Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
CRIMINAL LAW
A: No. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody
bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife
Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where reported to the police station that her husband had not
the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be yet come home. A search was conducted by the
applied extraterritoriality. The general rule on territoriality residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B
of criminal law governs the situation. or his body could not be located and his disappearance
continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony
Q: After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel Beer and of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of
taking two plates of “pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In
stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been
M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas vessel which found, there was no evidence of corpus delicti and
was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although therefore, he should be acquitted.
Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich
Filipino businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s)
Pacific” reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the for your answer? (2001 Bar)
Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to
the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide A: The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus delicti” does not
was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of refer to the body of the purported victim which had not
Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack been found. Even without the body of the purported victim
of jurisdiction. If you were the judge, will you grant the being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts
motion? Why? (2000 Bar) and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or
“corpus delicti” is established.
A: Yes. The motion to quash the information should be
granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim
crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact
outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not of death and identity of the victim must be established
registered or licensed in the Philippines (US v. Fowler, 1 Phil beyond reasonable doubt.
614)
Motive and Intent
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the
laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, Q: May a crime be committed without criminal intent?
which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being (1988 Bar)
registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is
in the high seas. A: A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two
cases:
B. FELONIES 1. In offense punishable as mala prohibita; and
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
Corpus delicti
Q: Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.
Q: (1996, 2004 Bar)
(a) Define “Corpus delicti”. A: Motive is the moving power which impels one to action
(b) What are the elements of “Corpus delicti”? (2000 for a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to use a
Bar) particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an
essential element of a felony and need not be proved for
A: purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element
of felonies by dolo.
(a) Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of
the crime” or the fact that a crime has been committed, Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it
but does not include the identity of the person who not necessary to be established? Explain. (1999, 2006
committed it. (People v. Pascal, 44 OG 2789) Bar)
(b) Elements of corpus delicti: The actual commission by A: Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as
someone of the particular crime charged. It is a to the identity of the offender or when the act committed
compound fact made up of two things: gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to
determine the proper crime to be imputed to the offender.
(1) The existence of a certain act or result forming the
basis of the criminal charge; and It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is
(2) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to
the act or result. variant crimes.
The identity of the offender is not a necessary element IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (1994, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2009,
of corpus delicti. 2014)
Q: At a birthday party in Cebu, A got intoxicated and Q: JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident
started quarreling with B and C. At the height of their of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the
arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place.
which he returned to the party and threatened to stab
everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries
with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to
shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her
jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the companions to the room in the house of Elsa.
JP, et. al., were charged and convicted of attempted a. Impossible crime is an act which would be an offense
murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, against person or property, were if not for the inherent
Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of
accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means
finding them guilty of attempted murder. (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
b. No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only
If you were the ponente, how will you decide the so-called because the act gives rise to criminal liability.
appeal? (1994 Bar) But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to
be punished for his criminal tendency or propensity
A: If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment although no crime was committed.
convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead c. Yes, A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson
find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, because of the destruction of the room of X with the use
RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible of an explosive, the hand grenade.
crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but
likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only
case at bar. if the act committed would not constitute any other
crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility involved are parallel to the case of Intod v. CA (215 SCRA
which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender
accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used
murder would make Art. 4, par. 2, practically useless as all in the said case, which constitutes a more serious crime
circumstances which prevented the consummation of the though different from what was intended.
offense will be treated as an incident independent of the
actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated d. No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for
felony. (Intod v. CA, 215 SCRA 52) “impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against
Enrique.
Q: Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was
courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when
decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a performed would be a crime against persons or
veterinarian to ask for poison on the pretext that he property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal
was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was security and not against persons or property, Enrique
intending to poison Pula, the Vet instantly gave Puti a could not have incurred an “impossible crime” to
non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime
did not kill Pula. What crime, if any, did Puti commit? of kidnapping.
(1994, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2014 Bar)
STAGES OF EXECUTION (1996, 2000, 2005, 2015)
A: Puti committed an impossible crime of murder. Puti, with
intent to kill Pula, unknowingly employed ineffectual Q: Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration
means to accomplish the intended felony, that is, using a of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may
non-toxic solution. succeed in raping her and eventually making her
accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money
Q: which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because
Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he
a. What is an impossible crime? reported Edgardo to the police. May Edgardo be
b. Is an impossible crime really a crime? charged with attempted kidnapping? (1996 Bar)
c. A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded
to the house of X, Y, a neighbor of X, who happened A: No. Edgardo may not be charged with attempted
to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain
room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what
the room with bullets. Not satisfied, A even threw a Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente
hand grenade that totally destroyed X’s room. to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not
However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences
inside the room and nobody was hit or injured with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act.
during the incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime.
crime? Explain.
d. Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the Q: Taking into account the nature and elements of the
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally
fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a liable for frustrated coup d’etat or frustrated rape?
ransom note demanding P500,0 00 from Carla’s Explain. (2005 Bar)
parents in exchange for Carla’s freedom. Enrique
sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the A: No. A person may not be held liable for frustrated coup
ransom note was received by Carla’s parents, d’ etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony,
Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. it is required that all acts of execution that could produce
Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and the felony as a consequence must have been performed by
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of
was not received by Carla’s parents, the causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said
investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of felonies, one cannot perform all the acts of execution
3
CRIMINAL LAW
without consummating the felony. The said felonies, invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage.
therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him
was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was
COMPLEX AND COMPOSITE CRIMES being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal,
he decided to take revenge on the three cheats.
Complex crime (1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996,
1999, 2000, 2003, 2007) Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and
gave them to his companions to drink, as they did, until
Q: Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20, 000 they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions
from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro already sound asleep, he hacked them all to death.
and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The Then he remembered his losses, he rifled through the
following day, Pedro deposited the check but it was pockets of his victims and got back all the money he
returned dishonored because it was drawn against a lost. He then ran away but not before burning the
closed account. Jose failed to make good the said check cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day, police
despite written demands. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for investigators found among the debris the charred
Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the Office bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the
of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 resort.
of the Revised Penal Code and another for violation of
BP Blg. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed The Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the
that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and
for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa under Art. 315 robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss. (1995
of the RPC because one precludes the other and Bar)
because BP 22 is more favorable to the accused as it
carries a lighter penalty. A: No. Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have
been charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely:
The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that murder, theft, and arson.
only one crime was committed, namely, the complex
crime of estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC and another Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident
under BP 22. premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time
before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
Is the investigating fiscal correct? (Question reframed) commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed
(1987 Bar) means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel, and
Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were
A: The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. drunk and fell asleep.
There is no complex crime of estafa under Art. 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex The taking of the money was a mere afterthought of the
crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of
Revised Penal Code. theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is
Q: Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of
inside his house when it fell from his hand and fired. the victims.
The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second
neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two In burning the cottage, it is another separate crime of arson.
neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) The act of burning was not necessary for the consummation
days of medical attendance, respectively. The of the two previous offenses he committed. The fact that the
investigating fiscal later filed an information for caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime
frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no
through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the such crime.
charge correct? Explain. (1989 Bar)
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex
A: The charge is not correct. One single act of accidental crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry
shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is should have been charged with three separate crimes,
intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide murder, theft and arson.
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent
to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and Q: A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully
therefore only negligent. automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of
persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of
Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4)
the first neighbor whose injuries requires 35 days of persons were killed thereby, each having hit by
medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of A.
the second neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A.
were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of these
offenses were the result of one single act, a complex crime The trial court ruled that there was only one crime
is not committed because it is only when a single act committed by A for the reason that, since A performed
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies that a only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun
complex crime may be committed under the first clause of only once, the crime committed was murder.
Article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one
grave felony. penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Q: Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from (A) Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain.
Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him
to be “loaded”, his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave
Special Complex Crime (1989, 1995, 1997, 2003, 2005, Q: Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using
2006, 2016) a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul
rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and
Q: After raping the complainant in her house, the instructed him to go near a bridge. Upon reaching the
accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and
departing from the scene. The brief light from the suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was
match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle
demanded that she hand over the watch. When she with him. What crime(s) did Raul commit? (1998, 2004
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused Bar)
was charged with and convicted of the special complex
crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct? A: Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with
(1997 Bar) homicide under Sec. 14 of RA 6539, as amended,
considering that the killing “in the course of” or “on the
A: No. The accused should instead be held liable for two occasion of” a carnapping. (People v. De la Cruz, 183 SCRA
separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary 763). A motorcycle is included in the definition of a “motor
intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the vehicle” in said Republic Act. There is no apparent motive
complainant, and his commission of the robbery was for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to
merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was
rape, in order to give rise to the special complex crime for killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
which the court convicted the accused. death.
Q: Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and Q: Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a
a special complex crime as to their concepts and as to residential house of things of value. They succeeded in
the imposition of penalties. (2003 Bar) the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A,
5
CRIMINAL LAW
however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady so fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the
owner of the house, and so raped her. air shouting for Filemon to stop. In as much as
Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him
The lady victim testified that B did not in any way hitting and killing him. Is the plea of self-defense
participate in the rape but he watched the happening sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre
from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar)
criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain.
(1999 Bar) A:
A: Yes. B is as criminally liable for the composite crime of (a) Yes. Self-defense can be claimed as there is an
robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the imminent and great peril on the life of Negre.
conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when (b) No. Self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no
the rape was being committed which gave rise to a more peril on his life.
composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery
with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored Q: Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was
to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside
when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a
the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband,
liable for robbery with rape. Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual
intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (1993, 1998, 2000, 2002, said “Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then
2003, 2004, 1996, 2008, 2016 BAR) did Osang realize that the man was not her husband.
Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang
and exempting circumstances in criminal law. (2004, claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be
1998 Bar) sustained? Why? (2000, 1998 Bar)
A: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; A: No. Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be
while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased
In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no when she stabbed the aggressor.
civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance,
civil liability is generally incurred although there is no In defense of rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it is
criminal liability required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression,
and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
Self-Defense (Defense of Person, Rights, Property and prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be
Honor) continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by
the person making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is
Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The a retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang's act of
victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was
but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate
who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which
died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged is only mitigating.
with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, Defense of Relatives
contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and
CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense Q: When A arrived home, he found B raping his
prosper? Reason briefly. (2004 Bar) daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and
shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed
A: No, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of the victim's he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A
son, ST, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating
hence, justified as a defense of his father against the circumstance or circumstances? (2002, 2000, 1998
unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his Bar)
father's life and to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal
objective cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in A: No. A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's
the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was a lawful honor in having killed B since the rape was already
defense, not greater evil. Likewise, AA’s defense will not consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there
prosper because in this case there was a conspiracy among was no aggression to defend against and no defense to
the three of them, hence, the act of one is the act of all. speak of. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression.
Q: Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful
and ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, aggression no longer exists.
Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear.
Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating
and before he could strike again, Pat. Negre shot and circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a
killed him. grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5,
Art. 13 of the RPC.
(a) Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain.
(b) Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon Q: Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of
ran away without parting with his weapon. Pat Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing
Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade
7
CRIMINAL LAW
9
CRIMINAL LAW
153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour (a) PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND ACCESSORIES
after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within (1987, 1989, 2013 BAR)
the context of “immediately thereafter”.
Principal (1994, 2000, 2002, 1994, 2014, 2015 Bar)
With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense
of lawful exercise of a right is a justifying circumstance. Q: Tata owns a three-storey building. She wanted to
Under Art. 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time the construct a new building but had no money to finance
accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,
and therefore could not have been criminally liable under 000, 000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
Art. 4, RPC. monetary consideration, to burn her building so she
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his is their respective criminal liability? (1994 Bar)
wife and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot A: Tata is a principal by inducement for the crime of
and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the destructive arson because she directly induced Yoboy and
death of Ken. Yongsi for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
arson which the latter would not have committed were it
The court found that Ken died under exceptional not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by
circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
sentenced him to destierro. The court also ordered
Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the Q: Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol
amount of P50, 000.00. Did the court correctly order so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and end his
Macky to pay indemnity? (2007 Bar) arrogance. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately
shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his
A: No. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy’s five year old son
exceptional circumstances in Article 247, RPC, it is the who was following behind him, killing the boy
consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the instantaneously. What is the criminal liability of Jonas
pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil 672) that and Jepoy? (Question reframed) (2000 Bar)
banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection
of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil A: Jonas shall be convicted as principal by direct
liability under the RPC is the consequence of the criminal participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of cooperation for the complex crime of murder with
indemnity when there is no criminal liability. homicide. Jaja should be liable as co-principal and not only
as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas’ criminal design
Q: Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he
his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm.
needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay-
at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done
arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C,
the act of having sexual intercourse with their female not so much because of the reward promised to him but
nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, because he also had his own long-standing grudge
Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C killed
cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her. by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?
(2002 Bar)
Is Art. 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances) of the RPC applicable in A: No. A would not be liable as principal by inducement
this case given that the paramour was of the same because the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling
gender as the erring spouse? (2015, 2016 Bar) reason which made B kill C. To bring about the criminal
liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the
A: The crime committed is parricide qualified by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the
circumstance of relationship. person induced to commit the crime and without which the
crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of would indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A
committing sexual intercourse with another woman is had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White
and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former
However, in this case this is not death under exceptional girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared
circumstance because Felipa was having homosexual in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no
intercourse with another woman and not sexual one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told
intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr.
within the contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but
in Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is attended Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want,"
by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill
sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow.
infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No.
L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). (a) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr.
Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr.
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION Green?
11
CRIMINAL LAW
of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In
acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to
that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the
indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success
objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when there
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are: is successive communication and cooperation in much the
same way as with legitimate business operations between
(1) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer,
will be considered as co-conspirators; and then retailer and consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
(2) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)
commission of the crime will be considered as co-
conspirators; and PENALTIES (1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004,
(3) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of 2005, 2007 Bar)
the crime, without any act of criminal participation,
shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator. Q:
Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in (a) State the two classes of penalties under the Revised
the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A Penal Code. Define each.
sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. (b) May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal?
He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to be (1988 Bar)
participants in the “rumble”, each using a knife against
A, but it could not be ascertained who, among them, A:
inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally
liable for the death of A and for what? (1997 Bar) (a) The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the RPC
are as follows:
A: B, C, D and E being participants in the tumultuous affray
and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical 1. Principal – A principal penalty is defined as that
injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are provided for a felony and which is imposed by court
criminally liable for the latter’s death. And because it cannot expressly upon conviction.
be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury 2. Accessory – An accessory penalty is defined as that
on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray, B, deemed included in the imposition of the principal
C, D and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a penalty.
tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They (b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal
entered her house by breaking one of the windows in because a censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant
her house. After taking her personal properties and as and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape acquittal (People v. Abellera, 69 Phil 623).
OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside
the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA Q: Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based
from raping OD. on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you
have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate
What crime/s did XA, YB and ZC commit and what is the the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the
criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (2004 Bar) exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what
are the factors you must consider to arrive at the
A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite correct penalty? (1991 Bar)
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. A:
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to 1. Determine the crime committed;
commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, 2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being 3. Determine the penalty
committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to 4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby 5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is
concurred in the commission of the rape by their co- applicable or not.
conspirator XA.
Q: After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ, and ZC, shall be the same, Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he
rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng
accompanying the robbery is just a component. Manila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin was
unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of
Q: Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain treachery was found to be present. Judge Laya
conspiracy. (2016 Bar) rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and
sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life
A: There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life
namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy. imprisonment the same and can be imposed
interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single person they totally different? State your reasons. (1994, 2001,
or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more 2005 Bar)
other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically
Q: Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as A: No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion with the service of the sentence not in the imposition of the
perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all
Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a the crimes for which the accused have been found guilty.
divisible penalty? Explain. (2005 Bar) Thus, the court should not make a computation in it
decision and sentence the accused to not more than the
A: No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly called the three-fold of the most severe of the penalties imposable.
attention of the Bench and the Bar to the fact that the The computation under the three-fold rule is for the prison
penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are authorities to make.
not synonymous and should be applied correctly and as
may be specified by the applicable law. Reclusion perpetua Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a
has a specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and
(Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art. 41), while life imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the
imprisonment has no definite term or accessory penalties. fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary
Also, life imprisonment is imposable on crimes punished by imprisonment in case of insolvency.
special laws, and not on felonies in the Code.
(a) Is the penalty proper? Explain.
Q: What are the penalties that may be served (b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine
simultaneously? (2007 Bar) or imprisonment? Explain. (2005 Bar)
Principles (include R.A. No. 9346 – Act Prohibiting the C. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines) (1988,
1997, 2004 Bar) 1. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITIES (1988,
1990, 2004, 2015 BAR)
Q: What offenses, if any, may be punished with the
death penalty in our jurisdiction at present? Explain. Q:
(1988, 1995 Bar)
(a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished?
A: At present, no offense may be punished with the death (1988, 1990 Bar)
penalty in our jurisdiction at present. The 1987 (b) How is criminal liability partially extinguished?
Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the (c) If an accused is acquitted does it necessarily follow
abolition affects even those who has already been that no civil liability arising from the acts
sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless Congress complained of may be awarded in the same
enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death judgment? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar)
penalty at present.
A:
Application (2005, 2013 Bar)
(a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) following causes of total extinction of criminal liability:
(Refer to SPL Section)
1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to
Q: Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's the pecuniary liabilities, liability therefore is
Day, without prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at her extinguished only when death occurs before final
condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned him judgment
down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door 2. Service of sentence
unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to 3. Amnesty
have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's 4. Absolute pardon
condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On 5. Prescription of the crime
Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman grabbed her 6. Prescription of the penalty
from behind and, with a knife in hand, forced her to
13
CRIMINAL LAW
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina,
Article 344. Ara’s stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year
old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body
(b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive
following causes of the partial extinction of criminal away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
liability: spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to
live with her grandparents in Ormoc. For fear of his life,
1. Conditional pardon Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and
2. Commutation of sentence relatives. 20 and ½ years after the incident, and right
3. Good conduct allowance during confinement after his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported
4. Parole the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide
5. Probation prescribes in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute
Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and ½
(c) If an accused is acquitted, it does not necessarily follow years? Explain. (2000 Bar)
that no civil liability arising from the acts complained
of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If A: Yes. The State can still prosecute Mina for the death of
there is an express waiver of the liability; and if there is Ara despite the lapse of 20 & ½ years. Under Article 91, RPC,
a reservation to file a separate civil action (Rule 107; the period of prescription commences to run from the day
Padilla v. CA, People v. Jalandoni). on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the
authorities or their agents.
Q: AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a prison In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known
term as well as to pay P150, 000 as civil indemnity and only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an
damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by
accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a the NBI Authorities only when Albert revealed to them the
million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription
death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the
briefly. (2004 Bar) time Albert revealed the same to the NBI Authorities.
A: The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of Q: On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
the trial court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. committed in February 1987 was filed against Roberto
The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for
recoverable under the RPC is also extinguished; but purposes of preliminary investigation. For various
indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the judge of
if predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157, NCC, said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of
such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, jurisdiction since the crime was committed in Manila.
but not on the basis of delicts (People v. Balagtas, 236 SCRA The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of
239). Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the
crime had already prescribed. The law provides that
Prescription of crimes (1987, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
2000, 2001, 2004, 2009, 2010, 2015 Bar) Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (2001
Bar)
Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a
lot, in a special power of attorney naming him (B) as his A: No. The fiscal’s dismissal of the case on alleged
attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint with
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary
attorney to obtain a loan. On the same day, both the investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of
special power of attorney and the mortgage contract prescription inasmuch as the jurisdiction of a court in a
were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because criminal case is determined by the allegations in the
of B’s failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage complaint or information, not by the result of proof (People
and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was v. Galano, 75 SCRA 193).
issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property Q: A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He
was already registered in the name of X because of an immediately went into hiding in the mountains. Three
ejectment case filed against him by X. years later, the bones of A’s wife were discovered by X,
the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
If you were the counsel of B, what would be your he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about
defense? Discuss. (1993 Bar) it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and
reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of
A: My defense will be prescription because the crime was hiding, A left the country but returned three years later
committed in 1964 and almost twenty-nine years had to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he
already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and was charged with parricide but raised the defense of
Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. prescription.
It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery, the fact
that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment (a) Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the
because the offended party is considered to have period of prescription of a crime commence to run?
constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale (b) When is it interrupted?
where his signature had been falsified was registered in the (c) Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (2000, 2004, 2009,
office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral v. Puno, 70 SCRA 606). 2010 Bar)
15
CRIMINAL LAW
Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking
waters (2006, 2008 Bar) of the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from
a vessel at sea, was effected by force and undoubtedly
Q: The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel
cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the was anchored when deprecated so long as it was at sea.
harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong (2) The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the
typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo RPC because it was attended by a killing committed by
and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the same culprits against a member of the crew of the
the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the vessel.
passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of
M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong took advantage of the
confusion to settle an old grudge with another
passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all B. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF
four were charged with qualified piracy before a THE STATE
Philippine court.
Arbitrary Detention or Expulsion, Violation of
(a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three Dwelling, Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of
person (Max, Badong and Bogart) who boarded the Peaceful Meeting and Crimes Against Religious
inter-island vessel correct? Explain. Worship
(b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the
Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. ARBITRARY DETENTION AND EXPULSION (2006, 2008,
(2008 Bar) 1992 BAR)
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should COUP D’ ETAT (BAR 1988, 1991, 1998, 2002 BAR)
be a public officer acting under color of his authority.
Q: Distinguish rebellion from coup d’etat. (1991, 2004
The legal grounds for detention are: Bar)
17
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS
landowners, called A, B, C, D, and E to a conference. Jose (1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2013 BAR)
and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for Q: A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad
the purpose of challenging the government by force of at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing
arms in order to prevent the enforcement or paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home
Province. Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group located at the back of the school. He reported to his
and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former parents, Y and Z, what A had done to him,
soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader
of the former soldiers, said that in the meanwhile he Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building
needed money to support his family. D suggested that and because they were running and talking in loud
they rob a bank and agreed to carry put the plan on the voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B,
15th day of the month. Unknown to all of them, as they who followed them as he suspected that an untoward
were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they were incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the
planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a houseboy was classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who
within hearing distance. On the pretext of buying administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down.
cigarettes, Rosauro instead went directly to the Police When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and
and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being
as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested. held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which
caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this
(a) What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit? incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
(b) What about Jose and Pedro? (1987 Bar) husband, and also threatened to slap A.
D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST A: The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 of the RPC
for the offense of introducing a false document in a judicial
Forgeries proceeding as he knew the same to be false.
Q: How are "forging" and "falsification" committed? Falsification of Public Document (1988, 1992, 1993,
1999, 2000, 2008 Bar)
A: Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury
or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to Q: Andrea signed her husband’s name in endorsing his
order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or treasury warrants which were delivered to her directly
by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any by the district supervisor who knew that her husband
means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for
the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his
Falsification, on the other hand, is committed through – burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated
vacation and sick leaves the money value of which
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature exceeded that value of the three treasury warrants, so
or rubric;
that the government suffered no damage. Andrea’s
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so intent and of good faith.
participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss
or proceeding statements other than those in fact made briefly. (1988 Bar)
by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; A: Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public
5. Altering true dates;
documents. Her claim of absence of criminal intent and of
good faith cannot be considered because she is presumed
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
to know that her husband is dead. The element of damage
document which changes its meaning;
required in falsification does not refer to pecuniary damage
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
but damage to public interest.
8. Purporting to be a copy of an original document when
no such original exists, or including in such copy a
NB: Executive clemency can, however, be sought for by
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
Andrea.
genuine original; or
9. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
Q: Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in Macao,
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
having applied with a recruitment agency to work in
Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a
Counterfeiting coins; Forging treasury or bank notes,
Community Tax Certificate, formerly called Residence
obligations and securities; Importing and uttering false
Certificate.
or forged notes, obligations and securities
He stated therein that his name is Leo Tiampuy, a
Q: Is mere possession of false money bills punishable
Filipino citizen born in Binan, Laguna. As he paid for the
under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? (1999
Community Tax Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an
Bar)
employee in the office recognized him and reported to
her boss that the information written in the Community
A: No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone
Tax Certificate were all lies. Shortly thereafter, an
without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the
information was filed against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy.
circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to
utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal
(a) An information was filed against Dee Kiam. What
possession of false notes.
crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why?
(b) The accused move to quash the information on the
Introduction of false documents
ground that it did not allege that he had the
obligation to disclose the truth in the Community
Q: M was forced by a policeman to sign a document
Tax Certificate; that the same is a useless scrap of
entitled “Sinumpaang Salaysay” in which M implicated
paper which one can buy even in the Quiapo
X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank where
underpass and that he had no intent of deceiving
P500, 000.00 were lost. The document was prepared by
anybody. Would you grant the motion to quash?
the policeman upon advice of B, the bank’s lawyer, who
(1992 Bar)
was present when the policeman asked M to sign the
document. As M refused to sign it, the policeman held
A:
him by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as
he was afraid he might be bodily harmed.
(a) Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification
of a Public Document committed by a private individual
During the hearing of the robbery before the Fiscal’s
under Art. 172 of the RPC in relation to Art. 171 thereof.
Office, B submitted the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” as
A residence certificate is a public or official document
evidence, on the basis of which X was included in the
within the context of said provisions and
information filed by the Fiscal in court.
jurisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an untruthful
statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171(4), RPC), and
When M testified in court, he repudiated the document
he being a private individual, he is culpable thereunder.
and told the court there was no truth to its contents as
(b) Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and
he was merely forced to sign it. Did lawyer B commit
172, RPC does not require that the document is
19
CRIMINAL LAW
required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a A: If the “talaan” or ledger which Fe made to show a
residence certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a falsehood was a private document, the only crime that Fe
“mere scrap of paper”. committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or
Intent to cause damage or actual damage, is not an unfaithfulness.
indispensable requisite for falsification of public document.
Criminal liability for falsification of a private document
Q: A falsified official or public document was found in does not arise without damage or at least proof of intent to
the possession of the accused. No evidence was cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
introduced to show that the accused was the author of which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of
the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court intent to cause damage.
convicted the accused of falsification of official or
public document mainly on the proposition that “the Since the “talaan” was falsified to cover up or conceal the
only person who could have made the erasures and the misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever
superimposition mentioned is the one who will be damage or intent to cause damage that will attend the
benefited by the alterations thus made” and that “he estafa.
alone could have the motive for making such
alterations”. If such “talaan” or ledger was a commercial document,
damage or proof of intent to cause damage is not necessary.
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the The falsification alone if done with intent to pervert the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of
ratiocination? Explain your answer. (1999 Bar) a commercial document. Damage or intent to cause damage,
would sustain the estafa independently of the falsification
A: Yes. The conviction is proper because there is a of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified crimes are committed – estafa and falsification of the
document is the one who falsified the same. commercial document. The falsification should not be
complexed with estafa since it was not committed as a
Falsification of Private Document (1989, 1991, 2007 necessary means to commit the estafa but rather resorted
Bar) to, to conceal or hide the misappropriation of the amount
she pocketed.
Q: In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed
against him by A, B interposed the defense of payment. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The crime committed by Fe are
In support thereof, he identified and offered in theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s
evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A. On possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only
rebuttal, A denied having been paid by B and having physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed
signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified
who testified that the alleged signature of A on the theft.
receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with
the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because
himself forged the signature of A. it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the
theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful
(a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified taking.
document in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph
of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? Simulation of birth
(b) If he is not, what offense of offenses may he be
charged with? (1991 Bar) Q: A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child
they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her
A: newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the
(a) No. B should not be liable for the crime of using a child as his parents. This was done in connivance with
falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are
172, RPC. He would be liable for forgery of a private the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C
document under the second mode of falsification under and the doctor? (2002 Bar)
Art. 172, RPC.
A: The couple, A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the
Being the possessor and user of the falsified document crime of simulation of birth penalized under Article 347 of
he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it
offense of introducing falsified document is already appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons
absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification. named therein are the parents of the child when they are
not really the biological parents of the said child constitutes
(b) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he the crime of simulation of birth.
should also be liable under Art. 182, which is false
testimony in civil cases. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “Child
Trafficking”, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of RA 7610. The
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a
to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the child.
rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing
in a “talaan” or ledger a figure lower than what was False testimony (1987, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997,
collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed 2005, 2008 Bar)
the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any?
Explain your answer. (2007 Bar) Q: Explain and illustrate “subordination of perjury”.
(1993 Bar)
21
CRIMINAL LAW
provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or
from P6, 000to P12, 000, or both such imprisonment irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate?
and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, (2006 Bar)
give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture
or literature which are offensive to morals. A: Yes. Commissioner Torres violated the following:
Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons. (1993 Bar) 1. Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) for receiving gifts
offered by reason of office.
A: No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the 2. RA 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
law (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the protection of public Public Officials and Employees when he solicited and
moral and not only the moral of an individual. accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]).
3. PD 46 making it punishable for public officials and
F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS employees to receive, and for private persons to give
gifts on any occasion, including Christmas.
Bribery (1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005, 2006,
2010, 2014 Bar) Q: A, who is the private complainant in a murder case
pending before a Regional Trial Court judge, gave a
Q: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of
arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines,
hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, easily worth P10, 000.00. The judge accepted the gift
through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence knowing it came from A. What crime or crimes, if any,
Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the were committed? (1997, 1993 Bar)
amount of P500, 000 in consideration for the
destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to A: The judge committed the crime of indirect bribery under
destroy the drug. Art. 211 of the RPC. The gift was offered to the judge by
reason of his office. In addition, the judge will be liable for
State with reasons whether Patrick committed the the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts
following crimes: by public officials and employees on occasions like
Christmas.
(a) Direct bribery
(b) Indirect bribery Qualified bribery
(c) Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) Q: What is the crime of qualified bribery? May a judge
(d) Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829 (2005 Bar) be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about
a public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain. (2010
A: Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Bar)
Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3
(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA3019) A: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer
and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829. who is entrusted with law enforcement and who, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains
(a) Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has
consideration of P500, 000.00, he committed a committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/
violation of PD 1829 by destroying the drugs which or death (Art. 211-A, RPC).
were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
(b) Indirect bribery is not committed because he received No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his
the P500, 000.00 as consideration for destroying the official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but
evidence against the offender, which was under his the determination of cases already filed in court.
official custody as a public officer. The money was not
delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted
his public office. for this crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside
(c) Patrick also violated Section 3 (e), R.A. 3019 causing from dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art. 208
undue injury to the government through evident bad of the Revised Penal Code, should he refrain from
faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
destroying evidence of a crime. punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in
(d) Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.
is committed by destroying evidence intended to be
used in official proceedings in criminal case. Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting
such offender for the same consideration above stated, may
Indirect bribery be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer
entrusted with law enforcement.
Q: Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters Malversation of Public Funds (1987, 1988, 1990, 1994,
addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2006, 2008 Bar)
Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various
multinational corporations requesting donations of Q: Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town,
gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the was also the treasurer of a charity ball of the church.
Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt Because he was short of payroll funds for the municipal
and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner employees, he used part of the church funds to
Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, replenish the payroll funds with the intention of
radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her returning the same when the public funds came.
staff also received several envelopes containing cash
money for the employees' Christmas luncheon. Has
23
CRIMINAL LAW
even though the properties belong to a private individual 1. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally
(Art. 222, RPC). liable for any offense. The detention prisoner who
escapes from detention does not commit any crime. If
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory he were a convict by final judgment who is serving a
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty and he
evidence that they had put the same to their personal use. escapes during term of his sentence, he would be liable
for Evasion of Service Sentence (Art. 157).
Q: Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of 2. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of Evasion
Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day- thru Negligence, one of the forms of Infidelity in the
long official conference. He alighted from the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224), the essential elements of
government car which was officially assigned to him, which offense are:
leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and
rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with a. That the offender is a public officer
the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for b. That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner,
P20, 000.00, although the car was worth P800, 000.00. either detention prisoner/s by final judgment
c. That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru
(a) What are the respective crimes, if any, committed his negligence.
by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
(b) What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? All of these elements are present, Daniel, a policeman
Explain. (2005 Bar) detailed in the city jail, is a public officer. As the escort
for Ernani in the latter’s trial, he had custody of charge
A: of a detention prisoner. Ernani escape was thru his
negligence because after removing Ernani’s handcuffs
(a) Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation and allowing him to sit in one of the chairs inside the
committed through negligence or culpa. The courtroom, he should have taken the necessary
government car which was assigned to him is public precautions to prevent Ernani’s escape by keeping an
property under his accountability by reason of his eye on him. Instead, he provided the opportunity for
duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking the escape by talking with a lawyer and not keeping
of the car by another person, resulting in malversation, watch over his prisoner.
consistent with the language of Art. 217 of RPC.
3. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty of the
Danny committed the crime of fencing for having crime of Delivering Prisoners From Jails (Art. 156),
bought the car which was the proceeds of carnapping, which is committed by any person who either removes
a crime in the nature of theft or robbery of motor from any jail or penal establishment any person
vehicle. The presumption of fencing applies to him for confined therein, or who helps the escape of such
he paid a price so inadequate for the value of the car. person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of
other means. The act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani
Jules committed the crime of carnapping for the his cigarette container is helping in the latter’s escape
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of the by other means.
government’s motor vehicle. (Unlawful taking of a
motor vehicle is now governed by the Anti-Carnapping Q: Amy was apprehended and arrested by the
Act, R.A. 6539, not by the provisions of the RPC on theft Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was detained at
or robbery). the police precinct, underwent investigation, and
released only after 48 hours.
(b) Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for
restitution of the car to the government or if not (a) Is Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain
possible, reparation of damages caused by payment of your answer.
the replacement cost of the car minus allowance for (b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with
depreciation, and to indemnify consequential damages. patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby?
Infidelity of Public Officers State your reasons. (1990 Bar)
25
CRIMINAL LAW
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious physical
strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing injuries as the wounding of Nereo was the natural and
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to logical consequences of Lino’s felonious act.
insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; (b) Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, injury to Nereo as he was performing a lawful act with
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment due care and the injury was caused by mere accident
or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means (Art. 12, par. 4), or that he was in lawful exercise of a
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means right (Art. 11, par. 6), that is, defense of a stranger.
involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, Q: In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity; customers inside a nightclub became unruly, guns were
5. With evident premeditation; fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that
scoffing at his person or corpse. A’s gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially
Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who contribute to it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability
as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury.
was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu” at the Would you agree? Why? (2003 Bar)
time he committed the stabbing.
A: No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability
What should be the proper charge against Candido? should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should
Explain. (2005 Bar) be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted
said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal
A: Candido should be charged with murder qualified by weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm
treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123).
the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being
under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying Q: Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter,
(Sec. 25, RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Gaston, while driving a car, saw Belle crossing the
2002). Hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston
the maximum. decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he
was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his
Homicide (1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2003, car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes.
2005, 2014 Bar) Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle
skidded and hit Belle causing her death. What is the
Q: Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. liability of Gaston? Why? (2005 Bar)
Lino then suddenly drew his balisong and lunged at
Okito. In an effort to break up the fight, Tommy tried to A: Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the
snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter felonious act which caused Belle’s death, although the
had inflicted a wound on Okito. As Lino withdrew the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to
weapon and attempted to stab Okito a second time, commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 [3],
Tommy tried to grab the weapon again. In so doing, his RPC). The act having been deliberately done with malice, is
left forearm was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s death,
away the balisong with his right arm, it flew with such brings about criminal liability although the wrong done.
force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously
injured. Rape (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009
Bar)
Explain your answers fully.
Q: The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental
(a) What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to retardate with an intellectual capacity between the
Okito, Tommy and Nereo? ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the
(b) In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo? (1992 trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused,
Bar) replied “Masarap, it gave me much pleasure.”
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under Q: A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa
paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with
amended, “when the offender’s penis is inserted into his her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she
mouth or anal orifice.” was infatuated with the man, who was good-looking
and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the
Q: Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why?
inside the master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and (2002 Bar)
threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his
desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when A: A committed the crime of Consented Abduction under
his wife caught him in the act. Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12
acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC, for and under 18 years of age, carried out with her consent and
lascivious conduct under RA 7610 (Special Protection with lewd designs. Although the problem did not indicate
against Child Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination the victim to be a virgin, virginity should not be understood
Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of
the crime committed? Explain. (2016 Bar) good reputation, since the essence of the crime is not the
A: The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and sex organ of injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
Lulu who is under 12 years of age, are merely acts of (Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871).
lasciviousness and not attempted rape because intent to
have sexual intercourse is not clearly shown. (People v. Trespass to dwelling
Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013) To be held
liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that the erectile Q: At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way
penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto’s son, saw
166441, October 8, 2014) or the offender actually Dante and accosted him. Dante pulled a knife and
commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ. stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the
(People v. Banzuela, supra) commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was
about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered
The same acts of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu injuries which, were it not for the timely medical
under psychological coercion or influence of her stepfather, attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto
Braulio, constitutes sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA sustained injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days.
No. 7610. (People v. Optana, G.R. No. 133922, February 12,
2001) What crime/s did Dante commit? (1994 Bar)
Since the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article A: Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling,
336 of the Revised Penal Code are met, in addition to the frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious
requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA No. 7610, physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
and the victim is under 12 years of age, Braulio shall be
prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under the Revised
27
CRIMINAL LAW
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the because of the violence employed to compel such
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious confession without the offended party being confined
crime, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime in jail. (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
and the former constitutes an aggravating circumstance of
dwelling (People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil 788). It is noted that the offended party was merely
“brought” to the police headquarters and is thus not a
Grave Threats and Coercion (1987, 1988, 1989, 1998, detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the
1999) crime committed would be maltreatment of prisoners.
Q: Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He Robbery (1987, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2012
saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy Bar)
to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but
Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, “If Q: Five robbers robbed one after the other five houses
you will not give back the necklace to me, I will kill occupied by different families located inside a
you!” Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy compound enclosed by a six-foot high hollow block
gave the necklace to Isagani. What offense did Isagani fence. How many robberies did the five commit?
commit? (1998 Bar) Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, A: The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of
RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or the law because when they entered the compound, they
intimidation, to do something against the latter’s will, were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that
intimidation approximating violence constitute grave there were five families inside said compound, considering
coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat that the same was enclosed by a six-foot high hollow block
in this case because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly fence. The series of robbery committed in the same
weapon. compound at about the same time constitutes one
continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
The crime cannot be robbery because intent to gain, which
is an essential element of robbery, is absent since the Q: A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night
necklace belongs to Isagani. out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is
being used by B as a bank for his coins from inside their
Q: locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A
broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the
(a) Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. presence of his friends.
(b) Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a
person was tortured and maltreated by agents of (a) What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain.
the law in order to compel him to confess a crime (b) Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article
imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother
draw from him a confession which was their of B? Explain. (2000 Bar)
intention to obtain through the employment of
such means. What crime was committed by the A:
agents of the law? (1999 Bar)
A: (a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon
things, because the coconut shell with the coins inside,
(a) Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of
follows: In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the their home (Art. 299 [b], [2], RPC).
employment of violence or serious intimidation (b) No. A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art.
approximating violence, without authority of law, to 332 because said Article applies only to theft,
prevent a person from doing something not prohibited swindling, or malicious mischief. Here, the crime
by law or to compel him to do something against his committed is robbery.
will whether it be right or wrong; while in Illegal
Detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or Q: A entered the house of another without employing
locking up of a person thereby depriving him of his force or violence upon things. He was seen by a maid
liberty without authority of law. If there was no intent who wanted to scream but was prevented from doing
to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the so because A threatened her with a gun. A then took
crime of illegal detention is not committed. money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft
(b) Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the or robbery? Explain. (2002 Bar)
agents of the law is a suspect and may have been
detained by them. If so and he had already been booked A: A is liable for robbery because the intimidation he
and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner employed on the maid before the taking of the money and
and the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to other valuables. It is the intimidation of the person relative
extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty, to the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of
in addition to the offender’s liability for the physical simply theft. ‘
injuries inflicted.
The non-employment of force upon things is of no moment
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police because robbery is committed not only by employing force
headquarters to make him admit the crime and upon things but also by employing violence against or
tortured/maltreated to make him confess to such intimidation of persons.
crime, but later released because the agents failed to
Q: Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold Q: A is the driver of B’s Mercedez Benz car. When B was
bracelet in front of his working place in Makati and, on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C
upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident.
owner engraved on the inside. Remembering his Upon his return, B came to know about the
parents’ admonition that he should not take anything unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified
which does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent
to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati quad precinct with the to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from
instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no
PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in
misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What
brought out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a crime/s, if any, were committed? Explain. (2016 Bar)
snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block
away from where Francis had found it and further A: The crime committed by A is carnapping. The unlawful
investigation traced the last possessor as PO1 Reyes. taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti-
Carnapping Law (RA 6539 as amended) and not by the
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had provisions on qualified theft or robbery. (People v.
not committed any crime because it was not he who had Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004) The concept of
found the bracelet, and moreover, it turned out to have carnapping is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence,
been stolen. rules applicable to theft or robbery are also applicable to
carnapping. (People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913,
Resolve the case with reasons. (2001 Bar) September 2, 2015) In theft, unlawful taking should be
understood within the Spanish concept of apoderamiento.
A: PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking
not committed any crime because he was not the one who must be coupled with the intent oto appropriate the object,
found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is which means intent to deprive the lawful owner of the
devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to thing, whether permanently or temporarily. (People v.
another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is Valenzuela, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007) In this case, A
characterized by intent to gain. took the car without the consent of B with intent to
temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the taking was
The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not “temporary” and for a “joy ride”, the Supreme Court in
belong to him and which he only held to be delivered to its People v. Bustinera (supra), sustains as the better view
owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain. which holds that when a person, either with the object of
going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging
another for delivery to the owner, the person to whom such to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of
property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes theft because by taking possession of the personal property
the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is
finder; if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction,
(People v. Avila, 44 Phil 720). enjoyment and pleasure.
Qualified theft (1992, 2002, 2006 Bar) Usurpation (1988, 1989, 1996 Bar)
Q: Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the
Q: A fire broke out in a department store. A, taking foothills which he planted with lanzones. On his last
advantage of the confusion, entered the store and visit there, he was shocked to discover that his land had
carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if been taken over by a group of 15 families whose
any, did he commit? Why? (2002 Bar) members had forcibly driven away his caretaker, had
29
CRIMINAL LAW
appropriated the fruits for themselves, and were not extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was
threatening to kill him should he try to eject them. burned. Discuss Eddie’s liability. (2000 Bar)
What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? A: Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated
Explain. (1988 Bar) stage. It is destructive arson because fire was resorted to in
destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited house
A: Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house
namely: was in fact already burned although not totally. In arson, it
is not required that the premises be totally burned for the
(a) Violation of Article 282, Grave threats xxx crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises
(b) Violation of Article 312 which provides that: suffer destruction by burning.
“Occupation of real property or usurpation of real
rights in property. – Any person who, by means of J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take
possession of any real property or shall usurp any real Adultery & Concubinage (1991, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2010
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to Bar)
the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed
by him, shall be punished by a fine...”. Q: A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a
man who was not her husband. The man did not know
Q: A and B, both farmers, entered the land owned by X she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them
and planted palay thereon. When X came to know about commit? Why? (2002 Bar)
it, he confronted A and B and inquired why the latter
occupied his land and planted palay thereon. A: A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery
under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
A, with a bolo in hand, replied that the land belongs to for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
the family of S, and not to X and at the same time said, while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who had
“If you touch this land and my palay, blood will flow on carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be married,
this ground.” Because of the said remark, X went to the shall not be liable for adultery.
Chief of Police and complained. The Chief of Police filed
a complex crime of Usurpation of Real Property with Q: A is married. He has a paramour with whom he had
Grave Threats. sexual relations on a more or less regular basis. They
meet at least once a week in hotels, motels, and other
What crime/s were committed? (1989 Bar) places where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any crime?
Why?
A: The crime committed by A and B is squatting under PD
772 and not Usurpation of Real Property because in the A: A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual
latter crime, there must be violence against or intimidation intercourse under scandalous circumstances, with a
of persons employed in taking possession of any real woman who is not his wife.
property or in usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC). In this case, it appears Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in
that A and B entered X’s land without the owner’s consent hotels, motels, and other places may be considered
or against his will but without any violence against or scandalous circumstances that offends public conscience,
intimidation of persons. giving rise to criticism and general protest, such acts being
imprudent and wanton and setting a bad example (People v.
The crime of squatting is committed by any person, who, Santos, 86 SCRA 705).
with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or taking
advantage of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, K. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
succeeds in occupying or possessing the property of the
latter against his will for residential, commercial or any Libel (2002, 2005, 2013, 2016 Bar)
other purposes.
Q: A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the
The threat uttered by A, not having been used in the taking Executive Branch of the government. His nomination
of possession of the land, it is not absorbed in the crime of was thereafter submitted to the Commission on
squatting. When A threatened X that blood will flow if X Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission
touches the land and his palay, he committed the crime of was considering the nomination, a group of concerned
grave threats by threatening another with the infliction of a citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a
wrong amounting to a crime. Only A is criminally liable for full-page statement objecting to A’s appointment. They
the crime of grave threats. alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had
Arson (1994, 2000 Bar) several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having
accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting
Q: One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie business in his previous office, and therefore he was
Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later that evening, at about unfit for the position to which he had been nominated.
11 o’clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying As a result of the publication, the nomination was not
a plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The
house of Mario who was inside the house watching official sued the concerned citizens and the
television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house newspapers for libel and damages on account of his
started blazing and some neighbors yelled and non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? (2002
shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning Bar)
portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help
put the fire under control before any great damage A: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers
could be inflicted and before the flames have involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they
Q: Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was ARTICLE 365 – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (2001, 2007
sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for the public publication BAR)
of his picture with the notice that: “This is to inform the
public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears Q: Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith healer
above has ceased to be connected with the Sincere known as “Mother Himala”. He was diagnosed by the
Insurance Company as underwriter as of December 31, faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie
1987. Any transaction entered into by him after the thereupon authorized the conduct of a “treatment”
said date will not be honored. calculated to drive the “spirit” from the boy’s body.
Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 boy’s death.
Bar)
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the
healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted
31
CRIMINAL LAW
A: No. The conviction for murder should not be sustained (a) That the child is related to him by affinity, or by
because there is no indication that the accused acted with consanguinity within the fourth degree or by a
intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the bond recognized in law, or local customs and
accused acted to “treat” the victim in a way of driving the traditions; or
evil spirit which was believed to have “possessed” him. (b) That he was only acting in pursuance of a moral,
Considering that the proximate cause of the victim’s death social or legal duty [Sec. 10 (b), Art. VI, R.A. 7610]
was the healing ritual done by the accused which is not
recognized in law as legitimate, the accused are criminally Q: Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in
liable for the victim’s death. As they may have overdone the Luneta Park, watching the statue of Jose Rizal, when,
“healing ritual” they conducted on the victim’s body, without his permission, Leilani, 17 years of age, sat
causing the latter’s death, although the intent to kill was beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly
absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for for payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for sex.
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested
and charged him with violation of Section 10 of RA 7610
(Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act), accusing him of
having in his company a minor, who is not related to
him, in a public place. It was established that Arnold
was not in the performance of a social, moral and legal
duty at that time.
(1) The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D 1612) (1987, 1990, 1992,
the violation of Rep. Act. 7610, a law providing special 1995, 1996, 2005, 2010, 2013 Bar)
protection against child abuse, exploitation and
discrimination. Q: Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received form the
Provincial Treasurer of the Province five (5) brand new
One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized typewriters for use in the municipal treasurer’s office.
under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping company Each typewriter is valued at P10, 000.00. Since Pedro
of a minor who is ten (10) years or younger than the needed money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he
offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, sold four (4) of the typewriters to his friend, Rodolfo, a
pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach general merchant in San Isidro for P2, 000.00 each.
Rodolfo, as a general merchant knew that one
resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col
Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory typewriter could easily be between P6, 000.00 to P10,
retirement, while the child he kept company within a 000.00. For this reason, he readily agreed to buy the
private room in the beach resort is only 14 years old, typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at P6,
there must be an age difference of more than 10 years 000.00 thus making a profit of P16, 000.00. Two
between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. months after the transaction, Pedro was audited and
Col. Agaton stayed with the child, a girl in one room at the investigation as to his accountabilities led to the
such beach resort for two nights and thereafter he gave discovery that Rodolfo bought the four (4) typewriters
her P1,000.00 “for her services”, constitutes the very from Pedro. Is Rodolfo liable for violation of the Anti-
evil punished, among other acts, in said law. Fencing Law? (1987 Bar)
(a) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; In this case, Ofelia’s defense that she merely acquired
(b) Accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the the jewelries through a legitimate transaction is
crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, sufficient. Further, there is no other circumstance as
conceals or disposes or buys and sells or in any regards the jewelries which would indicate to Ofelia, an
manner deals in any article, item, object or innocent purchaser, that the jewelries were the subject
anything of value , which has been derived from the of theft. There was even a receipt produced by Ofelia
proceeds of said crime; for the transaction.
(c) The accused knows or should have known that said
article, item, object or anything of value has been ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (R.A. NO.
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery 3019, AS AMENDED) (1990,1991, 2001, 2008, 2009,
or theft; and 2010, 2014, 2016 Bar)
(d) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain
for himself or for another. Q:
(2) One difference between a fence and accessory to theft a. Melda who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits
or robbery is the penalty involved – a fence is punished Naya, was persuaded by a litigant, Jumbo, to have
as a principal under PD No. 1612 and the penalty is his case calendared as early as possible for a
higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under consideration of P500.00. May she be held
the RPC is punished two degrees lower than the criminally liable for this accommodation? Explain
principal, unless he bought or profited from the your answer.
proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in b. What will be the criminal liability of Melda if she
Philippine highways under PD 532 where he is volunteered to persuade Judge Tolits Naya to rule
punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one in Jumbo’s favor without asking any consideration?
degree lower. Explain your answer. (1990 Bar)
33
CRIMINAL LAW
Q: Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the (Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. 79543, October 16,
accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he 1996).
would convince the judge to acquit him for a
consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and (B) Under Section 2 of PD 532, highway robbery is defined
delivered the money through his lawyer to the clerk of as “the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion, or
court. other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence against or
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule intimidation of person or force upon things or other
on the evidence and convicted the accused. unlawful means, committed by any person on any
Philippines highway.” Hence, the elements of highway
Malo was charged with violation of Section 3 (b), RA robbery are:
3019 which prohibits a public officer from directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, (a) Intent to gain;
share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, (b) Unlawful taking of property of another;
in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. (c) Violence against or intimidation of any person;
He was later charged also with indirect bribery under (d) Committed on a Philippine highway.
the RPC. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under
the RPC for the same act under RA 3019. Is he correct? To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the
(2014 Bar) prosecution must prove that the accused were
organized for the purpose of committing robbery
A: No. One may be charged with violation of RA No. 3019 in indiscriminately. If the purpose is only a particular
addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band
either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a if there are at least four armed participants (See People
felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Section 3 of RA v. Mendoza, GR No. 104461, February 23, 1996).
3019. Also, RA 3019 is a special law, the elements of the
crime is not the same as those punished under the RPC. Q: Distinguish Highway Robbery under PD No. 532 from
Robbery committed on a highway. (2000 Bar)
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY (P.D. NO.
532) (2000, 2001, 2006, 2008, 2012 Bar) A: Highway Robbery under PPD 532 differs from ordinary
Robbery committed on a highway in these respects:
Q: A postal van containing mail matter, including
checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a (1) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is
national highway by ten (10) men, two of whom, were committed indiscriminately against persons who
armed. They used force, violence and intimidation commute in such highways, regardless of the
against the three postal employees who were potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery
occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking committed on a highway, the robbery is committed
and aspiration of the entire van and its contents. only against predetermined victims;
(A) If you were the public prosecutor, would you (2) It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the
charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal offender is a brigand or one who roams in public
van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, highways and carries out his robbery in public
otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti- highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do so
Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the RPC when the
answer. commission thereof in a public highway is only
(B) If you were the defense counsel, what are the incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and
elements of the crime of highway robbery that the (3) In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency
prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? in the commission of the robbery in public highways
(2012 Bar) and against persons traveling thereat; whereas
A: ordinary robbery in public highways is only occasional
against a predetermined victim, without frequency in
(A) No. I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of public highways.
highway robbery. The mere fact that the offense
charged was committed on a highway would not be the ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080, AS AMENDED)
determinant for the application of PD No. 532. If a (1993, 2014)
motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a
highway is forcibly taken at a gunpoint by the accused Q: Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions
who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of and other fraudulent schemes/conveyances and taking
the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a
necessarily put the offense within the ambit of PD 532. suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10
billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful
In this case, the crime committed is violation of the income. Due to his influence and connections and
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Punk, GR No. despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten
97471, February 17, 1993). Moreover, there is no wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only
showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last
organized for the purpose of depredation upon the elections he participated in.
persons and properties of innocent and defenseless
inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What (1) May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why?
was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van. It (2) Can the State still recover the properties and assets
was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men that he illegally acquired, the bulk of which is in the
previously attempted at similar robberies by them to name of his wife and children? Reason out. (1993
establish the “indiscriminate” commission thereof Bar)
Q: Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since (a) The Battered Woman Syndrome is characterized by the
their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, so-called “cycle of violence,” which has three phases:
preferring to stay with his “barkadas” until the wee (1) tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering
hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or at least,
attended to the needs of their three (3) growing nonviolent) phase.
children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would
beat Ms. A and their three children, and shout During the tension-building phase, minor battering
invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating occurs – it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or
incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her another form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to
tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. pacify the batterer through a kind, nurturing behavior;
Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed or by simply staying out of his way. The acute battering
against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, incident is characterized by brutality, destructiveness
as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, and sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this
when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During
Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may
her. put an end to the violence. The final phase of the cycle
of violence begins when the acute battering incident
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience
the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then profound relief.
stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his
instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that (b) Yes. Under Section 3(c) of RA No. 9262, “Battered
the husband suffered three (3) stabbed wounds. Can Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined
Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (2014 Bar) pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering relationships as a
A: Yes. Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman result of “cumulative abuse”. Under Section 3(b),
syndrome. It appears that she is suffering from physical and “Battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm
psychological or emotional distress resulting from upon the woman or her child resulting in physical and
cumulative abuse by her husband. psychological or emotional distress.
Under Section 26 of RA 9262, “victim survivors who are In sum, the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can
found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman be invoked if the woman in marital relationship with
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery
35
CRIMINAL LAW
involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the A: No. As long as the checks issued were issued to apply on
physical and psychological or emotional distress. account or for value, and was dishonored upon
Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. presentation for payment to the drawee bank for lack of
In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the
between the accused and her intimate partner and such ambit of B.P. Blg. 22. Said law expressly punishes any
final episode produced in the battered person’s mind person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee bank
an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer within ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon.
and an honest belief that she needed to use force in
order to save her life. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, Estafa (1989, 1998, 1990, 1991, 2005, 2010, 2013, 2014
January 15, 2004) Bar)
In this case, because of the battering episodes, Julia Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a
feared the onset of another violent fight and honestly lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as the
believed the need to defend herself even if Romeo had attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B
not commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in the mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of
absence of unlawful aggression, however, Battered attorney to obtain a loan of P8, 500. On the same day,
Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Section 27 of RA both the special power of attorney and the mortgage
No. 9262, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds.
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Because of B’s failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the
Revised Penal Code such as unlawful aggression. mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new
(Section 26, RA No. 9262) title was issued. In March 1974, A discovered that the
property was already registered in the name of X
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22) (1987, 1990, 1991, because an ejectment case filed against him by X.
1995, 1996, 2009, 2010, 2013 Bar)
(a) If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or
Q: As security for a loan of P50, 000.00 he obtained crimes would you charge B? Explain.
from his friend, Joseph David, payable not later than 17 (b) If you were the counsel of B, what would be your
April 1990, Roger Vasquez drew and delivered to defense? Discuss. (1993 Bar)
Joseph a check on due date. The check was dishonored
on the ground of insufficiency of funds. After A:
appropriate preliminary investigation, the City
Prosecutor filed against Roger an Information for (a) The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of
violation of B.P. Blg. No. 22 alleging therein, inter alia, public document.
that Roger “with intent to defraud, by means of deceit, (b) My defense will be prescription because the crime was
knowing fully well that he had no funds and/or committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years had
sufficient funds in the bank, for value received, did then already elapsed since then. xxx
and there, willfully and feloniously, issue the aforesaid
check” but “when the said check was presented for Q: On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corp.
encashment, said check was dishonored and returned” received from Maricar the sum of P500, 000 as money
on the ground of insufficiency of funds. market placement for sixty days at fifteen (15) percent
interest, and the President of said Corp. issued a check
In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial judge ruled covering the amount including the interest due
that Roger cannot be convicted of the offense charged thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the maturity date,
because the information failed to allege that he knew, however, Orpheus Financing Corp. failed to deliver
when he issued the check, that he would have back Maricar's money placement with the
insufficient funds for its payment in full upon its corresponding interest earned, notwithstanding
presentment to the drawee bank. repeated demands upon said Corporation to comply
with its commitment. Did the President of Orpheus
Is the judge correct? (1991 Bar) Financing Corporation incur any criminal liability for
estafa for reason of the non-payment of the money
A: No. The allegation satisfies the legal definition of the market placement? Explain. (1996 Bar)
offense. The maker’s knowledge of insufficiency of his funds
is legally presumed from the dishonor of the check for lack A: No. The President of the financing corporation does not
of funds (People v. Lagui, 171 SCRA 305). incur criminal liability for estafa because a money market
transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such that non-
Q: The accused was convicted under BP Blg. 22 for payment thereof would not give rise to estafa through
having issued several checks which were dishonored misappropriation or conversion. In money market
by the drawee bank on their due date because the placement, there is transfer of ownership of the money to
accused closed her account after the issuance of checks. be invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil
On appeal, she argued that she could not be convicted in nature.
under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her Q: A sold a washing machine to B on credit with the
account because said law applies solely to checks understanding that B could return the appliance within
dishonored by reason of insufficiency of funds and that two weeks if after testing the same, B decided not to buy
at the time she issued the checks concerned, she had it. Two weeks lapsed without B returning the appliance.
adequate funds in the bank. While she admits that she A found out that B had sold the washing machine to a
may be held liable for estafa under Article 215 of the third party. Is B liable for estafa? Why? (2002 Bar)
Revised Penal Code, she cannot however be found
guilty of having violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention A: No. B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an
correct? Explain. (1996 Bar) entrustee of the washing machine which he sold; he is the
owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the washing machine
to him. The sale being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for
Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT (R.A. 9165)
discuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of A's (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005,
car tires blew up. Before A left following the meeting, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016 Bar)
he asked B to lend him money to buy a new spare tire.
B had temporarily exhausted his bank deposits, leaving Q:
a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replenishment
of his account soon, B issued A a postdated check with (1) Distinguish entrapment from instigation. Discuss
which A negotiated for a new tire. When presented, the fully. (1990, 1995, 2003, 2015 Bar)
check bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed (2) Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SPO2
a criminal case against A and B. What would be the Mercado, leader of the Narcom team, gave Juan a
criminal liability, if any, of each of the two accused? P100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana
Explain. (2003 Bar) cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SPO2 Mercado,
Juan went inside the shopping mall while the
A: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a officer waited at the corner of mall. After 15
new tire for his car may only be prosecuted for estafa if he minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana
was aware at the time of such negotiation that the check has cigarettes which he gave to SPO2 Mercado who
no sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise, he is not thereupon placed Juan under arrest and charged
criminally liable. him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by
selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs
prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having issued the check, Act? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar)
knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in the
bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for A:
value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the facts
indicate that he is not actuated by intent to defraud in (1) As to the criminal design, in entrapment, it originates
issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even
the postdated check only to help A; criminal intent or dolo before entrapment. In instigation, the idea and design
is absent. to bring about the commission of the crime originated
and developed in the mind of the law enforcers;
Q: DD was engaged in the warehouse business.
Sometime in November 2004, he was in dire need of In entrapment, the law enforcers resort to ways and
money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in
warehouse to VR for P500, 000.00. DD was charged flagrante delicto. In instigation, the law enforcers
with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to
court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it,
ground that he purchased the merchandise in good into committing the crime; and
faith. However, the court ordered VR to return the
merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD to Entrapment will not bar the prosecution and conviction
refund the P500, 000.00 to VR. DD moved for the of the lawbreaker while instigation absolves the
reconsideration of the decision insisting that he should accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos,
be acquitted of theft because being the depositary, he 185 SCRA 154, 1990).
had juridical possession of the merchandise. VR also
moved for the reconsideration of the decision insisting (2) Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable
that since he was acquitted of the crime charged, and under the Dangerous Drugs Act. Although Juan is a
that he purchased the merchandise in good faith, he is suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the
not obligated to return the merchandise to its owner. basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with
Rule on the motions with reasons. (2005 Bar) which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SPO2 Mercado
A: The motion for reconsideration of DD should be denied. practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the
offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against
In this case, there being no proof that title to the goods was the facts instigation is a valid defense available to Juan.
transferred to DD, only physical possession is presumed
transferred to and obtained by DD. (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. Q: Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached
L-16961, September 19, 1921) Ronnie, a suspected drug pusher, and offered to buy
P300.00 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in five minutes later and handed the aluminum foil
theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused received containing the shabu to him. Before Pat. Buensuceso
the property and converts it to his own use or benefit. was able to deliver the marked money to Ronnie, the
However, there maybe theft even if the accused has latter spotted a policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie
possession of the property, if he was entrusted only with knew to be connected with the Narcotics Command of
the material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the Police. Upon seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away but
the thing, his misappropriation of the same constitutes was arrested thirty minutes later by other policemen
theft, but if he has the juridical possession of the thing, his who pursued him. Under the circumstances, would you
conversion of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa consider the crime of sale of a prohibited drug already
(Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, January 29, 1990). consummated? (1996 Bar)
While VR is acquitted of theft, such acquittal does not of A: Yes. The sale of prohibited drug is already consummated
itself negate civil liability of VR to return the property stolen although the marked money was not yet delivered. When
by DD. Civil liability on the part of VR exists despite Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu to
37
CRIMINAL LAW
(a) Proper. The mere possession of such drug is A: Anastacio may not be charged of any crime.
punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is not
proper as Section 15 of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Sec. 7 of RA 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly excludes of 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive or
penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs when the person resort where dangerous drugs are used in any form. But for
tested “is also found to have in possession such a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite
quantity of any dangerous drug” provided for in Section that he is “aware of the nature of the place as such and shall
11 of such Act. knowingly visit the same.” These requisites are absent in
(b) No. Because Section 23 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides the facts given.
that “Any person charged under any provision of this
Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be Q: Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation,
allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.” Tommy was convicted of violation of Section 5,
For this reason, Obie Juan cannot be allowed to plead Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the
guilty to a lesser offense. admissibility of the evidence because the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation failed to
Q: After receiving a reliable information that Dante observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence
Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL confiscated and/or seized from him.
Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa
formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived (a) What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug
at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his offenses? What is its rationale? (2009, 2016 Bar)
attaché case. Upon inspection the Immigration holding (b) What is the effect of failure to observe the
area, the attaché case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin requirement? (2009 Bar)
weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the
attaché case and boarded him in an unmarked car A: “Chain of custody” requirement in drug offenses refers to
driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp the duly recorded, authorized movement and custody of
Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner Edsa, seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, plant
Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment of
car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation/seizure
trunk to and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the
told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and
remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector eventual violation, and for destruction (Dangerous Drugs
Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2001)
the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents
had been following them and witnessed the Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus
transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable that
PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed the original item seized/ confiscated in the violation has
Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered
charged. with or contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the
evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable
What are their respective criminal liabilities? (2006 doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims to be.
Bar) Failure to observe the “chain of custody” requirement
39
CRIMINAL LAW
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or A: No. Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the
evaded sentence Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) for
7. Those who having been granted conditional having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated on destierro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that
the terms thereof the law shall not apply to those who shall have “evaded
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment sentence”.
does not exceed one year, not to those already
sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval Q: Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75
of this Act, except as provided in Sec. 5 hereof year old owner of his rooming house. The prosecution
proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his
Q: Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the
special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than six evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived.
years but not more than twelve years. No modifying Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he
circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he
you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the
Sentence Law? If so, how will you apply it? (1994, 1999 victim who first attacked and did so without any
Bar) provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
because he managed to draw his knife with which he
A: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section reclusion temporal. Assuming a judgment of conviction
1 Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for and after considering the attendant circumstances,
violations of special laws. Under the same provision, the what penalty should the judge impose? (2013 Bar)
minimum must not be less than the minimum provided
therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not A: Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence
be more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period to prision
years. correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was
entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances of
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law incomplete self-defense and the presence of at least two
(ISLaw) be inapplicable? (1999, 2003 Bar) ordinary mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender
and plea of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance
A: The ISLaw is not applicable to: under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which
lowers the prescribed penalty for homicide which is
1. Those persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
death penalty or life-imprisonment or reclusion
perpetua; JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. NO. 9344,
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to AS AMENDED, R.A. NO. 10630 AND IN RELATION TO
commit treason; P.D. 603) (1995, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2013 Bar)
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion,
sedition or espionage; Q: Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of
4. Those convicted of piracy; Mang Pandoy, Victor and Ricky entered the store while
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or ordering beer, Ricky complained that he was
evaded sentence; shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently
7. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by denied it. Suddenly, Ricky whipped out a knife as he
the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms announced “Hold-up ito!” and stabbed Mang Pandoy to
thereof; death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of
exceed one year; the store to seek help from people next door, she was
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang
of the approval of this Act; and Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash
10. Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and
involve imprisonment, like destierro. shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie
was 17. The money and other articles looted from the
Q: How are the maximum and the minimum terms of store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of
the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable Victor and Ricky.
under the Revised Penal Code determined? (2002 Bar)
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended
A: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code?
maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the Explain. (1995 Bar)
penalty properly imposable under the same Code after
considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating A: No. Because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not
circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. The available where the youthful offender has been convicted of
minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that Art. 294 (1), RPC (People v. Galit, 230 SCRA 486).
prescribed for the crime under the said Code.
Q:
Q: While serving his sentence, Macky entered the
prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joy’s (a) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he
sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence committed the crime. He was charged with the
in case he is found guilty of use of prohibited crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was
substances? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar) finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of
preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a
41
CRIMINAL LAW