Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 44

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Questions Asked More
Than Once
(QuAMTO 2017)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by

UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST
Academics Committee to fit for the 2017 Bar Exams.

*Bar questions are arranged per topic in accordance with the bar syllabus
released by the Supreme Court and were selected based on their occurrence
on past bar examinations from 1987 to 2016.








QUAMTO (1987-2016)
Q: Distinguish between crimes mala in se and mala
CRIMINAL LAW QUAMTO prohibita. (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005 Bar)

A: In concept, crimes mala in se are those where the acts or

PART I. REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I omissions penalized are intently bad, evil, or wrong that
they are almost universally condemned. Crimes mala
prohibita are those where the acts penalized are not
inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for
A. FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN public good, public welfare, or interest and whoever violate
CRIMINAL LAW the prohibition are penalized.
Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws In legal implications, in crimes mala in se, good faith or lack
of criminal intent or negligence is a defense, while in crimes
Q: What are the limitations upon the power of Congress mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or
to enact penal laws? (1988, 2012 Bar) malice is not a defense; it is enough that the prohibition was
voluntarily violated. Also, criminal liability is generally
A: The limitations upon the power of congress to enact incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime is only
penal laws are as follows: attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita,
criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law. is consummated.
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder.
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment. Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are appreciated in imposing the penalties,
However, other limitations may be considered like: while in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not
appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a or scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
condition. Congress shall punish an act and not the
condition or status. (Robinson v. California) Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense in mala in se except
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised when the crime results from criminal negligence. Such
Penal Code which provides that penalties that may be defense is not available in cases of mala prohibita.
imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission. Q: May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time,
malum prohibitum? (1997 Bar)
Doctrine of Pro Reo (2010, 2012 Bar)
A: Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum
Q: What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo? How does it relate at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et. al. (CA, 50 OG 5880)
to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? (2010 Bar) it was held that the omission or failure of election
inspection and poll clerks to include a voters name in the
A: The Doctrine of Pro Reo provides that whenever a penal registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard, it
interpretations, one lenient to the offender and one strict to is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a
the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is
favorable to the offender will be adopted. considered malum prohibitum.
Following this doctrine, crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC are Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code (1988,
complexed and punished with a single penalty (that 1994, 1998, 2000, 2015, 2016 Bar)
prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in
its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused Q: State the characteristics of criminal law and explain
who commits two crimes with a single criminal impulse each. (1988, 1998 Bar)
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are
committed by different acts and several criminal A: The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:
resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8,
2004). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would
bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the 1. Generality that the law is binding upon all persons
penalties imposable for all the component crimes if who reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of
prosecuted separately. age, sex, color, creed, or personal circumstances.
2. Territoriality that the law is applicable to all crimes
Q: What is the fundamental principle in applying and committed within the limits of Philippine territory,
interpreting criminal laws xxx? (2012 Bar) which includes its atmosphere interior water and
maritime zone. (Art. 2)
A: The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying 3. Prospectivity that the law does not have any
penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The phrase in dubio retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless
pro reo means when in doubt, for the accused (Intestate he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law
Estate of Gonzales v. People, GR No. 181409, February 11, otherwise provides.
2010). This is in consonance with the constitutional
guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent Q: Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage
until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie
doubt (See People v. Temporary, GR No. 173473) returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and
wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can
Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar)
2005 Bar)


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, Bs 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 Bs 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.
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
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.


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping against
room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? (2000 Bar)
a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in
Laurel. A:

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
Elsas 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
actors 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
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 Pulas 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 Xs 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 detat and rape, may one be criminally
fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a liable for frustrated coup detat or frustrated rape?
ransom note demanding P500,0 00 from Carlas Explain. (2005 Bar)
parents in exchange for Carlas 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 Carlas parents, d etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony,
Enriques 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 Carlas 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


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 Harrys 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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
(B) What constitutes a complex crime? How many
crimes may be involved in a complex crime? What A: In concept An ordinary complex crime is made up of
is the penalty therefor? (1999 Bar) two or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of
the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one information
A: either because they were brought about by a single
felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means
(A) The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the for committing the other offense or offenses. They are
offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be
committed are determined by the number of bullets imposed.
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic,
the offender need only press the trigger once and it A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of
would fire continually. For each death caused by a two or more crimes which are considered only as
distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct components of a single indivisible offense being punished
criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the in one provision of the Revised Penal Code.
trigger which should be considered as producing the
several felonies, but the number of bullets which As to penalties In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for
actually produced them. the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its
(B) A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused maximum period.
two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an
offense is committed as a necessary means to commit In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
another offense. (Art 48, RPC) prescribed for all the component crimes which are
regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes
At least two crimes are involved in a complex crime; either are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty to be
two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a imposed for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be
single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty
for committing another. specifically provided for the special complex crime that
shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the
The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed penalty.
and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)
Composite crime (1998, 1999, 2004)
Q: Distinguish between
Q: A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and when they
(1) xxx were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and
(2) Between compound and complex crime as ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police
concepts. (2004 Bar) officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet
A: Compound crimes result when the offender committed which killed him came from the firearm of the police
only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D?
resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first (1998, 2004 Bar)
part of Article 48, RPC, limiting the resulting crimes to only
grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are
excluded even though resulting from the same single act. A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery
with homicide because the death of the bank employee was
Complex crime result when the offender has to commit an brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion
offense as a necessary means for committing another of robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby
offense. Only one Information shall be filed and if proven, causing such death by reason or on the occasion of robbery;
the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed. Hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

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,


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. STs 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, AAs 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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused precise moment when the crime was being committed.
the latters death. Can Pedro be absolved of the killing The facts of the case indicate that Romeo committed
on the ground that it is in defense of a relative? Explain. the crime with discernment and was only diagnosed to
(2016 Bar) be mentally unstable after the crime was committed.
(b) The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a
A: No. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense suspension of the proceeding against Romeo and his
of relative under Art. 11(20 of the Revised Penal Code are commitment to appropriate institution for treatment
his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural until he could already understand the proceedings.
or adopted brothers or sisters or of his relatives by affinity
in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the Minority
fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within the same
degree includes ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Q: While they were standing in line awaiting their
the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping repeatedly
ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months
spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the and 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc
fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case, Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around
Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the
consanguinity. Juan, therefore, is not a relative of Pedro for ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled
purpose of applying the provision on defense of relative. profusely. Realizing what she had caused, Katreena
immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she
Pedro, however, can invoke defense of a stranger. Under the freely admitted to the school principal that she was
Revised Penal Code, a person who defends a person who is responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the
not his relative may invoke the defense of a stranger incident, she executed a statement admitting her
provided that all its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right
aggression; (b) reasonable necessity of the means eye. (2000, 1998 Bar)
employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other (a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why?
evil motive. (b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects
Defense of Stranger
Q: A chanced upon three men who were attacking B
with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B (a) No. Katreena is not criminally liable due to her
with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the minority. She is exempted from criminal liability for
aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although
men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. over nine (9) years of age. Nonetheless is she civilly
May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying liable.
circumstance in his favor? Why? (Bar 2002)
(b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered
A: Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense are:
of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he
shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no 1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance
indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment or under Art. 12(3) of RPC, where she shall be exempt
any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she
par. 3, Art. 11 of the RPC. acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused is
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (1998, 2000, 2010 BAR) a privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary
penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that
Insanity prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in
accordance with Art. 68(1) of RPC. The sentence
Q: While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, however, should automatically be suspended in
Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. accordance with Sec. 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369 (Family
Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea Courts Act of 1997);
told Romeo that she was going back to the province to 3. Likewise if found criminally liable, the ordinary
marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit so
jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she grave a wrong as that committed under Art. 13(3) of
was sleeping in the maids quarters. the RPC may apply;
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside provocation on the part of the offended party
the maids quarters. He was brought to the National immediately preceded the act.
Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with
murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.
(a) Will Romeos defense prosper? Explain. 1997, 1999, 2012, 2016 BAR)
(b) What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on
the case? (2010 Bar) Q: What is a privileged mitigating circumstance?
A: Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from
an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of
(a) No. Romeos defense of insanity will not prosper. penalty and offsetting against aggravating
Insanity as a defense to the commission of a crime must circumstance/s. (2012 Bar)
have existed and proven to have been existing at the


A: Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that 2. That such plea was made before the court competent to
mitigate the criminal liability of the accused by graduating try the case and render judgment; and
the imposable penalty for the crime being modified to one 3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of
or two degrees lower. These circumstances cannot be offset evidence for the prosecution.
by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of
incomplete justification or exemption (when majority of the AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (1988, 1991, 1993,
conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009 BAR)
(if the child above 15 years of age acted with discernment)
are privileged mitigating circumstance. Q: The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then
threw the body of the baby outside the window. Can the
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged aggravating circumstance of cruelty be considered in
mitigating circumstances are as follows: this case? Reason. (1988 Bar)

a. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties A: Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the
(RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a mitigating aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires deliberate
circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the
circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible baby was dead already so that there is no more
penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on prolongation to speak of.
graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the presence
of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of Q: At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
reducing the penalty one to two degrees lower; were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila, Johnny
b. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy
aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny
circumstances are not subject to the off-set rule. and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed
Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting
Surrender and Confession of Guilt Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died.

Q: After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged
succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced and with homicide. Can the court appreciate the
surrendered to the authorities about two years later. aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after (1994 Bar)
the prosecution had presented two witnesses
implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that A: No. Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
of guilty. Should the mitigating circumstances of circumstance because there is no indication that the
voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to
favor of the accused? (1997 Bar) facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took
advantage of nighttime (People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA
A: Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of 707) Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider the Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
surrender as spontaneous (People v. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184,
March 26, 1990). However, band should be considered as the crime was
committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a
For sure the government had already incurred considerable recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are
efforts and expenses in looking for the accused. Plea of considered deadly weapons.
guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating Q: Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating
circumstance because the prosecution had already started circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of
with the presentation of its evidence (Art. 13[7], RPC). crimes and nature thereof. Distinguish generic
aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating
Q: When is surrender by an accused considered circumstance. (1999 Bar)
voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender? (1999 Bar) A: The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:

A: A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when 1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally apply
it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit to all crimes, and can be offset by mitigating
unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating, the circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the
surrender must be: maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to
a. Spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating
and not for convenience nor conditional; circumstances;
b. Made before the government incurs expenses, time and 3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the
effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts; nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a
and penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by
c. Made to a person in authority or the letter's agents. mitigating circumstances;
4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially
Q: In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, accompany the commission of the crime and do not
what requisites must be complied with? (1999 Bar) affect the penalty whatsoever.

A: For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are: The distinctions between generic aggravating
circumstances and qualifying aggravating circumstances
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the are as follows:
crime charged;
Generic aggravating circumstances:


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
criminal information for estafa, but the actual recital of
a. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty facts of the offense charged therein, if proven, would
higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed; constitute not only the crime of estafa, but also
b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances; falsification of public document as a necessary means
c. need not be alleged in the Information as long as for committing estafa. AAA invokes the absolutory
proven during the trial; cause of relationship by affinity. Which statement is
d. the same shall be considered in imposing the most accurate? (2012 Bar)
A: There are two views on whether the extinguishment of
Qualifying circumstances: the marriage by death of the spouse dissolves the
relationship by affinity for purpose of absolutory clause.
a. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty
higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed; The first holds that the relationship by affinity terminates
b. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; with the dissolution of the marriage, while the second
c. must be alleged in the Information and proven during maintains that relationship continues even after the death
trial. of the deceased spouse. The principle of pro reo calls for the
adoption of the continuing affinity view because it is more
Q: Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho Fraternity, was favorable to the accused. However, the absolutory cause
killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma applies to theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does
Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide. not apply to theft through falsification or estafa through
During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that falsification (Intestate estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No.
the killing was committed by means of poison in 181409, February 11, 2010).
consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty.
If you were the Judge, will you consider the aggravating Article 20: Accessories exempt from criminal liability
circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a by reason of relationship
promise or reward and cruelty? (2000 Bar)
Q: DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ,
A: The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI
promise or reward and cruelty which attended the killing of Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB,
circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCB's
Information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying defense prosper? Reason briefly. (2004 Bar)
circumstance must be alleged in the Information and
proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be A: No. MCB's defense will not prosper because the
appreciated as such. exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue
of relationship with the principal does not cover
Q: When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the
at all, elements of a crime? (2003 Bar) offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime.

A: A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the
of a crime when: principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the
1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a
more serious crime and heavier penalty; EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE (1988, 1991, 2001,
2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some 2007, 2015, 2016 BAR)
other crime is committed; and
3. It is specifically alleged in the information and proven Q: At 10:00 in the evening, upon his arrival, Marco
during trial. surprised his wife, Rosette and her former boyfriend,
Raul, both naked and in the act of illicit copulation. Raul
Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who got his revolver and upon seeing the revolver, Marco
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died ran toward the street, took a pedicab and proceeded to
as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and the house of his brother, a policeman from whom he
was tested to be positive for the use of shabu at the borrowed a revolver. With the weapon, he returned to
time he committed the stabbing. What should be the his residence. Unable to find Raul and Rosette, Marco
proper charge against Candido? Explain. (2005 Bar) proceeded to a disco jointly owned and operated by
Raul. It was already 11:00 that evening when he arrived
A: Candido should be charged with murder qualified by at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2) male
treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of the tables,
the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul, who was hit on his
under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying forehead with one of the bullets; the other hit A,
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime injuring him on his stomach. As a consequence of the
(Sec. 25, RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of gunshot wound, Raul died instantaneously. Due to the
2002); Hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in timely medical attention given to A, he survived. He
the maximum. was, however, hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was
prosecuted for Murder for the death of Raul and for
ABSOLUTORY CAUSE (2004, 2008, 2012 BAR) frustrated murder in the case of A. You are Marcos
lawyer, what will be your defense? (1991 Bar)
Article 332: Persons exempt from criminal liability for
theft, swindling and malicious mischief A: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death
under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, People v. Abarca,
Q: The wife of AAA predeceased his mother-in-law. AAA 153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour
was accused of defrauding his mother-in-law under a


after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within

the context of immediately thereafter. Principal (1994, 2000, 2002, 1994, 2014, 2015 Bar)

With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense Q: Tata owns a three-storey building. She wanted to
of lawful exercise of a right is a justifying circumstance. construct a new building but had no money to finance
Under Art. 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time the the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,
accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act 000, 000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
and therefore could not have been criminally liable under monetary consideration, to burn her building so she
Art. 4, RPC. could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night is their respective criminal liability? (1994 Bar)
after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his
wife and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual A: Tata is a principal by inducement for the crime of
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot destructive arson because she directly induced Yoboy and
and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the Yongsi for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
death of Ken. arson which the latter would not have committed were it
not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by
The court found that Ken died under exceptional direct participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but
sentenced him to destierro. The court also ordered Q: Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol
Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and end his
amount of P50, 000.00. Did the court correctly order arrogance. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately
Macky to pay indemnity? (2007 Bar) shot him with Jajas .45 caliber gun but missed his
target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoys five year old son
A: No. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the who was following behind him, killing the boy
exceptional circumstances in Article 247, RPC, it is the instantaneously. What is the criminal liability of Jonas
consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the and Jepoy? (Question reframed) (2000 Bar)
pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil 672) that
banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection A: Jonas shall be convicted as principal by direct
of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable
liability under the RPC is the consequence of the criminal cooperation for the complex crime of murder with
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of homicide. Jaja should be liable as co-principal and not only
indemnity when there is no criminal liability. as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas criminal design
even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he
Q: Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm.
his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the
needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay- Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done
at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C,
arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in not so much because of the reward promised to him but
the act of having sexual intercourse with their female because he also had his own long-standing grudge
nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C killed
Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?
cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her. (2002 Bar)

Is Art. 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted under A: No. A would not be liable as principal by inducement
exceptional circumstances) of the RPC applicable in because the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling
this case given that the paramour was of the same reason which made B kill C. To bring about the criminal
gender as the erring spouse? (2015, 2016 Bar) liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the
inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the
A: The crime committed is parricide qualified by the person induced to commit the crime and without which the
circumstance of relationship. crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
would indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A
Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
committing sexual intercourse with another woman is
death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White
the Revised Penal Code. and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former
girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared
However, in this case this is not death under exceptional in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no
circumstance because Felipa was having homosexual one can. He then proceeded to the mens room but told
intercourse with another woman and not sexual Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr.
intercourse with a man. Homosexual intercourse is not Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but
within the contemplation of the term sexual intercourse Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want,"
in Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is attended and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill
by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow.
sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of
infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. (a) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr.
L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr.
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION (b) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr.
Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms.
(1987, 1989, 2013 BAR)


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
A: the police. Can Jakes mother and aunt be made
criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder?
(a) Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Explain. (2010, 1998 Bar)
Green as principals by direct participation. They were
the ones who participated in the criminal resolution A: Obviously, Jakes mother was aware of her sons having
and who carried out their plan and personally took part committed a felony, such that her act of harbouring and
in its execution by acts which directly tended to the concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being
same end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability
principal by inducement because his statement that Mr. by express provision of Art. 20 of the RPC. On the other
Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr. Green was hand, the criminal liability of Jakes aunt depends on her
not made directly with the intention of procuring the knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of
commission of the crime. There is no showing that the harbouring and concealing Jake would render her
words uttered by him may be considered as so criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder;
efficacious and powerful so as to amount to physical or otherwise, without knowledge of Jakes commission of the
moral coercion (People v. Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, felony, she would not be liable.
February 24, 1931). Neither is there evidence to show
that Mr. Red has an ascendancy or influence over Mr. (b) CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL (1988, 1990, 1992,
White and Mr. Blue (People v. Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, 1993, 1998, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016 BAR)
March 1, 1995).
(b) Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by direct Q: As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a
participation for the crime of physical injuries for drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police
hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. Officer 3 (SPO3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached
Having no participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized
Mr. Red would have no criminal liability therefor. as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter.
Whereupon, Yoyong Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on
Accomplice (2007, 2012 Bar) Yabang, Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and
wounded Yabang.
Q: Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he
would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also What are the criminal libailities of Yoyong, Zoilo and
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Warlito for the injury to Yabang? Was there conspiracy
Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo and treachery? (1992 Bar)
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a
knife because he did not want Freddies neighbors to A: If they have to be criminally liable at all, each will be
hear the gunshot. responsible for their individual acts as there appears to be
no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were spontaneous
(a) What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. and a reflex response to Yabangs shooting of Sergio. There
(b) Would your answer be the same if, instead of was no concerted act that will lead to a common purpose.
Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who
was killed by Ponciano using Rubens gun? Explain. Q: As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting,
(2009 Bar) Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden, and Arthur. He
ran towards his house but the four chased and caught
A: him. Thereafter, they tied Joes hands at his back and
attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel;
(a) Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only because Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After
he merely cooperated in Pocianos determination to kill killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury
Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the Joes lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together.
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that
use of Rubens gun. Neither may Ruben be regarded as his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who
a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the conflicted the fatal blow. Would you sustain his claim?
decision-making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely (1993 Bar)
cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan which was
already in place (Art. 18, RPC). A: No. Arthurs claim is without merit. The offenders acted
(b) No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable
lent his gun purposely for the killing of Freddie only, collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
not for any other killing. Poncianos using Rubens gun
in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be
Rubens criminal intent and willing involvement. Only clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they
Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel. committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal
purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the
Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012 Bar) individual acts of each participant is not considered
because their liability is collective.
A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being the
principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by Q: State the concept of implied conspiracy and give its
previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC). legal effects. (1998, 2003 Bar)

Accessory (1998, 2010, 2013 Bar) A: An implied conspiracy is one which is only inferred or
deduced from the manner of participants in the commission
Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders
mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning
the maids quarters until she finds a better place for that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way
him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal
aunts house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by


objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success
and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual. of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.

The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are: A chain conspiracy, on the other hand, exists when there
is successive communication and cooperation in much the
(1) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime same way as with legitimate business operations between
will be considered as co-conspirators; manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer,
(2) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the and then retailer and consumer. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
commission of the crime will be considered as co- G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002)
conspirators; and
(3) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of PENALTIES (1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2004,
the crime, without any act of criminal participation, 2005, 2007 Bar)
shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in
the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A (a) State the two classes of penalties under the Revised
sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. Penal Code. Define each.
He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to be (b) May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal?
participants in the rumble, each using a knife against (1988 Bar)
A, but it could not be ascertained who, among them,
inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally A:
liable for the death of A and for what? (1997 Bar)
(a) The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the RPC
A: B, C, D and E being participants in the tumultuous affray are as follows:
and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical
injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are 1. Principal A principal penalty is defined as that
criminally liable for the latters death. And because it cannot provided for a felony and which is imposed by court
be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury expressly upon conviction.
on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray, B, 2. Accessory An accessory penalty is defined as that
C, D and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a deemed included in the imposition of the principal
tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code. penalty.
Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They
entered her house by breaking one of the windows in (b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal
her house. After taking her personal properties and as because a censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant
they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside acquittal (People v. Abellera, 69 Phil 623).
the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA
from raping OD. Q: Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based
on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you
What crime/s did XA, YB and ZC commit and what is the have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate
criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (2004 Bar) the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the
exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what
A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite are the factors you must consider to arrive at the
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense correct penalty? (1991 Bar)
under Art. 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to
commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, 1. Determine the crime committed;
YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being 2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to 3. Determine the penalty
stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby 4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
concurred in the commission of the rape by their co- 5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is
conspirator XA. applicable or not.

The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ, and ZC, shall be the same, Q: After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having
rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he
accompanying the robbery is just a component. died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng
Manila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin was
Q: Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of
conspiracy. (2016 Bar) treachery was found to be present. Judge Laya
rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and
A: There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life
namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy. imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life
imprisonment the same and can be imposed
A wheel conspiracy occurs when there is a single person interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are
or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more they totally different? State your reasons. (1994, 2001,
other persons or groups (the spokes). The spoke typically 2005 Bar)
interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In
the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to A: The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life
succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the imprisonment are totally different from each other and
therefore, should not be used interchangeably. Reclusion


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a fixed charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of
duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of
years, and carries it with accessory penalties. Life reclusion perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge
imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the
special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and basis of the three- fold rule. Was the judge correct?
without any accessory penalty. (2013 Bar)

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)

A: The penalties that may be served simultaneously are A:

imprisonment/destierro and
(a) No. The penalty should be imposed individually on
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; every person accused of the crime. Any of the convicted
2. Perpetual special disqualification; accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine,
3. Temporary absolute disqualification; shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment.
4. Temporary special disqualification; (b) No. Although the law may prescribe an alternative
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may
voted for and the right to follow a profession or calling; impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory sentence must be definite. Otherwise, the judgment
penalties. cannot attain finality.

Principles (include R.A. No. 9346 Act Prohibiting the C. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines) (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.
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 7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in
undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman Article 344.
then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually
assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman was


(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 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
(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 & 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
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 fiscals 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 Bs 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 As 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 As defense tenable? Explain. (2000, 2004, 2009,
office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral v. Puno, 70 SCRA 606). 2010 Bar)

Q: On January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was A:

urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange
noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and (a) Generally, the period of prescription of a crime
playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, commences to run for the date it was committed; but if
Aras stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of
old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body prescription of the crimes under the RPC commence to


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
run from the day on which the crime was discovered (b) Even if Taylor was able to go to another country which
(the discovery rule) by the offended party, the the Philippines had no extradition treaty, I will deny the
authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC). motion to quash. Going to a foreign country with which
(b) The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is this Government has no extradition treaty to interrupt
interrupted when any kind of investigative the running of prescription is not applicable nor even
proceedings is instituted against the guilty person material because the period of prescription is not
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution. applicable nor even material because the period of
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, prescription had not commenced to run in the first
2008) place; hence, there is nothing to interrupt.
(c) No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not
tenable. The crime committed is parricide which Pardon and Amnesty (2006, 2009)
prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was
only when the caretaker, Z, found the victims bones Q: Enumerate the differences between pardon and
and reported the matter to the police that the crime is amnesty. (2006 Bar)
deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their
agents and thus the prescriptive period of the crime A: The following are the differences between pardon and
commenced to run. When A left the country and amnesty:
returned only after three (3) years, the running of the
prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and In pardon
suspended because prescription shall not run when the
offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art. The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the
91, RPC). Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after effects of conviction remain unless expressly remitted by
the commission of the crime and the prescriptive the pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must be a
period starting running only after 5 years from such sentence already final and executory at the time the same is
commission when the crime was discovered, only 10 granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of individual
years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders;
when the prescriptive period was interrupted and and the crimes subject of the grant may be common crimes
suspended. Hence, the 3 years when A was out of the or political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the
Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after Chief Executive which does not require the concurrence of
the prescription starts running. Adding the 7 years of any other public officer or office.
prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the case
was filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the In amnesty
prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence, the crime has
not yet prescribed. The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is
erased, as though such act was innocent when committed;
Q: Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election hence, the effects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty
Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one is granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to
year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The individual convicted offenders; and the crimes involved are
decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and generally political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is
became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear a public act that requires the conformity or concurrence of
when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the Philippine Senate.
the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was
able to use the backdoor and left for the United States. 2. CIVIL LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL CASES (1987,
Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines 1990, 1991, 1992 BAR)
and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest
against him, on the ground that the penalty imposed Q: Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former
against him had already prescribed. sweetheart, by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and
he was ordered to serve the penalty of life
(a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's imprisonment, to indemnify Letty in the amount of P30,
Motion to Quash? Explain. 000.00 and to support their offspring. Pending appeal
(b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor in the Supreme Court, Rico died. His widow, Bernie,
was able to go to another country with which the moved for a dismissal of the case.
Philippines had no extradition treaty, will your
answer be the same? Explain. (2015 Bar) What is the legal effect of Ricos death on his civil
liability? State your reasons. (1990 Bar)
A: The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Tirol, G.R. L-
(a) If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash. 30588, January 31, 1981, People v. Naboa, et. al., 132 SCRA
Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the 410)
prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under
said provision, it shall commence to run from the date
the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant PART II. REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK II)
to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of
sentence can be committed only by those who have
been convicted by final judgment by escaping during A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
the term of his sentence. Taylor never served a single LAW OF NATIONS
minute of his sentence, and thus, prescription never
started to run in his favor. Clearly, one who has not Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in Philippine
been committed to prison cannot be said to have waters (2006, 2008 Bar)
escaped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No.
139033, December 18, 2002).


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)

A: Q: Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago

community in a police car with SP03 Caloy Itliong blew
(a) No. Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly
piracy because committing piracy was never in his entered a one-way street. After demanding from Linda
mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy Lo Hua, the driver, her drivers license, Menor asked
committed. He merely took advantage of the situation her to follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving
in killing the passenger. He should be charged with there, he gave instructions to Itliong to guard Lo Hua in
murder since there was evident premeditation and one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight until he
intent to kill. returns; then got the car key from Lo Hua. In the
(b) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed meantime, the latter was not allowed to make any
when the offenders seized the vessels by firing on or phone calls but was given food and access to a
boarding the same. In the problem, they even went bathroom.
further by divesting the passengers of their money and
jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbour of When Menor showed up after two days, he brought Lo
Kaoshioung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime Hua to a private house and told her that he would only
was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of release her and return the car if she made
another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the arrangements for the delivery of P500, 000.00 in a
high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the RPC doctors bag at a certain place within the next twenty-
include the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol- four hours. When Menor went to the designated spot to
lo, G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922). Moreover, piracy pick up the bag of money, he suddenly found himself
is an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a surrounded by several armed civilians who introduced
crime against the Law of Nations. themselves as NBI agents. What criminal offense has
Menor committed? Explain. (1992 Bar)
Q: While SS Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route
from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 A: Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention)
miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. he being a public officer who detained, a person without
The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance by entering a
repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, one-way street is not a valid reason to arrest and detain the
the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was driver. Such only merits the issuance of a traffic violation
anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags ticket. Hence, when Lo Hua was ordered to follow the police
from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage officers to the precinct (confiscating her license to compel
of the situation. They cut the ships engines and took her to do so), and confining her in a room for two days and
away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a clear case of
loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left deprivation of personal liberty. Giving her food and access
hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the criminal
that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port liability.
Authorites resulting in the apprehension of the
culprits. Menor is further liable for robbery, because money or
personal properly was taken, with intent to gain, and with
(1) What crime was committed? Explain. intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically
(2) Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, forced her to submit to the monetary demands of the major.
the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while
sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. Q: What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
(2006 Bar) detention? Explain each. What are the legal grounds for
detention? (2006 Bar)
A: The three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention
(1) The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, are:
Revised Penal Code, the essence of which is robbery
directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking a. by detaining or locking up a person without any legal
of the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from cause or ground therefore purposely to restrain his
a vessel at sea, was effected by force and undoubtedly liberty (RPC, Art. 124);


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of criminal liability to the co- conspirators, but not to a person
a person lawfully arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. who learned of such and did not report to the proper
125); and authorities (US v. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56
c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has Phil. 353).
been ordered by competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).
COUP D ETAT (BAR 1988, 1991, 1998, 2002 BAR)
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should
be a public officer acting under color of his authority. Q: Distinguish rebellion from coup detat. (1991, 2004
The legal grounds for detention are:
A: Rebellion distinguished from coup detat:
1. commission of a crime;
2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory As to overt acts, in rebellion, there is public uprising and
confinement in an institution established for such taking up arms against the Government. In coup detat
purpose. public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is
a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation,
C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Government, or any military camp or
1. Rebellion, Coup detat, Sedition, and Disloyalty installation, communication networks, public utilities, or
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession
REBELLION (1991, 1994, 1998, 2004 BAR) of government power.

Q: In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops As to objective or purpose, in rebellion, the purpose is to
of the Logistics Command (LOGCOM) of the AFP at Camp remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole or
General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations any part of the Philippines, or any military or naval camps,
Officer, Col. Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from performing
bullets and, per prior agreement, attacked, in separate their functions. In coup detat, the objective is to seize or
teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of diminish the state powers.
National Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence As to participation, in rebellion, any person may commit. In
and other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of coup detat, any person belonging to the military or police
LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3) pro- or holding public office, with or without civilian
Government soldiers, inverted the Philippine flag, participation may commit.
barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and
announced complete control of the camp. Because of Q: Supposing a public school teacher participated in a
the superiority of the pro-Government forces, Col. coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or
Amparo and his troops surrendered at 7:00 in the crimes did he commit? (1998 Bar)
morning of that day.
A: The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for
Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is
coup detat (Article 134-A, RPC) or of rebellion? (1991 absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law
Bar) (R.A. 8294).

A: Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be Q: If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces
coup detat (R.A. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A). makes a swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation and threat against a vital military
However, since the law was not yet effective as of October installation for the purpose of seizing power and taking
25, 1990, as the effectivity thereof (Sec. 8) is upon its over such installation, what crime or crimes are they
approval (which is October 24, 1990) and publication in at guilty of?
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony
committed would be rebellion. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who
shall be deemed the leader thereof? (1998, 2002 Bar)
Q: VC, JG, GG, and JG conspired to overthrow the A: The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed
Philippine Government. VG was recognized as the Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d'etat, under
titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were Art. 134-A of the RPC, as amended, because their attack was
held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his against vital military installations which are essential to the
conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG continued possession and exercise of governmental
and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over
Father Abraham did not report this information to the such installations.
proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a
crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed
criminal liability? (1994 Bar) the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts,
A: No. Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said
conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a coup d'etat (Art 135, RPC).
conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person
criminally liable under Art 116, RPC. And even assuming SEDITION (1987, 2007 BAR)
that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is
exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his Q: A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted
failure to report can be considered as due to "insuperable their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big
cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a landowners, called A, B, C, D, and E to a conference. Jose
confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in 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 latters 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 latters 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.

A: Security guards of the school arrived, intervened and

surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated
(a) The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy in the principals office. Before leaving, Z passed near A
to commit sedition. What Jose and Pedro proposed to and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected
the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and by B.
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging
the government by force of arms in order to prevent the (a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato X, Y and Z?
Province is to commit sedition. (b) Would your answer be the same if B were a
barangay tanod only? (2001 Bar)
Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But since
the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition
resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on A:
the very moment the plotters agree (People v. Peralta,
25 SCRA 759). 1. X is liable for direct assault only, assuming the physical
injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be
(b) Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct
commit sedition since they are members of the assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority
conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty
soldiers did not agree to their proposal, they would not of maintaining peace and order when attacked.
incur any criminal liability because there is no proposal
to commit sedition. Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with
Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the
Q: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For
(2007 Bar) purposes of the crime in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC,
a teacher is considered a person in authority, and
A: The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance
to sedition are: of official duty, direct assault is committed with the
resulting less serious physical injuries complexed.
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners
and other media of representation to commit acts Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an
which constitute sedition; accomplice to the complex of crimes of direct assault
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her
scurrilous libels against the Government of the participation should not be considered as that of a co-
Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities, principal, since her reactions were only incited by her
which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife
official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal of Y.
and meet for unlawful purposes;
3. Inciting through the same media of representation 2. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying
rebellious conspiracies or riots; hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority
4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
disturb the peace and public order of the community or Disobedience under Art. 151, RPC since X, a high school
of the Government; or pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of
5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil contempt for authority but more of helping his father
practices (Art. 142, RPC) get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault,
ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE while it would always be direct assault if done to a
TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS person in authority in defiance to the latters exercise
(1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2013 BAR) of authority.



QUAMTO (1987-2016)
A: The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 of the RPC
Forgeries for the offense of introducing a false document in a judicial
proceeding as he knew the same to be false.
Q: How are "forging" and "falsification" committed?
Falsification of Public Document (1988, 1992, 1993,
A: Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury 1999, 2000, 2008 Bar)
or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to
order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or Q: Andrea signed her husbands name in endorsing his
by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any treasury warrants which were delivered to her directly
means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. by the district supervisor who knew that her husband
had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for
Falsification, on the other hand, is committed through the expenses of her husbands last illness and his
burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature vacation and sick leaves the money value of which
or rubric; exceeded that value of the three treasury warrants, so
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in that the government suffered no damage. Andreas
any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal
participate; intent and of good faith.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act
or proceeding statements other than those in fact made Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss
by them; briefly. (1988 Bar)
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates; A: Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine documents. Her claim of absence of criminal intent and of
document which changes its meaning; good faith cannot be considered because she is presumed
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document to know that her husband is dead. The element of damage
8. Purporting to be a copy of an original document when required in falsification does not refer to pecuniary damage
no such original exists, or including in such copy a but damage to public interest.
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original; or NB: Executive clemency can, however, be sought for by
9. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the Andrea.
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Q: Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in Macao,
Counterfeiting coins; Forging treasury or bank notes, having applied with a recruitment agency to work in
obligations and securities; Importing and uttering false Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a
or forged notes, obligations and securities Community Tax Certificate, formerly called Residence
Q: Is mere possession of false money bills punishable
under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? (1999 He stated therein that his name is Leo Tiampuy, a
Bar) Filipino citizen born in Binan, Laguna. As he paid for the
Community Tax Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an
A: No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone employee in the office recognized him and reported to
without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the her boss that the information written in the Community
circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to Tax Certificate were all lies. Shortly thereafter, an
utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal information was filed against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy.
possession of false notes.
(a) An information was filed against Dee Kiam. What
Introduction of false documents crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why?
(b) The accused move to quash the information on the
Q: M was forced by a policeman to sign a document ground that it did not allege that he had the
entitled Sinumpaang Salaysay in which M implicated obligation to disclose the truth in the Community
X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank where Tax Certificate; that the same is a useless scrap of
P500, 000.00 were lost. The document was prepared by paper which one can buy even in the Quiapo
the policeman upon advice of B, the banks lawyer, who underpass and that he had no intent of deceiving
was present when the policeman asked M to sign the anybody. Would you grant the motion to quash?
document. As M refused to sign it, the policeman held (1992 Bar)
him by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as
he was afraid he might be bodily harmed. A:

During the hearing of the robbery before the Fiscals (a) Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification
Office, B submitted the Sinumpaang Salaysay as of a Public Document committed by a private individual
evidence, on the basis of which X was included in the under Art. 172 of the RPC in relation to Art. 171 thereof.
information filed by the Fiscal in court. A residence certificate is a public or official document
within the context of said provisions and
When M testified in court, he repudiated the document jurisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an untruthful
and told the court there was no truth to its contents as statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171(4), RPC), and
he was merely forced to sign it. Did lawyer B commit he being a private individual, he is culpable thereunder.
any crime when he used the Sinumpaang Salaysay as (b) Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and
evidence? 172, RPC does not require that the document is
required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a
residence certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a
mere scrap of paper.


Intent to cause damage or actual damage, is not an

indispensable requisite for falsification of public document. Criminal liability for falsification of a private document
does not arise without damage or at least proof of intent to
Q: A falsified official or public document was found in cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
the possession of the accused. No evidence was which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of
introduced to show that the accused was the author of intent to cause damage.
the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court
convicted the accused of falsification of official or Since the talaan was falsified to cover up or conceal the
public document mainly on the proposition that the misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever
only person who could have made the erasures and the damage or intent to cause damage that will attend the
superimposition mentioned is the one who will be estafa.
benefited by the alterations thus made and that he
alone could have the motive for making such If such talaan or ledger was a commercial document,
alterations. damage or proof of intent to cause damage is not necessary.
The falsification alone if done with intent to pervert the
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid a commercial document. Damage or intent to cause damage,
ratiocination? Explain your answer. (1999 Bar) would sustain the estafa independently of the falsification
of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate
A: Yes. The conviction is proper because there is a crimes are committed estafa and falsification of the
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified commercial document. The falsification should not be
document is the one who falsified the same. complexed with estafa since it was not committed as a
necessary means to commit the estafa but rather resorted
Falsification of Private Document (1989, 1991, 2007 to, to conceal or hide the misappropriation of the amount
Bar) she pocketed.

Q: In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The crime committed by Fe are
against him by A, B interposed the defense of payment. theft and falsification of private document because Fes
In support thereof, he identified and offered in possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only
evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A. On physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed
rebuttal, A denied having been paid by B and having the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified
signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert theft.
who testified that the alleged signature of A on the
receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because
the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the
himself forged the signature of A. theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful
(a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified
document in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph Simulation of birth
of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)?
(b) If he is not, what offense of offenses may he be Q: A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child
charged with? (1991 Bar) they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her
newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused
A: their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the
child as his parents. This was done in connivance with
(a) No. B should not be liable for the crime of using a the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are
falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C
172, RPC. He would be liable for forgery of a private and the doctor? (2002 Bar)
document under the second mode of falsification under
Art. 172, RPC. A: The couple, A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the
crime of simulation of birth penalized under Article 347 of
Being the possessor and user of the falsified document the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The act of making it
he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the appear in the birth certificate of a child that the persons
offense of introducing falsified document is already named therein are the parents of the child when they are
absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification. not really the biological parents of the said child constitutes
the crime of simulation of birth.
(b) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he
should also be liable under Art. 182, which is false C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for Child
testimony in civil cases. Trafficking, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of RA 7610. The
law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order child.
to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the
rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing False testimony (1987, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997,
in a talaan or ledger a figure lower than what was 2005, 2008 Bar)
collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed
the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Q: Explain and illustrate subordination of perjury.
Explain your answer. (2007 Bar) (1993 Bar)

A: If the talaan or ledger which Fe made to show a A: Subordination of perjury refers to the act of a person
falsehood was a private document, the only crime that Fe procuring a false witness to testify and thereby commit
committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or perjury. The procurer is a co- principal by inducement.


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
Q: Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders is not liable as principal by direct participation in perjury,
of Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him having testified on matters not material to an
the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its administrative case.
president. Because the stockholders who sold their
stocks failed to comply with their warranties attendant Q: Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under
to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment of the second oath for naturalization, with the Regional Trial Court of
installment due on the shares and deposited the money Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to
in escrow instead, subject to release once said Leni Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaloc,
stockholders comply with their warranties. The Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he
stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner
question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency during his stay in the Philippines. However, at the time
of the Estrella Corp., Sisenando then filed a verified of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua was already living
complaint for damages against said stockholders in his in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila,
capacity as president and principal stockholder of with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his
Estrella Corp. In retaliation, the stockholders direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for
concerned, after petitioning the Securities and naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua
Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, commit? Explain. (2005 Bar)
further filed a criminal case for perjury against
Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself A: Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath
when he stated under oath in the verification of his for naturalization that he is of good moral character and
complaint for damages that he is the President of the residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is
Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been material to his petition for naturalization. He committed
removed as such. perjury for this wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal
Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando be held purpose.
liable for perjury? Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: No. Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because BAR)
it cannot be reasonably maintained that he wilfully and
deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he Q: Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked at its
Corporation. penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware
that the business executives holding office at the
Obviously, he made the allegation on the premise that his adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday
removal from the presidency is not valid and that is morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept
precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the on gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her
SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been the President of the sunbathing became the talk of the town.
corporation and it is from that position that the
stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, (a) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain.
whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal. (b) What crime, if any, did the business executives
There is no wilful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood commit? Explain. (1996 Bar)
which is a requisite of perjury.
Q: A, a government employee, was administratively
charged with immorality for having an affair with B, a (a) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making
co-employee in the same office who believed him to be Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal, but then such act
single. To exculpate himself, A testified that he was is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
single and was willing to marry B, He induced C to offensive against decency and good customs. In the first
testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, place, it was not done in a public place and within
however, was that A had earlier married D, now a public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was
neighbor of C. discovered by the executives accidentally and they
have to use binoculars to have public and full view of
Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
subordination of perjury? (1997 Bar) (b) The business executives did not commit any crime.
Their acts could not be acts of lasciviousness (as there
A: No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk
falsehood asserted by him is not material to the charge of of the town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not
immorality. Whether A is single or married, the charge of directly imputed to the business executives, and
immorality against him as a government employee could besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia
proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a to ridicule.
defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a material
matter that could influence the charge. Q: Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy
developed between them. One day, Juan sent to Petra a
There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is booklet contained in a pay envelope which was
now treated as plain perjury with the one inducing another securely sealed. The booklet is unquestionably
as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by indecent and highly offensive to morals. Juan was
direct participation (People v. Podol, 66 Phil. 365). thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. 969, which
Since in this case, A cannot be held liable for perjury, the provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine
matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot from P6, 000to P12, 000, or both such imprisonment
therefore be held responsible as a principal by inducement and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell,
when he induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C


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
(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 (a) Is Dencio guilty of malversation under the RPC?
Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or State your reasons.
irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate?
(2006 Bar)


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
(b) Assuming that he failed to replenish the church purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in
funds, may he be held criminally liable thereby? fact, established.
(1990 Bar)
Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable? Explain.
A: (1996 Bar)

(a) No. The church funds used by Dencio do not constitute A: Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use
public funds which are the proper subject of of public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous is
malversation. Neither does said funds constitute the so legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of
called private funds which could be the proper subject public funds under Art. 217 of the RPC but was convicted
of malversation under Art. 222, RPC, which pertain to for Illegal use of public funds which is defined and punished
private property placed in the custody of public officers under Art. 220.
by reason of their office.
(b) Yes. Momentary use of funds, since there is A public officer charged with malversation may not be
defraudation, is tantamount to estafa under Art. 215 of validly convicted of illegal use of public funds (technical
the RPC. This is because he received the funds in his malversation) because the latter crime is not necessarily
capacity as treasurer and there was temporary damage included nor does it necessarily include the crime of
caused. Personal benefit is not an element of the crime malversation.
of estafa.
The Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure
Q: Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order
armalite rifle (M16) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver the filing of the proper Information (Parungao v.
Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991). From the
inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
reported for work that morning, did not show up appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a
during the inspection. He went on absence without matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the
leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established.
NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was charged
with malversation of government property before the So, procedurally and substantially, the Sandiganbayan's
Sandiganbayan. decision suffers from serious infirmity.

Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate Q: Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former
the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own use, that warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In
the delay in accounting for them does not constitute 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and
conversion and that actually the firearms were stolen properties of the owners-incorporators of the store,
by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case. (1994 Bar) alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of the
Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and
A: Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of the
accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his sequestered firm and they were given custody and
official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms possession of the sequestered building and its
upon demand created the presumption that he converted contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's
them for his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of operations.
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government
property is enough factual basis for a finding of After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it
malversation. was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were
missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and
Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is Santos failed to give any satisfactory explanation why
incredible for if the firearms were actually stolen, he should the vans were missing or to turn them over to the PCGG;
have reported the matter immediately to the authorities. hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public
Property. During the trial, the two accused claimed that
Q: Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, they are not public accountable officers and, if any
Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under
municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
Works and Highways, the amount of P100, 000.00
known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, What is the proper offense committed? State the
betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the reason(s) for your answer. (2001 Bar)
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in
Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on proposal A: The proper offense committed was Malversation of
of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was Public Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and
already exhausted while the concreting of Barangay Santos, upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal
Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody
the Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of and possession" of the sequestered properties, including
Elizabeth who failed to account for the P100, 000 CRBI the delivery vans which later they could not account for.
fund. Elizabeth, who was charged with malversation of
public funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of They were thus made the depositary and administrator of
that charge but was nevertheless convicted, in the same properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the
criminal case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal, duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such
Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erroneous as properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by
she applied the amount of P50, 000.00 for a public the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia legis and
purpose without violating any law or ordinance therefore impressed with the character of public property,
appropriating the said amount for any specific even though the properties belong to a private individual
(Art. 222, RPC).


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 latters trial, he had custody of charge
A: of a detention prisoner. Ernani escape was thru his
negligence because after removing Ernanis 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 Ernanis 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 latters escape
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of the by other means.
governments 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)

Custody of prisoners (1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 2002, A:

2009, 2014 Bar)
(a) Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of
Q: Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post a bail the Revised Penal Code Delay on the Delivery of
bond for his provisional liberty pending trial of his Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
case, he was detained in the city jail. On the date of the (b) She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under
hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed Art. 151 of the RPC Resistance and disobedience to a
in the city jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for the person in authority or the agents of such person.
trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside the Q: During a town fiesta, A, the chief of police, permitted
courtroom. As Daniel was talking to a lawyer inside the B, a detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the
courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor, municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from
Meynardo, who used his cigarette container as cover, 10:00 am to 8:00 pm. B returned to the municipal jail at
surreptitiously moved out of the room and escaped. 8:30 pm.
Ernani and Meynardo went to the comfort room for a
while, then went down the stairs and lost themselves in Was there any crime committed by A? (1997 Bar)
the crowd. What crime/s were committed by Ernani,
Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar) A: Yes. A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of
a prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner, as Chief of Police,
A: A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal
jail at 8:30pm. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has
1. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not criminally maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and
liable for any offense. The detention prisoner who when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the However, her parents drove her away so she returned
punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house.
considered real and actual evasion of service under Article Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an
223 of the RPC (People v. Leon Bandino, 29 Phil 459). advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo
an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant
G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave
birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at
Parricide (1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2006, 2015 Bar) his place of work. Upon coming home and learning
what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal his
Q: Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe and
Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive
him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his neighbor saw them and with the help of others.
dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Retrieved the infant who was already dead from
Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. drowning. The incident was reported to the police who
As a result, she and her unborn baby died. arrested Ana and Oniok.

What crime was committed by Aldrich? (1994 Bar) The two were charged with parricide under Article 246
of the RPC. After trial, they were convicted of the crime
A: Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with charged.
unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Was the conviction correct? (Bar 2006)
Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime of
maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3 of the RPC. Since Carmi A: The conviction was incorrect because:
died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally
liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, (a) Under Art. 46, Civil Code, a newborn with an intra-
par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi uterine life of less than 7 months must live for at least
died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause 24 hours before it may be considered born and hence,
the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional before it may acquire personality of its own;
abortion as defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single (b) The newborn, therefore was still a fetus when killed
act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he and was not yet a person. Hence, the crime in law is
falls under Art. 48, RPC, i.e. a complex crime (People v. abortion. It is legally a fetus who was killed, not a
Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401). person or child because legally it has no personality yet.
(c) Infanticide and parricide involves a killing when the
Q: In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned victim is already a person.
his wife and their son, Ricky, who was then only three
years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a Murder (1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001,
bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his 2008, 2009 Bar)
companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends,
upon the other, without the father and son knowing Q: A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to the hospital
each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight, in a coma with slight cerebral hemorrhage. An
only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived endotracheal tube was inserted in her mouth to
from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he facilitate her breathing. B, a hospital janitor, removed
killed was his own father. the tube. The victim started to convulse and bleed in
the mouth. Only the timely arrival of the nurse
(1) What crime did Ricky commit? prevented the patients death. The patient was then
(2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is transferred to another hospital where she died the next
his father, but he nevertheless killed him out of day of cardio-respiratory. Is B criminally liable? If so,
bitterness for having abandoned him and his what crime was committed? (1991 Bar)
mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
(1996 Bar) A: Yes. B is criminally liable for Murder (qualified by
treachery) because the death of A appears to be the
A: proximate cause of the overt acts of B.

(1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed A died of cardio-respiratory arrest which evidently was
was his own father and the law punishing the crime brought about by the convulsion and bleeding in the mouth
(Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be of the victim due to the removal by B of the endotracheal
knowingly committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and tube twice. The two acts of B can be considered as the result
found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed is of one criminal design.
Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the
crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum In People v. Umaging, 107 SCRA 166, the Supreme Court
period. ruled that removal of the endotracheal tube is attempted
(2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew murder, qualified by treachery, because the patient did not
before the killing that Pedro is his father, because the die.
moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His
having acted out of bitterness for having been Q: Define murder. What are the elements of the crime?
abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating. (1999 Bar)

Q: Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which
than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the bartender, otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not been
who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform about her attended by any of the following circumstances:
condition and, instead, went to Cebu to conceal her
shame. 1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior
strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing


means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious physical
insure or afford impunity; injuries as the wounding of Nereo was the natural and
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise; logical consequences of Linos felonious act.
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment (b) Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the
or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means injury to Nereo as he was performing a lawful act with
of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means due care and the injury was caused by mere accident
involving great waste and ruin; (Art. 12, par. 4), or that he was in lawful exercise of a
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, right (Art. 11, par. 6), that is, defense of a stranger.
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation; Q: In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely customers inside a nightclub became unruly, guns were
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put
scoffing at his person or corpse. the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one
customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that
Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who As gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died that did not cause the deceaseds death nor materially
as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and contribute to it. It was Bs gunshot that inflicted a fatal
was tested to be positive for the use of shabu at the wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability
time he committed the stabbing. should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury.
Would you agree? Why? (2003 Bar)
What should be the proper charge against Candido?
Explain. (2005 Bar) A: No. I beg to disagree with As contention that his liability
should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should
A: Candido should be charged with murder qualified by be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted
treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal
the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm
under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123).
aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime
(Sec. 25, RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of Q: Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a
2002). Hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter,
the maximum. Gaston, while driving a car, saw Belle crossing the
street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston
Homicide (1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2003, decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he
2005, 2014 Bar) was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his
car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes.
Q: Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle
Lino then suddenly drew his balisong and lunged at skidded and hit Belle causing her death. What is the
Okito. In an effort to break up the fight, Tommy tried to liability of Gaston? Why? (2005 Bar)
snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter
had inflicted a wound on Okito. As Lino withdrew the A: Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the
weapon and attempted to stab Okito a second time, felonious act which caused Belles death, although the
Tommy tried to grab the weapon again. In so doing, his penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to
left forearm was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 [3],
away the balisong with his right arm, it flew with such RPC). The act having been deliberately done with malice, is
force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously felonious and being the proximate cause of Belles death,
injured. brings about criminal liability although the wrong done.

Explain your answers fully. Rape (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009
(a) What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to
Okito, Tommy and Nereo? Q: The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental
(b) In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo? (1992 retardate with an intellectual capacity between the
Bar) ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the
trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused,
A: replied Masarap, it gave me much pleasure.

(a) As far as Okito is concerned, Lino is liable for frustrated With the claim of the accused that the complainant
homicide, assuming that the wound suffered by Okito is consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with
such that for reasons or causes independent of the will the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you
of Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito would convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying
have died. If the injury is not serious enough, the the case? Explain. (1996 Bar)
liability is only attempted homicide.
A: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim
Intent to kill is manifest because of the use of a deadly is a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child
weapon. For the injury on the arm of Tommy, Lino is less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a
liable only for physical injuries (serious, less serious or valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual
slight, depending on the nature of the injury). intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the
Apparently, there is no intent to kill. level of intelligence is that of a child less than 12 years of
age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence
or intimidation is not essential to constitute rape (People v.
Trimor, G.R. 106541-42, March 31, 1995). As a matter of fact,


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
R.A. No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RA No. 7610. (Amployo v. People, G.R. No. 157718, April 26,
RPC, by adding the phrase or is demented. 2005) Under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, when the victim
(child subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age,
Q: Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to the perpetrators shall be prosecuted (for acts of
Quezon City which was driven by Roger. Flordeluna lasciviousness) under Article 336 of the Revised Penal
noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener Code: Provided, That the penalty for lasciviousness conduct
in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother when the victim is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion
asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and temporal in its medium period.
became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon
City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was SECURITY
raped for the entire duration of her detention. May
Roger be charged and convicted of the crime of rape Kidnapping (1991, 2009, 2014, 2016 Bar)
with serious illegal detention? (2000 Bar)
Q: A charged B with the crime of rape. While the case
A: No. Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime was pending in court, B, together with his mother and
with serious illegal detention. brother, overpowered A while riding a tricycle, dragged
her inside a carenderia owned by them and detained
Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each her for two (2) days. They demanded that she sign an
rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. affidavit of desistance and reimburse B the sum of P5,
Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; 000.00 which he paid to his lawyer in the case. She was
the detention was only incidental to the rape. released only after she signed the affidavit asking for
the dismissal of the case and delivered to B P1, 000.00.
Q: A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, She promised to deliver the balance of P4, 000.00 thirty
through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting (30) days later. What crime/s was/were committed by
his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is As criminal B, his mother and brother? (1991 Bar)
liability? Why? (2002 Bar)
A: This is Kidnapping with Ransom which is kidnapping or
A: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act illegal detention committed by a private person for the
of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the purpose of extorting ransom. Since the victim is a woman,
anus of the latter. it is serious.

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 offenders 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 (Valdepeas 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, Mamertos 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 victims 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 The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
Penal Code but the penalty imposable is that prescribed by complexed with frustrated homicide because when the


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 latters 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 offenders 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
draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion Theft (1989, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2008, 2012 Bar)
because of the violence employed to compel such


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
Q: Sunshine, a beauteous colegiala but a shoplifter, A: A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took
went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded to the goods on the occasion of and taking advantage of the fire
the womens wear section. The saleslady was of the which broke out in the department store. The occasion of a
impression that she brought to the fitting room three calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed,
(3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she qualifies the crime under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
came out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2) Code, as amended.
pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became
suspicious and alerted the store detective. Sunshine Q: Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara
was stopped by the detective before she could leave the Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of
store and brought to the office of the store manager. cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he
The detective and the manager searched her and found scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene
her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and and Dante coming out of the gate with some more
pants. Was the theft consummated, frustrated, or newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with
attempted? Explain. (2000 Bar) the proper offense.
A: The theft was consummated because the taking or
asportation was complete. The asportation is complete What is that offense? Explain. (2006 Bar)
when the offender acquired the exclusive control of the
personal property being taken. In this case, when Sunshine A: The offense committed is qualified theft pursuant to Sec.
wore the swimsuit under her blouse and pants and was on 1 of P.D. No. 330 and Sec. 68 of P.D. No. 705 defining the
her way out of the store, with evident intent to gain, the offense committed by any person who directly or indirectly
taking constitutes theft and being complete, it is cuts, gathers, removes or smuggles timber or other forest
consummated. It is not necessary that the offender is in a products in violation of existing laws, rules and regulation,
position to dispose of the property. from any public forest reserves, and other kinds of public
forest or even privately owned forest lands.
Q: Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold
bracelet in front of his working place in Makati and, Q: A is the driver of Bs Mercedez Benz car. When B was
upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C
owner engraved on the inside. Remembering his whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident.
parents admonition that he should not take anything Upon his return, B came to know about the
which does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified
to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati quad precinct with the theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent
instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from
PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no
misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in
brought out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What
snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block crime/s, if any, were committed? Explain. (2016 Bar)
away from where Francis had found it and further
investigation traced the last possessor as PO1 Reyes. A: The crime committed by A is carnapping. The unlawful
taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti-
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had Carnapping Law (RA 6539 as amended) and not by the
not committed any crime because it was not he who had provisions on qualified theft or robbery. (People v.
found the bracelet, and moreover, it turned out to have Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004) The concept of
been stolen. carnapping is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence,
rules applicable to theft or robbery are also applicable to
Resolve the case with reasons. (2001 Bar) carnapping. (People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913,
September 2, 2015) In theft, unlawful taking should be
A: PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention that he has understood within the Spanish concept of apoderamiento.
not committed any crime because he was not the one who In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking
found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is must be coupled with the intent oto appropriate the object,
devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to which means intent to deprive the lawful owner of the
another and the failure to restore the same to its owner is thing, whether permanently or temporarily. (People v.
characterized by intent to gain. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007) In this case, A
took the car without the consent of B with intent to
The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the taking was
belong to him and which he only held to be delivered to its temporary and for a joy ride, the Supreme Court in
owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain. People v. Bustinera (supra), sustains as the better view
which holds that when a person, either with the object of
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or
another for delivery to the owner, the person to whom such enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging
property is entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of
the relation of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual theft because by taking possession of the personal property
finder; if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is
(People v. Avila, 44 Phil 720). evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction,
enjoyment and pleasure.
Qualified theft (1992, 2002, 2006 Bar)
Usurpation (1988, 1989, 1996 Bar)
Q: A fire broke out in a department store. A, taking Q: Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the
advantage of the confusion, entered the store and foothills which he planted with lanzones. On his last
carried away goods which he later sold. What crime, if visit there, he was shocked to discover that his land had
any, did he commit? Why? (2002 Bar) been taken over by a group of 15 families whose
members had forcibly driven away his caretaker, had


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 Eddies 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?
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 Xs land without the owners 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 As 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 oclock, 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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and A: The publication is not defamatory because the element
thus there is absence of malice. of intent to defame is absent. This is a mere announcement
and does not carry any implication.
Since A was a candidate for a very important public position
of a Department Secretary, his moral, mental, and physical Q: During a seminar workshop attended by
fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public government employees from the Bureau of Customs
concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is and Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the
pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was made; course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a great
hence, bereft of malice. majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly
dishonest and corrupt.
Q: A is the president of the corporate publisher of the
daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor and C is The following morning, the whole group of employees
the author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as
about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for
follows: uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer.
Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng
Lacoste Tshirt niya ay napaka swapang na buwaya. Ang In court, A filed a Motion to Quash the Information,
nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no
sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% lang. crime was committed. If you were the judge, how would
Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong you resolve the motion? (2003 Bar)
magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bundat na
bundat na buwaya na ito at napalaki na ng kurakot. A: I would grant the Motion to Quash on the ground that the
facts charged do not constitute an offense, since there is no
A, B and C were charged with libel before the RTC of definite person or persons dishonored.
Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article
is within the ambit of qualified privileged The crime of libel or slander is a crime against honor such
communication; that there is no malice in law and in that the person/s dishonored must be identifiable even by
fact; and that defamatory comments on the acts of innuendoes. Otherwise, the crime against honor is not
public officials which are related to the discharge of committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious
their official duties do not constitute libel. imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was
delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B and C workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance,
all liable for the crime? Explain. (2016 Bar) the statement is not actionable as defamatory.

A: Yes, the crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on Slander

acts of public officers related to the discharge of their duties
is a qualified privileged communication, hence, the accused Q: Lando and Marco are candidates in the local
can still be held liable for libel if actual malice is shown. In elections. In his speeches, Lando attacked his opponent
fair comment, actual malice can be established by showing Marco alleging that he is the son of Nanding, a robber
that comment was made with knowledge that it was false and a thief who amassed his wealth through shady
or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. deals. May Marco file a case against Lando for grave oral
(Guingguing v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar)
128959, September 30, 2005) Journalists bear the burden of
writing responsibly when practicing their profession, even A: Marco cannot file a case for grave oral defamation. If at
when writing about public figures or matters of public all, he may file a case for light slander.
interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the
Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be considered as fair In the case of People v. Laroga (40 OG 123), it was held that
and true since he did not do research before making his defamation in a political meeting when feelings are running
allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations high and people could not think clearly only amount to light
were baseless. The articles are not fair and true reports, slander. Moreover, his statements against Marco pertains to
but merely wild accusations. He has written and published a person who is running for public office wherein a wider
the subject articles with reckless disregard of whether the latitude is given
same were false or not. (Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. .
161032, September 16, 2008)
Defamation (1988, 1993, 2003 Bar)

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 boys body.
Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 boys death.
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the
healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted


by the lower court. If you were the appellate court

Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? (2) The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are
Explain your answer. (2007 Bar)

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 victims 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 victims death. As they may have overdone the Luneta Park, watching the statue of Jose Rizal, when,
healing ritual they conducted on the victims body, without his permission, Leilani, 17 years of age, sat
causing the latters 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.

Is Arnold libale for the charge? Explain. (2016 Bar)

A: No, Arnold is not liable. Under Section 10 of RA No. 7610,
any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor,
ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (R.A. NO. 7610, AS AMENDED) twelve (12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more
(1993, 2004 Bar) his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer
joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
Q: Sometime in December 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or
celebrating the first year of his compulsory retirement similar places is liable for child abuse.
from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his
company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents Arnold is not liable for the charge. To be held liable under
were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and being Section 10(b) of RA No. 7610, it is indispensable that the
totally orphaned has been living or fending for herself child in the company of the offender must be 12 years or
in the streets in Manila. They were alone in one room in under or who in 10 years or more his junior in a public
a beach resort and stayed there for two (2) nights. No place. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and only 8 years
sexual intercourse took place between them. Before younger than Arnold.
they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl P1,
000.00 for her services. She gladly accepted it. Moreover, Leilani sat beside Arnold without his permission,
hence, he is not in the company if a child in a public place.
(1) What crime may the retired colonel be charged
with, if any? Discuss. Lastly, applying the episdem generis principle, Arnold is not
(2) What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain. liable for child abuse because Luneta is not a place similar
(1993 Bar) to hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension
house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist
A: resort.

(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 treasurers 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.
resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col Rodolfo, as a general merchant knew that one
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)


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
A: Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (b) Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law?
as this law refers only to the buy and sell of articles of value Explain. (2016 Bar)
which are the proceeds of robbery and theft. Rodolfo is
liable as an accessory to the crime of malversation as he A:
purchased the typewriters for P2, 000 each only although
he knew it could easily be sold for P6, 000 to P10, 000. (a) Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
Therefore, he profited or assisted the principal to profit for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess,
from the effects or proceeds of the commission of the crime. keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy
and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item,
Q: object or anything of value which he knows, or should
be known to him, to have been derived from the
(1) What are the elements of fencing? proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (Section 2, PD
(2) What is the difference between a fence and an 1612)
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. (b) No. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law.
(3) Is there any similarity between them? (1995 Bar) While under the said law mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value which has
A: been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing, such evidence when
(1) The elements of fencing are: sufficiently overturned constitutes a defense.

(a) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed; In this case, Ofelias 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 Jumbos favor without asking any consideration?
degree lower. Explain your answer. (1990 Bar)

Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore A:

there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused;
this is not so in violations of the RPC. a. The answer would depend or be qualified by the
implication of the phrase to have his case calendared
(3) There is similarity in the sense that all the acts of one as early as possible.
who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft
are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the If the phrase is interrupted as an unjust act and in
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be violation of the rule to give priority to the older cases,
prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a fence under then she would be liable under direct bribery for an act
PD 1612 (Dizon-Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63) which does not constitute a crime but is unjust. He may
also be held liable under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the
Q: Ofelia engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practicess Act, as amended: xxx
was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise giving any private party any unwarranted benefits.
known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the
in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P100, rules and regulations, then she can only be held liable
000.00 at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she for direct bribery.
merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a
receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts b. Melda is not criminally liable because the actor
given to her by Antonia representing previous volunteering to persuade is not a criminal act. It is the
transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed, act of persuading that is considered a criminal act. The
arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted act does not fall under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
from a legal transaction and that the prosecution failed Code on Direct Bribery nor does it fall under Article 211
to prove that she knew or should have known that the of the RPC on Indirect Bribery. Neither does it fall under
pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) of
proceeds of the crime of theft. RA 3019 refers to acts of persuading another public
official to violate rules and regulations.
(a) What is a fence under PD 1612?


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)
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)


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
A: notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
(1) Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of
RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this As a rule, once the unlawful aggression ceased, stabbing the
Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem victim further is not self-defense. However, even if the
asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime element of unlawful aggression in self-defense is lacking,
of plunder after 20 years. Ms. A, who is suffering for battered woman syndrome, will
(2) Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of not incur criminal and civil liability.
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from
them or their nominees or transferees shall not be Q: Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12)
barred by prescription, laches or estoppel. years and had two (2) children. The first few years of
their marriage went along smoothly. However, on the
ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when
CHILDREN (R.A. NO. 9262) Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels became
increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when
Battered Woman Syndrome (2010, 2014, 2015 Bar) Julia would leave the conjugal dwelling. During the
times of quiet, Romeo would court Julia with flowers
Q: Define "Battered Woman Syndrome." What are the and chocolates and convince her to return home, telling
three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would
Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any ask Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing that if
of the elements for justifying circumstances of self- she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a
defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2010 month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his
Bar) drinking habit and the quarrel would start again,
verbally at first, until it would escalate to physical
A: Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically violence.
define pattern of psychological and behavioural symptoms
found in woman living in battering relationships as a result One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight
of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3[d], R.A. 9262). to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia
The three (3) phases of the BWS are: (1) tension- building stabbed Romeo, while he was asleep. A week later, their
phase; (2) acute battering incident; and (3) tranquil, loving, neighbors discovered Romeos rotting corpse on the
or non-violent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be
January 15, 2004). found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted
battered woman syndrome as her defense.
Yes, the defense will prosper. Sec. 26 of R.A. 9262 provides
that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be (a) Explain the cycle of violence.
suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any (b) Is Julias battered woman syndrome defense
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of meritorious? Explain. (2016 Bar)
any of the elements of justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the RPC. A:

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


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 persons 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 Bs 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 makers 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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
the unpaid price of the washing machine; his obligation is acquittal since his acquittal is premised on the finding that
only a civil obligation. There is no felonious his liability is only civil in nature. (De Guzman v. Alva, 51 OG
misappropriation that could constitute estafa. 1311).

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


Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their agreed sale, the crime

was consummated. Payment of the consideration is not an A: Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes
element of requisite of the crime. If ever, the marked money incur criminal liability under Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., RA No.
is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
prosecution. Drugs Act of 2002. They acted as protector/coddler to
the unlawful bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous
The absence of the marked money will not create a hiatus drugs. A protector/coddler refers to any person who uses
in the prosecutions evidence as long as the sale of the his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of
dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject any person whom he knows or believes, has violated the
of the transaction is presented before the court. There was Dangerous Drugs Law, in order to prevent the arrest,
a perfected contract of sale of the drug (People v. Ong Co, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
245 SCRA 733)
The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of
Q: Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an Sec. 27. RA 9165 of the same law for misappropriation and
unspecified amount of methamphetamine failure to account for the confiscated or seized dangerous
hydrochloride or shabu. An entrapment operation drugs.
was conducted by police officers, resulting in his arrest
following the discovery of 100 grams of the said On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the
dangerous drug in his possession. He was subsequently illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines of the
charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, dangerous drugs (Art. 11, Sec. 4, RA 9165).
Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of shabu and
violation of Section 15, Art. II of RA 9165 for the use of Q: Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a
marijuana. session. Thinking that it was for a mahjong session,
Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcios house,
(a) Are the charges proper? Explain. Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu
(b) So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers session. At that precise time, the place was raided by
to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he do so? the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested.
Why? (1998, 2004, 2005 Bar)
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any?
A: Explain. (2007 Bar)

(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)
attach case. Upon inspection the Immigration holding (b) What is the effect of failure to observe the
area, the attach case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin requirement? (2009 Bar)
weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the
attach 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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy and deemed absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion
insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable filed against him. Decide the issue.
doubt. (b) Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed
firearms, shot and killed his neighbor in an
Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt. altercation. May the charge of murder and illegal
possession of firearms be deemed absorbed in the
Q: The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) separate charge of rebellion filed against him?
had intelligence reports about the drug pushing Resolve the matter with reasons. (1990) Bar
activities of Rado, but could not arrest him for lack of
concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, A:
approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-
buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, (a) The charge of illegal possession of firearms and
saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and explosives is deemed absorbed in the crime of
did not want to have anything to do with drugs rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for
anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 the perpetration of the latter crime. (Elias v. Rodriguez,
Relio explained that only he could help capture Rado 107 Phil 659)
because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then (b) The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate
gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying charge of rebellion as it is clear that the act of murder,
shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After coupled with the possession of an unlicensed firearm,
Emilo handed the marked money to Rado in exchange was not in furtherance of the rebellion.
for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon
receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Q: PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election
Relio and his team members barged in and arrested campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information
Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm
of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court
convicted PH of two crimes: Murder and Illegal
(a) What defense, if any, may Emilo invoke to free Possession of Firearms. Is the conviction correct?
himself from criminal liability? Explain. Reason briefly. (2004 Bar)
(b) May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's defense?
Explain. (2015 Bar) A: No. The conviction of PH for two crimes is not correct.
Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and
explosives, RA 8294, a person may only be criminally liable
A: for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is
committed therewith; If a homicide or murder is committed
(a) Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA 9165 or the with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. He may have considered as an aggravating circumstance.
violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of shabu
but he is immune from prosecution and punishment PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use
because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be
entrapment operation. There was virtually instigation. appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance,
He is exempted from prosecution or punishment provided that such use is alleged specifically in the
because the information obtained from him by the Information for Murder.
PDEA agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence
of Rados drug-pushing activities, led to the INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. 4103, AS
whereabouts, identity and arrest of Rado. So long as the AMENDED) (1988, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1997, 1999,
information and testimony given are pleaded and 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2013, 2016)
proven, Ernilo cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA
9165. Q: State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence
(b) No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of Law. (1988, 2016 Bar)
arresting violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a A:
crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a
crime originates from the offender, without anybody (a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw) applies in
inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. cases where the penalty imposed is more than one year
Second, the immunity does not extend to violators of and the ISLaw shall apply where there is a minimum
Section 5 of RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA penalty which is not lower than the penalty next lower
9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the crime and in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher
apparently the most guilty of the offense. than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of
felonies but when it comes to statutory offenses, it must
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (P.D. 1866, AS be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law
AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 AND R.A. 10591) (1990, and not higher than the maximum penalty provided by
2000, 2004 Bar) law except in the following cases as provided by Section
2 of Art. 4103:
1. Life imprisonment
(a) Ka Jacinto, an NPA commander, was apprehended 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal
with unlicensed firearms and explosives. He was to commit treason
accordingly charged with illegal possession of said 3. To those convicted of misprision of treason,
firearms and explosives. He now questions the rebellion, sedition or espionage
filing of the charges on the ground that they are 4. Those convicted of piracy
5. Those who are habitual delinquents


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
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 stores 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: While serving his sentence, Macky entered the
prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joys (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


QUAMTO (1987-2016)
suspension of the sentence on the ground that he commence to serve his sentence. Is A eligible for
was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a probation? (1989 Bar)
suspension of sentence? Reasons.
(b) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly A: A is still eligible for probation since he filed his
ask for suspension of sentence? Explain. (2003, application for probation within 15 days from the
2013 Bar) promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law,
the accused may apply for probation within the period for
A: perfecting an appeal which is 15 days from promulgation or
notice thereof.
(a) No. A is not entitled to a suspension of sentence
because he is no longer a minor at the time of The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment
promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of order on the same day of promulgation. A commitment
suspension of sentence, the offenders age at the time order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be
of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has
not his age when he committed the crime. So although expired with no appeal being taken. The fact that in
A was below 18 years old when he committed the compliance with such order, which is void, the accused
crime, but he was already 23 years old when sentenced, commenced to serve his sentence does not bar him from
he is no longer eligible for suspension of sentence. availing himself of the benefits of the Probation Law.
(b) Yes. So long as the offender is still a minor at the time
of the promulgation of the sentence. The law While it is true under the Rules that a judgment in a criminal
establishing Family Courts, RA 8369, provides to this case becomes final after the lapse of the period for
effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should perfecting an appeal or when the sentence has been
promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil partially or totally satisfied or served or the accused has
liability which the accused may have incurred. applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120), Sec. 9 of the same
However, the sentence shall be suspended without the Rule provides that nothing in this Rule shall be construed
need of application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise as affecting any existing provision in the law governing
known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code (RA suspension of sentence, probation or parole.
8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder The probation law does NOT speak of filing an application
it is one of the conditions for suspension of sentence for probation before judgment has become final. It only
that the offender be a first time convict: this has been speaks of filing the application WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR
displaced by RA 8369. PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the Probation
Law that bars an accused who has commenced to serve his
PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968, AS AMENDED) (1988, sentence from filing an application for probation provided
1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2000, 2002, he does so within the period for perfecting an appeal.
2003, 2004, 2005, 2010 Bar)
What the Probation Law provides is that no application for
Q: Who are the offenders disqualified from availing probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant
themselves of the benefits of the probation law (P.D. has perfected an appeal from the judgment or conviction. It
968, as amended)? (1988 Bar) does not say that no application shall be entertained if the
judgment has become final because the convict has already
A: The following offenders are disqualified from availing of commenced to serve his sentence.
the benefits of the Probation Law:
Q: Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by
1. Those sentenced to serve maximum term of a 17-year old complainant. The accused made wedding
imprisonment of more than six years; arrangements with the girl, but her parents insisted on
2. Those convicted of subversion or any crime against the the prosecution of the case. To avoid further
national security of the public order; embarrassment of a court trial for him and the girl, the
3. Those who have previously been convicted by final accused entered a plea of guilty. He then filed a petition
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of for probation before serving sentence, but the court
not less than one month and one day and or a fine of not denied the petition on the ground that it would be
less than P200; better for the accused to serve sentence so that he
4. Those who have been once on probation under the would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the
provisions of this decree; and community that would be caused by the grant of the
5. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the petition. The accused serve sentence but he brought the
substantive provisions of this decree applicable matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
pursuant to Sec. 33 of P.D. 968. Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition
for probation? (1991 Bar)
Q: A was charged with theft and upon arraignment,
pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for A: The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta v. Leviste (92
failure to post bail. After two (2) months, a decision was SCRA 719), the Judge precisely denied the petition for
rendered sentencing A to an indeterminate sentence probation on the same excuse stated in the problem. The
of six (6) months and one (1) day as a minimum, to one Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any
(1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the one of the disqualifications stated in Sec. 9 of PD 960 in
offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, order to be denied probation.
1985, the very day the sentence was read to A, the
Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Q: Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by
Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, A the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He was imposed the
applied for probation but his application was denied on indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2
the ground that the sentence of conviction became final months and 1 day as minimum and six years as
and executory on January 16, 1985, when A maximum, both of prision correccional and was
ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount


of P3, 000.00. He filed an application for probation

upon the promulgation of the judgment.

What is the legal effect of his application for probation

on the judgment of conviction? Does said application
interrupt the running of the period of appeal? (1992
A: The filing of the application for probation is considered
as a waiver of the right of the accused to appeal; the
decision has become final. In view of the finality of the
decision, there is no period of appeal to speak of.

Q: On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson

through reckless imprudence and sentenced to pay a
fine of P15, 000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency by the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the
Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed a
motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is
applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of
Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal

On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were

remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a Motion for
Probation praying that execution of his sentence be
suspended, and that a probation officer be ordered to
conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his

The judge denied the motion on the ground that

pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which took
effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation
shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Is
the denial of Robertos motion correct? (1994 Bar)

A: Yes, even if at the time of his conviction, Roberto was

qualified for probation but that at the time of his application
for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled to
probation. The qualification for probation must be
determined as of the time the application is filed in Court
(Bernardo v. Judge Balagot, et. al., G.R. 86561, Nov. 10, 1992).

Q: Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a

crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He
appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed
upon him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
ultimately sustained Juans conviction but reduced his
sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months
imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an application
for probation? Explain. (1992, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003 Bar)

A: No. Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he

appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial court,
and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section
4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if
the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of

Q: May a probationer appeal from the decision

revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms
and conditions thereof? (2002 Bar)

A: No. Under Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an

order granting or denying the probation is not appealable.