Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6


2006 Q-IX
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave him
the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime - voyeurism. If not using his high-powered
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second choice was to follow
sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.
While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his
hand on her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was
arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the crime correct?
Suggested Answer:
No, the designation of the crime charged is not correct because the overt act committed by Eduardo
still falls short of the crime of acts of lasciviousness. The nature of the act done does not manifest
sexual desire. It is more appropriate to consider such overt act as mere annoyance or vexation,
constituting a crime of light coercion, commonly referred to as unjust vexation. The Revised Penal
Code favors a milder criminal responsibility.

2009 Q-VI
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the
entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it.
On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the police.
After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo
claims that the crime he committed had already prescribed.
Is Baldo’s contention correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, Baldo’s contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet prescribed. The
prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after it was reported to the
police on January 2 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely committed on January 2, 1960.
Under the discovery rule, which governs when a crime is not publicly committed, the prescriptive
period of a crime commences to run only from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents: in this case, from January 2, 1970 when it was made
known to the police authorities until January 6 1980, when Baldo was arrested and charged. The
killing committed, whether it be homicide or murder, is punishable by an afflictive penalty which
prescribes in twenty (20) years, whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2,
1970 (when the authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 6, 1920.
2010 Q-VI
There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a bank are related
to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160,
as amended (Anti-Money Laundering Act) an application for an order to allow inquiry into his
deposit was filed with the Regional Trial Court.
After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued a freeze order.
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct, because jurisdiction to issue
said freeze order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under RA9194, amending the Anti-
Money Laundering Act. The Regional Trial Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order.

2014 Q-II
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was a transgender.
On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a transgender. Macho
confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight
took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing
thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from continuing
with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with guns, Macho
accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the latter’s death. What was the crime
Suggested Answer:
Macho did not commit a crime. His act of point his gun at Ganda is a reasonable means to repel
an unprovoked unlawful aggression committed by the latter. Since his act of pointing the gun is
lawful, the firing thereof, which hit Ganda causing her death, should be treated as accident, which
is an exempting circumstance. In People v. Tiongco, C.A. 63 O.G. 3610, the accused, who
accidentally fired his gun while exercising his right to self-defense was acquitted.
His act of confronting Ganda about his real gender cannot be considered sufficient provocation on
his part.
2005 Q-15
In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against Erika, a
successful and reputable businesswoman.
What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made in a television program is penalized as libel under Art.
355 of the Revised Penal Code. Television falls under “similar means” in the enumeration as “radio
phonograph, theatrical exhibition, cnematographic exhibition, or any similar means in said Article.
(People vs. Casten, et al., C.A. G.R. No. 07924 – CR., Dec. 13 1974)

2007 Q-I
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
Suggested Answer:
The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment / destierro and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a
profession or calling
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties

2008 Q-II
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried
to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped,
Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which
caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle
1. What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain.
2. What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
1. Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car
to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his car is neither done with dolo
nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his right to
prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant
to Art. 429. Of the Civil Code.
2. Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under RA 6539 for driving away the motor
vehicle of Carlos against the latter’s will and obviously with intent to gain and (2) for
homicide for the death of the tricycle driver which resulted from the criminal act
deliberately being committed by Paolo (which is carnapping). The homicide was the result
of praeter intentionem and not a component of the crime of carnapping or a result of
reckless imprudence or of simple negligence.

2013 Q-X
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-dated
check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank
called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that the deposit of the check be
deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay
despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The
Bouncing Checks Law).
Was the charge brought against Frank correct?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the charge brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP22 is malum prohibitum which is
committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was
issued on account or for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason,
the request of Frank to defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate
against his prosecution for BP22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged.
Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held
criminally liable under Art. 332, RPC.

2008 Q-XV
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the
owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as "protection money". With the monthly
payment, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at round 3:00
in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled
a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three-year-old
daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
State, with reason, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating
circumstances, if any, attendant thereto?
Suggested Answer:
By demanding “protection money” under threat and intimidation that the businessman (Antonio)
would be killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse to pay the protection money, the
crime of grave threats committed by Roger, the leader of the crime syndicate.
For killing the businessman, his wife and three-year-old daughter, the complex crime of multiple
murder was committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime syndicate. The killing is qualified
by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the killing shall be separately
appreciated as another aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying

2014 Q-XXIV
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when
he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine.
Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on
minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor
offender is entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance.
1. May the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the
penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
2. Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no
fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum?
3. If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by A and
given due course by the court, may A still file an application for probation?
4. If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence?
Suggested Answer:
1. Yes, Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is always considered as a
modifying circumstance in the imposition of penalty of a child in conflict with the
2. Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence law is applicable even to special laws. Since life
imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in turn was graduated
to reclusion temporal, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable (People vs.
Monalaba, G.R. No. 186227, [July 20, 2011]).
3. Yes, A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a notice of appeal.
Section 42 of RA9344 provides that “The court may, after it shall have been
convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at
any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child.” The said section also provides that the
Probation Law is amended accordingly. The phrase “at any time” mentioned in
Section 42 means the child in conflict with the law may file application for
probation at any time, even beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if
the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of the conviction.
4. If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor shall serve his sentence in an
agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of