
G . So B enters P's house one night and shoots
Of what offense or offenses are -G and
by any person who shall kill
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitnlate,
his ascendants or descendants, o r his spouse who
) G and B are guilty of parricide and murder, respec-
tively. G is guilty of parricide, because d i e is the spouse
of the person killed. B is guilty of murder, because he killed
P in Consideration of price, reward or promise. A stranger
cannot be held liable for parricide even if he is in conspiracy.
with the spouse of the deceased, because the private relation
of the spo se with the deceased is not attendant to him (Art.
62, par. , R.F'.C.).
(a) A falsifies a private document for the purpose of
defrauding B, his brother with whom he is living, in the sum
of 81,000. A succeeds in obtaining the P1,000, to the prejudice
of B,by m e m j of the falsified document. What crime or crimes
has A committed? Reason out your answer. (b) I n ' c a s e of
prosecution, would the fact that B is his brother be available
.to. A as a defense? Why?
' I . ,. (a) A committed falsification of a private document. He
~':,, did^ not commit a complex crime of estafa through falsifica-
,, > i i i , ,
';,'..;
.; 818
. .
, ,..
i
i CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
2 Ear Exarninalions in Criminal Law
tion, because there is nc such complex crime as estafa t l p u g l i :
falsification of a private document, the reason being that the
$ Praudulent gain obtained through'deceit in estafa, in the corn..'
f $,
mission of which a private document is falsified, is nothing^ :,
,
more nor less than the very damage caused by the falsifica-
1i tion of such document.
(b) The fact that B is his brother is not available t o A
1 >as a defense, because the exemption from criminal IiabiIity
estahliahed by law (Art. 332, R.P.C.) for relatives (among them,
brothers who are living together), does not extend to-crimes
other than theft, swindling, or malicious mischief. The cri
committed by 4 against his brother- B is falsification. . ,.I,*
~
* , .
AUGUST, 1958
I. (a) Define crime; criminal law. (b) Enumerate accused :
person's constitutional right; statutory rights. (C) Name a
right which may be waived and one which may not be wgved:'
State the reason or principle underlying the difference betweem,
rights which may he waived and rights which nlay not be
waived. I ,
(a) Crime is defined as an act committed or omitted in vi@. '
lation of a public law forbidding or commanding it (Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, Itawle's Third Revision, Vol. 1, p. 729).
Criminal law! is tbat branch or division of 1
fines crimes, treats o r their nature, and provides f o
punishment (12 Cyc. 129).
(b) The constitutional rights of the amused are: ,~
1. No person shall be held to answer for a
fense without due process of law.
2. All persons shaI! before conviction be bailable
ficient sureties, except those charged with capital of
when evidence of guilt is strong. Excessive bail shall n
required.
3. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall
sumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved, an
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,, to\.:
819
I ! ' I
,_. . 1
i
'5
,. CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
l CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criniinal Law
I is that those rights which may be waived are personal, svhile'
f the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face those rights which may not be waived involved public interest':
and to have r,ompulsory process to secure .the attend- which may be affected (Rules of Court by Moran, Vol.:2, p;:
1,..
in his behalf. 748, 1952 Edition). ,.
, .
,,.
. . 4 . No person shall be compelled to be a witness against U N ' T o what wffenses committed outsid
liimself. ,
limitdof the Philippines do the provisions of the Rev
fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and Code apply? Name them. (b) A jilted suitor forcibly
:
a
-
a girl aged 20 to another town where, he kept her agai
put in jeopardy of punishment will for several days, and through intimidation, tried, ~ , ,
. . for the same offense. success, t o make her marry him. He had no thought
.""7.Free access t o the courts shall not be denied t o any jug her chastity and did not touch her person beyond
son by reason of poverty (Article 3, Bill of Rights, Philip- was necessary to accomplish his purpose to marry the,^
pine Constitution). . . What, if any, crime did the suitor commif? Slate your re
.. .I
The statutory rights of the accused are:, (a) The provisions of the Revised Penal Code appl
' ' "'
1. To be presumed innocent until'the contrary is prove+ the fcllowing offenses committed outside the territorial:,l
'2. To be present and defend in person and by attorney of the Philippines :
at every stage of the proceedings, that is, 'from the arraiui-
promulgation of the judgment.
e informed of the nature and cause of the accusa-

To testify as witness in his own behalf. His neglect 3 . Acts connected with the introduction into the Phil'
1. or refusal t o be a witness shall not in any manner prejudice OP the obligations and securities mentioned in the pre
..dr'be used a,gainst him. number;
5. To be exempt from being a witness against himself.
', ' " ' ? 6 . To be confronted a t the trial by, and cross-examine,
1'-+,he witness against him. 5 . Crimes against the national security and , the
3,'. .7. To have compulsory process issued to 'secure the at- nations (Art. 2, R.P.C.).
tendance of witnesses in his behatf. '
(b) It is submitted that the answer to this
1. 8. To have a speedy and public trial. be qualified, because there is no lewd intention on
9. TO have the right of appeal in all cases authorized by of the suitcr and there is no clear indication that the
Sec. 1, new Rules of Court).
which may be waived is the right of the
and cross-examination. A right which
may not be waived is the right of the accused to be informed
the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
The reason or principle underlying the difference between
".;.rights
, . which may be waived and rights which may not be waived being a woman and a minor), if there is deprivation of iibe

820 621
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
I Oar Examinations in Criminal Law
Abduction, being one of the ways in which illegal detention can
b e committed, the kidnapping of a woman without unchaste
designs must, according to Viads and t n our Penal Code, he
considered as illegal detention. However, since there is no
clear dcprivation of liberty but the offended woman is compelled
to do something against her will, such as to make her marry
the offender through intimidation. the crime committed is grave
coercion (People vs. Dauatan, et al., C.A., 3 6 . 0 . G . 450).
In case of doubt as to whethey or not there is deprivation
of liberty, the purpose of the offender must be taken into con-
sideration to determine the' crime actually committed. In this
base, since the purpose 6f the of€ender is t o compel the girl
by means of intimid ion to marry him, the crime committed .
-.
is grave coercion.
III. (a) Is evident premeditation an aggravating circum-
stance in a c' e of robbery? In a case of treason? State Y W ~
reasons. (h A police oificer on duty was shot and killed with
treachery, with evident. premeditation, at night time purpodY
sought facilitate the perpetration of the killing, and with
the ai of armed men to insure o r afford impunity., mat
crime did the offender commit? And how is each of the above
circ stances to be regarded, as aggravating or qualifying?
(a) Evident premeditat.ion as an aggravating circumstance
phould not be taken into consideration for the purpose of in-
creasing the penalty in the crime of robbery, because i t is in-
herent in that, crime, especially where it is committed by V ~ ~ ~ O U
. persons, for they must have an agreement, they have to
manner of carrying out the crime
in order to succeed (People
September 19, 1955).
long continued process
and planning (Peo-
(b) The crime committed is direct assault with murder
qualified by treachery, with the aggravating circumstance of
822
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
I ' evident premeditation, Night time and with the aid of .armed
men to insure or afford impunity should not be taken into con-
sideration as separate aggravating circumstances, because they
are inher Tn or ahsorbed by the qualifying circumstance o f ,
treacpfF
1 A l t h o u ~ h ,evident premeditation is a qualifying circumstance
of murder. when it concurs with another qualilying +cumstance,
like tmaciiery, whicli is already considered as qualifying, evident
i premeditation is to be regarded as aggravating circumstance only.
IV. (a) A and B engaged in a face-to-face fight in which
B was fatally wounded, dying eight hours later. C, A's brother, :
bearing of the fight came rushing and, finding the dying man
offended party's general physical Condition and which
1, of the injuries inflicted by A. For what crime was C
and in what capacity- that of principal, accomplice, or
cessory? 9 6 y o n r reason. (b) If upon the same circ
1 stances'-C stabbed B in the throat and thereby hastened
death, killing B instantly, what crime did C commit and,
? ' what capacity? State your reason.
(a) .Having. stabbed B in the leg inflicting in, t h a t
a wound which did not affect the offended party's general
S
sical condition, an2 which would have taken ten days to
if B had not died from the effects of the
The crime committed is only homicide, because when A
wounded B, it was not attended by any circumstance t h
qualify the crime to murder, the attack havin
not mortal o r did not contribute to the death of B.
the criminal design of A, merely concurred in
inal purpose.
823
I i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar' Examinations in Criminal Law
the same circumstances C stabbed B in the
hastened B's death, killing B instantly, C
a eo-principal in the crime of homicide, be-
concurred in the criminal design of
cannot be considered an accomplice because he inflicted
ortal wound (U.S. vs. Zalscs and Ragmac, 40 Phil. 103).
accomplice in crimes against persons should not inflict' a
mortal wound.
It is submitted that even if B was defenseless at the time
C inflicted a stab wound in the throat which hastened B's
death, treachery may not be considered, because it does not
appear that C consciously adopted that method or form of
attack to insure the' killing of B without risk to himself arising
B might make. Hence, the crimc com-
P I
after appropriating to his' own
under his ,custody, changed an
the m&ey tran$pbtions re-
corded in ths ledger tally with the cash remaining after the
misappmpriation., The same municipal treasurer caused to be
included in a payroll the name of a fictitious laborer and made
personal use of the amount which had been fraudulently made
to appear as having been paid t o such laborer. Whal crime
or crimes did the mnnicipal treasurer commit in each of these
two cases? Reason your answer giving particular eni'phasis
on the ques1,ion whether or not there is any juridical differ-
ence between the said cases.
In the first case, the municipal treasurer is guilty of two
in the ledger.
824
CRIMINAL LAW RETIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
In the second case, the municipal I- ----..
treasurer committed also
two crimes, namely: (9) malveraation of public lunds, and (2)
falsification of a public or official document (the payroll). ,
a complex crime, for the same reasons stated
There is no juridical dif€erence. between the '
in both cases the commission of falsification
to commit the crimc of malversation. The
amounts misappropria.ted in both cases were in the possession of
the treasurer a t the time. he falsified the documents. The crime
of falsification was committed by the municiual treasurer to
conceal the mime of malversation in each case.
.
VI. A prisoner who had heen sentenced to ten years' im-
prisonment was granted a conditional ,pardon, which he ac- '
had six more months to serve, the condition
not a s a h commit any law violation. Three
prisoner's release he committed a
Revenue Code and, upon trial, was
found guilty and sentenced to pay a Pine. Is he subject . t o .,
prosecution for violation o f ,the conditional pardon under 'Art.
159 of the Revised Penal Code, which punishes violation of a "
conditional pardon with prision correccional in its minimum, '
period? State the reason for your anwer. ,, d ?
. , ,J.
I
No.. The rule is th,at the duration of the condition -subbe-,
,
I.
went, annexed to a pardon, is limited to the period of' th> :
prisoner's sentence, unless an intention to extend it bey " '
that time was manifest from the nature of the c,ond:tion
the language in which>as imposed (Infante vs. Provin
-
Warden, .48 0 . W ) . The conditional pardon, as mentic
in the question, does n o t state the time within which t
ditions thereof were t o be observed. Since the pri
granted a conditional paxdon when he had only s
more to serve, and that he committed a violation of
nal Revenue Code three years after he was granted a condl
pardon, the condition of the pardon which he was charged,,
having breached was no longer operative when he
a violation of the Internal Revenue Code. ,
s25
 I 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
i /
a) It is submitted that A was guilty of theft, although
had been previously stolen
One of the elements of the
crime of theft is that the property belongs to another. This
element has ' beon interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean
that it is sufficient that the offender is not the owner of the
From whom the personal .property
Possession of the property by
is taken is sufficieht @S.
. .
that the Katch he saw in
of robbery,. even t!iough the claim of 0wnershi.p is untenable
- I
(U.S. vs. Manluco, et al., 28 Phil. 3GO).
VIII. A
/for .. . .
killmg his wife under
spquse in the act committing sexual intercourse with her para-
826
'.'
si
:i .:
., .:;
CRIMINAL L A W _ . R ~ T W l E R
Bar .Examinations in Cqi mal Law
mour. S' e his wife and the man were on their feet, they
,could n t have been in the act of committing sexual intercourse
when the accused surprised them. Under Art. 247 of the R e
vised Penal Code, i t is an indispensable requisite that a legally
married person should surprise his spouse i n , the act of com-
.mitting sexual intercourse with another person (People vs: Gon-
zales, 69 Phil. G6.
IX. (a) A was aroused from sleep by a noise 'in his room, ':
.. which was unlighted, and saw in the room the outline of a.
\ i i r m h A s k e d who he was, the man did not identify hi,mseE.
Believing that nian to be a burglar, A shot and killed him 'with
.his (A's) pistol, which he kept under his pillow. The man
w h k A thought was a dangerous thief, it turned out, was,
A's son. Is A crirninally liable for the killing? State your.
reason. (b) A waited in ambush for 13 to kill him. He saw C
a few meters away and, believing C to be B, he fired upon and ;. I ,
hom he had not the slightest intention o f hurting.
k
Can Ac*claim p Gn from criminal liability for C's death.. .:a
Give your reason for ynur answer. (c) Is there any fundamental :
difference hetween case (a) and (b) above? Explain your , 2:
answer.
( a ) Even assuming that the person inside the house was
a dangerous thief, it is submitted that A would not be'justified
io shooting him to death. A cannot claim defense of p
or defense of home under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Re- ..
vised Penal Code, because in either case the law requires that
there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased.:
Inasmuch as the question does not mention any fact indicatin
the existence of unlawful aggression on t h e s a r t of the perso
whom A believed was a dangerous th:,ef,-.he was not justif
in shooting apd killing h i e n l a w f u l ' aggression is an unla
ful attack o threat to inflict real injury which mus
m
be offensive and positively strong, not merely imagined. This-
cannot be a mistzke of fact, because i n mistake of fact
done would have been lawful and the facts been a s the
believed them to be (US.vs. Ah Chong, 15 Phil. 488).
case of U.S. vs. Ah Chong, there was a pressing necessity on ,.
-
_-
',
.
A
 CRIMIN t L A W REVIEWER
/
Bar Ex inations in Criminal Law
part of the aceus t o act immediately, because when the door
\vas forcibly (;p ed by the deceased who was then outside and
a chair fell o him (Ah Chong) he thought that he was being
attacked. I the problem given, there was no such pressing neces-
' . sity on t part of A to shoot and kill the person whom he be-
lieved was a dangerous thief. Under Art. 4, par. 1, of the Re-
vised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by anY person
committing a felony although the wrongful act done he different
from that which be intended. Since the act of A was not justified,
he was committing a felony when he shot the deceased.' A is
criminally liable for the killing, although the wrongful act done
was different from that which he intended.
(b) A is liable for killing C, even though he did not have
X. (a) Name all the circumstances any one of whicb makes
the taking of human life murder. (b) A i s s u d a check without
funds in payment of an outstanding debt knowing the check
1 would not be honored. Did A, or did he not, commit any penal
offense? If your answer i s yes, what was the offense? If
your answer is no, why nut? (c) Name the crimes which must
be prosecuted upon complaint o€ the offended evty, ana- state
the taking
of huma:i li.fe murder, are:
ings must be initiated upon the complaint filed. by the
. , .i
828
CRlMlNAL LAW BEVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal ~ a w
3 . By means of inundation, fire, poison, esplosion, shigi''
wreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of, or assault upon, 6:;
street car or iocomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor..,
vehicles, or with the use of m y other means involving g r e a t ,
waste and ruin; ..
., ,
4 . On occasior~of any of the calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, o r any other public calamity; '
5 . With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmentiug
the suffering of the victim, o r outraging o r scoffing at his
w s o n or corpse.
(Art. 243, R. P. C.)
(b) It is submitted that A did not commit any penal uffense.~
When a person issued a check in payment of a pre-existing
obligation, even if a t the time he knew that he had no funds
in the bank to cover the check and even if he did not inform
the payee of that fact, there is only civil liability. The reason,.
for this answer is that in the crime of estafa by postdating or.
issuing a check, it is required that the said check must be"'
issued and delivered in payment of some obligation contrac$edi '
a t the time of the issuance 01' delivery of the check (People
vs. Lilius, 69 Phil. 339).
( e ) The foliowing crimes must be prosecuted upon complain$^: ,'
by the Fffended party: ., -.,
1. Adultery;
2 . Concubinage;
3 . Seduction ;
4. Abduction ;
5 . Rape;
6. Acts of lasciviousness; and
7. When the defamation imputes the commission of a
which cannot be prosecuted de oficio.
(Arts. 344 & 306, R
It is patent that the provision requiring that the
829
I 1
CRI3llNAL LAW REVIEWER
Rar Examinations in Criminal Law
;on f o r
ed party o r her relatives, was enacted out of considerat&
the offended party and her family who might prefer to Suffer
the outrage in silence rather than go tnrough with the scandaL
of a public trial (Samilin vs. Court of First Instance, 57 Phil-
298).
&a) .Ex(;ept as provided in treaties and laws of prefer-
ential applicatlon, enumerate five cases wherein the Revised
Penal Code is applicable outside the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines. (b) One night, two American soldiers of t h e
U.S. Army forcibly take two Filipino hostesses from Angeles,
Pdpanga, and bring them inside Clark Air Base. Once inside
the base they are taken to a dance, but fbding the ball to0
crowded they immediately .proceed to the soldiers' quarters
where the girls are raped. (1) May the two soldiers be pro-
secuted ' befor,e a Philippine Court? Reasons. ( 2 ) For what'
offense or of.fenses are they criminally, liable? Reasons.
( a ) p i o n s of the Revised Penal Code'shall be en-
forced o ide the jurisdiction of the Philippines again&t those
z Nho:/ P detention and the victims were
1. Should commit an offenSe while on a Philippine ship or
airship ; ha.
2. Should forge or counter.%.%tany coin 01' currency note
of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by t h e
Government of the Philippines;
' ' 3 . Should be liable for acts connected with the introductiora
h t o the Philippines of the forged obligations and securities men-
tioned in the preceding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit
an offense in the exercise of their functions; or
5 . Should commit any of the crimes against national security
(Art. 2, R.P.C.)
soldiers may be prosecuted be-
committed two distinct and sepa-
830
CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal L a w
rate crimes of serious illegal detention and rape. The crime of
seridus illegal detention was conlmitted outside the base. It is.
e question that the two American soldiers of the
took the two Filipino hostesses from Angeles,
:
. ,'
, Pampanga, which is outside the Base. The forcible taking of the
.' d
two Filipino hostesses constitutes the crime of serious illegal de-
tention, there being no lewd designs on the part of the two Amer-
ican soldiers at the time of the taking of the hostesses, as shown
by the fact that they took them to a dance once inside the base.
The Base Agreement does not apply with respect to the crime
,, ., of serious illegal detention which was committed outside the base.
, When the crime is committed outside the base by a member of
the armed forces of the United States and the offended party is,
not a member of the armed forces of the United States, the Philip-.
pine Court shall have jurisdiction over the offense.
Even if it is supposed that the American soldiers committed
a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, it being a con-
tinuing crime which began outside the base, the Philippine Court,
bas concurrent jurisdiction with the military court o€ the United,
.,
States Armed Forces.
( 2 ) The two American soldiers are criminally liable for two.,
illegal-detention and rape.
detention, because the forcible
women. The crime committed may not be forcible abduction,
because there seems to be no lewd designs on the part of the
two American soldiers a t thc time of the forcible taking of.the
hostesses. Lewd designs cannot be inferred from the commission
of rape when the circumstances of the case show that the of-
fenders had no intention to commit rape a t the time of the forcible'.
taking of the women.
The two American soldiers are also guilty of rape as a sepa-
rate offense, because the intention to have carnal knowledge with
the two Filipino hostesses came to the mind of the American
soldiers on-hey were already inside the base and they
could not dance with them a,s they found the hall too crowded.
But since from the circumstances of the case it is apparent'.
that the intention of the two American soldiers in forcibly taking 9
831
I 1
' i
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
the two hostesses from Angeles, Pampanga, was to take them
to a dance, and not to rape them, they have different criminal
,
..
.., .,,
intents and, therefore, two different crimes wer? committed by
t them.
' 3 . I
.,... ,
II. (a) '[s mere membership in the Coamunist Party of
8 shall be observed :
t h e Philippines punishable? Cite authoritative provisions. (b)
A was taken to a farm by outlaw members R and C. B gave
'A a bolo and told the latter that the chief outlaw wanted to
kill the farmer who tvas sleeping inside the hut. A refused,
but after B told A "you have t,o com,ply with that order of
. the chief outlaw, otherwise you will have to come along With
us," A killed the farmer. Is A criminally liable? Reason out
your answer.
(a) Yes. The Anti-Subversion Act punishes any person who
knowingly, wilfully and by overt act affiliates, becomes, or re-
mains a member of the Communist Party.
(b) Yes, because A is not exempt from criminal liability.
A was not acting under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an
equal or gre,ater injury. The statement of B, "You have to com-
ply with tha.t order of the chief outlaw, otherwise YOU will have
t o come along with us,"$s not a threat sufficient to cause a fear
of a n evil or injury ggeater than that which A was, required
to commit. Such a statement did not promise. ah evil of such
gravity and imminence that a n ordinary person would have Suc-
cumbed to it. The fear of A was fanciful, remote and speculative,
not rcal, imminent o r reasonable.
111. (a) What penalties are to be imposed for cwmplex
,crimes?; for crimes committed which are different from those
. . intended? (b) A was sea.ted at the rear side of the orchestra
:in a theater. He left his seat with his revolver in hand t o
' ', :
'look for another seat behind. On his way, his revolver sud-
denly was discharged and the bullet hit E, causing his death,
: , and C, causing injuries that required more than 30 days to
'' . !heal. If you were the prosecutor, for what offense or offenses
d you charge A? Reasons. If convicted, what would be
proper penalty?
832
CRlMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Ba,r Examinations in Criminal Lav
,(a) The penalty to be imposed for complex crimes is the;',
penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its..
maximum period.
In cases in which the crimes committed a r e different from .
tliose which the offenders intended to commit, the following rulm'' ;
1. If the pena.lty prescribed for the felony committed be.;,,
higher than that corresponding to the offensg which the accused' ~
intended to commit, the penalty corresponding to the latter. shall,...,
be imposed in its maximum period.
2 . If the 'penalty prescribed for the felony committed be,'
lower than that corresponding to the one which the accused in-
tended t o commit, the penalty for the former shall be imposed
in its maximum period.
3 . The rule established by the next preceding paragraph
shall not be applicable if the acts committed by the guilty person '.
shail also constitute an attempt or frustration o f another crime, ;
if the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter
offenses, in which case the penalty provided for the attempted
or the frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
(b) If I were the prosecutor, I would charge A with the
complex crime of homicide with serious physical injuries through
reckless imprudence. When A held his revolver in hand while
looking for another seat in the theater, he did not take the neces-
s a r y precaution to avoid injury to persons. Since the single act
of reckless imprudence resulted in homicide and serious physical
injuries, A committed the complex crime of homicide with serious
physical injuries throngh reckless imprudence.
The proper penalty t o he imposed on A would be the penalty
for homicide through reckless imprudence, it being the graver
offense, to be appiied in the maximum period.
',
,, .
IV. (a) Distingnish hot11 by their nature and their effect&
between justifying and exempting circumstances. (b) M, a public:
school teacher, scolded B, one of her pupils. The next day;:
while M was condncting her class, R's father boxed M on dif-2
ferent parts of her body. The injuries of M healed moretfi++
. ..
833
. .
 CRIMINAL LAW REYJEWER
Bar .Examinations in Criminal Law ' Bar Examinations in. Criminal Law.
than thirty days. For what offense
ather be charged? Give reasons for your
rson who acts by virtue of a
ansgress the law, that is, he
nit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there
awful in the act or conduct of the actor. The act
ed and lawful. On the otiier
the grounds for exemption
anting in the agent of the
conditions which make the act voluntary or
s by virtue of a
ere is. a crime,
oxing M resulted ' facts. If the Chief of P
irect assault. Under the law; a
erson in authority. M, a public school
single act, they constitute a complex crime.
. .
CRIXINAL LAW REVIEWER ,.
of .grave threats before the JP court. He was arrested'and
tained in the municipal jail
Chief of Police that X performed
absence, X was able t n draw his s
his confinement. The mayor approved the payroll
treasurer paid the salary. What offense or offenses h
commithed? Reasons. Who are the parties liakle:
Reasons.
(a). One specific offense where
gardless of whether the offense is
tent or through criminal negligence is malversation','
(b) Either there is a complex crime of estafa t
fieation of an official document, i€ Patrolman X and
Police were in conspiracy, in whic
therefor; or there are two different offenses of
of official document through reckless imprudence fo
Chief of. Police is liable and estafa by means of dece
Patrolman X is liable.
The 'Chief of Police e
document when he certifie
when the latter was detained in the municipal jail
period of time. The act of falsificatiou committed.'
of Police is making untruthful statements in 'the,
the falsity of the facts narrated
fieation committed by a public of
positih. If Patrolman X was in conspiracy with
Police, then both he and the Chief of. Police: wo
of estafa through falsification
there is conspiracy the act of
eopplex crime of estafa throu
ment, because the falaificati
necessary means for commit
ifthe
, Chihef o f Police was
cation and Patrolman X mer
fication made by the Chief
be liable for the crime of e
thereby employed deceit
 CRIMINAL LAW KEVIEWEIL
Bar Examinationn in Criminal Law
lic o€ficials concerned to pay him the salary. The
Give the two exceptions to the rule that penal laws
a retiroactive effect io so f a r a s they favor the persons
arrested during the regular or special session ,of
e civil liability incurred by a person who committed
includes: (1) restitution; (2) reparation of the d&-
d.; and (3) indemnification for conseque:btial da&ges
. ,
restoring the thing itself,
th allowance for any deterioration or diminu-
.t?on':of value, as determined by the court. The thing itself shall
,b&,.restoredemn though it may be found in the possession of a
twrd party who had acquired i t by lawful means, saving to the
latter. his action against the proper person who may be liable
"tO-'Gm(Art. 106, R.P.C.).
paration- is made or satisfied by determining the amount
age, taking into consideration the price of the tliing, when-
possible, and its special sentimental value to the injured
.~ The Court shall order the payment of the amount deter-
mked,
, . based on those considerations (Art. 106, R.P.C.).
emnification shall include not only those caused to the
party but also those suffered by his family or by a third
by reason of the crime. The Court shall fix the amount
consequential damages that the offender shall pay to the
,.
836
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW1;S
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
injured party or to the heirs of the injnr
R.P.C.) .
Persons guilty of rape, seduction o r abduction, sh
sentenced :
1. To indemnify the offended
- 2 the offspri
veut from doing so.
3 . In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine may
indemnify for .damages caused to the offended spouge
R.P.C.). .
- :>
(b) The two exceptions to the rule that penal^,
have retroactive effect in so f a r as they f
(1) when the new penal laws specifically provide,
not apply.to pending action o r causes of actioh,
the offender is R habitual delinquent.
(e) A member of Congress may be a
ular or special session of Congress for offenses pun
a penalty .higher than prkion mayor.
house 9
-11. (a) and B, armed with carbi
attempting
shouted or help which caused A
There is no evidence to show who
fatal shot. May A and B be prose
answer. (b) A police raiding team a
a wornan in the act 6f cohabitation
admitted by the couple that the woman received five .bo
perfume in consideration of the inter
fense committed, if there was any
J answer.
(a) -Yes, A and B may b e prosecuted even if there is.
evidence to show who among A and B fired the fatal shot.
reason for this answer is, since A and B were in consp
to commit robbery in the house of
that the death of X was an incident and a consequenc
agreement t o commit robbery, coupled with the Pact th
837
I I

CRIMINAL L A W REVIEWER CRISIINAL LAW REVIEW&

Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Uar Examinations in Criminal Lnw

edge of B. B had a right to insist in .the prosecution:of

cause the return of the P5
poker game through fraud,
As the prosecutor, I could still prosecute
was committed by A and his return of
him of criminal responsibility. Under
Code, there may be a compromise up0
age. It not appearing that the woman is married, from an offense; but such compromi
held liable for adultery. In concubinage and adultery, public action 'for the imposition of
rs must be a married man and a married woman, re- (b) The offense committed wa
The bacheIor did not commit any other offense against person killed, was the gra
a w e it does not appear that the woman was under was not paryicide, because
rs of age, and there are no circumstances wltere the . The killing cf other ascendant is
n is immaterial in crimes against chastity.. The relationship between the killer and
e held liable for prostitution, because. there is ascendant is legitimate. P did not kill 'x
t she habitually indulged in sexual inqercourse cumstances (Art. 247, R.P.C.),be
or profit. As it is defined in the Revised Penal Code, wife, M, and X in the act of sex
IX. (a) Give the cases wh
Law does !tot apply. (6) D brought his maid ,.E
e held liable for .violation of ,domicile After raising his cane D compelled E to take'of
rch warrant and the entrance was against the and dance before him. What
Give your reasons. (e) F, e
more persons, %any, misappropriated P50,O
nessman. For what offens
<a) In a poker game A, employing fraud, won P500.00 Reason out your answer.
(a) The Illdeterminate
ife, with knowledge of B. After receipt of the following: . ~ ..
sisted in the prosecution of A. If you were the 1. Persons convicted of offenses punished ,&h'd
will you du? Give your reasons. (b) P or life imprisonment.
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy ,or
commit. treason.
3 . Those con;.icted of
tion or espionage.
4 , Those convicted of piracy.
Reason ,out your ' answer. 5. Those who are habitual delinquents.
prosecutor, I would prosecute A for estafaj 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement
turn of the 8500 to B's wife with knowI- sentence.

838 839
 . .._
.'~. , I
. , CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exnminationa in Criminal Law
:,,
,
, ~
the terms of conditional pardon granted
Chief Executive.
maximum term of imprisonment does not
a c e d one year.
Those who, upon the approval of the iaw, had been sen-
by final judgment.
. .;,' .,,lo.
.*
Those sentenced to desfiewo or suspension.
.- ,'Jb). The offlanse committed by D was acts of lasciviousness,
.,."<,
.committed with intimidation, because by compelling his maid
off her clothes and dance before him, there was lascivious-
the motive (U.S. vs. Bailoses, 2 Phil. 49).
(ic) F and 1; a r e liable for estafa. The offense committed
ot.malversation, because the funds of the Manila Rai1roa.d
6,omVany are not public funds and the cashier of that company
k3,:not.a public officer. The crime committed is estafa with
ab@,e,--of,confidence, even if the Railroad Company i s of a
quasi-public character (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190). Although
L, a businessman, did not have any fiduciary relation- with the
Masfla -Railroad Company, he is neverthelkss liable for. estafa,
becaqse when the law clearly defines a crime, a s the Revised
qeyl Code defines the crime of estafa, those who in any way
participated therein must be principals, accomplices or abettors
thereof (U.S. vsr Ponte, 20 Phil. 379, citing Groizard & Viada).
X. (a) State the provisions in the Revised Penal Code
which ,succeeded the former offense of false prosecution. (b)
ideration of P15,OOO which R gave ~ L Y S, the 'latter
execut'e the next day a deed of conveyance over 1,000
in favor of R. On the following day, S did not
the ag,reemeut, instead he evaded R.. When pressed
Later on, S sold the same lot
was the offense committed, if there
: :.. any? Reason out your answer.
:
"
(a) The former offense of false prosecution is now punished
,by the Revised I'enal Code as perjury, if the false accusation io
uriaer oath: or defamation, if not under oath, and the purpose
,k%&iscredit
,I
,<,erwrjr .
., . or to injure the reputation of the offended party.
i s committed by any person^ who, knowingly mak'ing un-
.;,"*py+.r.
~
* ~.
' . , .->.. r .(, ,
'1
,..
fl CRlBlTNAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal IAW 8
truthful statements, shall testify under oath or make an affidavit :,
upon any material matter before a competent person authorized' .'
to administer an oath in cases in which the law so
(Art. 183, R.P.C.).
Defamation is a public and malicious imputation o
or a vice or defect, real o r imaginary, or any act, omissi0
lion, status,, or circumstance tending to cause the dis
of a natural or jlrridical person, or t
who is dead (Art. 353, R.P.C.).
that the former offense of false
innocent person (Art. 363, R.P.C.),
only when there is planting of
that no offense was committed b y
on the part of S f o r failure to co
ply with his obliga.tion t o execute a deed of conv
the lot in favor of R. S did not commit the crime of es
because there was neither deceit nor abuse of confidence. ,+'
lot was existing. It does not appear that S had the inten
the beginning to defraud R and that the former proinuse
e latter to execute a deed of conveyance only to induce;:him
to part .with his money. The amount of P15,@00'was'rece
by S not in trust, or on commission, or for administration
under any other obligation involving the duty to mak
or to return, the same. The transaction was one of Pum
sale and when the amount of Q15,@00was delivered by'
the latter acquired ownership over the money, not 'mer
dical possession of the same. S was still the o
he sold it, because there was no
having been executed.
AUGUST', 1960
frustrated felolly, and give a n exantplp:'
required for self-
an example.
(a) A felony is frustrated when the offende
the acts of execution which would produce the felony,::
341
 I

RIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAI. LAW REVIEWER :.:

nr Examinations in Criminal Law

hich, nevertheless, do not .produce it by reason Since there a r e only t

ependent of the will of the perpetrator (Art. 6, bery, the provision cited is
However, in the case
ith intent to kill B, stabbed the latter with 6191, although only two
st, perforating one of his lungs, thereby therefore, they did not constitute a b
nd sufficient to cause his death. But due .the other robbers were guilty of robb
nd able surgical operation and medical treatment, the homicide was committed by only
knowledge' or consent of the others.
e circumstances required for self-defense are: t r u e that the rule is, when 't
lawful aggression; is the act of all, this rule must'give
easonable necessity of the means employed to prevent of Art. 296 of the Revised Pens
cient provocation on the part bf the per- 111. A, a boy eight years old, living with his pare
defending himself. , . boy, B, a neighbor, sets f
(Art. 11 par. 1, R.P.C.) house, razing it to .the ground. B's father acc
f self defense:-A, with a bolo i.1 hand,,attacked arson and demands indemnity for the value of
avoided the blow, unsheathed his own bolo, and, Decide the ewe, giving reasons. .
attack coming from A, B s t r u c x him on the The crimina1,case against A will have to be di
d causing serious physical injuries. In 'under nine years old is ex
in inflicting the injuyies. 12, par. 2, R.P.C.).
iracy. (b) A and . B conspire' to rob of A should indemnify E's
to act as guard while B goes 'up and if they are a t fault
d takes away with him money and or were not a t fault or n
two later divide between themselves. -4 must pay for the indemnification. The civil liability,
king the house, the owner thereof offered some re- committed by a person under nine years
without the knowledge or consent of A, 'B sltoots. upon those having such person under t h e h -legal..au
What is the crime committed, and the criminal control; unless it appears that there was no fault or
on their part. If the parents are insolvent
:.~~~~~.~,
L
(a) A conspiracy exists when two or more nersons come t o excepting property ex
$&s;an,.agreemen.t concerning the commission of a felony and decide 101, pars. 2 and 3, R.P.C.).
A%@O conunit it; (Art. 8. R.P.C.).
~~
,~
,,I ;
, ,:.,.'
.'- (b)' The crime committed by B is robbery with homicide, circumstances; two exemp
3 . ,$nd.%hat
~ by A is robbery only. Under the Revised Penal Code, circums
.'%he'Only-
.. case where a person who-is present at the commission , circumstance;

.;p$&robbery shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults

...,e b d i t t e d b? the others, is when the robbery is committed by Justifyirbg circumstances.-.The follow
band^
.,,,
,..(;*
,.*
,,i&<;: .
and he is one of the members thereof (Art. 296, R.P.C.). inal I i a h i t y :
,;.,&sF;+~...
~ ~

,.,-

842 843
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWISR
Bar :Examinations in Criminal Law
@
+
.
,cording to the conditions attending the commission of the,,~';.rime^ :,'!#I
,!-it
(Art. 15, R.V.C.). '~ ~ ,&A
/ I

the means employed to pre- V. (3) Mention two ways in which criminal liability 6:
totally extinguished. .Yb) Distinguish between prescription
. .~of ' ,
a crime and prescription of a penalty. ,; , , ~ n

ocation on. the part of t h e

is totally extinguished- , , ~;.
,.,
&.
., , *
ce to a n order issued by death of the convict, as to the personal penalties. ~

(Art. 89, pars. 1 a

ing are exempt from

crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities

'
their agents; in prescription of a penalty, from the date' wh
the culprit should evade the service of his sentence.
As to the circumstances h?/ which it is interr
scription of a crime, the running of the period
is interrupted by the filing of .tfie complaint o r
prescription of a penillty, if the defendant shou

no extradition treaty, or should.. c

expiration of the period of prescr

of a cri

circumstances; :
,
,~i .
L
.
:,:.:"*\#~* , , (1)
.,,
That advantage"be taken by the offender of his public
" nosition: /
e committed in contempt of or with
rities (Art. 14, pars. 1 and 2, R.P.C.). VI. Define (a) parricide, (b) murder. (
stance.-That a person killed another
reward ai. promise (Art. 248, par. 2*

rnative circu~tance.-Iiltoxication, which is taken

vating or mitigating circumstance ac- R.P.C.) .
844
 CRIMINAL LAW .REVIEWER
Bar Exnminations in Criminal Law
,-Ahy person who, not falling within the provisions of
shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder, if com-
t h any of the following attendant circumstances: (1)
chery, taking advantage of superior strength, with t h o
-armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense
persons to insure or afford impunity; ( 2 ) in
a price, reward or promise; (3) by means ,of
poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
waste and ruin; (4) on occa-
, or any other public calamity; (5) with evident
cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
of^ the. victim, or outraging or scoffing,
itted by any married woman who shall
th a man not her husband and by the
&s .carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to .be m a w
if the marriage be subsequently declared void (Art.
itted by a married woman and by a
concubinage is com-
o knows him to b e
student license to drive motor
h fhe key left in the switch.
bo&ds,.a taxi and pursues A who in his haste to escape, and:.
se of h i s inexperience, violently collides with a jeepnep
846.
,-
. ,
,,
CItIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exarniii;lH4ons in Criminal Law
d'
full of p sengem The jeepney was overturned
one passenger was killed, the leg of anoth'er p&enger&;w
crushed and had to be amputated. The car driven by'^
also damaged. What uffense or offenses may ,A be.:c
with?
for t a k h g a motor vehicle belongi
to gain. Complex crime of damage~to
amount of the damage is more than
grave felony, with homici
physical injuries, all of them being the result of one single a
of reckless and imprudent driving.
A is also liable for a violation of the Motor
which provides that no student's permit shall
son. to. whom the same is issued to operate. a mo
any public highway, unless accompanied by a p
a regular license .to' operate such motor vehicle.
'
the rule for the application of
(maximum, medium ::n<
absenoe of aggravatir
circumstances.
In cases in which the penalties prescribed by law. c
( three periods, whether it be a single divisible penalty~
posed of three different penalties, each one of which
period in accordance with the provisions of arti
the courts shall observe f o r the application of
following rules, according to whether there are or no
01- aggravating circumstances :
(1) When there are neither aggravating.
cumstances, they shall impose the penalty pres
its medium period.
(2) When only a. mitigating circumstance
commission of t h y & they shall impose the gena1ty.i.n ,its,.
mum period.
f l y an aggravating circums
the mission of the act, they shall impose
A a x i m u m period. ,. :. ,,
841
..
,
 I
CXIMlNAL LAW REVIEWBR
Bar Jhaminations in Criminal Law
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
rt shall reasonably offset those of one class
cording to their relative vieiglk
are two or more mitigatiag circumstances
circumstances are present., the court shall
ext lower to that prescribed by law, in the
may deem applicable, according to the number
such circumstances.
atever may be the number and nature of the aggravab
ances, the courts shall not impose a greater penalty
escribed by law, in its maximum period.
imits of each period; the courts shall deter-
' . '. &ne the extent of the penalty according to the .number and
.aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the
e r extent of the evil produced by the crime.
) State one difference between arbit&ry detention
detention. (b) A is accused of robbery and is ar-
constabulary sergeant, by virtue .of a warrant
st. A put up bail and was ordered released by the court.
sergeant B'sees A a t the cockpit and im-
him and takes him +A the constabular guard-
.
yl
p t there till the next morning when B took
him to the court. All along A was telling ? , t h a t he was out
"
on bail, but B would not believe him; neither did he, B, make
,. , ' 'Sng effort to verify if A had really been released on bail. .What
.offense if any has B committed, acd why?
.' (a) Arbitrary detention is committed by public officer, while
illegal detention is committed by private person. In both of-
,: femes;. the offendy s, a person of his liberty without
,::legal ground or auth
tention through negligence, be-
malice he did not take the neces-
'ving A of his liberty without legal
ine complex crime and give an example.
.:. .:
, ..
./'
. . 848
.:,.:*.,:'
?*:
CRIMINAL LAM! REVIEWER ,
Bar, ,E-xa,minations ia ,Criminal ,Lav :
. .!W*%
There, i s a complex crime when a single act constitut&twb+?t
o r more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a
necessary means for committing the other (Art. 48, R.P.C.). ~~
,.. ,An example of a complex crime is when a person fired his.
gun once and the same bullet killed t w o individuals; o r when, ,',"
a person falsified a dezd of mortgage to induce another to p,a.&, , ,
with his money, thereby defrauding the latter. The latter,is:.an: ,!~;
exainple of a complex crime of estafa through falsific+tio~z&~:@$
public document. .. ,.. . . , .yT,:
,_ > i
x:,:,?
' i
, , y<,
/' AUGUST, 1961 I .
, a.
, ,
' /
$(a) Define "crime" and give an example of an
sible' crime,'' as defined in the Revised Penal Code. .&b
'
charged with the forcible abduction with lewd desi2
a.,girl, 16 years old and Y, a 20-year old female f e e n d , p f
The evidence shows that the abduction was with their conge
Decide 'the case with reasons.
, .(a) Crime is defined as an act comnitted or
violation of a public law forbidding or commanding it.
An example of impossible crime is, aa f o l l o m A b
that' B was only sleeping, with intent to kill, shot at the la,@
body then lying on bed. It turned out that B had be
an hour before A fired at his body.
(b) A should be sentenced to suffer the penalty f o r $
sented abduction in which X is the offended party,
being with her consent, she being 16 years old
io be a virgin, it not appearing that she is married.
A should be acquitted of the charge of forcible abdu
insofar as Y is the offended party, becau:;e the element of
the abduction is against her will" is absent; and he c o d
be convicted of consented abduction, because Y is over 18 y
of age.
.. ,
..';is
-11. (a) If an insane person ,commits a crime, wh
first be civilly liable, his legal guardian, or t h e insane$
849
 I 1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw
win his p r o k r t y ? Why?' (b) Specify two (2) offenses which
/
prescribe i one (1) Year.
,',(a) he civil liability for acts committed by a n insane shall.
i'
devolve pan. his legal guardian, unless it appears that there
was'no fault o r riegligence on the part of the latter,+ If the legal
g'uayd' n was not a t fault or negligent or be insolvent, the in-
&de person who committed the crime shall respond With his
OWn'property not exempt from execution, in accordance $th
. .the civil law (Art. 101, R.P.C.).
' .* .Hence, iAe legal guardian should first be civilly liable.
e for damages caused by the incapacitated
their authority and live i n their com-
of the guardian shal! cease .when they
all the diligence of E. good father of a
damage (Art. 2180, N.C.C.).
punished only by a .fine or by imprisonment
one month, or both, prescrise after one year.
e following offenses.prescrihe after one year:
ailure t o brand or register cattle.-Any. person who
se to brand or. regiiter his large cattle
h animal not branded or registered by
an two nor more than five pesos, or by im-
ment for not less than five days nor more than thirty days,
both such fine and imprisonment, in 'the discretion of the
vised Adm. Code).
'. . ( 2 ) Unlicensed signs, signboards, or billboar&.-Any per-
. ,
'son .who shall erect, construct, m a i r b i n , display, o r , expose a
, ,~
bign, signboard, Cr billboard without first paying the lawful tax
therefor shall be fined not exceeding one hundred pesos or be
imprisoned not exceeding one month (Sec. 2729, Revised, Adm.
code): " ' '
II III. A issues a BlOO check by signing the name of a ba*
fiepositor, imitating the signature of the latter. 'If he suceeeds
m c m h i u g said check, what crime or crimes, if any, have been
r committed? Why?
1
i a50
CRfMINAL LAW .REVIEW&
.Bar Examinations iti- Criminul Law
'' 4 committed a complex crime of estafa t h r o u g h ' . f a l s i f i c o ~ ,
of a commercial document. When he imitated the signature:
the bank depositor on the check for FlOO and issu
A committed. the crime of falsification of a comm
ment. By cashing the check, A committed estafa by
deceit. And since the crime of falsification was
means for committing the crime of estafa, A committed.
.complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial d
ment.
. N. Specify two (2) modifying circumstances in the.
sition of the ,penalty which ' can be considered ' aggravathg at
times, and miti-ting at other times. Give illnstrative examples,>.
A and 13 were convicted of slight physical'injuries infliC~84
on C. A was the son of C and B was the.father of C. In!thi.k
case, 'relationship is a mitigating circumtance i n tlie iinp!.isition
of the penalty .on B and a n aggravating circumstance in theri
imposition of the penalty on A. Relationship is a mitigating:
circumstance in crimes against persons, ,when the offender &.a-
relative o f - a higher degree than the offended party.. It is .an
.aggravating circumstance when the offender is a relative of.-;a.:
lower degree than the offended party. ,., .
A killed B when the former was i n the state of intolticdtion.
If the intoxication OS A was accidental, it is a mitigating cir-
cumstance. If it is habitual o r subsequent to the plan to corn-?
mit tbe crjme, his intoxication is a n aggravating circumstance.. i f :
. .,,.:.'r:1
,
V. (a) Specify two (2) criminal acts constituting a viola-
tiowof the.Election Law. (b) Specify two (2) criminal acts con-
stituting a violation of the Corporation Law. (e) When.may
the death 'penalty not be imposed although the accused'is r e d y
guilty of .:a. capital offense, with aggravating circumstance and,
no ,mitigating circumstmees? .. .,,,,
I : : . t
(a) The following are criminal acts constituting violationi'
of the Election h i w : . . .. ,..., . ~
861
 . CRIMINAL LAW REVlEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
driver recklessly drove at nig is mashr‘s
injury on a child passenger &at was
expelling out of a foetus from the body
passenger; and damage to the “innocent”
were committed? Why?
three separate and district crimes,
(2) homicide with abortion (if the
physical injuries (if the
‘thtough reckless im-
through reckless im-
the essential elemeots
a taking of the c a r ;
personal property
belongs to another, his master; (4) ,that the taking was with-
O l i t the,consent of the owner of the car: and (5) that there was
&nt t o gain. It is qualified theft, because the property taken
is a motor vehicle.
The element‘of intent to gain is present, because the use o r
property is sufficient to establish’ that
dement.
“taking”, the Supreme Court held that
qualified theft of an automobile when
a joy ride without the consent of its
that if at the time
have the intention of withhold-
the element of
‘:taking”
%
in the crime of theft is lacking and, hence, the crime
is. not committed.
He also committed the complex crime of homicide with abor-
.tin’ or . a t least less serious physical injuries, and damage to
’property, assuming that the damage is not less than PlOO,through’
reckless imprudence, because the three offenses a r e a~?.Iqas,grave
854
CRIIIIIXAL LAW REVlEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminnl Law
felonies and they were the results of one single ct of reckless
driving (Art. 48, R.P.C.).
There is such crime as unintentional a.bortion through reck-
less imprudence when, as in this case, the violence was not inten-
tionally-exerted and the foetus died ax a consequence.
If the foetus survived in spite of the violence, the offender
is liable f o r at least less serious physical injuries, because the
mother necessarily suffered internal injuries due to the expulsion
of the foetus.
.The offense of slight physical injuries through reckless im-
a light felony, cannot form a complex crime.’ ,-j
treated and punished as a separate offense. .):
I . .”
IX. Distinguish dander by deed from libel. ,‘. ,. , i
In slander by deed, the offender per€orms:any act not in-
cluded.in the crima of libel or slander; in libel, the offender
avails himself of written o r printed words, or words published, .y
by means of radio, phonograph, painting or threatridal o r cine-: .‘iJ
matographic exhibition in besmirching the reputation. of another
person. ’
_
~I
r
The two offens ’ are similar i n the sense that in both of-
fenses (1) there m st be publicity and (2) that the acb, per- :!
formed or the wo$ds published cast dishonor, discredit. o r .con-
tempt upon the offended party.
/
X. Distin isla “trespas to dwelling” from c‘tres&w to
propert* (0 er forms of trespass). , ,
In “tr .pass to dwelling”, the offender is a private person: ”
in “trespa s to property” (other forms of trespass), the off&dev I:
is any person. In the first, the offender enters a dwelling%ouse~@~
of another; in the second, the offender enters the closed premises
or the fenced estate of another. In the first, the place entered
by the offender i s inhabited; in the second, the place entered.@
uninhabited. I n the first, the act constituting the crime is by
entering the dwelling against the wiII of the owner: in the second,
it is by entering the closed premises or the fenced estate with-
out securing the permission of the owner or caretaker .thereof. .
I n the first, the prohibition to enter the dwelling of another i$
855
, ,,,*:,
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
in the second, the prohibitior’ to, enter the
fenced estate of another must‘be mknifest.
->., .. * ,’
.’ .’AUGUST, 1962
prepared and submitted to Congress’ or governmental
authorities amending the SYSTEM of penology of the
Philippines? If so, enumerate them chronologically,
giving the names of their respective authors.
in the ]?hilippines are:
~, 1. The Spanish Penal Code, and ~
2. ‘The Revised Penal Code.
’’ The Spanish Penal code^ was made effective .in ‘the
- Philippines in 1887.
The Revised Penal Code took effect in 1932 (Art. 1,
’ . R.P.C.).
(b) Yes. Before the promulgation of Act 3815’ .(Re-
Penal Code), there was a proposed “Correctional
completed in 1916 by Rafael del Pan, a member Of
Committee created by Act No. 1941. After the
the Revised Penal Code, a project known
Code of Crimes” was prepared by the Code Com-
mission and was submitted to Congress. It has not yet
been adopted by Congress.
Consul of the Philippines stationed in X-pl&,
of his official functions as such, while in
his place of assignment and for the consideration oE F10,oOO
prepared various documents in favor of “E” wherein he
’ .. ,
~ . knowingly made untruthful statements ’ .in - the,- .na+ra
. .,. I / .
tion of facts and ih connection therewith ‘ h e ‘i&u&‘‘B’’
856
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Emminations in Criminal Law ...a1r
*.
’ ’
the corresponding VISA authorizing “B” ‘ t o ’en* Philip-
- ’ ’,
pine soil to which “B” WEIS not entitled:
(a) Has “A” committed any crime defined and .p&hed ,:
,. in the Revised Penal Code? If so, name it;, if not,
esplain your answer. .‘.,l’i
(b) Can “A” be prosecuted in the Philippines for said
crime? Why? , . . . ,.
(a) Yes. “A” committed two crimes: (1) .direct
r bribery (Art. 210, R.P.C.), and (2) falsification of official
.’ and public documents committed by &:’ public officer with
abuse of official position (Art. 171, R.P.C.). ’ ’ ’ -.-’
(b) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippines, ‘but also
k.”
outside o ,its jurisdiction, against those who, while’being
” ’ public ficers or employees, should commit ‘an offense
in t$ exercise of their functions (Art. 2, R.P.C.).
I I I A E x p l a i n the aggravating circumstance that t h e crime
was Committed by a band. ., .,~ r..
(b) What shall be the nature or extent of the d i s y i s e
necessary to consider its attendance a s an aggra-
vating circumstance?
(c) Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Revised Penal Code
mentions 3 aggravating circumstances, Le., night time,
uninhabited place and that the crime be committed
by a band. Are ALL these 3 circumstances when
attending the commission of a crime to be considered
as only oiie or as 3 different and separate from one
another? Why?
,./
(a) The aggravating circumstance that the crime was
committed by a hd is present when more than three armed
malefactors ted together in the commission of the of-
f se. least four of the persons who committed the
riHe must be armed. It is not necessary: that the mem-
: . bers of the band be armed with firearms.
’ Boloskid clubs
’ ~ . - snd other deadly weapons a r e sufficient arms.^‘.'."?':
857
. >.,’
,I CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
.(b) The disguise must be such as to conceal the ideatity
.
of the offenders. The purpose of the offenders in employ-
. , ing disguise is to prevent their being recognized. There 1s
.disguise when the offenders had their faces blackened or
. when they covered their faces with handkerchiefs before
committing the crime. ’ But if in spite of the use of handker-
-,
* .
chiefs to cover their faces, the culprits were recognized
:, by the victim, disguise is not considered aggravating (Peo-
, ...
ple vs. Sonsona, G.R. No. L-9866, May 25, 1956).
~,., (c) In its decision of April 5, 1884, the Supreme
Court of Spain held that they constitute only one aggravat-
ing circumstance if they concur in the commission of a
felony. But in its decision of April 27, 1897, the same
/
court held that its former decision did not declare an ab-
. ~ .,solute and general rule which would exclude the possibility
of their being considered separately when their elements
I fit, without political motivation, those other common crimes.
a r e distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, re-
vealing a greater degree of perversity (People vs. Santos,
et al., G.R. No. L-4189, May 12,.1952)’.
wi (a)
Can the crime of rebellion be complexed with, ocher
common crimes? Why?
(h) In 1960, Juliet committed 6 crimes. of estafa to’ the
damage of the respective offended parties in the sum
of P1,OOO in each case. She was in the m e year
prosecuted for all the 6 cases: 2 in the Court of First
htitance of Bizanila, 2 in Quezon city, 1 in Pasay city
am$ the last one in Cdoocan City. She was convicted
after hearing in all the 6 cases. In the imposition
of the corresponding penalties: (a) would she be
entitled to the benefits of the threefold-length-of-
time rule provided in Rule 70, last paragraph. of the
. . Revised Penal Code a s amended by Commonwealth
Act No. 217, Section 2? In the affirmative case,
how could that rule be applied to her?
(a,) No, because the other common crimes committed
SA:.’in the course of the rebellion are either absorbed in the
rebellion or treated and punished as separate and distinct
!
858
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEC
Bar Examinations in Criminal,’Law
crimes from rebellion. According to the Supreme Court,
one of the means by which rebellion may be committed is
by “engaging in war against the forces of the government”
and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of
said “war”. These expressions imply everything that war
connotes, namely: resort to arms, requisition of- property
and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint
of liberty, damage to property, physical injuries and loss
, of life. Being within the purview of “engaging in war”
and “committing serious violence”, the other common crimes
(such as murder, homicide, robbery, and arson) .and re-
bellion constitute not two or more offenses, but only one
crim+that of rebellion plain and simple.
But if the commission of other common crimes .in the
course of the rebellion is done for private purposes or pro-
would he punished as separate and distinct offenses.
(b) Yes. The threefold-iength-of-time rule shduld’ be
followed irrespective of the fact that the different’offenses
are charged in several informations, or a r e included in. a
single prosecution, or that the several cases are tried be-
fore. the same court o r in different courts (People vs.
Garalde, 50 Phil. 823).
The rule applies although the penalties were &posed
for different crimes, at different times, and under separate
informations (Torres vs. Superintendent, 58 Phil. 847).
.~ ,
The rule shall be applied to her in the service of the
penalties. The maximum duration of the’ convict’s sen-
tence shall not be more than threefold the length of time
corresponding to the most severe of the penalties &posed:
upon her.
V. One morning, Hilarion went to the house of Dionisio and
.: there had an altercation v i t h him over certain. deliver@
~
of tobacco leaves which the latter did not want to yieId.1
Enraged, Hilarion left saying that he was to come back,
at-noon, which he did, armed with ‘a galtik and a
.
- . . and at a distance of 30 feet from t h e house, .called .DIP!-. ~
869
I 1
CRIMINAL LAW' REVIEWER '
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
?:" nisi0 to ''come down". As the latter refused, Hilarion,
',.
I .
t~ compel Dionisio to come down, set fire to Dionisio's
, . " ,.
2. house. Naturally, Dionisio fled before the house was de-
~'
. stroyed. Is Hilarion liable for the crime of arson pro-
'":-' vided in Art. 321, No. 1, of the Revised Pen& Code for
'
". .. 'having
. set fire to a dwelling house knowing it to be OC-
..~ .,."'cupied by one or more persons at the time of, the fire?
t '
, ).,*
'
'Explain your answer.
,
No. That the great perversity on the part of the of-
' ,.,.. , . fender implied from the burning of a building knowing
"
that persons were in it, and for which a quite severe penalty
r,ir-.
" is attached by law, was not the moving spirit in the case
at bar. With all probability the crime of arson would not
have been committed if Dionisio had heedcd the call, of
,q .,:;r
Hilarion for Dionisio to come down (People vs. Manhit,
~
et al., C.A., 51 O.G. 221). . . -
.,
'.>VI.A;& C:, D, E and F conspired to comm:t the crime of
:.'.*'*-.robbery with homicide in the h&se of the sp.oUWSY and
r: 5 2,'residing in San Juan, Riial. F, sm.aht of d d
-4 ' spouses became a f r d d upon learning that tlte? canspirators
::'. intended also to kill his masters and informed- them. Of.
the proposed crime. Said spouses sought theh 'the prQ-
tection of the NBI and the Constabulary, so that ivhen
.. , . , on August 1, 1962, the malefactors went to -the, house
, of said spouses to consummate their intended fdoEy and
were in the act of carrying the spouses'. automobile away
. . , from the garage, they were halted by the government
: forces whereupon a gun battle ensued With the result that
:, , F, the spouses' servant, and C, one of the. mdefacbrs,
were killed. Did the surviving malefactors .commit tiie
- '
composite or special crime of robbery with homicide not-
withstanding the fact that one of the ,persons killed had
participated in the conspiracy and the other was one Of
the malefactors killed by the government forces? EX-
- plain your answer.
The surviving malcfaetors committed the special crime
.; ,.
.. ,
of robbery with homicide if F was killed by anyone of them.
I
860
CRIMIXAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
,,,' Even if F .had participated in the conspiracy, he was
not one of the malefactors, because he desisted before the
commission of the crime. Conspiracy alone without the
execution of its pui'pose is not a crime, except in treason;
rebellion, or sedition. This ruling applies to F. And even
if F was one of the malefactors, but he and C were shot
and killad by their companions on the occasion of the rob-
bery, the latter would still be liable for robbery with homi-
\ cide. . ..
It is immaterial that the person killed was one of the
.robbers, "provided that the homicide be produced by reason
o r on occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the
result ,obtained, without reference or distinction as t o the
circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the
. ' commission of the crime, that have to be taken into con-
, > ' ..sideration (People vs. Mangulabnan, et al., 62 O.G:6532).
~
.,. . '
If F and C were killed by the government forces, the
Ic. 8
malefactors did not commit the crime of robbery with homi-
cide, but only qualified theft, being already "in the act of
carrying the spouses' automobile away from the garage,"
' , .
wben "they were halted by the government forces."
' ., , It is qualified theft only, because there was no violence
, I
'against or intimidation of persons o r force upon things at
the time of. the taking of the automobile. The firing of
.. . . their guns made by the malefactors, if it did not injuxe
,,,,,,,.
or kill any person, although constituting violence against
, or intimidation of persons, occurred after they had ,already
the material possession of the hutomobile. The taking of
the automobile may be considered already complete when
the gun battle ensued.
i : ' ' The'NBI agents and the constabulary soldiers, were
j_, ,
not liable, if they killed F and C, one of the malefactors,
.- because they were acting in the justifying circumstance of
'
fulfil1,ment of duty when they killed them.
-Vn. (8) What do you know about the so-called impossible
!, ;:,/, criimes? Do the perpetrators thereof incur an$ crim-
861
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law . Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
. .
inal liability under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code? Why?
(b) In the affirmative case, give an example of a' fe-
lon,ious act punished by the Penal Code that turns out
to be a n impossible crime. In the negative case, e.?
plain briefly why the perpetrator of a so-called h-
possible crime does not incur an>- criminal liability.
(a) There is a n inlpossible crime, when the offender
performs a n act which would be an offense against ?fr-
:,, sons o? property were it not for the inherent impossiblllty
, . of its accomplishment or on account of the employment Of
I. inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, R.P.C.).
Yes, because the Revised Penal Code provides the pen-
alty of awesto mayor or a fine ranging from 8200 t o
B500 for the commission of an impossible crime (A@. 69,
R.P.C.), According to the positivist theory, on which the
punishment of an impossible *crime is based, society must
be protected from the anti-social activities, whether actual
...or aotential. of the morbid type of men, called "swially
'.
.
8 :
dangerous persons."
/
(b) A, with inteni to kill B, looked for 'the latter
. and, finding him lying on a bamboo bed, stabbed him.with
,
a knife in the chest several times, not, knowing that B
, had been dead an hour before.
VIII. In January, 1950, Romeo was prosecuted and convicted
- in the Court of First Instance of Manila of 3 crimes of
', :-thefi. for which he was sentellced by reason o f ' t h e value
', of' the properties stolen t~ the following penalties of pri-
' . .sion correecional: 16,200 fine to 2 y m s , 6 . months and
20 days; 81,000 and 8500 fine t o 1 year, 8 months an?
:' .~,:21 clays in each case. R o m a immediately commenced to,
serve these penalties in Muntinglupa. Zn 1960, while
serving sentence, he escaped therefrom and went t0 Ling&-
..; yen, Pangasinan, where he also committed 10 cdlnes Of
esbfa, each in the Sum of FP,OOO, for all which mimes,
": he again was prosecuted and convicted after hearing in
, .. May, 1961. Under these circumstances, can the penalties
862
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEIVER
imposed to Romeo, for the crimes committed before his
esedw from Muntinglupa, affect the imposition and .%N-
ice of the penalties for which he wils sentenced f o r the
second group of crimes under the threcfold-length&,f-time
rule prescribed in Article 70, last paragraph, of the Re-
vised Penal Code, as amended by Commonwealth Act 217,
section 21
Yes, the penalties imposed upon Romeo, f o r the crimes
he committed before his escape from Muntinglupa, can af-
., . fect the imposition and service of the penalties for which
' .
he was sentenced for the second group of crimes. Upon
his conviction o f the 10 crimes of estafa, he could be de-
clared a recidivist, having been convicted of theft by final
judgment a t the time of his trial for estafa and both crimes
being embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.
It is assumed that a t the time Romeo escaped in 1960,
he was serving one of the penalties f o r the three crimes
of theft.
All the penalties f o r the ten crimes of estafa should
be imposed on Romeo notwithstanding the penalties for
theft. But in the service of the penalties f o r estafa, the
penalty f o r theft not yet served out should be considered
f o r the purpose of the threefold-length-of-time rule.
fx. X-newspaper of genel'al circulation in the PhMppines,
published in its issue of August 1, 1962, a Iibelous d d e
accusing A, B and C of having acted in cionfederation to
smuggle, as they did smuggle into the Phili,ppines, several
items of merchandise worth 11,000,000. A resides in '!
Manila; B in Quezon City; and C in Polo, Bdacan. Under
these facts, may the criminal liability of the author of
that libel be divided into 3 distinct and separate offenses
so that said author might be prosecuted and convicted
of 3 erimes o f libel? Explain your answer. ,.
., .
I
No. The latest ruling of the Supreme' Court: is tha5.i
'1a libel on t.wo or more persons contained in o n e : d w : :
.
. and published by a single act ,constitutes but .one'-ijffe&e''
80 as to warrant a single indictment therefor" ( P k p l e . vs; '
863
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations ill Criminal Law Bar Examinations, ia Criminal L a r

'4. Aquino, 53 O.G. 8844, citing State vs. Hoskins, 60 Minn. - ( b ) Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law may be a p
,.. 168). It is submitted that this ruling applies, even if the plied in this case. Although the penalty for murder is
., ,. three offended parties 1:eside in different cities and prov-
.I. 1
,. reclwion temporul in its maximum period to death, the
.i!,y82.ince. The criminal action for libel must be filed with penalty that should be, considered is that which the court
:s the Court of First Instance of the province or city where i imposed after trial. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is
' ~ ' . < , the accnsed or any of the offended parties resides a t the
I .
not applicable to, among others, persons convicted of of:
time of the commission of the offense (Art, 360, R.P.C.). fenses punished with death or life imprisonment. Since
the court did not impose the penalty of death o r life im-
Hence, only one criminal action can be filed.
,. prisonment, 'the particular exception t o the applicati& of
.'Xr'ta)!A, B, C and D, without any right whatsoever squat- 1 the Indeterminate Sentence Law can not be considered in
j! ,: , ,
6
, this case.
p;:! '
ted on a piece of land in the Ctiy of Manila, the . -.
, .pra,perty of E. Inasmuch as ejectment proceedings i : ,
~

.35 : 9 . ~.
would take quite a very long time to produce results, AUGUST, ~-1.963
."if .ever successful, can the Fiscal of Manila, upon < -.
, complaint of E, charge A, B, C and D with the crime :;
,of coercion or unjust vexation which, though. Ught i - .I ~, ,
I , . !'
.,, ..: '(a) When did Act No. 3815, .knqwn as the Revised Pen& i
.?,'.
.felonies, covered by Article 287, last paragraph,'of the Code, take effect?
/,: ,:.,, .
,... . Revised Penal Code, wonld, upon conviction'. ..of the
culprits, bring about their immediate ejec%n from (b) Is the Revised Penal Code of the! Philippines east .in+1
-,, ".th8epremises? Express your opinion giving your rea- the moulds cf the Classical School, the Positive School or i n y,, 1'', ~ ,

. ... .. . .. sons therefor.

:' . . other school of Penology? Explain briefly your . answer. .,.. , < ':,
' '(b) Rogelio was prosecuted for murder. kter' hearing, (a) Act Nu. 3815, known as the Revised'Penal Code, bok
he was found guiIty of the crime charged attended I
effect on the first day of January, 1932 (Art. I, R.P.C.).
,,'., (b) The Revised Penal Code is cast in the mould of the
by the mitigating cir&nnstance of the offender having
Classical School, aIthough some provisions of eminently positivistic
&Ai*;';. , , voluntarily surrendered himself to a person aU-
ti:>: : thority or his agents. He was, thcrefore, sentenced, tendencies (those having reference to the punishment of im-
among others, to the principal pendty provid$d for possible crimes, juvenile delinquency, etc.) were incorporated. in
v j tL.2i.,,
r,,, '. murde? in its minimum degree, that is, to 17 years, the said Code. . .,
.. .
..-i I 4 mouths and 1 day of reclusion temporal., MaF the
, .. .,j; provisions of Acts 4103 and 4225, !yawn a¶ the in- SI.
:,,
, ._, . .1) ,,dieterminate sentence law be appli~d,in this case? '(0'Define
the circumstances of treachery, nighttime and
IZxpIain your answer. uninhabited place. , ,,

,.I . . (a) No, because although they may he convicted of
the crime of coercion or unjust vexation, the restitution
*:a . . ..of,the piece of land to its owner has no legal basis. The
.crime committed not being against prollerty, no restitution
of ,the thing .can be done (Teresa de las Piiias vs. Royal
Bus, Co., Inc., 56 O.G. 4052).
' .?.7 :'
(b) John had a motor boat'which he used to lake to t h e
middle o f . the Manila Bay t o sleep there, alone. At about mid-
' night of August 5, 196.7, Peter, 'Paul and Mike;'acting in eon-
s p h y and eanfederation with .wch other, drove in a . b a a to
and boarded -the motor boat where John was sleeping and right
then and there assaulted him and causcd,,his.death byb by st ran^.

864 865
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER . ....
I' , CRIMINAL LAW REVSEWER'
~ a maminations
r in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal La<

.lation. Peter, pad and Mike were prosecuted 'ii, the Court. Of
First Instance of Manila for murder qualified by treachery
mpntioned facts were proved at the hearing. May the
'. 'defendants ~R this case be convicted of murder attended by
.the aggravating circumstauces of nighttime, uninhabited Place What do you hnow'.about
./
,.and'bya band? Why? single common crimes, complea
crimes or eo@e . .~
or special crimes? Give an exampIe-:oi
","'(i)There is treachery when the offender Commits any of each. /
' . ' < i G!
the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or for? crime is one committed by a single act, prb:
in '&e execution thereof which tend directly and specially to 111- ,..,.
. ,,
1

sure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the de- EzampZe: A shot B, causing the latter's death. .,, .I <
fense which the offended party might make (Art. 14, Par. 16, -.
There is a complex crime when a single act constitutes: Go
R.P.C.) . / '

',.
or more grave or less grave feloxues, or when an offense is a
The word "nighttime" should be understood, ' according to
Via&, to mean that period of darkness beginning a t end of dusk necessary means f o r committin&the other (Art. 48, R.P.C.). ,
Ezample: A shot at B .to kill the latter;
and ending a t dawn, Nights are from sunset to Sunrise.. The same slug h i t md killed B, also hjf
act of firing a shot
frustrated homicide.'
1 C~

. ,. a check and cashed it with the bank. The

vias a necessary means for c o d %
..
A composite or special crime is one where the Revised P e n d
Code prescribes one penalty for two o r more crimes.
Example: Robbery with homicide or rape with, h d $ i d e .
qualified by treachery. ..
. , ,
IV.
Is the act of taking 13 sow8 at the same time and.-h,'the-
. .

same place, although 8 cows. belonging to one owner and,,the.

other 5 to another owner, susceptible of division into.different
. Uninhabited place as an aggravating circumstance is present, and separate offenses; in other woxds, is the number of cows
because tho crime having beed committed at sea it was difficult stolen or the number of the owner or m y other factor the b&b
---
for the
..~ victim
. to receive andhelp and it was easy for the assail- f o r determining cases of theft? State the rea-.
ants t o escape sons for your answer. 7,
The crime by a band,'because to con- NO. The
/ / '-I

malefactors should have but one indivisible criminal&t,

stitute a band
,.. time and in the sake. . r p lgq
,Y*,.s*.~

kcted' together offense, Tn the problem, although 8 cows pertaked to one owner and the ,other, 5 &&..:
part in the 'killing Of the .,* * ...
;:$here are {lnly to another ownes (People vs. Tumlos, 67 'Phil. 32Oj.z . ' ,'i-.i.ii
1 866
867
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminnl Law
' . n e r e is only one crime of qualified theft of 13 COW, because
&-the taking of them the offender had only one criminal resolu-
tion or t h a t he acted under one criminal impulse. He had only
one criminal intent.
. ., V.
Does the act of contecting the services of 286 laborers,
paid; the act of paying their partial
pay or non-payment of the ' @ariees
ngle act or several independent 'acts
the laborers unpaid file independent
for the respective amount each ,hss
. ,
Reason out your answer.
d prior to the effectivity of Repubkc
known as the Minimum Wage Law, which wa?.
April 6, 1961, the answer is in .the affirmative. '.
of appellant in contracting the services of' the '286':
of whom .were not fully paid, the act of pa Yk
wages and the act of non-payment of the salaries
Ute independent acts of decep+&n.
ontract with appellant and if one
laborer was not paid the amount due him on the date agteed
upon, then such laborer could file the. corresponding actio? .to
right the wrong done to him. I n fact, there are 'as many .estafas
& ' t h e r e a r e offended parties (People vs. Nagampo, 52 O.G.
6625).
But if the act was committed after the effectivity of Re-
. r
868
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Crjminal Law
1 .cAUCION or bond t o keep the peace a s additional penalty be
4 *
imposed upon a person found guilty of having committed any
other crime defined and punished in thla Revised Penal, Code?
State the reasons fui/y& answer.
No. No,&y shall be punishable by any penalty not.pre-
scribed b A a w prior t o i t s commission (Art. 21, R.P.C.).
Since the Revised Penal Code does not expressly' prescribe
the additional penalty of bond t o keep the peace for any other
crime defined and punished therein, it cannot be imposed if'the
crime committed is neither grave threats (Art. 282) nor .light
threats (Art. 28.1).
'
WI.
A, an accessory after the fact in a crime of mnrder,for
assisting in the escape of B, the principal, was prosec,uw,
the Court of First Instance of Manila together with said priii. ~
cipal, the information charging them with the commission of
riaid offense in their respective participation. Before hearing, ':
k,died and the case as to him was dismissed. Under these etr;. '.
cumstances, can A-nvicted alter the hearing' of the m e & '
crime for having assisted in the escape' of the :,
State the reasons for your answer.
If the prosecution proved beyond doubt the commission of
the crime of murder by B, A can be convicted as accessom b - )
the 'conimission of the crime, for having assisted in t h
of the principai.
It is not necessary to convict a person, charged as
' that the principal be tried and..convicted first. While
iish text of Art. 19 of the Revised Penal Code seems to req
it, the Spanish text of that article does not require that
principal be found guilty before the accessory could be held i'
In case of confIict between the Engiish text and Spanish
the latter must prevail.
VIII.
Withuut any previous request or understanding
owner of a large tract of land in Quezon City where th
had a. little shack, and without any right whatsoever,"
869,
I 1 . :,,..,. ~,.
,.

/
CHIM1NP.L LAW REVIEWER
Bar E m u h t i o n s iii Criminal Law 0'

mitted 6y means of fire, it is absorbed in the crime of-'murder.'

of fand,carrSng committed by that means.
to build
X.
h i ~ ofw1961 A was convicted by final"se
sentences Qf 2 crimes of robbery, but before beginning to
such sentences he disappeared. In June, 1963, while .at
he committed another crime of robberp with'violen
and intimidation of persons defined i n ' Article 294;: p a d 4 , o f -
the Revised Penal Code and punished with prision 'mayor'hiih
maximum period to reelusih temporal in its medium ,p&
If you were the judge and should find the accused.'&@.
the offense charged, what penalties would you impose. upon .&
taking into account all the above mentioned circumstanc&l &$
i, plain briefly the reasons for the penalty or penalties you would
impose vpou the accuse&
.. '
, On the supposition that A was convicted on the same day
or about the same time of the two crimes of robbery committed ,
,in 1961, I submit that, upon his comiction o f robbery with
violence against and intimidation of persons'in 1963, he is not
.. .
,, ' . a habitual delinquent. The first two convictions a r e considered
, . , ,
as one. H e n c + m & d i t W + e e d t y ~ should be imposed on him.
But if A committed the second crime of robbery a f t e r ' h i s
conviction of the f k s t robbery, then he is a habitual delinquent
upon his conviction of the third robbery. He shall suffer an
in any way intimidate him. additional penalty of prision correctional in its medium and maxi-
.... .
mum periods.
Ix. There is quasi-recidivism in this case, because A, having
: Three imalefactors went to the house of Victoria where the7 been convicted by final judgment, committed a new felony, be-
found 'her sleeping. As their purpose in going to that place W a s fore beginning t o serve his sentence.
to kill her, they The penalties to be imposed upon A are, as follows: ( 1 ) re-
Victoria died of clusion temporal in its medium period; and (2) pision correc-
being the means cional in its medium and maximum periods, for being a habitual .
delinquent.
A being,, a quasi-recidivist, the penalty for the new felohy;" . ,...

shaIl be i r y m a x i m u m period. The medium period

871
810
 i

.~
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW .,.
I’ CRIMINAL ‘ U W REVIEWER
Bar ExExarninatians in Crilninal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Lnw

.of reclusion temporal is the maximum of the three periods of SEF’TEMBER 20, 1964
,.
the penalty prescribed. I. (a) hi what cases may the Provisions of the Revised P&
,

The additional penalty should not b e imposed in the maximum 1

C d e be enforced outside the! jurisdiction of the. PN-
period, because although in the case of People vs. De Jesus, it i ippines?
mas heId that modifying circumstances should be considkred in .’

ae,imposition of the additional penalty, I submit that that ruling .- (b) Distinguhkmotive from intent, and give an example
-should not apply when a special aggravating circumstance, like of each.
of the crime. per se” from ‘‘Mala prohibita”, $&
( e ) Distinguish “D’&
penalty, because he is
, ’ ! give an example of each. ...
i (a) Except as provided-in the treaties and laws of preferen-
., ,
tial application, the provisions of the Revised P e n d Code
be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, inclu$ng
. i l

..,..
1 ‘ ,
.. its.atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but &o
outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: ,. ., ,
j’

<r’
. Ii ~

I.. Should commit an 9ffense while on a Philippine ship or

i I airship;
i. 1
I . .2. Sliould forge o r cpunterfeit any coin or currency note
,.. ., , ‘ . of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities .issued
,
I . .

.. .
.A * ,
, .. by the Government of the Philippine Islands. .* ,.,
,. 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introd&,,. ; .
I , I

. .. . . -
I .

_ .
~

.,
Gon into these Islands of the obligations and securiti&, men- 1
. , ., . , ,
: ,
-,
. ..
I
,. ,
. ~

. .
.. *, ”
,,
.this Code.

..
. ?,.!. , . means to effeek such result.
I ...
tremp. moral perversion may lead a man to’,co
without a real motive but just f o r t h e tiirke . o f i

372 873
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER i

.One may he convicted of a

pears to he good or bad or
commit treason /
2. 'Those convicted of trea n, conspiracy or proposal to

3.. Those convicted of misprision of

A-good motive does not sedition or espionage.
:General intent is an essential condition of voluntariness in 4. Those convicted of p i r z y .
intentional felonies. Specific intent is an element of certain 5 . Those who a r e habitual delinquents;
felonies. /
E. Those who shall have-escaped from confinement or
" Example of motive:-The fact that the accused had beers sentence.
losing in his business operations and his stock of merchandise 7. Those who violated the t e a of condition
i s heavily insured indicates the motive to commit arson. ed to them by t h e Chie€ Executive.'

/
Example of intent:-A shot B tq kill the latter. A had , , . 8. Those wh se m a m u m term of impriso
~ t h e ' i n t e n tto kill. exceed one year
,,
' , (e) There is a, distinction between acts which are hakt ;' 9. Those ho, upon the approval of the
8 ~ , o wrongful r from their nature, and those that we mukt 9ro- . . !sentenced. by inal judgment.
hi@ita,or wrong merely because they are prohibited by statute; :' 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro 0
Crimes w ~ a hin SE are those so serious in their effects o n " ' sion.
society = ' t o call for the almost unanimous condemnation of itd ',' .' (b) The purpose of the Indeterminate S
mchbers; while crimes makt prohibita are -violations of mere, to uplift and redeem valuable human niateri
@ea of convenience designed to secure a more orderly regols- unnecessary and excessive deprivation of pers
tion of the affairs of society. economic usefulness.
(1) I n acts mla'in se, the intent governs; but in those A b The 1ndet.erminate Seiitence Law aims to individualke: t h e
p@ibita, .. the only inquiry is, has the law been violated. administration of our .criminal law.
,'
, d , , ' . ( 2 ) The term naah in se refers generally to felonies defined
% ,

he term mala p6ohi- IJL (a) 6 n e invoke lack of edwation w, ..a. '
.. .&d pemlized by the s h c e in ,his favor if h e dow.not'know
b. i.b, .refers~ generally write but a p p w s t o be exeeption'dy, $
'". Example of idtelligent to the extent t h a t he 'coul
, I full Consequence of his' acts?
(b) An engineer for and in behalf of the
': where h e is officially assignel& signs
II. (a) Tb what crimes is the Indeterminate Sentence Law provincial officials, a contract with a
not applicable? truction company for the construction of a propin- '
(b) What is the purpose of the Indeterminate'Sentence cial road. He also approved part of the, co&C'
Law? tion work €or payment. Within a period of
year after the termination of the eontract. ahd
(a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applfceable t o work, he recommended his 8on and he was accept@ .i
the. following: as a ,foreman in the construction company., Fs'
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death pen- there an offense committed by the engineer? 'Why?..
alty .or. life imprisonment.
875
874
 /’
, ,
..
of sufficieu8 in..
the alternative
so densely ig-’
. ~norant
~ ~ and
* . of such low intelligence that he does- not realize the
full consequences of a criminal act, may still be entitled to this
%tigating circumstance. On the other hand, another unable t0
write because of lack of educational facilities or opportunities,
h y ,yet be highly or exceptionally intelligent and mentally alert
that he easily realizes the full significance of his acts, in which
ease he may not invoke this mitigating circumstance in his favor.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law;.
any public officer to accept or have any memher
employment in a private enterprise whicb.has.
with him during the pendency’ there&
its termination. The’engineer is &.-
where he is officially assigned: .,’
of a defendant in a criminal
action to make indemnification. devolve u p ? his
heirs? Explain.
(b) A8 security for a P10,OOO.OO loan which “X* re-
ceived from “Y”, “X” executed a deed of chattel
mortgage on his house in favor. of. “Y”, in which
deed “X” claimed that t h e house w& free from
all liens and encumbrances. The r e g i s t m , how-
ever, refused to register the deed because the house
.., . (10) Grave coercions; (11) Light coercions; (12) Other similar-,^
i
CRIMINAL LAW REVEWER . ,., <.
Bar Emuhadom in CSdnnl Law ..
”,
>
., ,
“X” is liable ?or other forms of swindling, under Ar&
316, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Coqe, .whi~jpqali+$&$i
any person who, knowing that real property is encumbered, ,&tlJ&
dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not record&
It is assumed that the encumbrance is L: real estate’mortgage;:.
because the property encumbered was a house. Having c1aimed.G”
the deed that the house was free from all liens and encumbranceip.
although he knew that the house had been previously encumbered,.
“X” violated the provision of the Penal Code referred to. T h e -
term “shall dispose” includes the act of encumbering.
Y. (a) What are the crimes against personal liberty and
security?
cashier in a governmen( office received a sum
of depositing same, he mLmppro-
priated it and later falsified the bank’s reconciliation
statements. Is there a complex crime of estata thru
falsification? In the negative, what crimes, if any,
are committed?
(a) The crimes against personal liberty a r e : (1) Kidnapping
and serious illegal detention; (2) Slight illegal detention; (3) Un-
Iatvful arrest; ( 4 ) Kidnapping and failure to return a minor;
( 5 ) Inducing a minor to abandon his home; (6) Slavery; (7)
Exploitation of child labor; (8) Services rendered under compul-
sion in payment of debts.
The crimes against security are: (1) Abandonment of per-
sons in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim; (2) Aban-
’
doning a minor; ( 3 ) Abandonment of minor by person entrusted,
with his, custody; indifference of parents; (4) Exploitation’ of ,,
minors; ( 5 ) ther forms of trespass; , ’
(.7)Grave threats; (8) Light threats; ( 9 ) Other light threats; ,~
coercions - (Compulsory purchase, of merchandise and payment,,.1:
. of wages by means of tokens) ; (13) Formation, maintenance and , ”
prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violenceior:?
hhreats; (14) Discovering secrets through seizure of correspon$-;$
ence; (15) Revealing secrets with abuse of office; and .(16) R,&
vealing of industrial secrets. 1 .,::,.;,.&
.,‘_,I
877

crime of estafa thru ’ fa1dfiCa-
I’.(b) There
document. However,, i n :
by “A” is not a Complex
through falsification, because the fabificatfon
,a& of
bank’s reconciliation statements was not a necessary means
it the est& or malversation. Those documents Were
to c:oneeal the other crime. “A” committed two Crimes,
(1) malversation of public funds, because a8 a cashier.
vernment office A was an accountable. public. Officer
received by him in his officlal CapaditY,WaS
) falsification of commercial documents, the,
tatements being commercial documents. ’
es the crime of arbitrary detention Cox’-
..
m y classes of arbitrary detention are
man, through fraud and while h i s
sisting, contracted a ,second marrmge.
the marriage “L” learned about the
forthwith left, “A’. She refus&
&&A,,. U.L f s7 9
arges of bigamy w i n s t
, .
n r d g h b q however, fjed a complaint against “A’’ for
bigamy. the Fiscal prosecute “A” on the bF%
t h e complaint filed by “L’s’’ ‘neighbors? .. .
’” (a) Arbitrary detention is a crime commitkd by public’.offi-
eem or employees, which consists in detaining ‘a person..+thout
legal grounds,, or delaying the delivery of the person detained for
5ome ,legal ground to the proper judicial authorities with1.n the
,be,spwifi&by law, or unduly delaying the release Of a PrlsOner
D r detentio11 prisoner.
I
CR3MINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exminations in Criminal Law
VII. “A” the accused, a driver in an army motor pool, among
his duties, was assigned to drive home the employees, one
of whom is “B”, the complainant woman. On t h e way
about 1O:OO p.m. he stopped the weapon 'carrier. informing
the woman that it was out of gas. She got off ~ t h e , h u c k
and he followd. Immediately, h e held and hugged her
to h‘ breast. A struggle ensued. From his efforts,.to
&h her breast, her dress from the collar to the waist
. line on the front p a r t was tom. A t any rate, she
’ , to get free and moved away. The accused desist
foUowing her. Nay the defense of frustrated act,.,of
’ -
viohmess prosper? Why?
No. There is no frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness; ’’
because if the participation of the accused amounts t o
all the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily pr
. . consequence thereof. There ic only consummated cri
y’; lascivionsness.
vm. Smtos was indebted to Perez f o r Pi0,OOO.O
secure the necessaw cash, Santos drew up’a.’ch&k!
’ , ~p10,~00.00in fa-pera against the P.N.B.’%t
t i m e w ~ 3 u pthe check, Santos knew that h e ~ h a d
. ..Of. ’funds deposited it the P.N.B. and that he would
any time be able to deposit any money to
value of the check. When the check got di
sued Santos for estafa. Decide the case.
Santos is not liable for estafa. Postdating or
without fcnds in the bank is estafa only when the
in payment of an obligation contracted at the tim
. and delivery thereof. If the check is issued a n d . deli
payment of pre-existing ,obligation, there is only civil,
criminal, liability.
..lll(r
$E
,~~ ;
M. (a) What offenses constitute “impossible crimes”?. ’ ,d@
,:,w4 ,
(b) Are all impossible crimes prescribed and. punish&$&&
the Revised Penal Code?
I , . .<..I,
(e) “X” m e mid ht, broke t h e .window of a ’ g 9 i
and d g e t the gun that w& on di&Ey”
679
 1 1
Unless the act performed by the offender would
0.
the picketed firm and refused &I allow Its driver to p?O&ed
peaceflully, on his way and they voiced the' threat that .if
the driver proceeded on his way, he wouid he hdrt, not-
withstanding the fact that the driver told them that the
I truck did not belong to the company. A s a consequence of
the threat, the truck remained' in the premises for two
~ . , . dsys at t h e end of which an injunction was issued by t h e
''.
court agG& the picketeers. What is the criminal liahil-
ity of the picketers? . .
The picketeers are liable for coercion. The acts of the pick-
eteers in stopping the truck and refusing to allow its driver to pro-
ceed peacefully on his way by means of threats are clearly consti-
tutive of the crime of coercion (People
63 O.G. 6232).
ClWdINAL LAW R?AVIXWER
Anti-Graft and Cormpt Pmuicc~Law '
. ,
1MPQR.TANT PROVISIONS 'OF THE
GRAFT &XD CORRUPT PRACTICES:?;
'\
(Approved, August 17, 1960)'' " ::
The Anti-Grdt and Corrupt Pmctkes Law' does. not
provisions ;of the Code on bribery.
The corrupt practices of any public
See.' 3 of the Anti-Graft Law a r e in &iti
of public officers already penaIized by existin
Rep. Act No. 3019).
Corrupt practices of public officers.
' The following are corrupt practices of any public of€i
ficer t o perform an act constituting a violation of rules and^.
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority o r an of-.
fense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allow;
ing. himself t o be persuaded, induced, or influenced to 'commit
such violation or offense.
(h) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percenhge or benefit, for himself or for any other
person, in connection with any contract or transaction between
the Government and any other party, wherein the public officer
i n his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
( e ) Directly or ,indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary o r material benefit, f o r himself or ,for
another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or
he19
this Act. L
obtain, an Government permit o r license, in consideration for the
given r to egivGn,.wthout prejudice to Section thirteen
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family
,1
of
i ,
employment in .a private enterprise which has pending:,offfcia!?
i81
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIE\VER
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law Anti-Graft and Compt PraSOic~ Law

(j) Knowingly approving o r granting a n y license, permit, '?

business with. him during the pendency thereof or within one privilege or henefit i n favor of m y person not qualified for86r ' .
year a f t e r its termination. not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage,
(e) Causing any undue injury to any part35 including the o r of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qua-

P
Government, or giving any private party an$' unwarranted bene- lified or entitled.
fits, advantage or preference in the disch ge of his official ad- (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character,
ministrative
, , .".,kJ. ./+; ' or judicial functions thro gh manifest partiality,. acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position
' +dent bad faith or gross inexcusable egligence. This provision to unauthorized pexcoq,or- releasing such information i n advance
,' &all~,applyt o officers and employe of offices or government of its yt-ase date.
CSrporations charged with the gra t of licenses or permits or T G person giving the gift, present, share, percentage,~or
. ~ d&er concess,ions. ,;
benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) . a n d ( c ) ; or ,offering>,
:or. giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in
subparagraph (d) ; or urging the divulging or untimely'release ,.;%
, of the confidential information referred to in suhparagraph. (k):,.of.;l..
~

! this section shall, together with the offending public officer>b2.'2 "
punish under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently.of'~.
temporarily disqualified in the: discretion of t h e Court, from.:.
,, , '?
transacting business in any form with the Government. ,
~

Entering, on
';,ortransaction
. .,.'.
(a) It shall be unlauful for any person having family or.
personal relation with any pu8lic official to capitalize o r exploi
take advantage of such family or close personal relation b

having any. interest.

(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, f o r pirsoria1
,gi-ain, o r having a ma'terial interest in any transaction o r 'act
requiring the approval of a hoard, panel or group of which he is
a.m&her;, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even
if he votes against the same or does not participate i n the action
. ..
. ,
el.or..group to which they belong.
" :... .,
h
or indirectly equesting o r receiving any present, gif
er' pecuniary a va from any other person
business, transaction, applkation, request or contrac
government; in which such public official has to i
mily relation shall include the spouse or relatives b y
or affinity in the third civil de'gree. The word "close
tion" shall include close personal friendship, social
connections, and professional employment all gi
macy which agsures free access to such public
(b) It shall he unlawful for any perrion knowin
or cause any public official to commit any of the o
in Section 3 hereof. /.
,,

, ,, , '?,~,. 88
i ~,,.
 I

CRIMINAL LAW WXIEWER

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practica Law CRIMINAL LAW REYLEWEX
. , . Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law
.' .,.,
, ~ , , 2

Prohibition on relatives of the President, Vice-President, Pres- approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by
~ , ,,,
, ident, of the Senate or the Speaker. him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain :su,d
1 be unlawful for the spouse o r for any,?elative, by interest.
ty or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the
f ' the Philippines, the Vice-president of the Philip-
:esident of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House Penalties for violations.
reseniatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly; in any
Any public officer or private person co
s, transaction, contract o r application' with the Govern-
... , . unlawful a.cts or omissions enumerated in S
Sec. 5 , Rep. Act No. 3019). , . fihis Act shall be punished with impris
one year nor more. than ten years,
. . public office, and confiscation or forfe
his section shall not apply to - . ,
erninent of any prohibited interest a n
person who, prior to the assumption bf office of any nifestly out 'of proportion to his sala
officials' to whom he is related, has'been already (Sec. 9, Rep. Act No. 3019).
with the Government along the same line of. business, nor
transaction, contract or application already. existing or Comt. of First Instance h8s jurisdictims.
e time 0.f such assumption of public office;
n,y.appIication filed by him the apprbval o$ which is
. Until otherwise provided by 1
onary on the part of the official 06 officials concerned Act shall be within !he original jurisdictiotl of the proper'
First Instance (See. 10, Rep. Act No. 3049). . , .
s upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or

'.
gulations issued pursuant to law;
Prescription of offenses.
..,
et lawfully performed i n an 'official oapacm or ....,.- ~ ,

of a profession. , . All 'bffenses punishable under this Act shall prescr1Fe.- in'
,
, ~, .:
' .ten years (Sec. 11, Rep. Act No. 3019). . . ,
. ,.
ition on Members of Congress: ' . ,
Exception to the applkation of the Anti-Graft and Oormpt
unlawful hereafter f o r any Member of the Conga% Flractices Law.
, ,
ing the i;erm f o r which he bas been elected, to acquire or re-
nal pecuniary interest in any specific husineM en-
," .
Unsolicited gifts or presents of s m a ~o r insignificant $due'
:;,
:~",. t b p r i s e which will be directly and particularly fa-qored or,benefited offered or given as a mere a r d i m q taken of gratitude or friendship
aocording to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the
1 by any law or resolution authore'd by him previoilsly approved or
provisions of .this -Act (Sec. 14, Rep. Act No. 3019).
adopted by.the Congress during the same term.
The ,provision of this section shall apply to any other public
officer who recommended the initiation i n Congress of the en-
actment or adoption of a n y law or resolution, and acquires or re-
'ceives any such interest during his incumbency.
:.i. It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress
. '
'I ,:w other public officer, who, having such intefest prior to the
.~ 884
,. 885
 CKIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
CRIM<NAL LAW REVIEWER. Bar Examinations in CrirninaJ Law
"Bar !Eiaidi&tions. in^ Crimina1 Law

..., .., .~.. . .."

I ~ . . . (c) D w a s sentenced by final judgment to serve a n imprison-
:\. 1 , . 'OCTOBER 3, 1965 ment of six ( 6 ) years and one (1) day, and to,'@demnifY
,
,
.... . . .,, . ,
..... . . . ( ,,. ...
.. ... the offended party in the sum of P250.'For failure to pay the
I. said amount of indemn:ty, how long wilI D be confin$
(,-,'-,; , -
Defihe the following: jail by virtue of said sentence? w h y ? ,. . , . ..,
,
1. Criminal Law ' .
. , ,
(a) As a rule, relationship is mitigating. in crimes .against .;
. >
. ~.
property, except in theft, estafa or malicious mischief. as(prc- '1
. - ., vided in Art. 332.
1 ,
. j :
Under Art. 332 of the Revised
..
only civil, liability shall reslilt from the
anch or d i v k o n ' o f law +hi& de-'
of theft, swindling, or .malicious ,mischief ' cr)
natui.e, and provides f o r their-
. . . . ., . . mutually by spouses, ar,cendants and. descend
.~ . I
affinity in the same line; brothers and sister
e time of his"trial.for one crime, and sisters-in-law, if living ,together.
.. shall have been previously convicted by final judgment, of
Thus, re1ationshlp"is ' mitigating in th
r crime embraced in the same title. of the .Revised
(Arts. 29,4-302), usurpation, (Art. 312),
de. (Art.14, par. 9,. R.P.C.1. ,.. , .. . ,.., '. . . (Art. 314),; and arson (Arts. 321-322; 326-3
.is quasiLrecidivism when. a perso<: bqm@i$$ed,'a felony
having been convicted ,by fical judgment, :kefo,??e,be@F:
. ' It is agkravating in crimes,

,ning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same. He orfended party is a relitive 'of
or .when the offender and the
shall be punished by the maximum I period, of. pen(llty at?; same 1.evel;as killing a brother, a half
cribeh by law for the n e v felony. (Art. 160, -R.P.G:) ,,

r s o n shall be deemed to be. habitual delinquent,,,if ;with-.
: ' in i~ period of ten (10) years from the date of his reiease
i... or-last conviction. of the crimes of. serious or less ,serious
injuries, robo, hwrto, estafa, or falsification, .Ee.
.guilty of any of said 6rimes a , t h i r d , t i m e w o f t e n e r .
,last par., as.amended. by Republic - A c t "No. 12).
ex penalty is one composed of three distinct penalties,.
foxming a period; the lighfestdf them',shall:be,kh&
the next the medium, and the rrost severe the
~
ther.
(b) Thk following ' are' the four ' d
nesty and pardon :
(1j Pardon includes any crime and ia exercised ind
is
by the President; amnesty is a blarket pardon gr
classes of persnns o r communities, who may be
political offenses ;
(2) Pardon is exercised when the person'is already, c
4 victed; amnesty may be exercised even before triakrdr
vestigation is had;

maximum period. (Art. 77, R.P.C.)

(3) Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from
11. , the consequences of 'an offense of which he
(a) 'When is the alternative circumstance of relationship miti- that is, it abolishes o r forgives the punishment, an
g, a!nd when is it aggravating? Explain. reason it does "not work the restoration of.' the
hold public office or the right of su
four (4) distinctions between amnesty and pardon.
887
866

r'
CRIMlNAL LAW REYIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
!i
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon." On the
":I band, amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts
oblivion the orfenses itself; it so ,overlooks and obliterates
the orwnse wlth which the ofrender is charged that he stands
betore the law precisely as though he committed no offense.
b (4) Pardon, being a private act of the President, must
i , , b e pleaaed and proved by the person pardoned; amnesty,
being by proclamation of the Ghier bxwutive with the coil-
. . currence of Gongress, is a public act of wnich the courts
%,,
, , Could take judicial notice.
. . . (e) Even if I) failed to pay the amount of indemnity, he will
be cominea in jail t o r six (ti) years and one (I) clay oiiry. 'Yher? ,
&,no suusiaiary Imprisonment. buosmary lmprisorunmt is p ~ o '-
per only waen tne penalty imposea is eltner (1) prksron oorrec-' , '
c i p d , (2) arresm nwgor, (3) arresco menor, or (4) tine only,<.,, ..
'* "__ gence, LS the penalty imposea by the court is not one or'them,
suusictlary peirar-cy cannor; be imposed. Wnen a convict'is sen-,
tenced to serve an imprisonment of SIX ( 6 ) years and one' ('ij
day, the penalty imposed is prkszon mayor.
..
/
111.
(a) A, mho was duly licensed to possess and a m y a fire-arm,
in his hurry to cast h.s vote, forgot tnat when. he ,en-
tered hls pouing piace he had nls g& turned ,at nis w&&
Prosecuted for tne violat.on of tne provmon of tlip Ke-'
vised &:leetion Code prohibiting. the carrying of fqearm:
inside pollAngplaces A eontends'that his act was without
-1 .,
1 ',
'
any criminal intent, that he did not use his gun .to inti..'
midate any one, or violate .any provision of 'the election'
code, and, therefore, he should be absolved of the charge
'. f.iled against him.
/ Xb)
Is A's contention meritorious? Give reasons for your
answer.
. , Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes libel com-
' ' mitted by 'means of writing, printing, lithography, en-
. .. .graving, radio, phonogiraph, painting, theatrical exhibition,
' ' " ' 'cxematographic exhibition, or any similar .means.
888
I
CRIMINAL LAW REVTEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
0,'while delivering a speech dnring a p ~ b & c , , @ ~ Y,?$I
~,~
amplifier, uttered defamatory ' w o r d $ ; ; i n s l
upon the laiter the commisslon'of 1
&ve offiinse.
What crime o r crimes, if any, may 0 be h e d l i a b l e '
Why?
(a) It is respecUully submitted that A's contention is with.
out merit. The law which A violated is a special law and the f a d
that his act was without any criminal intent is immaterial. It ma3
be conceded that A did not intend to intimidate any elector or ti
violate the law in any other way, but when he entered the poll
gun tucked at his waist, he committed..it wfl
law does not reqnire f o r its violation tlht t$
offender has the intention to intimidate the voters, or td 'inter
'* 1 fei-e otherwise with the election. In acts mala proMbitu, the onl:
. . ij inailiry is. has the law been violated? In this case, A violated tk
Election Code.
I
.
I, (b) The word "radio", as used hi Art. 355, should be con
sidered in relation t o the terms With which it i s associated -
I rvriting, painting, engraving, phonograph, etc. - all of Wlikl
have a common characteristics, namely, their permanent nat?
' 1
j as a means o€ publication, and this explains the graver penal@ fa
! libel than that prescribed for oral defamation. In ' short,' th
present case constitutes the crime of oral defamation punish,@
in Art. 358 of the Revlsed Penal Code (People vs. Santiago; G)?
NO. L-17663, May 30, 1962).
,
' .i
IV .
(a) W, an unmarried woman, killed her infant child wh0-w
, only two (2) weeks old far the purpose of concealing, he
dishonor. For what crime or crimes may W be held liable
Why?
Supposing, in the foregoing problem, W was wistd
the'commission of the act directly by her broth
~ ~ h e d i a b i l i oft yX, if any? Why? ,. '.
,
(b) F, who was then living in the same house With;
G, with intent of gain and without the h,oNI@,
889
 LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
gar Examinations in Criminal Law
was able to run away and hide in a room. After shooting
B, A ran away. I3 suffered a wound that was treated and
healed in 15 days.
What crime was committed by A? Reason out your
#
’
answer.
#refi
sum a t stapes.
,,!?h&&pted, 6;
d L r a t e d , and
-
d e l o n y is consummated when all the elements necessary f o r
its execution and accomplishment are present. i,

It is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of

execution which would produce the felony ‘aa consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes in-
dependent of the will of the perpetrator.
There is an attempt when the offender commences the corn;
mission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not, perfo’orin
all the acts of execution which should produce the felony,by rea$on
of some cause or accident other than hie own spontaneous ‘d4
sistance (Art. 6, R.P.C.). . .
In consnmmated felony, the offender performed all the actsof
execution and produced the felony. I n frustrated felony, while
the offender performed all the acts of execution and reached tlie
objective phase of the act, he did not produce the felony. In
attempted felo!ly, the offender did not perform all the acts of,ex$
cntion, as he merely commenced the commission of’ the felony ~:: ~

directly by overt acts. The offender did not pa

phase of the act.
(b) A committed the crime of attempted m
by evident premeditation. The fact that 73 was
which A rnust have seen, must have produced i n
that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital p
In other words, A knew that he had not ‘actually perform
the acts of .execution necessary t o kill his victi
V.
EX-, circumstances, it cannot he said that the subjecti
three stages of execution of a felony? acts of execution had been completed. And as it does
t.hi A continued in the pursuit, and as a matter o f f
away afterwards, a reasonable doubt exists that A h a
believed that he committed all the acts o f execution’

I 891
890
 ..
,~.,
,v..::;,, I {,

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CklhllNAL LAW REVIEtVER

,. ..
.<,~.
.. Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal Law , - I

a e subjective phase of said acts. This doubt must be resolved ( c ) yes, when no two of the ci-imes cornmitted a r e embm&''s;;
id the same title of the Revised Penal Code. ,. ..!
, ~ ..I' '
' . &:favor of .A.
Therefore, A is not guilty of frustrated murder, 6ut only of
~

Ihtl.atiO%: -x ;L:;.,.
was convicted of falsification in 1920&(f
.,,. 3..
<.. ,~.., .::, .
served sentence in the mme year. Then, he committed:&&f& .,*.. '..~. ,
attempted murder, because he did not perform all the acts of Was convicted thereof, and served sentence therefor in 1925.~::"His ,'
execution, a@tual,and subjective, in order that the purpose 2nd kist crime was physical injuries wmmitted in 1930. Falsifica-'
he had to kill his victim might be carried out tion is a crime against public interest; esblfa, against phperty;, ii
Pio, G.R. No. L-5848, April 30, 1954). , '
and physical injuries, against persons. While X is a habitual ~

VI. . . delinquent, he is not B recidivist.

what is a complex crime, Giie an .example. .,, ,

VI1 .
,. /.

hen does oonspracy in the commission of a crime exist? . . * :

C and D conspired to rob a Chinese store'ahd: to'
Can a convict be a habitual delinquent without being a dnap its owner for ransom. After robbing the store;they
recidivjst? Illustrate your answer. in fact brought away the Chinese owner m nnevinndv
~ . r-
- .
I
(a) There is a complex clime when a single act constitutes agreed and kept him in an isolated place, leaving A'.+$
~~

'$
o r more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is
&essai.y, , means for committing the other. (Art. 48, R.P.C., as
"%en,ded
:i by Act NO. 4000)
In complex crimes, although two or more crimes are actually
committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes Of the la%'
BS'Well as jn the conscience of the offender. The offender has pnb
one criminal intent. Even in the case where a n offense 1s a
necessary means for committing the other, the evil intent of the
offender is only one (People vs. Hernandez, et al., 62 0.G: 5506).
Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of 9
mmolex
.-.
.I crime, and that penalty is that for the most serious crime
to be applied in its maximum period.
-
Example: Guillen, by a single act of throwing a hi(3hly ex-
plosive hand grenade at President Roxas in a public meeting re-
sulting in the death of Simeon Varela, comgitted several grave
felonies, namely: (1) murder, of which Simeon Varela was the
victim; (2) multiple attempted murder, of which President R o s s
and four others were the injured parties, but having been produced
B to guard him. The day following the robbery'the China-
man kept on sh~utingand, fearing Lhat his. shouts would
attract attention that would lead to .&he!r detectiofq A &id
B lulled the Chinaman.
Based on the foregoing facts A, 5 C and D , were ,~
all
charged with having committed the crime of robbery with
homicide.
C and D set up the defense that they should only be
charged with the simple crime of [robbery because: ,(1)
they had not conspired to kiu the'chinaman; (2) they had
not participated in killing him since they were not present
in the place where, and during the time when, he wa8
killed; (3) the IdU'ng of the victim was only an incfdent
to silence him; arid (4) the killing did not take place by
reason or on tbe occasion o f t h e -rohhnrv.
----,-
Decide the case, declaring the criminal liability, if my,
of each of the accused. Exnlain.
least two (2) distinctions between robbery &

'
bv a single act, they for1n.a complex crime (People VS. Guillen,
& Phil. 907). , (a) It is submitted that A, B, C, and D are liable,for
(b) Conspiracy in the commission of a crime exists when
, hvo or ,mote persons come to an agreement concerning the com-
ICfdnaPPing with a demand for ransom and homicide, the latter
mission of a felony and decide to commit it (Art. 8, R.P.C.). a s a separate offense. The robbery and the kidnapping, although

892 893
 CRIMlNAt LAW REVIEWm CRIMINAL .LAW RCVIENER:
Bar Examinations in Crimjnal L a w . Bar Exaninations in. Criminal. ~ a o i
' ., -/'What crime, or crimes, if any, did A commit? , Reason
from one criminal resolution. The
to commit the two criminal acts on the .' .out y o w answer. .
.- .~ ., ~.. ,.
,., .
___
. I
. ..*
'
, I

same occasion, the robbery may be considered absorbed i n the (b) M, a son of N; committed the crime o f murder in-'tK&pre; ~.
crime of kidnapping. The homicide was committed with a dif- .. , sence of the latter.. N, 1~110i s the Chief of Police anqabus-
ferent criminal intent. '-.' ing his .office a s such, allowed his son M to escape to an-

Therefore, A, B, C, and D are liable for kidnapping wYth.a other municipality.

demand for ransom punishable by death. A and R are also liable ,/' Is N. an accessory to M?. Give reasons. ,
iO,rJhomicide. C and D are not liable therefor,.because they did What. will be t h e .penalty o f N i n case M will ,.. b e faun$.:
not take part therein directly or indirectly, and neither did they . ,, . guilty
, 'of -murder. Give reasons.
. . ., , . ,,. .
induce or cooperate in the commiss:on thereof. Not being pre-
imt =,hen
~ I y y "__+.he
_.__..__
victim
. was killed and not being i n conspiracy with
~

.A and B, (; and D are not liable for homicide.

'(a)' A,did not commit any crime, because not 'being a peace '..
' i , . charged with the duty of arresting criminals, or ' a ;public '
offlcer~
o f h e r who accepted money in consideration ,of his not p e r f o h :
(b) The following a r e distinctions between robbery and bri- $g 'his duty, he is cot liable for bribery. He is not liable a . .
private individual for the crime o f infidelity in the cnstody'~of
when the victim did not commit a crime and person under 'arrest, because the latter was not entruited & his
with arrest and prosecution to deprive custody.
it is bribery when the Victim , .. , Note: A is not covered by tho phrase "or m y other pemons
money or gift to avoid ,performing public duties" in Art. 210 of the Revi$ed:iP&& (2:
Code.
arrest and prosecution. The reason is, when, the victim :: . ,
I ,

did not commit any crime, there is nothing that would ib) No, N is not an accessory to M, because although he2
,'
' , have required the public officer to exercise his duty 01' . .
knew that M committed.the crime of murder, he did not assist t h e
function. On the other hand, if the victim 'committed a latter in his escape with abuse of his public function. ;He. only
crime and the public officer accepted bribe: the latter allowed him to escape, which is different from assisting t h e culprit ,
..'
. thereby agreed to refrain from doing somethmg which it to escape. ,,
, .
,~ ...

'.. . was his official duty to do. N is an accessory under Ai%. 19, he is exempt.from :.
2 ) 111 robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or Pro- liability, he being the ascendant of M, the principal,, and,,
, .~': , -
perty by foree or intimidation; in bribery, he park3 with
his money or property in a sense voluntarily (U.S. VS.
F'lores, 19 Phil. 178).
'
by the effects of the crime or assist the off&de<i,??
' t q p r o f i t by them. 'This exemption is expressly provided fo$l;=,"
Art: 20 'of the Revised Penal Code.
~
; ,,..,-. , *, *: I
. . :

VI11 .
. . ..,,
individual, arrested a person while the latter Ix.,. ..
as actually committing the crime of murder, with the .. .
ne of simple seduction.
. intention of bringing him to the police authorities. While '
of 'Marnda who is single and; 17 :y
,!

., _,
I.,
. . 'on the way, in consideration of the sum of W o , A allowed carnal knowledge of .the.1
.:. -is., his, prisoner to escape.
*3ir.**.- in order to assuage .her

.894 %95
. .
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
,..:-.in@, X - m a d e repeated promises to m u r y her. Far f&hre
to keep his promise, E was charged with the crime of sim- .
-,,..deseduction. Will the charge prosper? Why? .
(a) I t is the seduction of a woman, who is single or a
widow of good reputation, over twelve but under eighteen yearn
of age, committed by means of deceit (Art. 338, R.P.C.).
(b) It is respectfully submitted that the charge will not
prosper, because the crime of simple seduction was not COm-
mitted, the element of deceit being absent. A promise of mar-
riage made after the sexual intercourse has taken place, or after
the woman has yielded her body to the man's unchaste desires,
could not have induced the woman to surrender her virtue. It
must appear that the woman was induced to give i n "by means
of.a'promise, and that she surrendered her virtue in reliance upon
it s fulfillment."
>: , ,
X.
(a) When are light felonies punishable, and who may :he held
6, . . liable for their commission?
'
.(b) A fanner surprised a boy stealing some f d t s ,from the
irees at his backyard. To scare the b y the Iarmer fired
I . his gun in the air, The shot scaftered and a' stray pellet
injured the boy who was gathering fruits.
What crime, if any, was committed by the farmer?
*.: " .. ,, (a) l i g h t felonies are punishable only when they have been
.i')
consummated, with the exception of those committed against per-
.'~soimor property ( ~ r t7, . R.P.c.).
, '.., ..
Only principals and accomplices, excluding, accessories, are
criminally liable for light felonies (Art. 16, R.P.C..).
< s e w e r ? If not, why not? If so, of what crime is h e
( E ) ) The farmer committed the crime cf physical injuries
Wru simple imprudence. He did not take the necessary pre-
caution t.o .avoid injury t o person. It is only thru Simple hum-
dence, because the danger was not clearly manifest, and the in-
jury imgending t o he caused was not immediate. The farmer had
, no intention to kill the boy, because he did not fire a t the boy.
His purpose was only to scare him.
896
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEX
Bar Bxsuainations in Criminal Law
OCTOBER 2, 1966
' in
I. What are the three stages in the cornmisston of an offense?
,
Explain each briefly.
The three stages in the commission of a n offense are: (1)
internal acts; !2) preparatory 'acts; and (3) acts of execution.
Internal acts rei'er to the act of conceiving the co&ssion
of a crime. Preparatory acts a r e those which a r e . u n d i e n
to execute the act conceived. It includes proposal and conspiraci
to commit a crime. Acts of execution may result in a n attempted;
n frustrated or a consummated offensc. There i
offense when the offender has only commenced
of a felony directly by overt, acts, but he doe,s '110
the acts 01 exeeutlon which should produce the fel
of Some cause or accident other than his own 'spo
sistance. It is a frustrated offense when the of
all the acts of execution which would produce
' consequence but which, nevertheless, do not' prod
oP causes independent of the will of the perpe
is consummated when all the elements necassary for' its ,aau;.
tion and acc~mplishment are present. .,. 3 , . . ' . , ,
' i
., , ,: ~ 1,
11. ,(a) A was ther diriver of a passenger truck which was in
good condition. While passing a curve at moderate
speed on t h e national highway, one of t h e front%ea
exploded, as a result of which the'truck took'a sharp
tuarn to the right, and fell off an embankment,'riot-
withstanding A's efforts to apply the b&esmid~,Yo.,
veer the vehicle to the left. As a consequence, 'one:
of the p m n g e r s @f the truck was pinned 'to,.d&-th!,I
Is A criminally liable for the death of.the7parr
guilty? Explain you? answer,
(b) A was indebted to B. When the latter tried to col-
lect the indebtedness, A insulted him, strurk'hhwith '
his fiet, and then pu'rsued him. When B w a s cur-
nered by a high pYe of logs, he drew.his bolo' &d-
delivered a blow on the shoubder of A. A tried to
897
 B struck two more blows, causing
far homicide, B pleaded self:
tenable? Reasons for yoW
answer.
,,.,: , , ..
,. (a) A is not criminally liable,'for the redson that the death '
.,!
(a) An accomplice does not enter, into ,a...,$onspi&y '&&:':"
,(
";io,?, I ,

=of the passenger was caused without fault or malice on the p,art the principa1 by direct participation, ' f o r :lie,.merely concurs in, F,:
'.6YAA:
.. Since the truck was in good conditior, that A was driv-, the criminal design of the latter. A pGincipa1 ,.by: cooperation..: I
:,ing at moderate speed, that one of the front tires exploded,
I .Y,,." is usually in conspiracy with the prillcixlii lj$ 'dif&t '$&icipa- ''
'i something which could not have been foresezn, and A exerted
,
tion. The cooperation of the accomplice is',onlyineCessary. The. ,
~, gfforts t o apply the brakes and to Veer the vehicle to the left
cooperation of the principal is 'indinpensable t o ' t h i ,accomplish- ' '
%'avoid
.11. , any injury, he was performing a lawful act with due
care, and he caused an injury by mere accident without fault ment (b)
of the commisaion
Ill the of the
latest case offense.
decided by~., t,he'
~
, Court
. ,
,of"!A.ppeals..
. ,.:i . ,

of causing it. (Art. 12, par. 4, Revised Penal Code).

from criminal liability.
par. 1 of Art. 11 of the R.P.C., anyone who
of his person or rights does. not, 'incur rinY
provided the following eircurnstances concur:
(1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasoliable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repeal it; (3) lack of sufficient pro-
vocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the
given case, the first and third requisites of self-defense are
;present. Whether or not the second requisite i s presellt de-
pends upon the size, physical condition, .and character of the
aggressor. If B was of the same 'size and physical condition
as A,. he should not use a bolo in the first place. But if A
was a bully, a man larger and stronger than B, and of known
violent character, there was a reasomble necessity of employing
,the bolo to repel the aggression. Hence, all the requisites o i
self-defense
. . would be present, and,the defense would be tenable
111; ( a ) Briefly discus4 the essential diffsrences bctween an
and a principal w310 coopemtw "in the
iiivolving the same question, i t was held that not onlyi must
the crime be proven, but as well the identity of the author
thereof must be established, in a full-dress criminal trial,, ,in
order that a P ~ ~ O charged
U as an accessory f o r . harboring,
concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal if the
crime may be convicted as such accessory. . I n an earlier;c&e,
i i Ivas held that it is not necessary that ,the principal sh&d
be first declared xHi.l+$lseforc the accessory can be made liabli
; 1 - L 2 W
. .
It is submitted that in the light of the latest decision,-hhioh
is more reasonahle and practical, the trial as to B cannot COII-
tinue and, therefme, the case must be dismissed. . .
IV.
(a) Is premeditation inherent jn the crime of murder by
means of poison? Explain briefly. ..
(b) m a t is the penalty next lowcr to' ariesto ' nuyo? ,;
with regard to service of sentences? ''What::isi:tl;$--j
penalty next lower in degree to Wresto- mnvnr? A.,. :
(a! Yes, preysdifation is inherent in the crime of"m
- .~.. .:
~ ~
'

of the offense by another act without

not have been accomplished."
polkeman, was charged as principal
with the crime of mwder with direct n s d t Upon
an agent of authority. B was charged in the 5ame
>,,,,: ,
bY nleanS Of Son. Tlie reason is that it is deemed ific
in t h l t of murder by means oE'.'pojson,.'for'obv'
the_ is presumed to have been preceded by cool thou&+:'.
r e f M i 6 n upon the resolution, to cairy o u t
which .W the ,very essence of premeditation.
~ I

information as aceessorr in .the sense that he eon-

898 899
 CRlMIN.4L LAW REVIEWER
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER Bar Eraminatiom in Crimini~l Law
Bar Exminations in Criminal t a w

(b) The penalty next lower to awesto, mayor with regard

to service of sentences is avresto menor (Art. 70, R.P.C.). The 3 . -Performing m y of the acts mentioned in Commonwealth
~ n a l t ynext lower in degree to arrest0 mayor is desteirro (Art. 6, otherwise known as the Espionage Law. ,
concept of espionage may be, but is not always,,
the legal concept of heason. Treason is a
breach of allegiance to a government, committed by a person
"ho owes allegiance to it,. In espionage, the act of gathering,
transmitting. UP losing information ' respmting the , natio&;$ji
feme with intent o r reason t o believe that the, information. is
to be used to the injury o f the Republic of the Philippines
01' to the advantage of any foreign nation is, when committed'
in tinie of war by a Filipixo citizen or resident'a1ien;h' breach
of allegiance to the Philippine Governme& But when espionage
is committed by an alien who is not residing in the Philippines,
he not owing allegiance to our Government, the &gaI-'concept
of es ionage is not ernbraced within the legal concept of treason.
i" %\.

V 1 . k was apmijnted a ''casual" employee in the office of 1

the Judge of Court of F h t 1nstance:for a period.of tlwee I
months, and was assigned as bodyguard'of the Judge.
Is X a public officer? a person in authority?,an!agent*of ',.
a pwmn in public authority for pnrposm of the ,penal. :i
providons on qualified seduction? Explain your~mswers,' 'i
A "casual" employee in the office of the Judge"of Co
of First Instance for a period of three monthn, assigned
bodyguard of the Judge is a public officer, bee
appointed by competent authority and he performe
of the Government public duties as an employee: . ; I t .>m+&-
that a mere emergency helper of the Bureau of Treasury
as janitori ox;
perfomed. public duties. (
' , . ' t

He is not a person in authority, because he

rectly vested with jurisdiction, which is the power oria
to govern or execute the laws.

l,
i 901
900
 I

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER i

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
~~r Zxaniinntionr in Criminal Law
VIII.
.i,:,aHe,is .not an agent of a person in authority, because as
bodyguard of the Judge his duties were limited only.to protect-
ihg,.the,Judge. He was not charged with the maintenance of
public o r d e r and the protection and security of 'life ,and prop-
erty. Unless there was an occasior. for it, he was not included
id''<&$ &use "who comes to the aid of persons in authority"
.(b) Juan and Petra (a. girl of-17 years ;of a&) were
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
(a) Pedro and Mdria were office-mates, and :,intimap
developed between them. One day: Pedro 6Cdf:t6
Maria a baoldet contained in a pay envel
seeulrely sealed and stapled. The 'booklet id'
tionably indecent and highly 'oEfensiye"'to'!
Pedro was thereafter chwged under' pgr.
ticle 201 of the Revised Penal Code which ,p/o~d&:
i'The penalty of pr:sion carreceional in its minimum',
-Il,r
period, or a fine ranging promi 200 to 2,000 pesos,.
or both, shall be imposed upon: 4. Those who s h a
sek give away or exhibit prints, engravings, sed$-
tures ar literature which are offensive to morals."
Es Pedro guilty of the c r h e charged? Reasons. .:
~

found by the latter's parents in a compromislrg sit-

uation. Sometime later the parents severeIy s
ed their daughter for having brought' dyshono
the family because they discovered t h a t Juan had
filed an. applkation for marriage with another wo-
man. Immediately after such upbraiding, Petra left
her house, and, together with Juan who was waiting
for her outside the house, went to and stayed in the
latter's house, the two having sexual intercourse oc-
casionally thereat. What crime, if any, is Juan guil-
ty of? Reasons.
(a) Pedro is not guilty of the crime charged. What is pun-
ished by Art. 201, par. 4, is the distribution or the giving of
reasons.
indecent litel-ature, etc., to many people and not merely the
isolated, casrral or occasional act of giving such kind of litera-
ture t o a single recipient. The purpose of the provision is the
protection of public morals, that is, the morals of society as R ";
whole, and not merely the morals of a singie individual. Hen
giving indecent literature to one person only is not a violati
of Art. 201, par. 4. (Peoplc vs. Tempongko, 1 C.A. Rep. 31
(b) No crime was committed by Juan. Even if.-Petra
a virgin and under 18 years of age, Juan is not guilty of con--
;.. ,
902 903
. .
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEH'ER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
sented abduction, because the girl voluntarily went with Juan
without solicitation or cajolery from him. But if Petra left her
parents' house by prearrangement with Juan and at his bidding,
inasmuch as he awaited her outside of the house, then Juan
is guilty o f consented abduction. Juan cannot be held guilty
.,,. simnle seduction, since no deceit was enlployed by Juall be-
of
fore the sexual intercourse with Petra.
E. (a) A, neighbor of B, in conspk'acy with the latter's
servant C, who allowed A to enter his master's house,
took therefront B's TV set, without the knowledge
, on the shength of which deceit B parted with his money. The ;
.d<,
and consent of B. What are the respective criminal
liabilities of A and C? Reasons for ydw answers.
,(b) A pointed to B a parcel of h d for +e. y'llabg
the land suitable f o r his purposes, B bought, it. I(.
turned out that in the deed of sale entered inro by
them, A had switched parcels of land, with the re-
sult thtit what B bought was another Pame1 wh:'eh
was worthless for his purposes. A was t h m a f t m
p'rosecuted for and convicted of estafa Under P a .
1 (a) of article 315 of the Revised P e d Code for
''dtdring the substance, quantity, or CiuditY of any-
thing of value which the offender shall deliver by
virtue of an obligation to do so % .." A appealed,
contending that he is not gurlty undex the said Par.
1 (a) of article 315, R.P.C., and. that he,& not guil-
t y either of est& involving real property. The
. -, ,
Solicitor e n e r a 1 maintains thai the conviction was
proper. Who is correct: the Solicitor General or A?
Or a r e both the Solicitor General and A IvrongT IS
A guilty of any offense? Reasons for y o u answer.
( a ) C, a domestic servznt, is liable as principal for quali-
fied theft, while A is liable as principal for simple theft only.
The circumstance arising from the priyate relation of C with
B, which qualifies the crime of theft as t o him, does not Serve
t o increase the liability of A, to whom it is not attendant.
904
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law
'
(b) While A is correct in saying t h a i he is not guilty under
par. 1(a) of article 315, R.P.C., and that he is not guilty e i ~ e r
of estafa involving real property, the Solicitor General erred in
stating that the ofiense comes within the: purview of paragraph
l ( a ] of article 315. The Solicitor General misconstrues the mean- ,,
ing of paragraph l f a ) of article 316. Under the provision of
law, the obligation to deliver already exists, and the offender
on making deiivsry has altered the substance, quantity or quality ~
of the thing delivered. The facts of this case before us are.not
four-square with the above-quoted provision of law. ' Here, A "
deceitfully pointed to B one parcel of land, offering it f o r sale, "
deceit practised by A preceded the alienation by B of his money. 'V.
It i s therefore clear that there was no alteration o f substance, ::
quantity or quality in the sense intended by paragraph l(a)
,., ,
of article 315 in A's execution of the deed of sale. .. . .,
Since the facts of, this case are not covered by any o! the
provisions of articles 315, 316 and 317, the offense comqit$e+d ~
by A must perforce come within the meaning and intendp&:
of the blanket provisions of paragraph l ( a ) of article 318. ''
' ,I
X. (a) What are the two clames of privileged eommup,
cations? Give an example of each.
,(b) 4 whose legal residence i s Castgnran, Quezon,
the congressman of t h e first district of Quezon,prov-
ince. When attending sessions of Congress, his act(:?
ud residence is Quezan C5ty. During the
sion of Congress, 33 published in the Manil
a newspaper of general circulation in Quezon
inee, an article containing offensive e
that are libelous per se against the .honor
grit? of A. The latter thereupon filed ' a en
coniplaint for libel against a, in the municipal
of Casiguran, Quezon. B filed a motion to dism
alleging that the court has no jurisdiction over
case. Is the motion tenable? Reasons for you
answer.
I /
CRIiMINAL LAW REVIEWER
nnr Examinations in Criminal Law
,.
(a) The two classes of privileged communications are: (1)
absolutely privileged; and (2) conditionally or qdalifiedly privi-
leged.
',?;~ . Example
. of absolutely privileged communicatioion:
. , ..
1. The absolute immunity granted by the Constitution to
'
Senators and members of the House of Representatives who are
not to be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate
therein. (Art. VI, See. 15, Constitution); or
2 . .Testimony or statements made by parties and witnesses
in the course of judicial proceedings provided that such Btate:
ments are pertinent or relevant t o the case.
Example of a qualifiedly privileged conimunication:
1. A private communication made by any person to ac-
other in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty.
(Art. 354, par. 1, R.P.C.); os
2 . A fair and true report, made in good faith, vithout any
comments 01- remapks, of any judicial, legislative or other offi-
cial proceedings which are not of confidential nature! or:of any
statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings or of
any other act performed by public officers in the exercise Of
their functions. (Ibid, par. 2, R.P.C.)
( 6 ) The motion of B is tenable. Clearly the municipal court
of Casiguran, Quezon, has no jurisdiction over the case, because
only the Court of First Instance of the province or city where
the libelous article is printed and first published or where any
of the offended parties actually resides or, in case one of the
offended parties is a public officer, where he holds office, a t the
"'
.time of the commission of the offense, has jurisdiction over
.. the case.
Even f o r purposes of preliminary investigation, only the
fiscal of the province or city, the municipal court of the city
'or capital of the province can conduct the same. (Art. 360, .as
amended by Rep. Act No. 4363)
I
906
. 907
CRIMIIVAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Exminations in Criminal Law
0CTY)BER 1, 1967
X. ,(a) Define Criminal or Penal Law.
(b) ENUMERATE and DEFINE the diffkent, clwifiea-
tions or the circumstances affeefing criminal liabi-
ty. Give two @xamplesof each.
( a ) Criminal Law is that branch or division of law which
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides
for their pnnishment. (12 Cyc. 129)
( b ) The circumstances affecting criminal liability are:
I. Justifying circumstances (Art. 11)
11. Exem2ting circumstances (Art. 12), and other ab-
solutory causes (Arts. 20; 124, last par.; 280, last
par.; 332; 344; etc.)
111. Mitigating circumstances (Art. 13)
IV. Aggravating circumstances (Art. 14)
V. Alternative circumstances (Art. 15)
Justifying circnmstances a r e those where the act
of a persoil is said to be in zccordance with law,, so
that such pe:son is deemed not to have transgressed
the law and is free from both Criminal and civil lia-
bility.
Examples :
1. Anyone mho acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following circumstances eon-
cnr :
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means'employed
to ,prevent or'repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the p a r t
4
ti
of the person defending himself.
2 . Anyone who acts in defense of the person O I - . ~
rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legiti-,:
mate, nataral, wr adopted brothers or sisters or of his:!
 I

i
CRIMlNAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Examinations in Criminal Law Bar Examinations in Criminal t a w

relatives by affinity in the same degrees, ‘xiid those
by consanguinity within the fourth civil depee, pro-
vided that the first and second requisites prescribed
in the next preceding circumstance are present, and
the further requisite, in case the provocation was given
by the person attacked, that the one making defense
had no part therein.
Exempting circumstances (non-imputability) are
those grounds for exemption from punishment because
there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
2 . That the crime be committed i n contempt of
or with insult to the public authorities.
Altercative circumstances are those which must be
takeii into consideration as aggravating o r mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime and
the other conditions attending its commission.
Examples :
1. Relationship.
2 . Intoxication.
11. (a) ENUMERATE a n d DEFINE the different stages,:of

Examples :
-
conditions which make the act voluntaq, o r negligent.
the execution of a crime.
,(b) “A” 1~1acedrugs and jute sacks, soaked in kerosene
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless the oil near the partition of an i,nhahited house and set
latter has acted during a lucid interval. them o n fire, but no part of the house was burnkd
Y ’ ’ .
2 . A person. under nine years of age. because t h e fire was extinguished on time. What
crime did “A” coxmit. Give your reason.
Mitigating circumstances are those which, if pres- *
ent in the commission of the crime, do not entirely free (a) They are:
the actor from criminal liability, bUt serve only to re-
(1) consummated,
duce the penalty.
(2) frustrated, and
Examples : (3) attempted.
1, Those mentioned in the preceding chapter, when Consummated felony, defined.
all the requisites necessary to justifsr the act or t o A felony is consummated when
exempt from criminal liability in the respective cases necessary for its execution and accomplishment ar
a r e not attendant. present.
2. That the offender j, under eighteen years of Frustrated felony, defined.
age or over seventy years.
It is frustrated when the offender
Aggravating circumstances are those which, if at- the acts of execution which would
tendant in the commission of the crime, serve to in- felony as a consequence but which,
crease the penalty without, however, exceeding the do not produce it by reason of causes
maximum of, the penalty provided by law for the of- of the will of the perpetrator.
fense.
Attempted felony, defined.
Examples : There is an attempt when t h
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of mences the commission of a felony
his public position. acts, and does not perform all the’acts 0

908 909
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
nir Examinations in Criminal Law
which would produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
(b) The fact of having set fire to some rags and jute sacks,
soaked in kerosene oil, aiid placing them near the wooden
partition of the house, should not be qualifikd as eon-
summated arson, inasmuch as no p a r t of the house be-
gan to burn. It is only frustrated arson. (U.S. VS.
Valdcs, 39 Phil. 240)
111. ( a ) Who are the principals in the commission of an of-
I fense?
(b) “A,” servant of “B,” went to a store, where “B” OOUld
purchase on credit, and falsely represented to the
owner of the store that he was sent t h a e by “B” to
buy certain goods worth P50.00 to be chargeed to t b e
account of ‘‘13.” As “A” was known t o ’ t h e owner of
t h e store a s the servant of “B,” the goods were de-
livered by t h e owner of t h e store to “A” who abscond-
ed with them. What crime was committed by“‘A”2
Give your reason.
( a ) The following a r e considered principals.
> .
1. Those who take a direct part i n the execution
of the act.
I 2 . Those who directly force or induce others t3
commit it.
3. Those who cooperate in the commission of the
offense by another act without whicb it would not
have been accomplished. (Art. 17, R.P.C.)
(b) The crimc of estafa was committed by “A”, because
he defrauded the owner of the store by means of deceit
consisting in falsely representing to the latter that
he was sent by “B” t o buy the goods and thereby caused
damage t o the said owner of tbe store. Although, “A”
was the servant of “El”, the crime committed by the
910
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar haminations in Criminal Law
former i s riot qualified theft, for the offended party
was the ovylier of thz store, and not “B”.
IV. (a) What a r e the offenses not subject to the provisions
of the Revised Penal Code? Give an example.
(b) Under the Administrative Code, councilors a r e prohi-
bited to have an interest in any c o n t i z t with the
municipality. ‘A,” an incnmbe1bt municipaI council-
or, made a n offe!r to the municipality of which he is
councilor, to pave one o f its streets’ for a very rea-
sonable price, which offer %vas not however accepl.
ed. Did the councilor commit a n y mime? Give your
reason.
(a) Offenses which are o r in the future may be punishable
under special laws a r e not subject to the provisions
of this Code. (Art. 10, R.P.C.)
Example :
,
The offense of ille@d possemion of firearm which
Is punished by a special law.
(b) No, because there was only a n attempt to violate the’
provision of the Administrative Code, a special law.
11: was held that the attempted or the ‘frustrated stage
of the execution of a n offense’genalized by a special
law is not punishable, unless the special law provides ’!
a penalty therefor (US. vs. Lopez Basa, 8 Phil. 89). (
V. (a) Jose committed robbery in t h e house of Pedro. The i
h t t e r with a shotgun puirsued Jose. While running,
JOW dropped tlie money h e had stolen and thus Pe.
dro wa3 able to recover the m,oney.
Jk Jose guilty of robbery, and, if so, is it consummat-,6%
ed, frustrated or attempted? Give pour reason. ~h
j‘
.-,Cb)Distinguished grave thrent demanding money from .:
? robbery with intimidation of person.’
’j ’ .,
f a ) Yes, Jose is guilty of robbery’ Ghich is consummated.
he having carried out of the house the property taken
<1
511
 I
CRIMINAL LAW XEVIEWW
Bar Examinatiom in Criminal Law
and, therefore, the taking of the same was already
complete. This is on the assumpti011 that robbery with
force upon things was committed. It was not robbery
with intimidation, because the intimidation (pursuing
with a shotgun) was employed by the offended party,
not by the offender.
(b) In both crimes, there is intimidation by the offender.
The purpose, when threat is made to extort money, is
identical- t o obtain gain.
The differences are:
(1) In robbery, the intimidation is actual and, imme-
diatc; whereas, in threats, the intimidation ,is Con-
ditional or future, that is, not immediate;
(2) I n robbery, the intimidation is personal, while in
threats i t may be through an intermediary;
(3) In threats the intimidation may refer to the per-
son, honor or property of the offedned party Or
that of his family; while in robbery the intimida-
tion is directed only to the person of the victim;
( 4 ) In robbery, t h e gain of the culprit is immediate:
whereas, in threats the gain of the cidprit is not
immediate (People vs. Moreno, C.A., G.R. No.
43636, April 30, 1936).
,VI. (a) Is there any difference batween ILLEGAL ASSOCIA-
TION and ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY? Give the differ-
ences.
(b) Perez was a clerk of the Bureau of Post. entrusted
with t h e combination and k@y of a safe, but he is
not Incharge of the cash book nor he has any author-
itr to open the safe and withdiraw money therefrom.
,During the absence of his superior, he opened the
safe and abstracted therefrom cash and checks. What
crime did he commit?
. (a) Yes. The differences are:
912
1
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER
Bar Eminatious in Criminal Law
(a) In illegal assembly i t is necessary that there is
an actual meeting or assembly of armed persons
for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Revised Penal Code, or of
individuals who, although not armed, are incited
to the commission of treason, rebellion, sedition,
or assault upon a person in authority or his agent;
in illegal association, i t is not necessary that there
be am actual meeting.
( b ) In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and attend-
5
ance at such meeting that are punished; in illegal
association, it is the act of forming or organizing
and membership in the association that are pun-
ished.
( e ) In illegal assembly, the person liable are: (1) the
orga.nizers or leaders of the meeting and (2) the
persons present a t the meeting. In illegal associa-
lion, the persoas liable a r e : (1) the founders,
directors and president, and (2) the members.
( b ) Theft. Perez’ possession of the coutents of the safe
was not such as to render its abstraction by him mal-
versation ( U S . vs. Webster, 6 Phil. 394). Perez had
only the physical or material possession of the cash
and checks he abstracted. #,
’
VII. ,(a) Who commits the crime of ABUSE AGAINST CHAS-
TITY?
(b) “A” a provincial guard, incharge of the provin
made love and unchaste proposal to a woman
confhed in the jail but failed t o seduce her.
be liable for the crime of ABUSE AGAINS
TITY? Give your reason.
(a) The publie officer who commits any of the f
f acts:
1 1. By soliciting or making immoral or inde
4
yances to D. woman interested in matters pending se-.,:bi
‘i
8 .
yI :~3
...
913
 lis

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWER

Bar Examinations
ill Criminal Law Bar Examiuations in Criminal Lnw

-;I fore the offending officer for decision, o r with respect 2 . Tittering seditious words or speeches which tend
‘ai t o which he is required to submit a report to O r con- to disturb the public peace.
’, sult with a superior officer. 3 . Writing, pubiishiny, or circulating scui“ri1ous libels
,’! 2. Ey soliciting or making immoral or indecent ad- against the Government or any of the duly consti-
!, , vances to a ivonian under the offender’s custody. tu@d authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the :

. 3. BY soliciting or making immoral oc indecent. ad- //--;ubljc peace.

. I
vances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative within 1-a) “A” a,&cial Ptreasurer connived with two provin-
.. the same degree by affinity 6f any person in the
custody of the offending warden or officer. , cial guards to take away from his office, a snfe con-
-& : (b) Yea, because the crime of abuse against chastity is
tainiig money a n d to divide it among them. While
the conspiratclrs were brhighg t h e safe outside of
/, ummated by mere proposal of somemng unchaste
and immoral to a woman. It is n o t necessary that the the provincial building, they were caught by. consta
woman solicited should have yielded to th6 solicitation W a r y men, thus they were not able t o get the‘mo.
of the public officer. my.
w
..
a t cruue 11 any, did they commit? Give your
~’’
. 111. ,(a) Enumerate the acts constituting TUMULTS and DIS- /season.
’ 9 ’ -

. ,.,!,?- TURBANCES of, public order.

~.
,)V ;
”

,(b) Enumerate the acts constituting INCITING’ TO SI%
DITION.
( a ) They are:
1. Causing’any serious disturbance in a public place,
, ,
office or establishment ;
2 . Interrupting or disturbing public performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Ark. 131 and 132;
3 . Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or
sedition in any meeting, association or public place;
4. Displaying placards o r emblems which provoke a
disturbance of public, order in such place :
X. (a ’ “A” is serving sentence for violation
5 . Burying with pomp, ,the body of B person who has
been legally executed.
,’6) AlthougkL, only the provincial treasurer was a n account-
able public officer, and the two guards were not, all
of them committed malversation, for even public of-
ficers wlio are not accountable f o r public fund6 may
be held liable for malversation if they participated as
eo-peqetmtors in the offense of malversation. (U.S.
vs. Polite, et.al., 20 Phil. 379) Even if they were not
able to g?.t the money, the crime was consummated,
because the law uses the phrases “shall take” and
“permit any other person to take such public funds
or property”. I t is submitted that there was taking
in bringing the safe outside of the building.
of
4
a law whiehd
was subsequently totally repealed. I”
May “A” be refieved of the penalty imposed upon him’
.* ’

, ,
(b) They are:
accomplishment of ‘any of the
sedition by means of speeches,
emblems, ete.
1)
L
und,er the repealed law? Give your reason.
( b ) Pedro, a relative of Juan who was executed for the
crime of multiple murder, claimed the corpse of
’ Jnan and gave it a pompous burial.

915

t
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEWEK
nar Examinations in Criminal Law

Did Pedro eonintit ;in]' violation of law? Give you1

reason.
(a) Yes, be&use a person cannot be punished for acts no
longer criminal (People vs. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 226),
Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as
they favor the person guilty of n felony, who is not
'
a habitual criminal, although at the time of the pub-
lication of such laws a Zinal sentence has been pro-
nounced and the convict is szrving sentence (Art. 22,
R.P.C.). The repealing law is decidedly favorable to
"A".
(b) Yes, because burying with pomp the body of a persor.
who was legally executed is a violation of Art. 85
and punished by Art. 153 of the Revised Penal Code.

916