The Sigma Rho Fraternity

Bar Operations 2018

Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Alterna@ve Circumstances .................................... 19
Criminal Law Bar Absolutory Causes .................................................19

Questions and An- Entrapment v. Ins@ga@on ..........................................19

Liabili@es of Principals, Accomplices and Accessories ..
19
swers (1999-2017) Principal ................................................................19

Table of Contents Conspiracy .............................................................20

CRIMINAL LAW 1 .............................................................1 Accomplice ............................................................21
Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law 1
. Accessory ..............................................................22
No Common Law Crimes .............................................2 Corpus Delic@ ............................................................23
No Crime When No Law Punishes It ...........................2 Principles, Classifica@on, Dura@on and Effects of
Limita@ons of Congress in Enac@ng Penal Laws ..........2 Penal@es ....................................................................23

Characteris@cs of Criminal Law ...................................2 Applica@on of Penal@es ............................................24

Territoriality ................................................................2 Con@nuing Crime ...................................................... 26

Generality ...................................................................3 Execu@on and Service of Penal@es ........................... 27

Laws of Preferen@al Applica@on .................................3 Ex@nc@on of Criminal Liabili@es ................................ 27

The Principle of Dubio Pro Reo ...................................4 Prescrip@on of crime ................................................. 29

Applicability, Effec@vity and History of Penal Code Civil Liabili@es in Criminal Cases ...............................30
(and Penal Laws) .........................................................4 CRIMINAL LAW 2 ...........................................................31
Schools of Thought of Criminal Law ............................4 Crimes against Na@onal Security and Laws of Na@on ...
Criminal Liabili@es and Felonies ..................................4 31

Culpa ...........................................................................4 Crimes against Public Order ......................................33

Crimes Malum In se and Crimes Malum Prohibitum .. 4 Crimes against Public Interest ...................................38

Grave, Less Grave and Light Penal@es .........................5 Crimes against Public Morals .................................... 41

Relevance of Mo@ve ................................................... 5 Crimes Against Persons ............................................. 46

Rules on Criminal Liability ...........................................5 Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security ...........58

Proximate Cause .....................................................5 Crimes Against Property ...........................................62

Impossible Crime ....................................................8 Crimes Against Chas@ty ............................................77

Stages of a Felony .......................................................9 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS ....................................................83

Circumstances Affec@ng Criminal Liabili@es ................ 9 CRIMINAL LAW 1

Jus@fying Circumstances .......................................10 Fundamental and General Principles in Criminal Law

Exemp@ng Circumstances .....................................13 Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Sal-
cedo who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National
Mi@ga@ng Circumstances ......................................14 Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a
revenue earner for the country through a law providing for premi-
um accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maxi-
Aggrava@ng Circumstances ...................................15 mum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend

1
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
visits, and for those who want long-term premium accommoda-
tions.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-
like amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star ho-
tels; for long-term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and
board with special meals in air conditioned single-occupancy
rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels.
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of
criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment
(7%) and considerations of ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total
points) ’13-Q11
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would advise Senator Salcedo to forgo and
permanently abandon his proposed bill as it will result in economic
inequality in the field of criminal justice. The bill runs afoul with the
equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection
clause in the Constitution does not merely bar the creation of inequali-
ties but commands as well the elimination of existing inequalities.
Additionally, the purpose of imposing penalties, which is to secure
justice, retribution, and reformation, will be defeated and put to naught
if the bill’s program or scheme should eventually become a law.
No Common Law Crimes
Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction? ’88 – Q1b
There are none. The rule is “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine
lege”, there is no crime if there is no law punishing it.
No Crime When No Law Punishes It
The maxim "Nullum crimen nula poena sine lege" means that: ’11
– Q12
(A) the act is criminal at the time of its commission and recognized as
such at the time of its commission but the penalty therefor is pre-
scribed in a subsequently enacted law.
(B) the act is criminal and punished under and pursuant to common
law.
(C) there is a crime for as long as the act is inherently evil.
(D) crime is a product of the law.
Because of the barbarity and hideousness of the acts committed
by the suspects/respondents in cutting of their victims’ ap-
pendages, stuffing their torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums
and bullet-riddled vehicles and later on burying theses oil drums,
vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earth-moving ma-
chinery, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating
team recommended to the panel of public prosecutors that all
respondents be charged with violation of the “Heinous Crimes
Law.” The prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the Chief
Prosecutor tasked with approving the filing of the Information,
how will you pass the recommendation. ’10 – Q4
The CHR is correct in describing the crimes committed as
“heinous crimes”, as defined in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes
Law” (Republic Act No. 7659), despite the passage of R.A. No. 9346
prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.
However, the “Heinous Crimes Law” does not define crimes; it is
only an amendatory law increasing the penalty for the crimes specified
therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes
committed shall be prosecuted under the penal law they are respec-
tively defined and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as the
case may be. The circumstances making the crimes heinous may be
alleged as qualifying or generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall
be designated as defined and punished under the penal law violated
and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without the benefit of pa-
role or life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, as the case may
be in lieu of the death penalty.
Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philip-
pines? ’08 – Q1b
2
YES. Strictly speaking, human rights violations cannot be consid-
ered crimes in the Philippines. However, if the acts constitute violations
of customary international law, they may be considered violations of
Philippine law (Section 8, Article II, Constitution.) Also, the acts may
constitute elements of offenses penalized under Philippine laws, like
kidnapping/illegal detention – serious or slight violation of R.A. No.
7610, or R.A. No. 7877 – the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act.
Limitations of Congress in Enacting Penal Laws
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. (3%)
’15-Q2
Answer: Ex posto facto law which makes an innocent act a crime
after the act was committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from
something done afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggra-
vates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed, or
which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than
the law governing the crime when committed.
A bill of attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named
individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial.
Ex posto facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder per-
tains to a named individual or group or to members of a group.
What are the limitations upon congress to enact penal laws? ’88 –
Q1a; ’12 – Q3b
The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws
are as follows:
1. Prohibition against ex post facto or bill of attainder;
2. Prohibition against imposition of cruel and unusual punish-
ment; and
3. Prohibition against violation of due process and equal pro-
tection of the law.
Characteristics of Criminal Law
What are the characteristics of criminal law? ’88 – Q1c
The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:
1. GENERALITY – That the law is binding upon all persons
who reside or sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age,
sex, color, creed or personal circumstances.
2. TERRITORIALITY – That the law is applicable to all crimes
committed within the limits of Philippine territory, which in-
cludes its atmosphere and maritime zone (Art. 2)
3. PROSPECTIVITY – That the law does not have retroactive
effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual
delinquent (Art. 22)
Article 2 of the RPC, however, provides for an exception to:
“Treaty stipulations or by law of preferential application.”
Territoriality
Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines,
purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong.
While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also
an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin
and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily ap-
proached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and
killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing hap-
pened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila.
Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Pre-
sented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not
incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were In-
donesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in
Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss
the merits of Ando's contentions. (4%) ’15-Q12
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Answer: Both contentions of Ando lack merit.
The argument of Ando that he did not incur criminal liability
because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. Under
the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live
or sojourn in the Philippines territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The
foreign characteristic of an offender and offended party does not ex-
clude him from operation of penal laws (People v. Galacgac, C. A., 54
O. G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in
treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philip-
pines shall have force and effect within its territory.
Here, since, the killing took place within the Philippine territo-
ry, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held criminally responsible
despite his being an Indonesian citizen.
Likewise, the contention of Ando that he could not be prose-
cuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship is
without merit.
Under the English Rule, which our jurisdiction recognizes
and follows, crimes committed aboard a vessel within the territorial
waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country except
when the crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when they
only refer to the internal management thereof.
Here, since the crime was committed within Philippine wa-
ters and neither exception applies, Ando may be prosecuted in Manila.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
Under Section 27 of the Convention of the Law of the Sea,
the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on
board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any
person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime
committed on board the ship during its passage except if the crime is
of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the
territorial sea. The vessel is still within the territorials waters of the
Philippines when the crime was committed since the killing happened a
few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Murder committed
by Ando disturbs the peace of the Philippines; hence, he could be
prosecuted in Manila.
A foreigner residing in Hong Kong counterfeits a twenty-peso bill
issued by the Philippine Government. May the foreigner be pros-
ecuted before a civil court in the Philippines? ’12 - Q44
a) No. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforce-
able only within the Philippine Archipelago.
b) No. The Philippine Criminal Law is binding only on persons
who reside or sojourn in the Philippines.
c) No. Foreigners residing outside the jurisdiction of the Philip-
pines are exempted from the operation of the Philippine Criminal Law.
d) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforce-
able · also outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who
should forge or counterfeit currency notes of the Philippines or obliga-
tions and securities issued by the Government of the Philippines.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforceable ·
also outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should
forge or counterfeit currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippines.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should forge or
counterfeit any Philippine currency note or obligations and securities
issued by the government (Article 2). The fact that the forger is a for-
eigner is not a defense. Under generality principle, criminal law is en-
forceable to person living or sojourning in the territory of the Philippines
3
regardless of nationality. The ofreign characteristic of an offender does
not exclude him from operation of penal laws (Galacgac, CA –G.R. –
SP No. 109576, April 28, 2011, 54 O.G. 1027)
Which of the following crimes is an exception to the Territoriality
Rule in Criminal law? ’11 – Q53
(A) Violation of the Trademark Law committed by an alien in the Philip-
pines.
(B) Forgery of US bank notes committed in the Philippines.
(C) Crime committed by a Filipino in the disputed Spratly's Island.
(D) Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philip-
pine public officer.
What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew murders the
Filipino captain on board a vessel of Russian registry while the
vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila bay? ’11
– Q73
(A) The Indonesian court.
(B) The Russian court.
(C) The Philippine court.
(D) Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case.
After drinking 1 case of San Miguel beer and taking 2 plates of
"pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a
Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The
vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a
rich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific"
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel
turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An
information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the RTC of
Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for lack of jurisdic-
tion. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? '00 – Q1
YES, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The
Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it
was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and
on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (U.S. v.
Fowler, 1 Phil 614 [1902].)
It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of
the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a
Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of
Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
Generality
Principles of public international law exempt certain individuals
from the Generality characteristic of criminal law. Who among the
following are NOT exempt from the Generality rule? ’11 – Q6
(A) Ministers Resident
(B) Commercial Attache of a foreign country
(C) Ambassador
(D) Chiefs of Mission
Laws of Preferential Application
Pierceis a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on
EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who
was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged
with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense,
he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? ‘14-Q17
A: Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in
the Philippines, would be exempt from the general application of our
criminal laws, as provided for under the laws or treaties of preferential
application, more particularly under RA. No. 75.
The American Consul accredited to the Philippines while driving
his car recklessly and imprudently along Roxas Boulevard
bumped a pedestrian who was crossing the street and the latter
died as a consequence of his injuries. Prosecuted in court for the
crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence, the Consul claimed
diplomatic immunity, alleging that he is not subject to Philippine
laws and regulations. Is his defense tenable? ’75 – Q3
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Under the principle of public international law, only sovereigns or
heads of states, ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary and resident
ministers enjoy diplomatic immunity. Consuls do not enjoy immunity
from criminal prosecution (R.A. No. 75; Schneckenburger v. Moran, 63
Phil. 249.)
The Principle of Dubio Pro Reo
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it related to Article 48
of the Revised Penal Code? ’10 – Q12b
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal
in nature are to be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to
the offender, consonant to and consistent with the constitutional guar-
antee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is
established beyond reasonable doubt.
Following the pro reo doctrine, under Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code, crimes are complexed and punished with a single penalty
(i.e., that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its
maximum period.) the rationale being, that the accused who commits
two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrated lesser perversity
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several crim-
inal resolutions (People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004].)
However, Article 48 shall be applied only when it would bring about the
imposition of penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all the
component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of being com-
plexed.
Applicability, Effectivity and History of Penal Code (and Penal
Laws)
Schools of Thought of Criminal Law
What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal
Law and describe each briefly. To what theory does our Revised
Penal Code belong? ’96 – Q1(1) & (2)
There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are
(a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which simply means that the basis of
criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty is
retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and
(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which considers man as a social being
and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to other forces of
society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to
be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the
imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be in-
quired into.
We follow the classical school of thought although some provi-
sions of eminently positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossi-
ble crime, Juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
Repealed Crimes
When a penal law is absolutely repealed such that the offense is
decriminalized, a pending case charging the accused of the re-
pealed crime is to be: ’11 – Q18
(A) prosecuted still since the charge was valid when filed.
(B) dismissed without any precondition.
(C) dismissed provided the accused is not a habitual delinquent.
(D) prosecuted still since the offended party has a vested interest in the
repealed law.
Criminal Liabilities and Felonies
a) How are felonies committed? Explain each. (3%) ’15-Q1a
Answer: (a) Felonies are committed are not only by means of deceit
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act
is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful
4
act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill (Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code).
Culpa
Felonies are classified according to manner or mode of execution
into felonies committed by means of deceit (dolo) and by means
of fault (culpa). Which of the following causes may not give rise to
culpable felonies? ’12 - Q64
a) Imprudence;
b) Malice;
c) Negligence;
d) Lack of foresight.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Malice;
Culpable crime is committed by means of negligence or imrpudence.
Imprudence indicates a deficiency in actions. Negligence indicates a
deficiency of perception. If a person fails to take the necessary precau-
tion to avoid injury to person or damage to property, there is impru-
dence. If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence
in foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused, there is
negligence. Negligence usually involves lack of foresight. Imprudence
usually involves lack of skill (The Revised Penal Code by Luis Reyes).
A crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill is called: ’11 – Q22
(A) dolo.
(B) culpa.
(C) tortious crimes.
(D) quasi delict.
Culpa can either be a crime by itself or a mode of committing a
crime. Culpa is a crime by itself in: ’11 – Q41
(A) reckless imprudence resulting in murder.
(B) medical malpractice.
(C) serious physical Injuries thru reckless imprudence.
(D) complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.
Crimes Malum In se and Crimes Malum Prohibitum
Tonito, an 8-year-old boy, was watching a free concert at the
Luneta Park with his father Tony. The child stood on a chair to be
able to see the performers on the stage. Juanito, a 10-year-old
boy, who was also watching the concert, could not see much of
the performance on the stage because Tonito was blocking his
line of sight by standing on the chair. Using his elbow, Juanito
strongly shoved Tonito to get a good view of the stage. The shove
caused Tonito to fall to the ground. Seeing this, Tony struck
Juanito on the head with his hand and caused the boy to fall and
to hit his head on a chair. Tony also wanted to strangle Juanito
but the latter's aunt prevented him from doing so. Juanito sus-
tained a lacerated wound on the head that required medical at-
tendance for 10 days.
Tony was charged with child abuse in violation of Sec. 10(a), in
relation to Sec. 3(b)(2), of R.A. No. 7610 (Child Abuse Law) for
allegedly doing an "act by deeds or words which debases, de-
grades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being." In his defense, Tony contended that he had no
intention to maltreat Juanito, much less to degrade his intrinsic
worth and dignity as a human being. ’17 Q1
(a) Distinguish crimes mala in se from crimes mala
prohibita. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) Mala in se and mala prohibita are distinguished as
follows: (1) Mala in Se are inherently wrong or im-
moral, while mala prohibitia are not inherently
wrong; they are only wrong because they are pro-
hibited by law; (2) In mala in se, good faith or lack
of criminal intent is a defense, while in mala pro-
hibita, good faith is not a defense; (3) Modifying
circumstances can be appreciated in mala in se.
These circumstances cannot be appreciated in
mala prohibitia, unless the special law that punish-
es them adopts the technical nomenclature of the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; (4) Mala in se
are punishable under the Revised Penal Code; or
special laws where the acts punishable therein are
wrong by nature. Mala prihibita are punishable un-
der special laws.
(b) Was Tony criminally liable for child abuse under
R.A. No. 7610? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Tony laid hands on Juanito without intent to debase
the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Juanito as a
human being, or that he had had thereby intended
to humiliate or embarrass Juanito. It appears that
the laying of hands on Juanito have been done at
the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of
his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern
for the personal safety of his own minor son, Toni-
to, who fell to the ground due to the shoving by
Juanito. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked
that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
being that was so essential in the crime of child
abuse; hence, the crime committed is only slight
physical injuries (Bongalon v. People, G.R. No.
169533, March 20, 2013).
Distinguish, in their respective concepts and legal implications,
between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. ’05 – Q1(5);
’03 – Q1
In concept:
Crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penal-
ized are inherently 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 public good,
public welfare or interest and whoever violates the prohibition are pe-
nalized.
In legal implications:
In crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/ negli-
gence is a defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of
criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it is enough that the prohibi-
tion was voluntarily violated.
Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se
even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes
mala prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred only when the
crime is consummated.
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circum-
stances are appreciated in imposing the penalties, while in crimes
mala prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated unless the
special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code.
May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum pro-
hibitum? '97 – Q1
YES, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the
same time. In People v. Sunico (CA 50 OG 5880), it was held that the
omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a
voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is consid-
ered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law (Sections
101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibi-
tum.
Grave, Less Grave and Light Penalties
When are light felonies punishable? ’12 – Q9
a) Light felonies are punishable in all stages of execution.
b) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated.
c) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated,
with the exception of those committed against persons
or property.
d) Light felonies are punishable only when committed
against persons or property.
5
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated, with the
exception of those committed against persons or property.
Light felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed against person or property (Arti-
cle 7 of the Revised Penal Code).
The classification of felonies into grave, less grave, and light is
important in ascertaining: ’11 – Q60
(A) if certain crimes committed on the same occasion can be com-
plexed.
(B) the correct penalty for crimes committed through reckless impru-
dence.
(C) whether the offender is liable as an accomplice.
(D) what stage of the felony has been reached.
Relevance of Motive
It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals will kill
others or commit serious offenses for no reason at all. For this
reason: ’11 – Q31
(A) lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the
accused's part in it are shown.
(B) motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal in-
tent.
(C) lack of motive precludes conviction.
(D) the motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial.
Motive is generally IMMATERIAL in determining criminal liability
EXCEPT when: ’11 – Q57
(A) several offenders committed the crime but the court wants to ascer-
tain which of them acted as leader.
(B) the evidence of the crime consists of both direct and circumstantial
evidence.
(C) ascertaining the degree of penalty that may be imposed on the
offender.
(D) the evidence of guilt of the accused is circumstantial.
Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a
crime and the liabilities of perpetrators. What are the instances
where proof of motive is not essential or required to justify con-
viction of an accused? Give at least 3 instances. ’06 – Q1
Proof of motive is not required –
1. Where the offender is positively identified; or
2. Has admitted the committed the commission of the crime
(People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA [1984] citing People v. Realon,
94 SCRA 422 [1980];
3. Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or
4. Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negli-
gence.
Distinguish “motive” from “intent”. '99 – Q4a
“Motive” is the moving power which impels a person to do an act
for a definite result; while “intent” is the purpose for using a particular
means to bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a
crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending
a crime, always precede the intent.
When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not neces-
sary to be established? '99 – Q4b
Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the
identity of the offender or when the act committed gives rise to variant
crimes and there is the need to determine the proper crime to be im-
puted to the offender.
It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively
identified or the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.
Rules on Criminal Liability
Proximate Cause
What is aberratio ictus? (2%) ’15-Q1a
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow. Under the principle of aberra-
tion ictus, person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional
felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended
due to mistake of blow. This principle is based on the rule in Article 4 of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides that criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the
wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Under which of the following circumstances is an accused not
liable for the result not intended? ’12 – Q2
a) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intend-
ed when there is mistake in the identity of the victim.
b) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intend-
ed when there is mistake in the blow.
c) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intend-
ed when the wrongful act is not the proximate cause of
the resulting injury.
d) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intend-
ed when there is mistake of fact constituting an involun-
tary act.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when
there is mistake of fact constituting an involuntary act.
The Supreme Court in several cases had applied the “mistake of fact”
doctrine in relation to the justifying circumstance of self-defense (Unit-
ed States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910, 15 Phil.,
488), defense of person and right (Unites States vs. Apego, G.R. No.
L-7929, Nov. 18, 1912, 23 Phil. 391), performance of duty, (People vs.
Mamasalaya, G.R. No. L-4911, February 10, 1953), and the exempting
circumstance of obedience of an order of superior officer (People vs.
Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955) Hence, mistake of fact
principle can likewise be applied in relation to circumstance of lack of
voluntariness such as the circumstance of irresistible force or uncon-
trollable fear. In sum, the accused will not be held criminally liable for
the result not intended when there is mistake of fact constituting an
involuntary act.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
c) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when the
wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when the
wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven
away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at
him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being car-
napped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car
and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out
of control and collide with an on-coming tricycle, killing the tricy-
cle driver.
1. What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? ’08 – Q1
Carlos has no criminal liability, he only acted in the lawful exercise
of his right. It is his right to protect his property, and what he did was to
aim and hit the wheel of the car and not any particular person.
Another Alternative Answer:
Carlos is liable for the natural and logical consequences of his
acts, although the injury that resulted is different from that which he
intended (Praeter Intentionem). He incurs criminal liability for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code for the death of the tricycle driver. He took the law into his
own hands, open fired at the wheels of his vehicle to stop it from being
stolen, but instead caused the death of the tricycle driver, because of
inexcusable lack of precaution.
2. What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? ’08 – Q2
Paolo, who acted with intent to gain, unlawfully took the personal
property with force upon things, is liable for carnapping under R.A. No.
6
6539, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, not qualified theft (People v.
Bustinna.)
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and re-
ported him to the police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car
saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported
him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that
he was about to run her over. He revved the engine of his car and
drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was
slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her
death. Was Gaston criminally liable? What is the liability of Gas-
ton? '05 – Q2(1)
Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the felonious act
which caused Belle’s death, although the penalty therefor shall be
mitigated by lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that com-
mitted (Article 13(3), RPC.) The act, having been deliberately done
with malice, brings about criminal liability although the wrong done was
different done from what was intended (Article 4(1), RPC.)
Alternative Answer:
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death because by his acts of
revving the engine of his car and driving towards Belle is felonious, and
such felonious act was the proximate cause of the vehicle to skid and
hit Belle, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of
Belle was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Gaston's felo-
nious act (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]).
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently,
XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in
QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-
up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fear-
ing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his
head hit the pavement, causing his instant death. Is XX liable for
ZZ's death? '04 – Q2a
YES, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a
grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the
watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act
was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney, resulting
in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious act which created an
immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such
danger by jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037
[1969].)
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed
with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict
physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his
fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing
that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to
the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of
heart attack. It turned out that she had been suffering from a lin-
gering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of?
'03 – Q5
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his
wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is
felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability
although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended
(Article 4, par. 1, RPC).
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by
B's felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the
immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to
and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted without intent
to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies.
However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted
without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Article
13, par. 3, RPC).
Maryjane had 2 suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly
show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's
invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was de-
clined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar
by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar's room in
their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared
to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart,
he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing
the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The po-
lice investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and
he was charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense,
Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and
that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe
liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? '01 – Q2
YES, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given
the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to
commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Article 13, par.
3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room without the latter's con-
sent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the
rubber snake, Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act
done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering
that they were part of “plans to get even with Cesar”.
Felipe's claim that he intended only “to play a practical joke on
Cesar” does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in
fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of
People v. Pugay.
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by
his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon when he visited her. When
he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so much
so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cell phone and
flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, he
boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he
happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and noticed that
the headlines were about the sinking of the Super Ferry while on
its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers who
were presumed dead and came across the name of his grandfa-
ther who had raised him from childhood after he was orphaned.
He was shocked and his mind went blank for a few minutes, after
which he ran amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at
the passengers who then scampered away, with three of them
Jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the
three passengers died later of their injuries at the hospital. Is Luis
liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the
moving train? '01 – Q1
YES, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a
felony when he started stabbing at the passengers and such wrongful
act was the proximate cause of said passengers' jumping out of the
train; hence their deaths.
Under Article 4, RPC, any person committing a felony shall incur
criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that
which he intended.
In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct,
natural and logical consequence of Luis' felonious act which created an
immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who tried
to avoid or escape from it by jumping out of the train (People v. Arpa,
27 SCRA 1037 [1969]; U.S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 1497 [1921].)
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits hap-
pened to fire his gun upward in the ceiling without meaning to kill
anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit
and killed as a result. The defense theorized that the killing was a
mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection with, or for
purposes of, the robbery. Will you sustain the defense? '99 – Q2
NO, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the
proximate cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable therefore
although it may not be intended or different from what he intended.
The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of rob-
bery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or accidental, as
long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery.
7
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae;
and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an
accused? ’99 – Q6
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs when the of-
fender delivered the blow at his intended victim but missed, and in-
stead such blow landed on an unintended victim. The situation gener-
ally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more
grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the
intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As
complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the
one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the resulting
felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penal-
ties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity occurs when the
offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but
turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal
liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity
resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit,
in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the
crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Article
49, RPC).
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went be-
yond that intended or expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Arti-
cle 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the
act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i,e.,
the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by
the offender from the act or means employed by him.
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines
Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed 10 persons. Terrified
by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the
bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after
hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to
death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin
although he was completely unaware that the two jumped out of
the bus? '96 – Q4(1)
YES, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Ben-
jamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate cause of
the victim's death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act,
generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompt-
ing the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process,
sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is
responsible for such injuries or death (U.S. v. Valdez, 41 Phil. 1497;
People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037.)
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to
parry it with his hand, causing upon him a 2-inch wound on his
right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because
three policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did
not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by the police
at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. 25 days later,
while the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was
rushed to the hospital because of symptoms of tetanus infection
on the 2-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the follow-
ing day. Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the
death of Anacleto? '96 – Q9
YES, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death of Ana-
cleto, unless the tetanus infection which developed twenty five days
later, was brought about by an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's
felonious act of causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm
may still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's death be-
cause without such wound, no tetanus infection could develop from the
victim's right palm, and without such tetanus infection the victim would
not have died with it.
The accused ran amuck aboard a moving train, and killed eight
persons. Terrified by the happening, four passengers jumped out
of the train and died as a result of their fall. Can the accused be
held liable for the death of the four although he did not even know
that they jumped? ’75 – Q4
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
The accused can be held liable. Because by running amuck
aboard the train and killing eight persons, he committed acts which are
felonious. The death of the four passengers who jumped out of the
train because they were terrified by the happening is the direct, natural
and logical consequence of the running amuck of the accused (Article
4, par. 1, RPC; People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037 [1969].)
Impossible Crime
What is an impossible crime? Can there be an impossible crime
of adultery? (2%) ’15-Q21b
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against per-
sons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means. There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is
a crime against chastity, and not against person or property.
Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting
Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a
lesson and went to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the
pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was
intending to poison Pula.
The Vetinstantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when
mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. ‘14-Q13
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
Puti committed an impossible crime of murder. Puti with intent to kill
Pula unknowingly employed ineffectual means to accomplish the in-
tended felony, that is, using a non-toxic solutions.
(B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the
mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hos-
pitalized for 10 days?
No. If as a result of the mixture administered by Puti, Pula suffered an
upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days, Puti shall be
liable for less serious physical injuries. The rule is, in impossible crime
the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision
of the Revised Penal Code.
Can there be a frustrated impossible crime? ’12 – Q3
a) Yes. When the crime is not produced by reason of
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, it
is a frustrated impossible crime.
b) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime
because the means employed to accomplish the
crime is inadequate or ineffectual.
c) Yes. There can be a frustrated impossible crime
when the act performed would be an offense
against persons.
d) No. There can be no frustrated impossible because
the offender has already performed the acts for the
execution of the crime.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) No. There can be no frustrated impossible because the offender
has already performed the acts for the execution of the crime.
There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the offender has
already performed the acts for the execution of the crime.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the
means employed to accomplish the crime is inadequate or ineffectual.
If one performed all the acts of execution but the felony was not pro-
duced, the crime committed is either frustrated felony or impossible
crime and not frustrated impossible crime. If the felony despite the
performance of all acts of execution was not produced due to the em-
ployment of inadequate or ineffectual means to accomplish it, the crime
committed is impossible crime. (Example: If the accused with intent to
kill thought that the salt, which he mixed with the coffee of another, is
arsenic powder, he is liable for impossible crime – People vs. Bal-
8
mores, G.R. No. L-1896, February 16, 1950, En Banc). If the means
employed to accomplish the felony is adequate of effectual, the felony
was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator, the crime committed is frustrated felony. (Example: The
offender with intent to kill mixed arsenic with the coffee for another; the
latter did not die not by reason of inadequate quantity of the poison to
kill but due to timely medical intervention; the offender is liable for frus-
trated murder). Hence, the answer is “B”.
Is the penalty for impossible crime applicable to one who at-
tempts to commit a light felony of impossible materialization? ’12
- Q69
a) No. The evil intent of the offender cannot be accomplished.
b) No. An attempt to commit light felony constitutes an em-
ployment of inadequate or ineffectual means.
c) No. The penalty for consummated light felony is less than
the penalty for impossible crime.
d) No. In impossible crime, the act performed should not consti-
tute a violation of another offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) No. The penalty for consummated light felony is less than the
penalty for impossible crime.
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to
500 pesos (Article 59 of the Revised Penal Code) while the penalty for
light felony is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 or both. Arti-
cle 59 should not be made applicable to one who tempts to commit a
light felony if impossible materialization since the penalty for the former
is graver than that for the latter. It would be unfair to punish a person,
who failed to commit a light felony since it is impossible to accomplish
it, for a graver penalty than that for a person who committed a light
felony.
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assidu-
ously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a veteri-
narian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be
used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use
the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a
non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill
Brad. ’09 – Q4
1. Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why? If
not, why not? ’09 – Q4-1
Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mix-
ing the non-toxic powder with Brad’s food, with intent to kill, would have
constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been
for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual
(2nd Par., Article 4, RPC.)
2. Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be
allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his
food, fell ill and was hospitalized for 10 days? ’09 – Q4-2
NO, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be crimi-
nally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing
the powder with Brad’s food was done with felonious intent and was
the proximate cause of Brad’s illness for 10 days. It cannot constitute
attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means
employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime com-
mitted must be directly linked to the means employed, not to the intent.
Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated
act.
OZ and YO were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because
of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning
him. OZ poured a substance into YO's coffee thinking it was ar-
senic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute
known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the cof-
fee. What criminal liability did OZ incur, if any? '04 – Q7b
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act
which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Article 4, par. 2,
RPC).
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime
of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of
ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes
criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to
suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal
though objectively, no crime was committed.
What is an impossible crime? '00 – Q17a
An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against
person or property, were if not for the inherent impossibility of its ac-
complishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or inef-
fectual means (Article 4, par. 2, RPC.)
Is an impossible crime really a crime? '00 – Q17b
NO, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called
because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is
committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or
propensity although no crime was committed.
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of
X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to
the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits pep-
pered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand
grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the
four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or
injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime?
'00 – Q17c
YES. “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” are liable for destructive arson because
of the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive, a hand
grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the
act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised
Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of
Intod v. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52 [1992]), where it was ruled
that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand
grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more serious
crime though different from what was intended.
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver
paid by her parents to bring and fetch her to and from school.
Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000 from Carla's
parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom
note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by
Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police.
Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated.
Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla's
parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of “Im-
possible Crime to Commit Kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the
prosecutor correct? '00 – Q17d
NO, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for “impossible
crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique. Impossible crimes are
limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against
persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security
and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred
an “impossible crime” to commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossi-
ble crime of kidnapping.
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay
Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is
familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10 PM, JP, Aries
and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay
Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room
in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their
guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she at-
tended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Lau-
rel. JP, et al, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by
the RTC of Tanauan, Batangas. On appeal to the CA, all the ac-
cused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them
9
guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you
decide the appeal? '94 – Q10
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the
accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossi-
ble crime under Article 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Article 59, RPC.
Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is
legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the
case at bar. Elsa's absence from the house is a physical impossibility
which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplish-
ment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4,
par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the
consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident indepen-
dent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted or frustrated
felony (Intod v. Court of Appeals, 215 SCRA 52 [1992].)
Stages of a Felony
Why is there no crime of frustrated serious physical
injuries? (2%) ’17 – Q6
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(d) According to Justice Regalado," the crime of physical injuries
is a formal crime since a single act consummates it as a matter of
law; hence, it has no attempted or frustrated stage. Once the in-
juries arc inflicted, the offense is consummated.
Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take
one of the smaller purses without paying for it. Overcame by con-
science, she decided to leave her own purse in place of the one
she took. Her act was discovered and Cleptowas charged with
theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the store suffered no
injuryor prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one
she took. Comment on her defense. ‘13-Q19
A: Her defense is untenable. Theft was already consummated from the
taking of the personal property of another with intent to gain without the
consent of the latter. The presence of injury or damage is not an ele-
ment of theft. Her leaving behind her own purse will not alter the fact
that she took a purse from the high-end shop without the consent of
the owner.
In an attempted felony, the offender’s preparatory act: ’11 – Q68
(A) itself constitutes an offense.
(B) must seem connected to the intended crime.
(C) must not be connected to the intended crime.
(D) requires another act to result in a felony.
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of
coup d’état and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated
coup d’état or frustrated rape? ’05 – Q1(4)
NO, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d’état or
for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all
acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must
have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced
by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said
felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without
consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of
the frustrated stage.
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a
couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit,
however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the
store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera.
Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? '98 – Q17
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the
bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her
purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting
them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and
thus the crime is consummated.
Circumstances Affecting Criminal Liabilities
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Justifying Circumstances
Self-Defense
Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had
two (2) children. The first few years of their marriage went along
smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often
quarrel when Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels became
increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would
leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo
would "court" Julia with flowers and chocolate and convince her
to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or
Romeo would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing
that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month
of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the
quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate
to physical violence. . The defense of Battered Women Syndrome can be invoked if the
One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to
bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia stabbed
Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discov-
ered Romeo's rotting corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the
children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parri-
cide. She asserted "battered woman's syndrome" as her defense.
[a] Explain the "cycle of violence." (2.5%) ’16 – Q19(a)
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called
“cycle of violence,” which has three phases: (1) the tension-building
phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or,
at least, nonviolent) phase.
During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs - it
could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile be-
havior. The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a kind, nurturing
behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. The acute battering inci-
dent is characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes,
death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet
also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer
may put an end to the violence. The final phase of the cycle of violence
begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil
period, the couple experience profound relief.
[b] Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious?
Explain. (2.5%) ’16 – Q19(b)
Yes. Under Section 3 (c) of RA No. 9262, ’’Battered Woman Syn-
drome” refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships
as a result of “cumulative abuse”. Under Section 3 (b), ’’Battery” refers
to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child result-
ing in physical and psychological or emotional distress (Section 3).
In sum, the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be in-
voked if the woman in marital relationship with the victim is subjected
to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm
resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cu-
mulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must
be aat least two battering episodes” between the accused and her
intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered per-
son’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and
an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life
(People v. Genosa, GR. No. 135981,15 January 2004).
In this case, because of the battering episodes, Julia, feared the
onset of another violent fight and honestly believed the need to defend
herself even if Romeo had not commenced an unlawful aggression.
Even in the absence of unlawful aggression, however, Battered
Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Section 27 of RA No. 9262,
Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense un-
der the Revised Penal Code such as unlawful aggression (Section 26
of RA No. 9262).
Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk
since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten
used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the
usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion
saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her
10
that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However,
Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he
started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal
abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion
with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too
much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide. ’15 –
Q5
a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome
to free herself from criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%) ’15 – Q5a
Answer: (a) No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed
by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and psychological or
emotional distress on her part is not sufficient to avail of the benefit
of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Women Syndrome”.
woman with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cu-
mulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm
resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there
must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and
her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered
person’s mind an actual fear or an imminent harm from her batterer
and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save
her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004).
b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed
Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain. (2.5%)
’15 - Q5b
(b) Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Women Syndrome
to free herself from criminal liability for killing her husband since she
suffered physical and emotional distress arising from cumulative
abuse or battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim survivors of
Battered Women Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability
despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense.
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then
aware that Ganda was a transgender. On their first night, after
their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a transgender.
Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the
course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda
got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stab-
bing thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to
frighten and stop Ganda from continuing with the attack. Macho
had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with guns, Macho
accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the lat-
ter’s death. What was the crime committed? –’14- Q2
A: Considering that death resulted from Macho’s accidentally
pulling the trigger of his gun and even if there be no intent to kill, the
crime is still homicide. Here, intent to kill is conclusively presumed
when the victim dies as a consequence.
AA: Macho did not commit a crime. His act of pointing his gun at
Ganda is a reasonable means to repel an unprovoked unlawful ag-
gression committed by the latter. Since his act of pointing the gun is
lawful, the firing thereof, which hit Ganda causing her death, should be
treated as accident, which is an exempting circumstance. In People v.
Tiongco (CA 63 OG 3610), the accused, who accidentally fired his gun
while exercising his right of self-defense, was acquitted.
His act of confronting Ganda about his real gender cannot
be considered sufficient provocation on his part.
Ms. Ahad been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage,
Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his
"barkadas" until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the
breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing
children. Many times, when Mr. Bwas drunk, he would beat Ms.
Aand their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them.
In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab
wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospi-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
tal. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her,
she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly
beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. Barrived dead
drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. Aseveral times while shouting
invectives against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A
grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She
then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous
death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered
three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. Avalidly put up a defense? Ex-
plain. (5%) ‘14-Q1
A: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. It
appears that she is suffering from physical and psychological or emo-
tional distress resulting from cumulative abuse by her husbamd. Under
Sec. 26 of RA No. 9262, “victims survivors who are found by the courts
to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any crimi-
nal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the ele-
ments of the justifying cirumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code.” As a rule, once the unlawful aggression ceased, stabbing
the victim further is not self-defense. However, even if the element of
self in self-defense is lacking, Ms. A, who is suffering from battered
woman syndrome, will not incur criminal and civil liability.
Alternative Answer:
Ms. A may validly put up the justifying circumstance of self-defense, all
requisites thereof being present, namely:
1. Unlawful aggression which is condition sine qua non. Here,
Mr. B arrived that night dead drunk and he suddenly stabbed
Ms. A several times while shouting invectives. This is unlaw-
ful aggression that is sudden and imminent and places Ms.
A’s life in peril.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it. The sudden and imminent armed attack by Mr. B
gave no other option to Ms. A but to attempt to disarm Mr. B
of his knife and to use the same to protect and save herself.
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person de-
fending himself. The circumstances obtaining is very clear on
this regard.. Mr. B arrived one night dead drunk, he suddenly
stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives. There
is absolutely no circumstances mentioned in the problem to
indicate provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
The husband has for a long time physically and mentally tortured
his wife. After one episode of beating, the wife took the husband’s
gun and shot him dead. Under the circumstances, her act consti-
tutes: ’11 – Q14
(A) mitigating vindication of grave offense.
(B) battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.
(C) incomplete self-defense.
(D) mitigating passion and obfuscation.
A battered woman claiming self-defense under the Anti-Violence
against Women and Children must prove that the final acute bat-
tering episode was preceded by: ’11 – Q71
(A) 3 battering episodes.
(B) 4 battering episodes.
(C) 5 battering episodes.
(D) 2 battering episodes.
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack
came home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hit-
ting Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same
episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and starter hitting Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. Two days
later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance
after he sent her flowers and confectioneries. After several days,
however, Jack against came home drunk. The following day, he
was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide but raised the
defense of “battered woman syndrome.” ’10 – Q19
1. Define “Battered Woman Syndrome.” ’10 – Q19-1
“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined
pattern of psychological and behevioral symptoms found in women in
battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 3(d),
Republic Act No. 9262.)
11
2. What are the three (3) phases of “Battered Woman Syn-
drome”? ’10 – Q19-2
The three (3) phases of the “Battered Woman Syndrome” are: (1)
the tension-building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase (People v. Genosa, 419 SCRA
537 [2004].)
3. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances under the
Revised Penal Code? ’10 – Q19-3
The defense will prosper. Section 26 of R.A. No. 9262 provides
that victim-survivors who are found by the court to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying cir-
cumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often
was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight,
the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate
what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After see-
ing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and
out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man.
When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out
to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light
snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries.
Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or
acquitted? '03 – Q2
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the
facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is
no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of prop-
erty or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar
unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and im-
mediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension
of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
Alternative Answer:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent rob-
beries in the neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and the victim
appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house, the
accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and limb
or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger.
Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest
mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake
of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves the accused from
criminal liability.
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a
banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore when she
was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it
was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the
sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was
actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her.
After Julio satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Osang” as he
turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not
her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall
and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang
claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? '00 –
Q2
NO, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained
because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed
the aggressor. In defense of rights under par. 1, Article 11 of the RPC,
It is required inter alia that there be: (1) unlawful aggression, and (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The
unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was in-
jured or disabled by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled
party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the
case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Para-
graph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual
intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only
mitigating.
Considering that the RPC provisions on justifying circumstances
apply to anyone “who acts on defense on his person or rights.”
Can there be self-defense when there is simply an aggression
against one’s property, not couple with an attack against his per-
son? ’83 – Q2
NO. Self-defense will be incomplete. Under the Civil Code, there
is unlawful aggression on the property rights of another. But to consti-
tute self-defense of property, two other elements must be considered,
namely, reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the
aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending his property. In People v. Apolinar (38 O.G. 2079), it was
held that there is no self-defense of property if the attack is not couple
with an attack on the person of the owner or possessor of the property.
If for example, the owner shot the aggressor although his person was
not attacked, self-defense of property will not be present, although
there is unlawful aggression on his property right, because the means
employed is not reasonable (People v. Narvaez, 121 SCRA 389
[1983].)
When A saw B rushing towards him holding a bolo and poised to
strike him, he immediately picked up a pointed iron bar and be-
lieving that his life was in danger and B was close enough, he
made a thrust on B hitting him on the stomach which cause the
death of B thereafter. The truth, however, is that B was merely
trying to play a joke on C who was then behind A. Is A criminally
liable for the death of B? ’77 – Q1a
A is not criminally liable because he acted in self-defense due to
mistake of facts. As the facts of the problem state, A thrust the pointed
iron bar on B, hitting him on the stomach as he believed that his life
was in danger because B was close enough when he rushed towards
A holding a bolo and poised to strike him (People v. Ah Chong, 15 Phil.
448 [1910].) Under the circumstances, he had no time or opportunity to
verify whether B was only playing a joke on C who was behind A.
Hence, his mistake of the facts was without fault or carelessness. He
had no alternative but to take the facts as they appeared to hi, to justify
his act. So A acted in good faith without criminal intent.
Defense of Relatives
Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie, while
in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack
on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on
his head which caused the latter's death.
Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in
defense of a relative? Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q3
No. The relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative
under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascen-
dants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sis-
ters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within
the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister
of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the ascendant,
descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the spouse of Pedro. Relative
by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree includes first cousin* But
in this case Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by consan-
guinity. -'Juan, therefore, is not a relative of Pedro for purpose of apply-
ing the provision on defense of relative.
Pedro, however, can invoke defense of a stranger. Under the
revised Penal Code, a person who defends a person who is not his
relative may invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all its ele-
ments exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of
the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
12
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon see-
ing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged
with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's
honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigat-
ing circumstance or circumstances? '02 – Q15a
NO, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in
having killed B since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B
already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against
and no defense to speak of.
A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a de-
scendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the RPC, as amend-
ed.
Defense of Strangers
“A” chanced upon three men who were attacking “B” with fist
blows. “C”, one of the men, was about to stab “B” with a knife.
Not knowing that “B” was actually the aggressor because he had
earlier challenged the three men to a fight, “A” shot “C” as the
latter was about to stab “B”. May “A” invoke the defense of a
stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? '00 – Q15b
YES. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense 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 indication that A was in-
duced by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C,
his act is justified under par. 3, Article 11 of the RPC, as amended.
Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury / State of Necessity
To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned
on the road, Jose swerved his car to the right towards the grav-
eled shoulder, killing two bystanders. Is he entitled to the justify-
ing circumstance of state of necessity? ’11 – Q43
(A) No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with the abandoned
truck on the road.
(B) No, because the injury done is greater than the evil to be avoided.
(C) Yes, since the instinct of self-preservation takes priority in an
emergency.
(D) Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the shoulder of the
road.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim's
son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and
CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the
justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, con-
tending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he mere-
ly avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper? '04 – Q3a
NO, AA's defense will not prosper because obviously there was a
conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when
there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The
act of ST, the victim's son, appears to be a legitimate defense of rela-
tives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to defend his father's life, cannot
be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful
act. What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow
BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of Right or Office
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home.
The following day, at about 5 PM, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun,
who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles
of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm
of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby
police station and sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat.
Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to
confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman
and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat.
Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat,
Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down
but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an
opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away,
he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip.
Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of pro-
fuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was subsequently
charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the de-
fense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a
duty. Is the defense tenable? '00 – Q6a
NO, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of
having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter
alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or neces-
sary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People v. Oa-
nis, 74 Phil. 257 [1943].) It is not enough that the accused acted in
fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling,
there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat.
Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the cause of
death of the victim.
Exempting Circumstances
What is now the age of doli incapax in the Philippines? (2%) – ‘17
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) If the accused is 15 years of age or below, minority is an ex-
empting circumstance (Section 6 of RA No. 9344). With or without
discernment, the accused of such age is exempt from criminal
liability. Lack of discernment is conclusively presumed. Hence,
the age of doli incapax in the Philippines is now 15 years of age
or under.
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting
circumstances in criminal law. '04 – Q10(2)
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while ex-
empting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying cir-
cumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while
in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although
there is no criminal liability.
Insanity
As a modifying circumstance, insanity: ’11 – Q7
(A) is in the nature of confession and avoidance.
(B) may be presumed from the offender’s previous behavior.
(C) may be mitigating if its presence becomes apparent subsequent to
the commission of the crime.
(D) exempts the offender from criminal liability whatever the circum-
stances.
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was
having an affair with his maid, Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair
was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going
back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded
by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while
she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. The following day,
Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was
brought to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he
was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder,
Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. ’10 – Q13
1. Will Romeo’s defense of insanity prosper? ’10 – Q13-1
NO. Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even
assuming that Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he commit-
ted the crime, insanity is a defense to the commission of a crime must
have existed and proven to be so existing at the precise moment when
the crime was being committed. The facts of the case indicate that
Romeo committed the crime with discernment.
2. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the
case? ’10 – Q13-2
13
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspen-
sion of the proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to an
appropriate institution for treatment until he could already understand
the proceedings.
Minority
Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had
enough, Lito got the key to the safe where his father kept his li-
censed pistol and took the weapon. Knowing that Brutus usually
hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class, Lito went
ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced
that Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito
then hid the gun in one of the empty containers. At the time of the
shooting, Lito was fifteen years and one month old. What is Lito's
criminal liability? Explain. (4%) ’15-Q18
ANSWER:Lito is criminally liable for murder qualified by the circum-
stance of treachery, or evident premeditation, as well as illegal posses-
sion of firearms. Minority is not exempting under Section 7 of RA No.
9644 since his age is above fifteen years but below eighteen years and
he acted with discernment. Circumstance will show that he discerned
the consequences of his criminal act as shown from the fact he em-
ployed means to make a surprise attack and he even hid the murder
weapon in an empty container. It was also clear that he planned the
killing. However, minority will be considered as a privileged mitigating
circumstance, which will require the graduation of the penalty pre-
scribed by law to one degree lower (Article 68).
What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility? ’12 – Q29
a) fifteen (15) years old or under
b) nine (9) years old or under
c) above nine (9) years old and under fifteen (15) who act-
ed with discernment
d) above fifteen ( 15) years old and under eighteen ( 18)
who acted with discernment
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) above fifteen ( 15) years old and under eighteen ( 18) who acted
with discernment
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he / she has acted with
discernment (Section 6 of RA No. 9344).
Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance which operates to
reduce the penalty by a degree where the child is: ’11 – Q32
(A) 15 years and below acting without discernment.
(B) above 15 years but below 18 acting without discernment.
(C) below 18 years acting with discernment.
(D) 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime acting with
discernment.
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the
school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena,
his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at
the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned
around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball-
pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing
what she had caused. Katreena immediately helped Pomping.
When investigated, she freely admitted to the school principal
that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the
incident, she executed a statement admitting her culpability. Due
to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye. ’00 – Q4
1. Is Katreena criminally liable? ’00 – Q4-1
NO, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable.
Being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9)
years of age, she is absolutely exempt from criminal liability. Under
Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344, a child fifteen (15) years of age or under at
the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal
liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention pro-
gram.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
2. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects there-
of. '00 – Q4-2
The minority of the accused is an exempting circumstance under
Article 12, paragraph 3, RPC, as modified by Section 6 of R.A. No.
9344, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability. She is however
civilly liable.
Assuming that she was above fifteen (15) years old but below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense
and she acted with discernment, the attendant circumstances which
may be considered are:
1. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a
privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty
lower by at least one (1) degree than that prescribed for the
crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article
68, paragraph 1, RPC. The sentence, however, should au-
tomatically be suspended in accordance with Section 38 of
R.A. No. 9344 otherwise known as the “Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006”;
2. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circum-
stance of not Intending to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, RPC; and
3. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provoca-
tion on the part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.
Mitigating Circumstances
In General
The presence of a mitigating circumstance in a crime: ’11 – Q4
(A) increases the penalty to its maximum period.
(B) changes the gravity of the offense.
(C) affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying cir-
cumstances.
(D) automatically reduces the penalty.
Voluntary Surrender
A killed M. After the killing, A went to the Barangay Chairman of
the place of incident to seek protection against the retaliation of
M's relatives. May voluntary surrender be appreciated as a miti-
gating circumstance in favor of A? ’12 – Q21
a) Yes. A surrendered to the Barangay Chairman who
is a person in authority.
b) Yes. The surrender of A would save the authorities
the trouble and expense for his arrest.
c) No. A did not unconditionally submit himself to the
authorities in. order to acknowledge his participa-
tion in the killing or to save the authorities the trou-
ble and expenses necessary for his search and
capture.
d) No. The surrender to the Barangay Chairman is not
a surrender to the proper authorities.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) No. A did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in.
order to acknowledge his participation in the killing or to save the au-
thorities the trouble and expenses necessary for his search and cap-
ture.
Surrender is not voluntary where the accused went to Barangay
Chairman after the killings to seek protection against retaliation of the
victim’s relatives. As such, accused did not unconditionally submit
himself to the authorities in order to acknowledge his participation in
the killings or in order to save the authorities the trouble and expense
for his arrest. Surrender is not mitigating (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R.
No. 169084, January 18, 2012).
After properly waiving his Miranda rights, the offender led the
police to where he buried the gun he used in shooting the victim.
How does this affect his liability? ’11 – Q65
(A) This serves as an analogous mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender.
(B) It has no effect at all since the law provides none.
(C) He is considered to have confessed to murder.
14
(D) This serves as aggravating circumstance of concealment of
weapon.
The statement that “Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circum-
stance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised
Penal Code” is FALSE. ’09 – Q11b
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal
negligence under Article 365 since in such cases, the courts are autho-
rized to impose a penalty without considering Article 62 regarding miti-
gating and aggravating circumstances.
After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in
eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the au-
thorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded
not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses
implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused? '97 – Q5
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circum-
stance. After two years, the police were still unaware of the where-
abouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude
arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered
mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the re-
morse or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his
surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and
time.
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating cir-
cumstance because the prosecution had already started with the pre-
sentation of its evidence (Article 13, par. 7, RPC.)
Alternative Answer:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the ac-
cused. Two years is too long a time to consider the surrender as spon-
taneous (People v. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658 [1990].) For sure the gov-
ernment had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in
looking for the accused.
Voluntary Confession of Guilt
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites
must be complied with? '99 – Q10a
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime
charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try
the case and render judgment; and
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evi-
dence for the prosecution.
An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded “not
guilty” during the preliminary investigation before the MTC. Upon
the elevation of the case to the RTC of competent jurisdiction, he
pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his
plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and
thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous
plea of guilty under Article 13(7), RPC? '99 – Q10b
YES, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be
considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the mitigating cir-
cumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal
Court is immaterial as it was made during preliminary investigation only
and before a court not competent to render judgment.
Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense
The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave
offense cannot be appreciated in a case where: ’11 – Q42
(A) Following the killing of his adopted brother, P went to the place
where it happened and killed S whom he found there.
(B) X kills Y who attempted to rape X’s wife.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
(C) P severely maltreats S, a septuagenarian, prompting the latter to
kill him.
(D) M killed R who slandered his wife.
W allowed a man to have sex with her thinking that he was her
husband. After realizing that the man was not her husband, W
stabbed him to death. Under the circumstances, the mitigating
circumstance in attendance constitutes: ’11 – Q63
(A) defense of honor.
(B) immediate vindication of a grave offense.
(C) passion or obfuscation.
(D) self-defense.
Passion or Obfuscation
Deeply enraged by his wife’s infidelity, the husband shot and
killed her lover. The husband subsequently surrendered to the
police. How will the court appreciate the mitigating circumstances
of (i) passion or obfuscation, (ii) vindication of a grave offense,
and (iii) voluntary surrender that the husband invoked and
proved? ’11 – Q46
(A) It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender as
one mitigating circumstance and vindication of a grave offense as an-
other.
(B) It will appreciate all three mitigating circumstances separately.
(C) It will appreciate the three mitigating circumstances only as one.
(D) It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and vindication of a grave
offense as just one mitigating circumstance and voluntary surrender as
another.
Without meaning anything, Z happened to stare into the eye of
one of four men hanging out by a store which he passed. Taking
offense, the four mauled and robbed him of his wages. Z went
home, took a knife, and stabbed one of his attackers to death.
Charged with murder, Z may raise the mitigating circumstance of:
‘ 11 – Q49
(A) praeter intentionem.
(B) incomplete self-defense preceded by undue provocation.
(C) passion or obfuscation.
(D) complete self-defense.
Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating circumstance?
‘14-Q15
(A) 17-year-old offender
(B) 14-year-old offender
(C) incomplete self-defense
(D) incomplete defense of a relative
(exactly copied from the bar sampler)
(C) 14 year-old offender
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%) ’12 – QIIa
A privileged mitigating circumstance when present in the commission
of a crime shall affect the imposition of the penalty as to decree. Such
circumstance is present only in certain offenses and also refers to the
circumstance of the offender in a crime against person particularly in
self-defense when all the circumstances to justify self-defense are not
present. The accused is entitled to a privileged mitigating circum-
stance. If the offending party is a minor and such minority is present at
the time the crime was committed, the same shall likewise be consid-
ered as privileged mitigating circumstance. Also, when the crime com-
mitted is attended by two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances
and there is absence of any aggravating circumstance in the commis-
sion of the crime, and the penalty provided by law for the crime com-
mitted is a divisible penalty, such ordinary mitigating circumstances will
also be considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. There are of
course other circumstances aside from what is herein mentioned.
Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary
mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting
against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%) ’12 – QIIb
The distinction between ordinary and privileged mitigating circum-
stances are as follows: (a) Under the rules for application of divisible
penalties (Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code), the presence of miti-
gating circumstance, if not offset by aggravating circumstance, has the
15
effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the
rules on graduation of penalty (Article 68 and 69), the presence of
privilege mitigating circumstance has the effect reducing the penalty
one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary mitigating circumstances can
be offset by aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circum-
stances are not subject to the offset rule.
Aggravating Circumstances
Bernardo was enraged by his conviction for robbery by Judge Sam-
sonite despite insufficient evidence. Pending his appeal, Bernardo
escaped in order to get even with Judge Samsonite. Bernardo learned
that the judge regularly slept in his mistress' house every weekend.
Thus, he waited for the judge to arrive on Saturday evening at the
house of his mistress. It was about 8:00 p.m. when Bernardo entered
the house of the mistress. He found the judge and his mistress having
coffee in the kitchen and engaging in small talk. Without warning,
Bernardo stabbed the judge at least 20 times. The judge instantly died.
Prosecuted and tried, Bernardo was convicted of direct assault with
murder. Rule with reasons whether or not the conviction for direct as-
sault with murder was justified, and whether or not the trial court
should appreciate the following aggravating circumstances against
Bernardo, to wit: (1) disregard of rank and age of the victim, who was
68 years old; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime; (4) cruelty; and (5) quasi-re-
cidivism. (10%) ’17 – Q7
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The phrase "on occasion of such performance" used in Article t
48 of RPC means "by reAson of the past performance of official
duty because the purpose of the law is to allow them to discharge
their duties without fear of being assaulted by reason thereof
(People v. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974). Attacking
Judge Samsonite by reason of past performance of duty of con-
victing Bernardo based on his assessment of tbe evidences con-
stitutes qualified direct assault (U.S. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 6820, Oc-
tober 16, 1911). Since the single act of attacking Judge Samsonite
constitutes direct assault and murder qualified by the circum-
stance of treachery, the two shall be merged together to form a
complex crime of direct assault with murder (People v. Estonilo,
Jr., G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014; People v. Dural, G.R. No.
No. 84921, June 8, 1993; People v. Riuorta, G.R. No. 57415, De-
cember 15, 1989).
Disregard of rank, being inherent in direct assault, is absorbed.
Disregard of age shall not be considered for lack of showing of
intent to offend or insult the age of Judge Samsonite (People v.
Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April20, 1999).
Dwelling and nighttime shall not be appreciated because the
presence of treachery in the instant case absorbs these aggravat-
ing circumstances.
The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply because Judge
Samson sustained 10 stab wounds. For cruelty to be considered
as an aggravating Circumstance, it must be proven that in inflict-
ing several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator intended to
exacerbate the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of
wounds inflicted on the victim Is not proof of cruelty (Simangan v.
People G.R. No. 157984 July 8, 2004). Unless there is a proof that
when the 2nd or subsequent stabs were made, the Judge was still
alive, there is no cruelty to speak of.
Which of the following circumstances may be taken into account
for the purpose of increasing the penalty to be imposed upon the
convict? ’12 – Q5
a) Aggravating . circumstances which in themselves constitute
a crime specially punishable by law.
b) Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime
to such a degree that they must of necessity accompany the crime.
c) Aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral at-
tributes of the offender.
d) Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in
defining a crime.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of
the offender.
Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime
specially punishable by law or which are included by the law in defining
a crime and prescribing the penalty thereof shall not be taken into ac-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
count for the purpose of increasing the penalty. The same rule shall
apply with respect to any aggravating circumstances inherit in the
crime to such a degree that it must be necessity accompany the com-
mission thereof. Aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral
attributes of the offender shall only serve to aggravate the liability of
the principals, accomplices and accessories as to whom such circum-
stances are attendant (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code). Hence,
aggravating circumstance involving moral attributes should be taken
into consideration in increasing the penalty to be imposed upon the
convict.
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo,
a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was
prosecuted for homicide before the RTC in Binan, Laguna. During
the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was
committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or
reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime
will you convict Pocholo? '00 – Q6b
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only be-
cause the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to
murder were not alleged in the Information.
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise
or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be
appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them
have been alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder. A
qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven
beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Treachery
FF and his two (2) sons positioned themselves outside the house
of the victim. The two (2} sons stood by the stairs in front of the
house, while the father waited at the back. The victim jumped out
of the window and was met by FF who instantly hacked him. The
two (2) sons joined hacking the victim to death. They voluntarily
surrendered to the police. How will the attendant circumstances
be properly appreciated? ’12 – Q4
a) Treachery and abuse of superior strength qualify the
killing to murder.
b) Only treachery qualifies the killing to murder because
abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery.
c) Treachery is the qualifying aggravating circumstance,
while abuse of superior strength is treated as a generic aggravat-
ing circumstance.
d) The qualifying circumstance of treachery or abuse of
superior strength can be offset by the mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Only treachery qualifies the killing to murder because abuse of
superior strength is absorbed by treachery.
Abuse of superior strength is an aggravating circumstance if the ac-
cused purposely uses excessive force out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked, of ir there is notorious
inequality of forces between the victim and aggressor, and the latter
takes advantage of superior strength (People vs. Del Castillo, G.R. No.
169084, January 18, 2012). If the victim is completely defenseless,
treachery should be appreciated. When the circumstance of abuse of
superior strength occurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the
latter (People vs. Rebucan, G.R. No. 182551, July 27, 2011). What
should qualify the crime is treachery as proved and not abuse of supe-
rior strength (People vs. Loreto, G.R. No. 137411-13, February 28,
2003). See also People v. Perez, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010.
For treachery to qualify killing to murder, the evidence must
show: ’12 – Q11
e) The time when the accused decided to employ treach-
ery, the overt act manifestly indicating that he clung to
such determination, and a sufficient lapse of time be-
tween the decision and the execution, allowing him to
reflect upon the consequence of his act.
f) Unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the
means to prevent or repel the aggression, and lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the victim.
16
g) That the accused employed such means, methods or
manner to ensure his safety from the defensive or retal-
iatory acts of the victim, and the mode of attack was
consciously adopted.
h) Actual sudden physical assault or threat to inflict real
imminent injury to an unsuspecting victim.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) That the accused employed such means, methods or manner to
ensure his safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim,
and the mode of attack was consciously adopted.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execu-
tion thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make (Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code).
Dwelling
Ana visited her daughter Belen who worked as Caloy’s house-
maid. Caloy was not at home but Debbie, a casual visitor in the
house, verbally maligned Belen in Ana’s presence. Irked, Ana
assaulted Debbie. Under the circumstances, dwelling is NOT re-
garded as aggravating because: ’11 – Q30
(A) Dwelling did nothing to provoke Ana into assaulting Debbie.
(B) Caloy, the owner of the house, was not present.
(C) Debbie is not a dweller of the house.
(D) Belen, whom Debbie maligned, also dwells in the house.
At about midnight, A, the accused, attacked fatally, and unarmed,
4’11 girl with a hunting knife while she was alone in her room.
What aggravating circumstance or circumstances were present in
the commission of the crime? ’76 – Q1a
Abuse of superior strength and dwelling. There is abuse of supe-
rior strength because the girl was defenceless since she was unarmed
and A was armed with a hunting knife, which is a deadly weapon. The
abuse of superiority of A lies in his sex and the weapon he used, from
which the woman would be unable to defend himself (U.S. v. Consuelo,
13 Phil. 612). Dwelling is also an aggravating circumstance because
the girl was attacked in her room. The facts of the problem do not show
that she has given any provocation (People v. Pakah, 81 Phil. 426).
Abuse of Superior Strength
Arthur, Ben, and Cesar quarreled with Glen while they were at the
latter’s house. Enraged, Arthur repeatedly stabbed Glen while Ben
and Cesar pinned his arms. What aggravating circumstance if any
attended the killing of Glen? ’11 – Q3
(A) Evident premeditation.
(B) None.
(C) Abuse of superior strength.
(D) Treachery.
Night time
At about 9:30 PM, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre
Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at
the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve,
Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino.
Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy
with rocks. As a result, Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy
and Johnny were charged with homicide. Can the court appreci-
ate the aggravating circumstances of night time and band? '94 –
Q9b
NO, night time cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circum-
stance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately
sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime
or that they took advantage of night time (People v. De los Reyes, 203
SCRA 707 [1991].) Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed
by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court
decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
By a Band
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band? ’12 -
Q32
a) When armed men, at least four (4) in number, take direct
part in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
b) When three (3) armed men act together in the commission of
the crime.
c) When there are four ( 4) armed persons, one of whom is a
principal by inducement.
d) When there are four (4) malefactors, one of whom is armed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) When armed men, at least four (4) in number, take direct part in the
execution of the act constituting the crime.
There are three elements of band under Article 14 [6] of the Revised
Penal Code, to wit: (1) there must be at least four malefactors, (2) at
least four of them are armed (People vs. Solamillo, G.R. NO. 123161,
June 18, 2003, En Banc), and (3) at least four of them take part or
acted together in the commission of crime. In People vs. Lozano, Sep-
tember 29, 2003, G.R> No. 137370-71, the Supreme Court En Banc
stated that the four armed persons contemplated in the circumstance
of band must all be principals by direct participation who acted together
in the execution of the acts constituting the crime.
Recidivism
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show
that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for
robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verifica-
tion showed that AA had several convictions, to wit:
(1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;
(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA.
What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the
judge appreciate against AA? ’14 - Q21-3
A: The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidi-
vism. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall
have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery, theft
and estafa are crimes against property embraced in Title Ten of the
Revised Penal Code
Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the
President, and one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a
recidivist. ’09 – Q1a
TRUE. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of
homicide, is embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code
under which Amado had been previously convicted by final judgment.
The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only excused him from
serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the con-
viction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon.
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final
judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with
Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused
appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court
cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? ’01 – Q3
NO, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delin-
quency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of re-
cidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by
final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homi-
cide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the
same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal Code. The impli-
cation is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against
property, hence, aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homi-
cide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty
when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes,
is correctly considered because Juan had already three (3) previous
convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery
17
with Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual includes,
inter alia, theft and robbery.
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. '98 – Q8(1)
In recidivism –
1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in
the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can
be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in quasi-recidivism –
1. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same
Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony
that was committed by the offender before serving sentence
by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence
for another crime; and
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance
which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
At about 9:30 PM, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre
Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at
the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve,
Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino.
Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy
with rocks. As a result, Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy
and Johnny were charged with homicide. Can the court appreci-
ate the aggravating circumstances of night time and band? '94 –
Q9b
NO, night time cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circum-
stance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately
sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime
or that they took advantage of night time (People v. De los Reyes, 203
SCRA 707 [1991].) Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
However, band should be considered as the crime was committed
by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court
decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
.
Quasi-Recidivism
B was convicted by final judgment of theft. While serving sen-
tence for such offense, B was found in possession of an unli-
censed firearm. Is B a quasi-recidivist? ’12 – Q16
a) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence
when found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.
b) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the offense for which
he was serving sentence is different from the second
offense.
c) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense
is not a felony.
d) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense
was committed while still serving for the first offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense is not a
felony.
A quasi-recidivist is a person who shall commit a “felony” after having
been convicted by final judgment while serving his sentence (Article
160 of the Revised Penal Code). “B” is not a quasi-recidivist since he
did not commit a felony while serving sentence. Illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm committed by “B” is an offense punishable by spe-
cial law and not felony under the Revised Penal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence when found
in possession of an unlicensed firearm.
is a quasi-recidivist. The penalty for illegal possession of firearm (pri-
sion correccional in its maximum period for low powered firearm or
prision mayor in its minimum period for high powered firearm) were
taken from the Revised Penal Code; hence, although PD No. 1866 is a
special law, for determining the proper period (People vs. Feloteo, G.R.
No. 124212, June 5, 1998) one of which is the application of penalty in
its maximum period due to the circumstance of quasi-recidivism. Al-
though CA Justice Luis Reyes and Justice Regalado opined that the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
second crime must be a felony to appreciate quasi-recidivism because
Article 160 speaks of a “felony”, the Supreme Court in People vs.
Salazar, G.R. No. 98060 January 27, 1997 appreciated quasi-recidi-
vism against the accused, who committed an offense under RA No.
6425. Hence, “A” is the answer.
Habitual Delinquency
Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%) ’12 - QVIIIa
A habitual delinquent is one who is convicted of a crime of falsification,
estafa, robbery, serious physical injuries and theft. If the offender within
ten years from his last conviction or within ten years from his release
from jail of any of the offenses enumerated, shall have a conviction for
the third of said offenses, he shall be considered a habitual delinquent.
Give at least 4 distinctions between habitual delinquency and
recidivism. Can a person be a habitual delinquent without being a
recidivist? ’86 – Q5; ’12 – Q8b
The four distinctions between habitual delinquency and recidivism
are:
1. Nature of crime – In habitual delinquency, the crimes are
specified, which are robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, seri-
ous and less serious physical injuries. In recidivism, the
crimes are embraced in the same title of the RPC.
2. Time element – In recidivism, no period of time is fixed be-
tween the former conviction and the last conviction. In habit-
ual delinquency, conviction of any of the specified crimes
must take place within ten (10) years from the last conviction
or release.
3. Number of crimes – In recidivism, it is enough that there be a
second conviction of any crime embraced in the same title of
the last or the first crime. In habitual delinquency, there must
be at least a third conviction of any of the specified crimes.
4. Nature of aggravating circumstances – Recidivism is an
aggravating circumstance and, if not offset, serves to in-
crease the penalty. Habitual delinquency provides for the
imposition of an additional penalty.
There may be habitual delinquency without recidivism if the three
convictions refer to crimes not embraced in the same title of the Code,
like robbery in the first conviction, a crime against property; falsifica-
tion, the second conviction, a crime against public interest; and serious
physical injuries, the third conviction, a crime against persons.
Cruelty
Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his
daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the
bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarette. Like a mad-
man, he laughed while raping her. What aggravating circum-
stances are present in this case? ’94 – Q8
Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarette,
thereby deliberately augmenting the victim's suffering by acts clearly
unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed
seeing the victim suffer in pain (People v. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316
[1990].)
Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daugh-
ter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one against per-
sons.
Uninhabited Place
The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is aggravat-
ing in murder committed: ’11 – Q47
(A) on a banca far out at sea.
(B) in a house located in cul de sac.
(C) in a dark alley in Tondo.
(D) in a partly occupied condominium building.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances
Which of the following is not a qualifying aggravating circum-
stance? ‘14-Q20
(A) treachery
(B) evident premeditation
(C) dwelling
18
(D) cruelty
A qualifying aggravating circumstance: ’11 – Q66
(A) changes the description and the nature of the offense.
(B) increases the penalty to its next degree but absorbs all the other
aggravating circumstances.
(C) raises the penalty by two periods higher.
(D) is one which applies only in conjunction with another aggravating
circumstance.
The statement that “The use of an unlicensed firearm is consid-
ered a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance” is FALSE. ’09 – Q1c
Offsetting may not take place because an unlicensed firearm in
homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance as provided
in R.A. No. 8294. It is not one of the generic circumstances under Arti-
cle 14 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635
[2001].)
When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, ele-
ments of a crime? '03 – Q4b
A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a
crime when -
1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more
serious crime and a heavier penalty;
2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other
crime is committed; and
3. It is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during
the trial.
Alternative Answer:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when
it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition of a crime,
like treachery in the crime of murder.
Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state
their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. '99 – Q9a
The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
1. GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can generally apply
to all crimes, and can be offset by mitigating circumstances,
but if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penal-
ty prescribed by law;
2. SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply only to partic-
ular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circum-
stances:
3. QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that change the
nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a penalty
next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances;
4. INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that essentially accom-
pany the commission of the crime and do not affect the
penalty whatsoever.
Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying
aggravating circumstance. '99 – Q9b
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Affects only the imposition of the penalty prescribed, but not
the nature of the crime committed;
2. Can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;
3. Need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven
during the trial, the same shall be considered in imposing the
sentence.
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Must be alleged in the Information and proven during trial;
2. Cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
3. Affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty
higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Alternative Circumstances
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a
drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during which A
stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May
the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating? '02
– Q1
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating
since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may
not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the
facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A.
Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall NOT be consid-
ered between: ’11 – Q2
(A) mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.
(B) adopted son and legitimate natural daughter.
(C) aunt and nephew.
(D) stepfather and stepson.
Absolutory Causes
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his
friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a
bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their com-
mon key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends. ’00 – Q11
1. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? ’00 – Q11-1
A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because
the coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
and broken outside of their home (Article 299(b)(2), RPC).
2. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of
the RPC for being a brother of B? '00 – Q11-2
NO, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Article 332 be-
cause said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief.
Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Entrapment v. Instigation
The police officer in civilian clothes asked X where he can buy
shabu. X responded by asking the officer how much of the drug
he needed. When he told him, X left, returned after a few minutes
with the shabu, gave it to the officer, and took his money. X is: ’11
– Q10
(A) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.
(B) not liable for selling since the police operation was an invalid en-
trapment.
(C) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid form of insti-
gation.
(D) not liable since the police operation was an invalid instigation.
Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal
Law. Exemplify each. '03 – Q7
In ENTRAPMENT -
1. The criminal design originates from and is already in the
mind of the lawbreaker even before entrapment;
2. The law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose
of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and
3. This circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of
the lawbreaker.
In INSTIGATION -
1. The idea and design to bring about the commission of the
crime originated and developed in the mind of the law en-
forcers;
2. The law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not
minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit
it, into committing the crime; and
3. This circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liabili-
ty (People v. Marcos, 185 SCRA 154 [1990].)
19
Example of Entrapment:
A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur
buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is
unaware that A is a police officer. A then issued marked money to B
who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A signaled his anti-
narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment
because the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him.
Example of Instigation:
Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known
to drug pushers. A, the team leader, approached and persuaded B to
act as a buyer of shabu and transact with C, the suspected drug push-
er. For the purpose, A gave B marked money to be used in buying
shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of shabu to B and the latter
handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and
C under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his partici-
pation in the transaction because he was acting only under instigation
by the law enforcers.
Liabilities of Principals, Accomplices and Accessories
While walking alone on her way home from a party, Mildred was
seized at gun point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a
house some distance away. Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and
Lucio, who drove the tricycle.
At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sex-
ual intercourse with Mildred against her will and under the threat
of Felipe's gun. Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults
took place as he left after bringing his colleagues and Mildred to
their destination, but he returned everyday to bring food and the
news in town about Mildred's disappearance. For five days, Fe-
lipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in the house and took turns in
sexually assaulting her. On the 6th day, Mildred managed to es-
cape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest police station
and narrated her ordeal.
What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio commit and
what was their degree of participation? (7%) ’13-Q2
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable
for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal deten-
tion with rape. It was sufficiently proved that the four accused kid-
napped Mildred and held her in detention for five days and carnally
abused her. Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been
committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the
resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. The composite acts
are regarded as a single indivisible offense with only one penalty. The
offense is not forcible abduction with rape since it was obvious that the
intent is to detain the victim.
As to the degree of their participation, all of them are principally liable
because of implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single criminal
design or purpose (People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27,
2011). Albeit, Lucio was not around when the sexual assault took
place, his complicity is evident as he was the one who drove the tricy-
cle and returned everyday to bring food and news to his cohorts.
Principal
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue
when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Al-
ready drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not
have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s
room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr.
Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red
simply said, "You already know what I want," and then left. Mr.
Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yel-
low. ’14 - Q22
(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red,
Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green?
’14 – Q22a
A: Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Green as prin-
cipals by direct participation. They were the ones who participated in
the criminal resolution and who carried out their plan and personally
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same
end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal by induce-
ment because his statement that Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take
care of Mr. Green was not made directly with the intentio of procuring
the commission of the crime. There is no showing that the words ut-
tered by him may be considered as so efficacious and powerful so as
to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v. Assad GR No.
L-33673). Neither is there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an as-
cendancy or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue (People v Abarri
GR No. 90815).
(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red,
Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yel-
low? ’14 – Q22b
A: Mr Blue and Mr White are liable as principals by direct participation
for the crime of physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of
the injuries inflicted. Having no participation in the attack upon Ms.
Yellow, Mr. Red would have no criminal liability therefor.
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A
promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because
of the reward promised to him but because he also had his own
long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the
past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by in-
ducement? '02 – Q2
NO. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because
the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made
B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal, the induce-
ment made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which
caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the
crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate
that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C
out of a long standing grudge.
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against fire-
crackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas
and Jaja bought 10 boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja
started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jonas’
place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neigh-
borhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to
Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his
neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throw-
ing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the
same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the
throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious
and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would
get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas
convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could
use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas,
the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas
at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come
out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot
him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the
bullet hit Jepoy's 5-year old son who was following behind him,
killing the boy instantaneously. ’00 – Q14
1. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged
with? ’00 – Q14-1
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of at-
tempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less
grave and a grave felony (Article 48, RPC.)
2. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible de-
fenses would you set up in favor of your clients? ’00 –
Q14-2
20
If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defens-
es:
1. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten
Jepoy;
2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication
thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand
the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a
mitigating circumstance (People v. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600
(1997); Article 15, RPC.)
3. If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case?
’00 – Q14-3
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as
co-principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of
murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and
not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design
even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that
criminal design by providing the firearm.
X, after promising Y to give P10,000, induced the latter (Y) to kill Z,
who at the time was vacationing in an isolated island in the sea
which can be easily be reached by a boat. W, who owns the only
motor boat in the locality, offered to transport and actually trans-
ported Y to said island. Upon reaching the island, Y killed Z. Indi-
cate whether X, Y and W is a principal or accomplice in the com-
mission of the crime. ’76 – Q2a
X is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P10,000.00
to kill Z, which is an agreement for a consideration, the inducement
was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the
crime. Further, the facts show that Y has no personal reason to kill Z
except the inducement, which is therefore, the determining cause for
the commission of the crime by Y (People v. Kiichi Omine, 61 Phil. 609
[1935].)
Y is a principal by direct participation because he killed Z pur-
suant to the inducement or agreement for a consideration and he,
therefore, personally took part in the execution of the act constituting
the crime (Article 17, par. 1, RPC.)
W is neither a principal nor an accomplice. Although W offered
and actually transported Y to the island where Z was vacationing as he
owns only the motor boat in the locality, the facts of the problem do not
show that W has any knowledge of the criminal design nor purpose of
Y. To be a principal by indispensable cooperation, it is essential that
there be either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and
intention immediately before the commission of the crime. This means
participation in the criminal resolution of Y, the principal by direct partic-
ipation. W is not a principal by direct participation because he did not
participate directly in the execution of the act constituting the crime.
Clearly, he also is not a principal by inducement because he did not
induce Y to kill Z.
W is not an accomplice because he has also no knowledge of the
criminal design of Y, the principal by direct participation. If W has
knowledge of the criminal purpose of Y then he will be a principal by
indispensable cooperation because he cooperated in the commission
of the crime of Y, which is transporting of Y to the island in his boat
which is the only one in the locality, without which the crime would not
have been committed (Article 17, par. 3, RPC).
Conspiracy
Define conspiracy. (5%) ’12 – QIXa
When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is conspiracy.
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five police-
men to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was
further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list,
Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigi-
lante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The
commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to
Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? ’08 – Q11
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
NO, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander
of the vigilante group. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two (2)
policemen in the list cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing.
Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence.
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at
midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B
together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would
be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly
before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A
was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police
car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store
and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the money in the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in
sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the
participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any?
'03 – Q3
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C
and take the latter's money. The planned killing and taking of the mon-
ey appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being
expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after
they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even
before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that
when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already gov-
erns them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their
criminal plan.
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the
police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehen-
sion. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with
the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the
commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and
commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their
expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of rob-
bery with homicide.
State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal ef-
fects. '03 – Q4a
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is only inferred or
deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime
carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the
commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or
synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and
their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
The legal effects of an "implied conspiracy" are:
1. Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will
be considered conspirators;
2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commis-
sion of the crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the
crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not ren-
der one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
X, Y, and Z fired their guns almost simultaneously at the principal
victim, resulting in his death and his driver. Is there conspiracy
among the accused in the commission of the crime? ’76 – Q1b
There is conspiracy among the accused X, Y and Z. The fact that
the three fired almost simultaneously at the principal victim shows that
they have acted in concert pursuant to a common criminal objective.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. There
is, therefore, a unity of action and intention (People v. San Luis, 85
Phil. 485 [1950].) To establish conspiracy, proof of previous agreement
is not necessary. It is enough that if at the time of the commission of
the crime, all the accused have the same purpose and were united in
the execution (People v. Binasing, 63 O.G. 5208).
Accomplice
Who is an accomplice? (5%) ’12 – QVa
21
Accomplices are those persons who, not being a principal, cooperate
in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Arti-
cle 18).
He is an accomplice who: ’11 – Q5
(A) agreed to serve as a lookout after his companions decided to mur-
der the victim.
(B) watched quietly as the murderer stabbed his victim.
(C) helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detec-
tion.
(D) provided no help, when he can, to save the victim from dying.
Zeno and Primo asked Bert to give them a sketch of the location
of Andy’s house since they wanted to kill him. Bert agreed and
drew them the sketch. Zeno and Primo drove to the place and
killed Andy. What crime did Bert commit? ’11 – Q8
(A) Accomplice to murder, since his cooperation was minimal.
(B) Accessory to murder, since his map facilitated the escape of the
two.
(C) None, since he took no step to take part in executing the crime.
(D) Principal to murder, since he acted in conspiracy with Zeno and
Primo.
Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to
kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent
his gun, but told Ponciano: “O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli
mo kaagad, ha.” Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
because he did not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.
’09 – Q5
1. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? ’09 – Q5-1
Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely
cooperated in Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such coopera-
tion is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried
out without the use of Ruben’s gun. Neither may Ruben be regarded
as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-mak-
ing of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out
the criminal plan which was already in place (Article 18, RPC.)
2. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it
was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who was killed by Pon-
ciano using Ruben’s gun? ’09 – Q5-2
NO. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his
gun purposely for the killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing.
Ponciano’s using of Ruben’s gun in killing a person other than Freddie
is beyond Ruben’s criminal intent and willing involvement. Only Pon-
ciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it
would be used to kill a particular person, but the offender used it to kill
another person, the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the
killing of the other person. While there was community of design to kill
Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect to
the killing of Manuel.
Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He
likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver,
Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng’s re-
volver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor
Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told
him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao.
The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece’s murder.
’08 – Q4
1. Can he be held liable for the charge? ’08 – Q4-1
If Domeng is not a principal to the crime of murder, the Mayor
may not be held liable as an accessory since he merely assisted in the
escape of an accomplice. Par. 3, Article 19, RPC speaks of harboring
or assisting in the escape of a principal. The mayor, however, can he
held liable as principal in the crime of maliciously refraining from insti-
tuting or prosecuting an offender under Article 208 of the RPC.
Another Alternative Answer:
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
If Domeng is a principal by indispensable cooperation, the mayor
can be held liable as an accessory to the murder under Article 19(3),
RPC.
2. Can he be held liable for any other offense? ’08 – Q4-2
YES, for violation of (1) Section 1(c) of P.D. No. 1829 for harbor-
ing or assisting in the escape of a person who as committed a crime or
whom he knows has committed a crime; and (2) under Article 19(3),
RPC, the mayor, being a public officer and acting with abuse of his
public functions, is an accessory to the crime of murder by assisting in
the escape of Domeng.
Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. ’07 – Q5a;
’12 – Q5b
The distinction between an accomplice and a conspirator are:
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating
in the execution of the crime without participating as a prin-
cipal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas, a conspirator
participates in the commission of a crime as a co-principal;
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capaci-
ty by his act alone of cooperating in the execution of the
crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for
his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for
the acts of other participants in the commission of the crime
collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execu-
tion of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator
for purposes of collective criminal responsibility;
3. An accomplice participates in the execution of the crime
when the design or plan is already in place; whereas a con-
spirator participates in the adoption or making of the criminal
design;
4. An accomplice is subject to a penalty one degree lower than
that of a principal; whereas, a conspirator incurs the penalty
of a principal.
Accessory
A was bitten by a dog owned by a neighbor. The following day,
angered by the incident, Atook the dog without the knowledge of
the owner, had it butchered and cooked the meat. Hethen invited
his friends to partake of the dish with his friends who knew fully
well that the dog was taken without the knowledge of the owner.
What are the friends of A liable for? ‘14-Q26
(A) Theft
(B) Malicious mischief
(C) Accessories
(D) Obstruction of Justice
NOTE: The correct answer is that the friends are not liable for any
crime, which is not in the choices in the given problem. The profiting
that will make them liable as accessiories should be material profiting,
and enjoying the food is not.
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998
while Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other
men in police uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked
Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to
get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw
bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than
P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard
the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in
bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circum-
stances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the
police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who
admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
What is Abelardo's liability? (7%) ’13 – Q3
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be crimi-
nally liable as an accessory under Art, 19 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), such person must have knowledge of the commission of the
crime. The term “knowledge” under the law is not synonymous with
suspicion. Mere suspicion that a crime has been committed is not suffi-
cient.
22
Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would show lack or absent
of intent to conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo is described as
being “unsure of what to do under the circumstances”.
Even if he can be considered as an accessory under par. 2 of Art. 19,
RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Art.
20, RPC.
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to this mother to
seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid’s quarters
until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake
transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was appre-
hended by the police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made crimi-
nally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? ’10 – Q22
Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son having committed
a felony, such act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable
as an accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from
criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal
Code.
On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on
her knowledge of the felony committed by Jake. If she had knowledge
of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing
Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of
murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake’s commission of the
felony, she would not be liable.
DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger.
MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for
P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will
MCB's defense prosper? '04 – Q8b
NO, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from
criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with the prin-
cipal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or as-
sisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime.
This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of
the crime, is expressly provided in Article 20 of the RPC.
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered
him a drink and after consuming 3 bottles of beer. King made
advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then
King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's adopted
brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid
her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside
the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece
of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was
taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What
crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss
their criminal liabilities. '98 – Q7
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a
single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of
Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft.
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commis-
sion of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to
prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape
with homicide under Article 19, par. 2 of the RPC, but he is exempt
from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an
adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of
theft committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate broth-
er of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the partici-
pation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by
selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or
Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of
1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and
with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it.
A proposed to B that they rob a certain store, to which B agreed.
Later, however, B undertook the robbery alone and made off with
P2,000. The following day, after making some shallow explana-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
tion, B apologized to A and gave the latter P500, which A some-
what grudgingly accepted. What is A’s liability, if any? ’83 – Q4
A is liable as an accessory. Although A proposed that robbery be
committed in a certain store, such proposal is not punished by law. So
if B, to whom the proposal was made, committed the robbery along,
only he will be liable for the robbery. But since A received from B P500
which he knew to be part of the amount of P2000, which was robbed, A
is liable as an accessory because he profited from the proceeds of the
commission of the crime.
Alternative Answer:
A is liable for the offense of fencing. The reason is A, with intent to
gain for himself, received, possessed and kept an article or object of
value which he knew to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery (P.D. No. 1612). Money is an article of value.
Corpus Delicti
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started
quarrelling with B and C. At the height of their arguments, A left
and took a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the
party and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and ran
towards the seashore, with A chasing him, B ran up a steep in-
cline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of
fear, B jumped from the cliff into the sea, A returned to the scene
of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went
home to sleep. The next day, B's wife reported to the police sta-
tion that her husband had not yet come home. A search was con-
ducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost 2 days, B
or his body could not be located and his disappearance contin-
ued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and other
guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested
and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since
B's body has not been found, there was no evidence of “corpus
delicti” and therefore, he should be acquitted. Is the defense of A
tenable or not? '01 – Q11
The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus delicti” does not refer to
the body of the purported victim which had not been found. Even with-
out the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be
convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the
crime or “corpus delicti” is established.
In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a
bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity
of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Define “corpus delicti”. What are the elements of “corpus
delicti”? '00 – Q18a & 18b
Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime”
or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the
identity of the person who committed it (People v. Pascual, 44 OG
2789).
Elements of corpus delicti:
The actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged. It is a compound fact made up of two things:
1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of
the criminal charge; and
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or
result
The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus
delicti.
Principles, Classification, Duration and Effects of Penalties
Sammy Peke was convicted of a violation of R.A. No. 123456 for sell-
ing fake books. The law prescribes the penalty of prision
correccional, a divisible penalty whose minimum period is six months
and one day to two years and four months; medium period is two
years, four months and one day to four years and two months; and
maximum period is four years, two months and one day to six
years.’17 – Q10
23
At arraignment, Sammy Peke pleads guilty to the crime charged.
(a) Explain how the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied
in crimes punished by special laws. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) Under the second part of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, in cases where the offense is punishable under special law,
the maxim urn indeterminate penalty shall not exceed the maxi-
mum limit of the prescribed penalty while the minimum penalty
shall not be less than the minimum limit thereof. However, if the
special law adopts the technical nomenclature of the penalties
under the Revised Penal Code (Pevple v. Macatanda, G.R. No.
51368, November 6, 1981), the provision of the Revised Penal
Code will apply. Consequently, there will be an application of Art.
64 of the Revised Penal Code. The maximum penalty shall be
fixed within the range of the proper imposablc. period after taking
into consideration the modifying circumstance; while the mini-
mum penalty shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed by law (People v. Simon, G.R.
No. 93028, July 29, 1994; Jacaba11 v. People, G.R. No. 184355,
March 23, 2015; Mallo v. People, G.R. No. 164733, September 21,
2007; People v. Montalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 201J; People
v. Musa, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012; Peopl v. Salazar, G.R.
No. 98060, January 27, 1997).
(b) Supposing the trial judge imposes a straight penalty of imprison-
ment for one year, is the penalty correct in the context of the Indeter-
minate Sentence Law? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Since Sammy Peke made a confession, the penalty
of prision correctional prescribed for selling fake
book shall be applied in its minimum period, which
ranges from 6 months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. Thus, the court may opt to impose a penal-
ty of I year of imprisonment witbin the range of the
minimum period of prision correcional In this case,
Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable, there-
fore, the straight penalty of one year of imprison-
ment is correct.
Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).
(5%) ’16 – Q1
The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sen-
tence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of
the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the
range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the
offense; and if the offense is punished by any other law (special law),
the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term pre-
scribed by the same. (Section l, ISL, Act No. 4103 as amended by Act
No. 4225)
The court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, except where
the imposable penalty is one (1) year or less, determine two penalties,
referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law as the “maximum” and
“minimum” terms.
Under Article 27 of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, reclu-
sion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does
this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? ’05 –
Q1(2)
NO, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it
has been given a fixed duration by R.A. No. 7659 (An Act to Impose
the Death Penalty on certain Heinous Crimes.) In an en banc ruling of
the Supreme Court in People v. Lucas, 240 SCRA 66 [1995], it was
held the reclusion perpetua has remained an indivisible penalty as
there is no clear legislative intention to make the penalty divisible.
Distinguish pecuniary penalties and pecuniary liabilities. ’05 –
Q1(3)
Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may
be required to pay in money to the Government. These are:
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
1. Fine; and
2. Cost of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convict-
ed offender is required to pay in money to the offended party and to the
Government. They are:
1. Reparation of the damage caused;
2. Indemnification of consequential damages;
3. Fine; and
4. Cost of the proceedings (Article 38, RPC.)
The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemni-
ty to the private parties offended by the crime; while the last two (nos. 3
and 4) are payable to the Government.
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of
fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge
sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with sub-
sidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. '05 – Q3
1. Is the penalty proper? '05 – Q3(1)
Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two con-
victed accused is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individu-
ally on every person accused of the crime. Any of the convicted accuse
who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary
imprisonment.
2. May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or
imprisonment? '05 – Q3(2)
The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although
the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not
mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same
time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment cannot
attain finality.
The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following
circumstances:
1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the
Supreme Court, the required majority for the imposition
of the death penalty is not obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but be-
fore execution becomes insane.
5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or
within one year after delivery.
Explain your answer or choice briefly. ’04 – Q5a
Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the imposition of the
death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death
penalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2: "when the guilty person is more
than 70 years of age" (Article 47, RPC). Instead, the penalty shall be
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided
in Article 40, RPC.
In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at least 18 years
of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty
can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age when he
committed the crime.
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision
of the Supreme Court in People v. Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7,
2004) providing an intermediate review for such cases where the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment be-
fore they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
In circumstances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if
prescribed by the law violated although its execution shall be suspend-
ed when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and
while he is insane.
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its
execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year
after her delivery.
After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin
Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having sustained several bullet
wounds in his body so that he died despite medical assistance
24
given in the Ospital ng Manila. Because the weapon used by Ben-
jamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treach-
ery was found to be present. Judge Laya rendered his decision
convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life impris-
onment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the
foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different? '01 – Q7a
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life impris-
onment are totally different from each other and therefore, should not
be used interchangeably.
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a
fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years,
and carries it with accessory penalties.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by
special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any
accessory penalty.
When is there preventive imprisonment? '94 – Q3(1)
There is preventive imprisonment when an offender is detained
while the criminal case against him is being heard, either because the
crime committed is a capital offense and not bailable, or even if the
crime committed was bailable, the offender could not post the required
bail for his provisional liberty.
When is the accused credited with the full time of his preventive
imprisonment, and when is he credited with 4/5 thereof? '94 –
Q3(2)
An accused is credited with the full time of his preventive impris-
onment if he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the
institution imposed upon its prisoners, provided that:
1. The penalty imposed on him for the crime committed con-
sists of a deprivation of liberty;
2. He is not disqualified from such credit for being a recidivist,
or for having been previously convicted for two or more
times of any crime, or for having failed to surrender voluntari-
ly for the execution of the sentence upon being so sum-
moned (Article 29, RPC).
Where the accused however did not agree he would only be cred-
ited with 4/5 of the time he had undergone preventive imprisonment.
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evi-
dence presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the
guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would fol-
low to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differ-
ently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the cor-
rect penalty? '91 – Q11
1. Determine the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applica-
ble or not.
Application of Penalties
In a conviction for homicide, the trial court appreciated two (2)
mitigating circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance.
Homicide under Section 249 of the RPC is punishable by reclu-
sion temporal, an imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years. ’09 – Q12
1. Applying the ISL, determine the appropriate penalty to
be imposed. ’09 – Q12(1)
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sen-
tence shall be anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12
years imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence shall be any-
where within the range of reclusion temporal minimum, i.e., not lower
than 12 years and 1 day to not more than 14 years and 8 months.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
2. Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for
illegal possession of firearms under R.A. No. 9165 (Dan-
gerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed penalty of
which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years? ’09 – Q12(2)
NO. My answer will not the same because violations of R.A. No.
9165 are mala prohibita in which mitigating and aggravating circum-
stances are not appreciated. Although in People v. Simon, 234 SCRA
555 [1994], it was held that Article 64 can be applied if the special law
adopted that nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, such pro-
nouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penal-
ties for illegal possession of drugs under R.A. No. 9165 do not follow
that technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot
be divided into periods. Hence, the existence of mitigating and aggra-
vating circumstances cannot be appreciated.
Complex Crimes and Compound Crimes
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old own-
er of his rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno
stabbed the owner causing his death; and that the killing hap-
pened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and
Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that
he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded
guilty to the crime charged; that it was the victim who first at-
tacked and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part,
but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclu-
sion temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the
attendant circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose?
(7%) ’13-Q1
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Bruno should be sentenced to indeterminate
penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period as minimum to prision
correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was entitled to
two privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and
the presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances without
any aggravating circumstance under Articles 69 and 64(5) of the Re-
vised Penal Code, respectively, which lower the prescribed penalty for
homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
There is incomplete self-defense because Bruno proved that it was the
victim who first attacked him and did so without provocation on his
part. There is, however, no reasonable necessity of the means em-
ployed to defend himself, after Bruno used a knife to stab the weapon-
less victim. There are also no aggravating circumstances present,
because it was not shown that Bruno disregarded the age of the victim
or that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime; moreover,
dwelling cannot be appreciated because the crime happened in the
house where both Bruno and the victim lived. In contrast, there are two
mitigating circumstance present, namely, voluntary surrender and plea
of guilty. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term
of the indeterminate penalty should be within the range of prision cor-
reccional in its medium period and the minimum term should be within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree or arresto mayor in any of
its period.
Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without
prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to
dinner, but Wendy turned him down and abruptly left, leaving her
condo door unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared
to have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's condo,
let himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's arrival later
that evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in
hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply.
Roman then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually assault-
ed her five (5) times that night.
25
Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of
rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion per-
petua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to 40
years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-fold rule.
Was the judge correct? (7%) ’13-Q9
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The three-fold rule is applicable only in
connection with the service of the sentence, not in the imposition of the
proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all the crimes
for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should
not make a computation in its decision and sentence the accused to
not more than the three-fold of the most severe of the penalties impos-
able. The computation under the three-fold rule is for the prison author-
ities to make (Art. 70, Revised Penal Code).
At a wake, there were people watching a game of dice. With
treachery and use of unlicensed firearms, AA fired successively
several gunshots at their direction. During the shooting, four (4)
persons were killed and fourteen (14) others were injured and
brought to the hospital for the treatment of gunshot wounds.
What should be the proper charge against AA? ’12 - 62
a) AA should be charged with multiple murder and attempted
murder.
b) AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder and
fourteen (14) counts of attempted murder.
c) AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder, four-
teen (14) counts of serious physical injuries and illegal possession of
firearms.
d) AA should be charged with complex crime of murder and
attempted murder with illegal possession of firearms.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder and fourteen
(14) counts of attempted murder.
Article 48 refers to cases where “a single act constitutes two or more
grave felonies”. A complex (compound) crime refers to singularity of
criminal acts (People vs. Pineda, GR No. L-26222, July 21, 1967).
When one fires his firearm in succession, killing and wounding several
persons, the different acts must be considered as distinct crimes (Peo-
ple vs. Remollino, GR No. L-14008, September 30, 1960). When vari-
ous victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate
and distinct crimes (People vs. Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385
March 19, 1997).
AB was driving a van along a highway. Because of her reckless-
ness, the van hit a car which had already entered the intersection.
As a result, CD who was driving the car suffered physical injuries,
while damage to his car amounted to P8,500.00. What is the prop-
er charge against AB? ’12 - Q49
a) AB should be charged with complex crime of reckless im-
prudence resulting in damage to property with slight physical injuries.
b) AB should .be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in
slight physical injuries and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property.
c) AB should be charged with complex crime of slight physical
injuries with damage to property.
d) AB should be charged with slight physical injuries and reck-
less imprudence resulting in damage to property.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) AB should be charged with reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries and reckless imprudence resulting in damage to prop-
erty.
Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, there is a compound
crime when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies. In People vs. Turla, 50 Phil. 1001, in a collision between two
automobiles driven in a careless and negligent manner, resulting in the
physical injuries and damage to property, there is no complex crime
since slight physical injuries is a light felony. Hence, AB should be
charged separately with reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property and reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries.
[NOTE: The principle in Turla case contradicts the latest ruling of the
Supreme Court in Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
November 17, 2010, where it was ruled that “Reckless imprudence
under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a
means to commit other crimes; hence conviction or acquittal of such
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
regardless of its various consequences. The essence of the quasi
offense of criminal negligence under article 365 of the Revised Penal
Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if in-
tentionally dne, would be punishable as a felony. The law penalizes
thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of
the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty. It
does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act
is single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or sev-
eral persons, the offense criminal negligence remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions.”
A special complex crime is a composite crime: ’11 – Q72
(A) made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code.
(B) with its own definition and special penalty provided by the Penal
Code.
(C) with its own definition and special penalty provided by a special
penal law.
(D) made up of 2 or more crimes defined in the Penal Code and spe-
cial penal laws.
Distinguish the following from each other:
1. Complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC; ’05 – Q1(1)
In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and pe-
nalized under separate and distinct Articles of the RPC but are allowed
to be alleged to be alleged in one Information as an exception to Sec-
tion 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, because they are
committed under the circumstances provided in Article 48 of the RPC,
i.e., two or more grave or less grave felonies from a single act, or one
offense was a necessary means for committing the same offence.
2. Special complex crime; and ’05 – Q1(2)
In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the
component crime constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus
penalized as one crime under one Article of the Revised Penal Code,
such as robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the RPC.
3. Delito continuado. ’05 – Q1(3)
Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted
by a series of overt acts committed by the offender in one place, and
therefore regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolu-
tion; hence, punished as one crime only.
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex
crimes as concepts in the RPC. '04 – Q10(2)
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a
single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted. This is
provided for in modified form in the first 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.
COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to commit an
offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only
one Information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more
serious crime shall be imposed.
Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special
complex crime as to their concepts and as to the imposition of
penalties. ’03 – Q10a
IN CONCEPT –
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more
crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code
but alleged in one Information either because they were brought about
by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means
for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
Information so that only one penalty shall be imposed.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of
two or more crimes which are considered only as components of a
single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Re-
vised Penal Code.
AS TO PENALTIES –
26
In ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the most seri-
ous crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is specifically
prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one
indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct
crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty
to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically
provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according
to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14
sub-machine gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a
cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire.
Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different
bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of
murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was
only one crime committed by A for the reason that, since A per-
formed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only
once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial
judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was
the decision of the trial judge correct? '99 – Q15a
The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender
made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined
by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being
automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would
fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and separate bul-
let, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act
of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the
several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced
them.
What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe
involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? '99 –
Q15b
A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or
more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as
a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC.)
At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an
offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another.
The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its
maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC.)
Continuing Crime
Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were de-
ceived into investing their money upon a promise of a capital
return of 25% computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated
checks. During the 1st two months following the investment, the
investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished.
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts
of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo con-
tends that he committed a continued crime, or delito continuado,
hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. ’09 – Q13
1. What is delito continuado? ’09 – Q13(1)
Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt
acts committed by the offender in one place, at about the same time,
and all such overt acts violate one and the same provision of a penal
law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a single
indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts are considered as
one crime only.
2. Is Angelo’s contention tenable? ’09 – Q13(2)
NO. Angelo’s contention is not tenable. He committed as many
counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of
B.P. 22, since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent
machinations contrived at different times or dates, and in different
amounts. Moreover, his drawing separate checks payable to each
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they are of different
amounts and of different dates.
He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling
victim and had distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing each
check. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the product of one
criminal resolution only.
Execution and Service of Penalties
The penalty of perpetual or temporary special disqualification for
the exercise of the right of suffrage does NOT deprive the offend-
er of the right: ’11 – Q48
(A) to be elected to a public office.
(B) to vote in any popular election for a public office.
(C) to vote in a plebiscite.
(D) to hold any public office.
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? ’07 –
Q1
The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprison-
ment/destierro and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, and the right to follow a profession or calling;
6. Fine;
7. And any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
There at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein
the accused, either as an adult or minor, can apply for and/or
granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. ’06
– Q5
Instances when sentence may be suspended are:
1. Where the accused became insane before sentence could
be promulgated (Article 79, RPC);
2. Where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed
an application for probation which has been granted (Ba-
clayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148 [1984];
3. Where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation
center because of drug-dependency although convicted of
the crime charged;
4. Where the offender is a youthful offender under Article 192,
P.D. No. 603, otherwise referred to as the Child and Youth
Welfare Code;
5. Where the crime was committed when the offender is under
18 years of age and is found guilty thereof in accordance
with R.A. No. 9344, otherwise known as the “Juvenile Jus-
tice and Welfare Act of 2006”, but trial court subjects him to
appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the
Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the
Law.
6. Section 66 of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002)1 ; and
7. When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspend-
ed or postponed by the Supreme Court, through the is-
suance of a Restraining Order upon the ground of superven-
ing events (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96
[1999].)
Extinction of Criminal Liabilities
1 Section 66. Suspension of a First-Time Minor Offender. – An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in
Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgement should have been promulgated after having found guilty of said of-
fense, may be given the benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions:
a. He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act, or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal
Code, or of any special penal laws;
b. He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; and
c. The Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended. x x x
27
Effects of Death of the Offender
The Regional Trial Court {RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated
homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four
years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
years ofprision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actu-
al damages in the amount of 1125,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the
Court of Appeals which sustained his conviction as well as the
penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of
Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records
of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of
heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC
a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that
Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had
been extinguished by his demise. ’15 – Q3
a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Ex-
plain. (2.5%) ’15 – Q3a
Answer: (a) The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because
the Court of Appeals, having issued an Entry of Judgement, the
decision has become final and executory. However, the pecuniary
penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of
actual damages of P25 000 survives the death of Tiburcio.
b) Assuming that Tiburcio' s death occurred before the Court
of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different an-
swer? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-Q3b
(b) Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against
TIburcio must consequently be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio
which occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered it decision caus-
es his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be totally
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as
the accused, the civil action is instituted therein for recovery of civil
liability, ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on
criminal case.
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The trial court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay
P150,000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his appeal was
pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young widow, 2 chil-
dren, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his
death on his criminal as well as civil liability? '04 – Q7a
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial
court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability
insofar as it arises from the crime and recoverable under the Revised
Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and damages may be
recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation under
Article 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts (People v. Bayotas, 236
SCRA 239 [1994].)
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are re-
coverable only if the accused had been convicted with finality before
he died.
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the MTC of Malo-
los, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While
the case was pending appeal in the RTC of the same province,
Lorna who was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma
manifested to the court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) crim-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
inal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma's contention
correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her crimi-
nal and civil liabilities? '00 – Q5a
NO. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended
party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because
the offense is committed against the State (People v. Misola, 87 Phil.
830, 833 [1950].) Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma based
on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of
Lorna can continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her
conviction, her criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the
civil liability under the Revised Penal Code (Article 89, par. 1, RPC).
However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil
Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other than
delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts (Peo-
ple v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239 [1994].)
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of
acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is
likewise extinguished. '00 – Q5b
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extin-
guishes civil liability, are:
1. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from
the act complained of as a felony;
2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is
on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond rea-
sonable doubt (Article 29, Civil Code);
3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity;
4. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely
involves a civil obligation;
5. Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a sepa-
rate civil action;
6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Articles
31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code;
7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that
the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist
(Sapiera v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 370 [1999].);
8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the crimi-
nal act of which the accused is acquitted (Sapiera v. Court of
Appeals, 314 SCRA 370 [1999].)
Amnesty and Pardon
Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after
beginning to serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines
granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view
hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the
Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who
was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon
whom the penalty ofreclusion perpetua was imposed." He now
comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run for
senator in the next election. ’15-Q6
a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-Q6a
Answer: (a) If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him
the advice that he cannot run in the Senatorial race since the terms
of the pardon has not expressly restored his right to hold public
office or remitted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute dis-
qualification. Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon
shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office unless
such right be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Under
Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it, per-
petual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even
though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon (Rissos-Vidal v. Lim,
G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015)
b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a re-
bellion for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclu-
28
sion perpetua, and what he received was amnesty from the
government, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-
Q6b
.
(b) If Senator Adamos was convicted of rebellion and he received
amnesty, I will give him the advice that he can run in the Senatorial
race. Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is
totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua but also its effects such as
the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
Amnesty looks backward and abolishes an puts into oblivion the
offense itself. It so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which
he is charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands be-
fore the law precisely as though he had committed no offense (Bar-
rioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949).
Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While
serving sentence, he escaped from jail. While serving sentence,
he escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and con-
victed of Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the Presi-
dent of the Philippines issued an amnesty proclamation for the
offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the ben-
efit of the amnesty proclamation. Antero then filed a petition for
habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release from confine-
ment. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of Eva-
sion of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? ’09 – Q2
YES, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was
evaded proceeded from the crime of Rebellion which has been obliter-
ated by the grant of amnesty to the offender (Article 89(3), RPC.)
Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act
committed by the offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such
act innocent, the sentence lost its legal basis. The purported evasion
thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464
[2000].)
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all
the legal effects thereof.
Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. ’06 –
Q4(1)
The differences between pardon and amnesty are –
In pardon:
The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects
of conviction remain unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence,
for pardon to be valid there must be a sentence already final and ex-
ecutory at the time the same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor
of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders;
and the crimes subject of the grant may be common crimes or political
crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the Chief Executive which
does not require the concurrence of any other public officer or office.
In amnesty:
The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is
erased, as though such act was innocent when made; hence, the ef-
fects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is granted in favor of a
class of convicted offenders, not to individual convicted offenders; and
the crimes involved are generally political offenses, not common
crimes. Amnesty is a public act that requires conformity or concurrence
of the Philippine Senate.
Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending P.P. No. 347,
certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at least
5 of these crimes. ’06 – Q4(2)
Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty under Presidential
Proclamation No. 724:
1. Rebellion or insurrection;
2. Coup d’état;
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or
coup d’état;
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
4. Disloyalty of public officers or employees; Prescription of crime
5. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection; Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was
6. Sedition; sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to
7. Conspiracy to commit sedition; three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court was af-
8. Illegal assembly;
firmed on appeal and became final and executory. Taylor failed to
9. Illegal association;
10. Direct assault; appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting
11. Indirect assault; the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use
12. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later,
agents of such persons; Taylor returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the
13. Tumults and other disturbances of public order; warrant of arrest against him, on the ground that the penalty im-
14. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utter- posed against him had already prescribed. ’15 - Q7
ances;
15. Alarms and scandals; a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to
16. Illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, Quash? Explain. (2.5%) ’15 - Q7a
committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with
the crimes of rebellion and insurrection; Answer: (a) If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash. Arti-
17. Violations of Articles of War cle 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of
a. Art. 59 (Desertion) penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall
b. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave) commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his
c. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition) sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of
d. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition)
service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been
e. Art. 94 (Various Crimes)
f. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gen- convicted by final judgement by escaping during the term of his
tleman: sentence. The Taylor never served a single minute of his sentence,
g. Art. 97 (General Article) and thus, prescription never started to run in his favor. Clearly, one
who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have es-
Another Suggested Answer: caped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. December
18, 2002).
Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty are:
1. Illegal assembly; b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able
2. Alarms and scandal; to go to another country with which the Philippines had no
3. Illegal association; extradition treaty, will your answer be the same? Explain.
4. Disloyalty by public officers/employees; (2.5%) ’15 - Q7b
5. Illegal possession of firearms.

Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty?

How about columnist Randy David? ’06 – Q4(3)
Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for amnesty
because the crime respectively imputed to them are crimes against
public order which are among the crimes covered by amnesty.
General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and
Philippine Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct un-
becoming an officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War.
Can they apply for amnesty? ’06 – Q4(4)
Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers
and Philippine Marines can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles
of War is explicitly enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential Proclama-
tion No. 724 as one of the crimes covered by the grant of amnesty.
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently
he was granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent
on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his home-
town. His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is
not disqualified because he was already pardoned by the Presi-
dent unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention correct? ’04 – Q4b
NO, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the RPC ex-
pressly provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason
of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual abso-
lute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from
the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof, unless such
accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This
is because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence
but does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless express-
ly remitted in the pardon.
(b) Even if Taylor was able to go to another country which the
Philippines had no extradition treaty, I will deny the motion to quash.
Going to a foreign country with which this Government has no ex-
tradition treaty to interrupt the running of prescription is not applica-
ble nor even material because the period of prescription had not
commenced to run in the first place; hence, there is nothing to inter-
rupt.
A killed his wife and buries her in their backyard. He immediately
went into hiding. Three years later, the bones of A’s wife were
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of
arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about it.
After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported
the matter to the police. After 15 years in hiding, A left the country
but returned after three years to take care of his ailing sibling. Six
years later thereafter, he was charged with parricide. ’10 – Q17
1. Under the RPC, when does the period of prescription of
a crime commence to run? ’10 – Q17-1
Generally, the period of prescription of a crime commences to run
from the date it was committed; but if the crime was committed clan-
destinely, the period of prescription of the crimes under the Revised
Penal Code commence to run from the day on which the crime was
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Article
91, RPC.)
2. When it is interrupted? ’10 – Q17-2
The running of the prescriptive period is interrupted when “any
kind of investigative proceeding is instituted against the guilty person
which may ultimately lead to his prosecution” (Panaguiton, Jr. v. De-
partment of Justice, 571 SCRA 549 [2008].)
3. Is A’s defense tenable? ’10 – Q17-3

NO, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The

crime committed is parricide which prescribes in twenty (20) years

29
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
(Article 90, RPC.) It was only when the care-taker, Z, found the victim’s
bones and reported the matter to the police that the crime is deemed
legally discovered by the authorities or their agents and thus the pre-
scriptive period of the crime commenced to run.
When A left the country and returned only after three (3) years,
the running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and
suspended because prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Article 91, RPC.)
Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the commission of
the crime and the prescriptive period started running only after 5 years
from such commission when the crime was discovered, only 10 years
lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted when the prescriptive
period was interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3 years when A
was out of the Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after
the period of prescription starts running. Adding the 7 years of prescrip-
tion and the 6 years that lapsed before the case was filed, only a total
of thirteen (13) years had lapsed. Hence, the crime has not yet pre-
scribed.
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2,
1960. Dominador witnessed the entire incident, but was so scared
to tell the authorities about it. On January 2, 1970, Dominador,
bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the police.
After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6,
1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed
had already prescribed. Is Baldo’s contention correct? ’09 – Q6
NO, Baldo’s contention is not correct because the crime commit-
ted has not yet prescribed. The prescriptive period of the crime com-
mitted commenced to run only after it was reported to the police on
January 2, 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely committed on
January 2, 1960.
Under the discovery rule, which governs a crime is not publicly
committed, the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only
from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party,
the authorities or their agents; this case, from January 2, 1970, when it
was made known to the police authorities until January 2, 1980, when
Baldo was arrested and charged.
The killing committed, whether homicide or murder, is punishable
by an afflictive penalty which prescribes in twenty (20) years, whereas
only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the
authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 2, 1980
(when the accused was charged in court.)
OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he
saw AM stab CV treacherously, then throw the dead man's body
into a ravine. For 25 years, CV’s body was never seen nor found;
and OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after con-
sulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what
he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago.
Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years?
'04 – Q4a
YES, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25
years, because the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its pre-
scriptive period has not even commenced to run.
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only
from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC). OW, a private per-
son who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party
nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents.
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in Feb-
ruary 1987 was filed against Roberto in the MTC of Tanza, Cavite
for purposes of preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it
was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of said court decided
the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime
was committed in Manila. The case was subsequently filed with
the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that
the crime had already prescribed. The law provides that the crime
of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the dismissal by
the fiscal correct? '01 – Q16
30
NO, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is
not correct. The filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court,
although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended
the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a
criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or in-
formation, not by the result of proof (People v. Galano, 75 SCRA 193
[1977].)
[Note: In Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, 571 SCRA 549
[2008], it was held that “The prescriptive period is interrupted by the
institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the ac-
cused.”]
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was
urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange noise
coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara.
When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara's stepmother, very an-
gry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina
carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and
drive away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina spread
the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her
grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell
anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what he witnessed.
Twenty and a half (20 & ½) years after the incident, and right after
his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI
authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the
state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of
(20 & ½) years? '00 – Q7
YES, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara de-
spite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years. Under Article 91, RPC, the period of
prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the
case at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert,
who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an au-
thority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert re-
vealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of pre-
scription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the time
Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities.
Civil Liabilities in Criminal Cases
Acquittal Does Not Extinguish Civil Liability
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as
a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street
at about 7 PM. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection
because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the
green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached
the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the trans-
action was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the
car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards
Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell
down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious
injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with
ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not con-
vinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been estab-
lished beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the
ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still re-
cover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? ’00 – Q9
YES, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages de-
spite C's acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is ac-
quitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond rea-
sonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evi-
dence (Article 29, NCC.)
If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of
evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on
quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
Such fault or negligence, without a pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Article 2176, NCC.) This is
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence CRIMINAL LAW 2
under the Penal Code (Articles 31, 2176 & 2177, NCC.)
Crimes against National Security and Laws of Nation
Subsidiary Civil Liability
Treason
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by
Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sus-
Which of the following circumstances may be appreciated as ag-
tained injuries which required medical attendance for three
gravating in the crime of treason? ’12 - Q42
months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to
a) cruelty and ignominy;
physical injuries. Convicted by the MTC, Guy was sentenced to
b) evident premeditation;
suffer a straight penalty of 3 months of arresto mayor and or-
c) superior strength;
dered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000
d) treachery.
as attorney's fees. Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execu-
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
tion was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due to
a) cruelty and ignominy;
his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution
Treachery and abuse of superior strength are by their nature, inherent
against Max. The latter opposed the motion on the ground that
in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penal-
the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that
ty (People vs. Adlawan, G.R. No. L-456, march 29, 1949). Evident
he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the mo-
premeditation is inherent in treason because adherence and the giving
tion? '98 – Q11
of aid and comfort to the enemy is a long continued process requiring
for the successful consummation of the traitor’s purpose a fixed, reflec-
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and
tive and persistent determination and planning (People vs. Racaza,
engaged in an industry (transportation business) where said employee
G.R. No. L-365, January 21, 1949). However, cruelty may be appreci-
is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the RPC.
ated in treason by deliberately augmenting the wrong by being unnec-
Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability,
essarily cruel to capture guerilla suspects, subjecting them to bar-
the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for such liability
barous forms of torture and finally putting them to death and ignominy
and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never
by arresting and maltreating a guerilla suspect and then stripping his
excused. And since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in
wife of her clothes and then abusing her together with other Filipino
case his employee cannot pay; he need not be impleaded in the in the
girls (People vs. Adlawan, supra).
criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for
issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the opportuni-
Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino citizen?
ty to be heard.
’12 - Q45
a) Yes. The offender in the crime of treason is a Filipino citizen
Indemnification
only because the first element is that the offender owes allegiance to
the Government of the Philippines.
The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having
b) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino
carnal knowledge with the same woman. In addition to the penalty
citizen or a foreigner married to a Filipino citizen, whether residing in
of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the amount
the Philippines or elsewhere, who adheres to the enemies of the
of P50,000 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the
Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.
award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that the vic-
c) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino
tim is the same woman. How would you rule on the contention of
citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines because while permanent
the accused? '05 – Q3(3)
allegiance is owed by the alien to his own country, he owes a tempo-
rary allegiance to the Philippines where he resides.
The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of
d) Yes. It is not possible for an alien, whether residing in the
rape is a violation of the person of the victim and thus gives rise to
Philippines or elsewhere, to commit the crime of treason because he
corresponding criminal and civil liabilities. The trial court is correct in
owes allegiance to his own country.
imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding corresponding civil
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same woman.
c) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen
Rape is not a continued crime.
or an alien residing in the Philippines because while permanent alle-
giance is owed by the alien to his own country, he owes a temporary
Damages
allegiance to the Philippines where he resides.
A foreigner owes temporary allegiance to the government of the place
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any re-
wherein he resides in return for the protection he receives. Such tem-
ceipt to substantiate the heirs’ claim for an award of actual dam-
porary allegiance continues during the period of his residence. If an
ages, such as expenses for the wake and burial. What kind of
alien, while residing in a foreign county, does an act which would
damages may the trial court award to them and how much? ’06 –
amount to treason if committed by a citizen of that country, he will be
Q14
held liable for treason (52 Am Jur 797). Furthermore, Article 114 of the
45
Revised Penal code punishes a resident alien for committing treason.
The damages that the trial court may award are:
1. Civil indemnity for the loss of life of the victim which jurispru-
Espionage
dence has set at P75,000;
2. Moderate / temperate damages for the expenses incurred for
What is the crime committed by a public officer who discloses to
the wake and burial of the victim as the trial court may con-
the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles,
sider reasonable; and
data or information of a confidential nature relative to the defense
3. Moral damages for the sufferings of the victim emotionally
of the Philippine archipelago which he has in his possession by
and mentally.
reason of the public office he holds? ’12 - Q43
a) espionage;
[Note: In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity of
b) disloyalty;
P75,000 and moral damages of P50,000 are awarded automatically,
c) treason;
without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim
d) violation of neutrality.
(People v. Milan, 653 SCRA 607 [2011]; People v. Torres, Sr., 655
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SCRA 720 [2011].)
a) espionage;
Espionage is committed bu public officer, who is in possession, by
reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information
of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine ar-

31
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
chipelago, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign
nation (Article 117 of the Revised Penal Code).
Misprision of Treason
Insuperable cause is an exempting circumstance which may be
applied to: ’11 – Q52
(A) robbery.
(B) misprision of treason.
(C) homicide.
(D) rebellion.
Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed,
the People’s Republic of China declared war against the Philip-
pines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate
boyfriend, discovered an e-mail correspondence between him and
a certain General Tung Kat Su of China. On March 12, 2010, Myra
discovered that on even date, her boyfriend has sent an e-mail to
General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital informa-
tion on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese gov-
ernment in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy.
Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter to the proper
authorities. Did Myra commit a crime? ’10 – Q21
YES, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under
Article 116 of the Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make
known “as soon as possible” to the governor or provincial fiscal or to
the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the conspiracy be-
tween her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason
against the Philippine Government in time of war. She decided to re-
port the matter to the proper authorities only after two (2) weeks.
Piracy
The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off
Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbour of Kaoshiung,
Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said har-
bor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a
bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
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 appre-
hension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a
Philippine court. ’08 – Q7
1. Was the charge of qualified piracy against Max, Baldo
and Bogart who boarded the inter-island vessel correct?
’08 – Q7-1
YES, they (Max, Baldo and Bogart) boarded and fired upon the
ship and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry (Articles
122, 123, as amended by R.A No. 7659 and P.D. No. 532.) As long as
murder or homicide is committed as a result of or on the occasion of
piracy, the special complex crime of qualified piracy is committed.
2. Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine
court for qualified piracy? ’08 – Q7-2
NO. The crime committed by Dodong is either murder or homi-
cide. He may not be charged with qualified piracy because he was only
a passenger and not in conspiracy with Max, Baldo and Bogart. The
Philippine Court has no jurisdiction over the killing committed by
Dodong in Taiwan.
Another Alternative Answer:
Dodong was correctly charged before the Philippine court, though
it should be for murder or homicide because he did not act in conspira-
cy or concert with the pirates. Under the territorial principle of jurisdic-
tion in International Law, the Philippine court will have jurisdiction over
the offense of murder or homicide because it was committed on a ves-
sel of Philippine registry, and the crime is also cognizable by the courts
of Kaoshiung, Taiwan.
Crimes against the Fundamental Laws of the State
32
In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced the many extrajudicial killings
committed by the men in uniform. Policeman Stone, then attending the
mass, was peeved by the denunciations of Fr. Chris. He immediately
approached the priest during the homily, openly displayed his firearm
tucked in his waist, and menacingly uttered at the priest: Father, may
kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo tumigil. His brazenness terrified the
priest, who cut short his homily then and there. The celebration of the
mass was disrupted, and the congregation left the church in disgust
over the actuations of Policeman Stone, a co-parishioner.
Policeman Stone was subsequently charged.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the
case, and is mulling on what to charge Policeman Stone with.
May Policeman Stone be properly charged with either or both of the
following crimes, or, if not, with what proper crime? ’17 – Q11
(a) Interruption of religious worship as defined and punished under Art.
132 of the Revised Penal Code; and/or
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) Policeman Slone may be charged with Interruption
of religious worship.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a public officer or employee who
shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion shall be liable for interruption of religious worship.
Hence, Policeman Slone, a public officer, approached the priest,
displayed his firearm, and threatened the priest, which caused the
disruption of the mass and the leaving of the congregation.
Policeman Slone, therefore, may be charged of interruption or
religious worship.
(b) Offending the religious feelings as defined and punished under Art.
133 of the Revised Penal Code.
Explain fully your answers. (8%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Policeman Stone may not be charged with the crime or
offending religious feelings.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the acts must be directed
against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose or
ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an
object of religious veneration (People v. Baes, G.R. No. 46000,
May 25, 1939).
Policeman Stone threatened the priest because of the priest's
statements during his homily and not to mock or ridicule the cer-
emony; consequently, Policeman Stone may not be charged with
the crime of offending religious feelings.
Arbitrary Detention
What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? ’06 –
Q3(1)
Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention are:
1. By detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause
or ground therefor purposely to restrain his liberty (Article
124, RPC);
2. By delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a per-
son lawfully arrested without a warrant (Article 125, RPC);
and
3. By delaying release of a prisoner whose release has been
ordered by competent authority (Article 126, RPC);
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should be a
public officer acting under color of authority.
What are the legal grounds for detention? ’06 – Q3(2)
The legal grounds for detention are:
1. Commission of a crime;
2. Violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory con-
finement in an institution established for such purpose.
When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person con-
sidered lawful? ’06 – Q3(3)
Arrest by a peace officer or by a private person is lawful –
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has com-
mitted, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has prob-
able cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and circumstances that the person to be arrested has com-
mitted it; and
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has es-
caped from a penal establishment or place where he is serv-
ing sentence or is temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another (Section 5, Rule 113, Rules on Crim-
inal Procedure.)
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
Amy was apprehended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for illegal
parking. She was detained at the police precinct, underwent in-
vestigation, and released only after 48 hours. ’90 – Q11
1. Is Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? ’90 – Q11-1
Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the RPC –
Delay in the Delivery of Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
2. Supposed Amy resisted the arrested and grappled with
Patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby? ’90 –
Q11-2
She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of
the RPC – Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the
agents of such person.
Expulsion
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a mayor who, without being
authorized by law, compels prostitutes residing in his city to go
to, and live in, another place against their will? ’12 - Q34
a) The mayor is criminally liable for violation of domicile.
b) The mayor is criminally liable for expulsion.
c) The mayor is criminally liable for grave coercion.
d) The mayor incurs no criminal liability because he merely
wants to protect the youth against the indecency of the prostitutes.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The mayor is criminally liable for expulsion.
The prostitutes are not chattels but human beings protected by the
constitutional guarantees such as the provision on liberty of abode.
The mayor could not even for the most praiseworthy of motives render
the liberty of the citizen so insecure. No occicial, no matter how high, is
above the law (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R. No. 14639, March 25,
1919). A public officer, who, not being thereunto authorized by law,
shall compel persons to change their residence is liable for the crime of
expulsion under Article 127 of the Revised Penal Code.
Violation of domicile
The statement that “A policeman, who without a judicial order,
enters a private house over the owner’s opposition, is guilty of
trespass to dwelling” is FALSE. ’09 – Q1e
The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of
domicile because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an au-
thority to make searches and seizures upon judicial order. He is there-
fore acting under color of his official authority (Article 128, RPC.)
What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass
to dwelling? '02 – Q6a
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to
dwelling are:
The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under
color of authority; in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private per-
son or public officer acting in a private capacity.
Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by enter-
ing the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; (2) searching
papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous con-
sent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he en-
tered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.
33
Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by
entering the dwelling of another against the express or implied will of
the latter.
Crimes against Public Order
Rebellion
Proposal to commit felony is punishable only in cases in which
the law specifically provides a penalty therefor. Under which of
the following instances are proponents NOT liable? ’12 – Q7
a) Proposal to commit coup d'etat.
b) Proposal to commit sedition.
c) Proposal to commit rebellion.
d) Proposal to commit treason.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Proposal to commit sedition.
Proposal to commit treason, rebellion or coup d’etat is punishable but
proposal to commit sedition is not.
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the
crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%) ’12 – QIXb
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – If “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow
the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebel-
lion is a felony. Rebellion – If they committed rebellion, they are equally
liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally
charged for conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what
they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent
felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. Conspiracy
to commit homicide, not punishable – If “A” and”B” conspired to kill “X”,
conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspir-
acy to commit homicide. Homicide – If pursuant to conspiracy to com-
mit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”,
the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case
will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.
What is the proper charge against public officers or employees
who, being in conspiracy with the rebels, failed to resist a rebel-
lion by all means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the
duties of their offices under the control of the rebels, or shall ac-
cept appointment to office under them? ’12 - Q36
a) disloyalty of public officers or employees;
b) rebellion;
c) conspiracy to commit rebellion;
d) dereliction of duty.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) rebellion;
The crime of disloyalty of public office is committed by public officers
who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or
shall continue to discharge the duties their offices under the control of
the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them (Article 137
of the Revised Penal Code). However, the public officer who performs
any of the acts of disloyalty should not be in conspiracy with the rebels;
otherwise, he will be guilty of rebellion, not merely disloyalty, because
in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all (The Revised Penal Code
by CA Justice Luis Reyes). Since in the facts given, the public officers
performed acts of disloyalty in conspiracy with the rebels, the crime
committed is rebellion.
What is the proper charge against a person who, without taking
arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall
incite others to deprive Congress of its legislative powers, by
means of speeches or writings? ’12 - Q37
a) inciting to sedition;
b) inciting to rebellion or insurrection;
c) crime against legislative body;
d) unlawful use of means of publication or unlawful utterances.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) inciting to rebellion or insurrection;
Depriving Congress of its legislative powers is an object of rebellion.
Hence, inciting others to attain the purpose of rebellion by means of
speeches or writings constitutes inciting to sedition.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
d) unlawful use of means of publication or unlawful utterances.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Inciting to sedition is committed by person who, without taking any
direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accom-
plishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition, by means of
speeches or writings (Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code). To
commit inciting to sedition, the offender must incite others to rise pub-
licly and tumultuously in order to attain any of the ends of sedition
(People vs. Arrogante, 39 O.G. 1974). In sum, the offender must incite
others not only to accomplish any purpose of sedition (such as pre-
venting the national government or a public officer from freely exercis-
ing its or his function) but likewise to perform the acts of sedition (rsing
publicly and tumultuously). In the facts given, the sedition purpose, is
not committing inciting to sedition. Hence, “a” is not the answer.
Inciting to rebellion or insurrection is committed by a person who, with-
out taking arms or being in open hostility against the Government, shall
incite others to the execution of any of the acts specified in Article 134
of the Revised Penal Code by means of speeches and writings (Article
138). The clause “shall incite others to the execution of any of the acts
specified in Article 134” meant that the offender shall incite others to
rise publicly and take up arms against the government for any of the
purpose of rebellion (The Revised Penal Code by CA Justice Luis
Reyes). To be held liable for inciting to rebellion, the offender must
incite others not only to accomplish any purpose of rebellion (such as
depriving legislature of its own power) but likewise to perform the acts
of rebellion (rising publicly and taking up arms against the
government). In the facts given, the person, who merely incited others
to accomplish a rebellious purpose, is not committing inciting to rebel-
lion. Hence, “b” is not the answer.
Preventing the meeting of Congress through force or fraud constitutes
the crime against popular representation (Article 143). In the facts
given, the person did not employ fraud or intimidation to prevent mem-
bers of Congress from attending its meeting. Hence, “c” is not the an-
swer.
Unlawful use of means of publication or unlawful utterances a person
who by speeches or other means of publication, shall encourage dis-
obedience to the constituted authorities (Article 154). Inciting others to
deprive Congress of its legislative power constitutes unlawful utter-
ances. Hence, “d” is the answer.
What is the crime committed when a group of persons entered the
municipal building rising publicly and taking up arms in pur-
suance of the movement to prevent exercise of governmental
authority with respect to the residents of the municipality con-
cerned for the purpose of effecting changes in the manner of
governance and removing such locality under their control from
allegiance to the laws of the Government? ’12 - Q38
a) sedition;
b) coup d'etat;
c) insurrection;
d) public disorder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) insurrection;
The term”insurrection” is more commonly employed in reference to a
movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor impor-
tance or to prevent the exercise of government authority with respect
to the particular matters of subjects (The Revised Penal Code by CA
Justice Luis Reyes). Insurrection is punishable under Article 134 of the
Revised Penal Code. In the facts given, this crime is committed since
there is a public uprising and taking up arms against the government
for purpose of removing the locality under the control of the offenders
from the allegiance to the laws of the government (See: People vs.
Almazan, 37 O.G. 1932).
When committed outside the Philippine territory, our courts DO
NOT have jurisdiction over the crime of: ’11 – Q56
(A) treason.
(B) piracy.
(C) espionage.
(D) rebellion.
A proposal to commit a felony is punishable only when the law
specifically provides a penalty for it as in the case of proposal to
commit: ’11 – Q75
(A) rebellion.
(B) sedition.
(C) espionage.
34
(D) highway robbery.
On May 5, 1992, at about 6 AM, while Governor Alegre of Laguna
was on board his car traveling along the National Highway of La-
guna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting in his
instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente were members of
the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and they killed
the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tia-
go. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill
Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If you were the
prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? ’98 –
Q3
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with
the crime of rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the
liquidation squad of the New People's Army and the killing was upon
orders of their commander; hence, politically-motivated. This was the
ruling in People v. Avila, 207 SCRA 156 [1992] involving identical facts
which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion
against the Government.
Alternative Answer:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for
the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his
“corrupt practices”, which does not appear to be politically motivated.
There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or further the
objective of the New People’s Army. The killing is murder because it
was committed with treachery.
Alternative Answer:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that Article
135 of the RPC has already been amended by R.A. No. 6968, deleting
from said Article, common crimes which used to be punished as part
and parcel of the crime of rebellion. The ruling in People v. Hernandez,
99 Phil. 515 (1994), that rebellion may not be completed with common
crimes committed in furtherance thereof, was because the common
crimes were then penalized in Art. 135 together with the rebellion, with
one penalty and Article 48 of the RPC cannot be applied. Art. 135 of
said Code remained exactly the same when the case of Enrile v,
Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was resolved. Precisely for the reason
that Article 48 cannot apply because the common crimes were pun-
ished as part of rebellion in Art. 135, that this Article was amended,
deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes were
deleted from said Article, demonstrates a clear legislative intention to
treat the common crimes as distinct from rebellion and remove the
legal impediment to the application of Art. 48.
It is noteworthy that in Enrile v. Salazar (supra) the Supreme
Court said these:
“There is an apparent need to restructure the law on rebel-
lion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and
delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby,
so that if it cannot be conveniently utilized as the umbrella for
every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. The Court has
no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the law as
it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond inter-
pretation. Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly
seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely within its prov-
ince.”
And significantly the said amendment to Article 135 of the RPC
was made at around the time the ruling in Salazar was handled down,
obviously to neutralize the Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The
amendment was sort of a rider to the coup d’état law, R.A. No. 6968.
VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Gov-
ernment. VG was recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy.
Several meetings were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, both-
ered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG,
JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father
Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities.
Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was com-
mitted? What is his criminal liability? '94 – Q14
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
NO, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the con-
spiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit
treason which makes a person criminally liable under Article 116, RPC.
And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father
Abraham is exempted from criminal liability under Article 12, par. 7,
RPC, as his failure to report can be considered as due to “insuperable
cause”, as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the
co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not
report to the proper authorities (U.S. v. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People v.
Atienza. 56 Phil. 353 [1931].)
Coup d’état
How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? ’12 - Q35
a) By rising publicly and taking arms against the Government
for the purpose of depriving the Chief Executive of any of his powers or
prerogatives.
b) When a person holding public employment undertakes a
swift attack, accompanied by strategy or stealth, directed against pub-
lic utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power for the purpose of diminishing state power.
c) When persons rise publicly and tumultuously in order to
prevent by force the National Government from freely exercising its
function.
d) When persons circulate scurrilous libels against the Gov-
ernment which tend to instigate others to meet together or to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) When a person holding public employment undertakes a swift at-
tack, accompanied by strategy or stealth, directed against public utili-
ties or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued posses-
sion of power for the purpose of diminishing state power.
The crime of coup d’etat is a swift attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy of stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication network, public utilities or other facilities
needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, singly or
simultaneously carried out anywhere in the Philippines by any person
or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any public
office of employment, with or without civilian support or participation for
the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power (Article 134-A of the
Revised Penal Code).
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between rebellion and coup d’état,
based on their constitutive elements as criminal offenses. '04 –
Q10(1)
REBELLION is committed when a multitude of persons rise pub-
licly in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted gov-
ernment, to be replaced by a government of the rebels. It is carried out
by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any member
of the military, national police or any public officer.
COUP D'ETAT is committed when members of the military, Philip-
pine National Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders,
launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth, threat, violence or intimi-
dation against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philip-
pines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public
facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession
of governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state
powers.
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d’état may
be carried out singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders must
be members of the military, national police or public officer, with or
without civilian support. The criminal objective need not be to over-
throw the existing government but only to destabilize or paralyze the
existing government.
Can there be a complex crime of coup d’état with rebellion? '03 –
Q10b
YES, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders
committing the coup d’état and the offenders committing the rebellion.
By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other and
vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d’état may be
35
any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or
a public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the
crime of coup d’état may be committed singly, whereas rebellion re-
quires a public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly con-
stituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially different and
punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the
application of Article 48 of the RPC.
Can there be a complex crime of coup d’état with sedition? '03 –
Q10c
YES, coup d’état can be complexed with sedition because the two
crimes are essentially different and distinctly punished under the Re-
vised Penal Code. Sedition may not be directed against the Govern-
ment or non-political in objective, whereas coup d’état is always politi-
cal in objective as it is directed against the Government and led by
persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military
or national police. Article 48 of the Code may apply under the condi-
tions therein provided.
A group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift
attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against
a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing power and
taking over such installation. '02 – Q19
1. What crime or crimes are they guilty of? '02 – Q19-1
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces,
would be guilty of the crime of coup d’état, under Article 134-A of the
RPC, as amended, because their attack was against vital military in-
stallations which are essential to the continued possession and exer-
cise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by
taking over such installations.
2. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who
shall be deemed the leader thereof? '02 – Q19-2
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in
their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the group shall be
deemed the leader of said coup d’état (Article 135, RPC.)
Inciting to Sedition
Which of the following statements constitute Inciting to Sedition?
’11 – Q40
(A) Utterance of statements irritating or obnoxious to the ears of the
police officers.
(B) Speeches extolling communism and urging the people to hold a
national strike and paralyze commerce and trade.
(C) Leaders of jeepney and bus associations shouting "Bukas tuloy
ang welga hanggang sa magkagulo na!"
(D) Speeches calling for resignation of high government officials.
What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? ’07 – Q6
The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition
are:
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and
other media of presentation to commit acts which constitute
sedition;
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous
libels against the Government of the Philippines or any of its
duly constituted authorities, which tend to disturb or obstruct
the performance of official functions, or which tend to incite
others to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes;
3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious
conspiracies or riots;
4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the
peace and public order of the community or of the Govern-
ment; or
5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices
(Article 142, RPC.)
Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a police officer who, while
Congress was in session, arrested a member thereof for commit-
ting a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor?
’12 - Q40
a) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parlia-
mentary immunity because a member of Congress is privileged from
arrest while Congress is in session.
b) The police officer is criminally liable for disturbance of pro-
ceedings because the arrest was made while Congress was in ses-
sion.
c) The police officer incurs no criminal liability because the
member of Congress has committed a crime punishable by a penalty
higher than prision mayor.
d) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parlia-
mentary immunity because parliamentary immunity guarantees a
member of Congress complete freedom of expression without fear of
being arrested while in regular or special session.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) The police officer incurs no criminal liability because the member of
Congress has committed a crime punishable by a penalty higher than
prision mayor.
Violation of parliamentary immunity is committed by public officer who
shall, while the Congress is in regular or special session, arrest any
member thereof, except in case such member has committed a crime
with a penalty higher than prision mayor (Article 145 of the Revised
penal Code).
Illegal Assemblies
A, B, and C organized a meeting in which the audience was incit-
ed to the commission of the crime of sedition. Some of the per-
sons present at the meeting were carrying unlicensed firearms.
What crime, if any, was committed by A, B and C, as well as those
who were carrying unlicensed firearms and those who were mere-
ly present at the meeting?’12 – Q14
a) Inciting to sedition for A, 8 and C and illegal pos-
session of firearms for those carrying unlicensed
firearms.
b) Inciting to sedition for A, 8 and C and those carry-
ing unlicensed firearms.
c) Illegal assembly for A, 8, C and all those present at
the meeting.
d) Conspiracy to commit sedition for A, B, C and those
present at the meeting.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Illegal assembly for A, B, C and all those present at the meeting.
Inciting to sedition is not committed since there is no showing that the
audience was incited by “A”, “B” and “C” themselves to commit sedi-
tion. Conspiracy to commit sedition is not committed since there is no
showing that the organizers and audience agreed and decided to
commit sedition. The crime committed is Illegal Assembly under Article
146 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime is committed by organizers
or leaders of a meeting in which the audience was incited to the com-
mission of the crime of sedition. Persons merely present at such meet-
ing shall likewise be held criminally liable.
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B,
one of the students, cheating. She called the student's attention
and confiscated his examination booklet, causing embarrassment
to him. The following day, while the class was going on, the stu-
dent, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B
would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another stu-
dent, come to A's rescue and prevented B from continuing his
attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter. What crime or
crimes, if any, did B commit? ’02 – Q7, ’13-Q7
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the
professor, A, who was then conducting classes and thus exercising
authority; and another one for the violence on the student C, who came
to the aid of the said professor.
By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the
RPC, teachers and professors of public or duly recognized private
schools, colleges and universities in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of such performance are
deemed persons in authority for purposes of the crimes of direct as-
sault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of
36
said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authori-
ty shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the
attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a person
in authority, not just an attack on a student.
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of
his pupils, because of the latter's throwing paper clips at his
classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom
crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He
reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z
immediately proceeded to the school building and because they
were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the
barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that
an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the
classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a
fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to
kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's arms.
Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on
the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this
incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband,
and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school
arrived, intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could
be investigated in the principal's office. Before leaving, Z passed
near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by
B. ’01 – Q15
1. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y
and Z? ’01 – Q15-1
X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries
inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence,
would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a
person in authority (Article 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing
his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked.
Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less
Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the teacher, which
caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Articles
148 and 151 of the RPC, a teacher is considered a person in authority,
and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official
duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical
injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of
Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of
direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her
participation should not be considered as that of a co-principal, since
her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and Y. as the
mother of X and the wife of Y.
2. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay
tanod only? ’01 – Q15-2
If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on
him, being an agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the
crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a
high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of con-
tempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip
of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto
direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a per-
son in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a
dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain,
was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was
delivering his speech. B, one of the guests, went to the middle of
the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a
knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B
and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance
and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A,
stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to
proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the
ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed.
What crime was committed? '00 – Q7b
The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed.
A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an
official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during the
public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of
heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and law-
less defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which
characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at the back
when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was
treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing
was murder and having been committed with direct assault, a complex
crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of per-
sons in authority? '00 – Q8a
Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government
corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay
chairmen are also deemed persons in authority (Article 152, RPC.)
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision
of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are
charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security
of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman,
barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Article 152, RPC.)
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the RPC,
teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of pub-
lic or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and
lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority
(P.D. No. 299, and B.P. Blg. 873).
Tumults and other disturbance of public orders
When is a disturbance of public order deemed to be tumultuous?
’12 - Q39
a) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous i f caused by
more than three (3) persons who are armed or provided with means of
violence.
b) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when a person
causes a serious disturbance in a public place or disturbs public per-
formance, function or gathering.
c) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when more
than three (3) persons make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or
sedition or shout subversive or provocative words to obtain any of the
objectives of rebellion or sedition.
d) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when at least
four (4) persons participate in a free-for-all-fight assaulting each other
in a confused and tumultuous manner.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more
than three (3) persons who are armed or provided with means of vio-
lence.
The disturbance of public order shall be deemed to be tumultuous if
caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence (Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code).
Delivering prisoners from jail
Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court,
to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in
jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the
signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied
Filthyto the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the
guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out.
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? ‘14-
Q7
Filthy is liable for (1) delivery of prisoner from jail (Article 156, Revised
Penal Code) for working out the escape of prisoner Takas; (2) corrup-
tion of publi officials (Article 212, Revised Penal Code) for giving
P500,000.00 to Loko; and (3) falsification of public documents, as a
principal by inducement (Article 172(1) Revised Penal Code)
Loko in conspiracy with Filthy is liable for (1) direct bribery (Article 210,
Revised Penal Code) for accepting the P500,000 in consideration of
the Order she issued to enable Takas to get out of jail; (2) falsification
of public documents for forging the Judge’s signature on said Order
(Article 171, Revised Penal Code); (3) delivery of prisoners from jail
37
(Article 156, Revised Penal Code) for making the false Order and forg-
ing the Judge’s signature thereon, to enable Takas to get out of jail.
The guard is liable for (1) direct bribery for agreeing to open the gate in
consideration of P10,000.00 and (2) infidelity in the custody of prisoner
for consentint to the escape of the prisoner by opening the gate.
To secure the release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner,
and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide,
Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order
which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At
first, the Clerk refused, but when Chito gave her P50,000, she
consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance
of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case.
She forged the judge’s signature, and delivered the Order to the
jail warden, who in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail
in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin
P50,000 to leave the 2 inmates and provide them with an opportu-
nity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What
crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vin-
cent, the Branch Clerk of Court, Edwin, and the jail warden? ’09 –
Q10
The crimes committed in this case are as follows:
a. Chito committed the crimes of:
1. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Article 156, RPC) for
working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent;
2. Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Article 212,
RPC); and
3. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by
inducement (Article 172(1), RPC.)
b. Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail
(Article 156, RPC) as a principal by indispensable coopera-
tion if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have
them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to
such criminal plan; otherwise, he would not be liable for said
crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only.
c. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment,
committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Arti-
cle 157, RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprison-
ment.
d. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:
1. Direct Bribery (Article 210, RPC) for accepting the
P50,000.00 – in consideration of the Order she issued
to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge’s
signature on said Order (Article 156, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Article 156, RPC), as a
co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for
making the false Order and forging the judge’s signa-
ture thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
and
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Article 157, RPC), as a
co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for
making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade
the service of his sentence.
e. Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting
out of jail committed the crimes of:
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically con-
niving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving un-
guarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide
them an opportunity to escape (Article 223, RPC); and
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000 as considera-
tion for leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing
them the opportunity to escape (Article 210, RPC).
f. The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being
no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had
done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to
infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency
medical treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to
the hospital to take him away or help him escape. The prison
guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance
would endanger the lives of other patients, deckled to allow the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was
committed by A's followers? '02 – Q6b
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of
prisoner from Jail (Article 156, RPC). The felony is committed not only
by removing from any jail or penal establishment any person confined
therein but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of said
establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other
means.
Evasion of Service of Sentence
Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner
in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the
syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who
had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio,
became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of
his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he
was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the
guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, en-
abling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and
Edri commit? Explain. (5%) ’15-Q15
ANSWER: Dancio did not commit the crime of evasion of service of
sentence under Article 157 of the Revised Penal Code because this
crime can only be committed by a convict who shall evade service of
his sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by rea-
son of final judgment. Dancio is only a detention prisoner and not a
convict. He is not serving sentence by reason of final judgment but
merely undergoing preventive imprisonment. By escaping while under-
going preventive imprisonment, he is not evading the service of his
sentence.
However, Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under Article
148 for disarming the guards with the use of pistol while they are en-
gaged in the performance of their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the
guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its representa-
tive at all hazard.
[Note: Illegal possession of firearms may also be considered.]
Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through
negligence under Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was negli-
gent in relaxing the inspection of the Brusco’s belongings during jail
visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he subsequent-
ly used to escape. By accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the
syndicate to which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of indirect bribery
under Article 211.
Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156, quali-
fied by his bribery of Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape
constitutes this crime. “Helping” means furnishing the prisoner with the
material means or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence,
providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape is delivery of prisoner
from jail.
The guard was entrusted with the conveyance or custody of a
detention prisoner who escaped through his negligence. What is
the criminal liability of the escaping prisoner? ’12 – Q25
a) The escaping prisoner does not incur criminal liability.
b) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion through neg-
ligence.
c) The escaping prisoner is liable for conniving with or
consenting to, evasion.
d) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion of service of
sentence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The escaping prisoner does not incur criminal liability.
Evasion through negligence (Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code)
and conniving with or consenting to evasion (Article 223) are crimes
committed by public officer in charged with the conveyance or custody
38
of the prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
hence, letters “b” and “c” are not the answer. Evasion of service of
sentence (Article 157) can only be committed by a prisoner by final
judgment, and not by a mere detention prisoner (Curiano vs. CFI, G.R.
No. L-8104, April 15, 1955). Hence, “D” is not the answer. The escape
does not incur criminal liability.
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was
sentenced by the RTC of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of
destierro during which he was not to enter the city. While serving
sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later,
he was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? '98 – Q10-1
YES. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sen-
tence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from
entering under his sentence of destierro.
A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the
convict enters any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering
under the sentence or come within the prohibited radius. Although
destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation
of liberty (People v. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172).
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? '98 – Q10-2
Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he
was arrested. This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a
continuing offense, as the convict is a fugitive from justice in such case
(Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons, L- 28519, 17 Feb. 1968)
Crimes against Public Interest
Forgery
Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial
deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check
for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White.
Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew theP200,000.00 from his ac-
count. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount
of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not
issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray
subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr.
Whitefor P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon re-
ceiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the Na-
tional Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both
through the use of commercial documents. ‘14-Q25
(A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s
claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he
was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not
suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted
estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.
The defense of Mr. Gray that there is no evidence showing that he was
the author of the forgery is unmeritorious. The law provides the pre-
sumption that the possessor and user of a falsified document is te one
who falsified the same. His contentio that Mr. White did not suffer in-
juries is likewise bereft of merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is
not considered in attempted estafa, only in consummated estafa.
(B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because
there was no showing that the second check was a
forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the
second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
Since the first check is forged, such circumstance justifies the entrap-
ment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second
check is also forged. Moreover, even assuming that the entrapment is
illegal, it will not validate the withdrawal based on the second check,
which is also forged. The criminality in forging the second check is not
affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment operation.
How is “forging” committed? ’99 – Q13a
FORGING or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank
note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of
a true and genuine document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeit-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
ing, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs con-
tained therein.
Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article
168 of the RPC? ’99 – Q13b
NO. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone, without
intent to use it, is not punishable. But the circumstances of such pos-
session may indicate intent to utter, sufficient to consummate the crime
of illegal possession of false notes.
The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20
bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed the said
bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to do with the
fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession?
Decide. ’99 – Q13c
YES. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it
may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100
false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b) intent to
utter the same.
Falsification of Documents
Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to
solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea
went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the ceremony, but May-
or Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where May-
or Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the
Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told
them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage
and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he
arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later
turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the
marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized
by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato com-
mit? Explain. (4%) ’15-Q16
Answer: Donato committed the crime of usurpation of function under
Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code because he performed the act
of solemnizing marriage, which pertained to the mayor, a person in
authority, without being lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of illegal
marriage is not committed, because the element that “the offender is
authorized to solemnize marriage” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R.
No. 182438, July 2, 2014.)
Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public document by a public
officer under Article 171. Making an untruthful statement by stating in a
marriage contract, a public document, that the marriage was solem-
nized him, is an act of falsification. The crime of illegal marriage is not
committed because element that “the offender has performed an illegal
marriage ceremony” is lacking (Ronulo v. People G.R. No. 182438,
July 2, 2014).
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carri-
er forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and
encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier com-
mit? ’08 – Q10
In People v. Villanueva, the Supreme Court held that the mail
carrier is guilty of malversation and falsification.
In U.S. v. Gorospe, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime is
infidelity in the custody of documents.
He can be charged with qualified theft since the property stolen is
mail matter (Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan.)
He may also be charged with forgery under Article 169(2), RPC
because there was a material alteration on a genuine document (Luis
B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Volume II, p. 198, 16th Ed., [2006]
citing U.S. v. Solito, 36 Phil. 785.)
He may be charged with falsification under Article 171(1) and (2),
RPC, because he counterfeited the signatures to make it appear that
the payees signed the money order and received payment.
39
How is “falsification” committed? ’99 – Q13a
FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document
which changes its meaning;
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be
a copy of an original document when no such original exists,
or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different
from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance
thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
A falsified official or public document was found in the posses-
sion of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the
accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the
trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or pub-
lic document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who
could have made the erasures and the superimposition men-
tioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus
made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making such
alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although
the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocina-
tion? '99 – Q13d
YES, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in
law that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who
falsified the same.
The accused was a bookkeeper in a department store. He pur-
chased on credit several items in the store and signed chits for
them. In order to avoid paying for the gods, he did not record his
personal account with store the items he purchased and tore up
the chits he had signed. What crime, if any, did he commit? ’75 –
Q15
Falsification of a private document by omission. It is the duty of
the accused as bookkeeper to record in his personal account with the
store the items he purchased. By tearing the chits which he signed for
the purchases, damage is present (People v. Dizon, 47 Phil. 350.)
Falsification of Certificates
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a physician who issues a
false medical certificate in connection with the practice of his
profession? ’12 - Q59
a) The physician is criminally liable for falsification of medical
certificate.
b) The physician is criminally liable if the false medical certifi-
cate is used in court.
c) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical
certificate is not submitted to the court.
d) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical
certificate does not cause prejudice or damage.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The physician is criminally liable for falsification of medical certifi-
cate.
The crime of falsification of medical certificate is committed by any
physician who, in connection, with the practice of his profession, shall
issue a false certificate (Article 174). What is criminal under Article 174
is the issuance of false medical certificate. Submitting the false medical
certificate to the court or causing prejudice or damage is not an ele-
ment of this crime.
The baptism of A was solemnized by B, an ecclesiastical minister,
in the absence of C, one of the godparents. Upon request of the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
mother of A, B caused the inclusion of the name of C in the bap-
tismal certificate of A as one of the godparents and allowed a
proxy for C during the baptismal ceremony. What is the criminal
liability, if any, of the ecclesiastical minister? ’12 - Q68
a) The ecclesiastical minister is criminally liable for falsification
of baptismal certificate by causing it to appear that C participated in the
baptismal ceremony when he did not in fact so participate.
b) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because
the insertion of the name of C in the baptismal certificate will not affect
the civil status of A.
c) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he
is not a public officer, employee or notary.
d) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he
did not take advantage of his official position nor cause damage to a
third party.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because the inser-
tion of the name of C in the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil
status of A.
The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because the insertion
of the name of “C” in the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil
status of “A”.
Moreover, falsification of document by an ecclesiastical minister is
punishable under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. In case the
offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is commit-
ted with respect to any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons (Reyes). Before, the
parochial registries of baptisms were considered as official books and
registers, and the certificates taken from these books were considered
as public documents (US vs. Orosa, G.R. No. 2916, December 29,
2009). Thus, falsification of parochial document, which is considered
public document, was consecutive of the crime of falsification affects
the civil status of a person (See: The Revised Penal Code by Vicente
Francisco). Now, parochial documents are now considered private
writings (US vs. Evangelista, 29 Phil 215), the falsification of which will
not affect the civic status of a person.
False Testimony
Paolo was charged with homicide before the RTC of Manila. An-
drew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot
Abby during their heated argument. While the case is still pend-
ing, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of
the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted.
Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testi-
fied that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was
abroad when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered
the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable
to the defendant in a criminal case. '94 – Q13
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper? '94 – Q13-1
YES. For one to be criminally liable under Article 181, RPC, it is
not necessary that the first criminal case where Andrew testified is
terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove
which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the
statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory state-
ments (People v. Arazola, CAR, 2nd Series, p. 808.)
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on Jan-
uary 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a case of giving false
testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what
legal step will you take? '94 – Q13-2
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information
on the ground of prescription. The crime of false testimony under Arti-
cle 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal
case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Article 180, par. 4,
RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribe in five (5) years
(Article 90, par. 3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on
June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal case was decided with
finality on January 10, 1987 and, hence the prescriptive period of the
crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is
more than five (5) years.
40
Perjury
AA knowingly and willfully induced BB to swear falsely. BB testi-
fied as told in a formal hearing of an administrative case under
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. Is AA criminally
liable? ’12 - Q71
a) AA is not criminally liable because his act constitutes subor-
nation of perjury which is not expressly penalized in the Revised Penal
Code.
b) AA is not criminally liable because he was not the one who
gave false testimony in the administrative case.
c) AA is not criminally liable because the witness suborned
testified in an administrative case only.
d) AA is criminally liable for perjury as principal by inducement
with BB as the principal by direct participation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) AA is criminally liable for perjury as principal by inducement with BB
as the principal by direct participation.
Under Act No. 1697, any person who causes or procures another per-
son to commit perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury. The Revised
Penal Code, which has repealed Act. No. 1697, does not expressly
penalize subordination of perjury. However, a suborner, who causes or
procures another person to commit perjury, is guilty as principal by
inducement. In People vs. Pudol, G.R. No. 45618, October 18, 1938 –
the fact that subordination of perjury is not expressly penalized in the
Revised Penal Code does not mean that the direct induction of a per-
son by another to commit perjury has ceased to be a crime, because
said crime is fully within the scope of the defined in Article 17 (2), of the
said Code.
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for natu-
ralization, with the RTC of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he
is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her in Sampaloc,
Manila; that he is of good moral character; and that he has con-
ducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the
Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni
was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in
Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship. After his di-
rect testimony, Al withdrew his petition for naturalization. What
crime or crimes, if any, did Al commit? ’05 – Q14
Al Chua committed: (1) Perjury (Article 183, RPC); and (2) Con-
cubinage (Article 334, RPC).
The crime of Perjury is committed by Al Chua when he stated
under oath that he was living with Leni Chua in Sampaloc when in fact
he was living with his mistress, and Leni Chua was already living in
Cebu at the time of the filing of the petition. It is a false allegation under
oath, on a material matter required by law in naturalization cases.
The withdrawal of the petition did not have the effect of negating
the crime committed. At the time when the petition was filed, Al Chua
was already living with his mistress Babes Toh in the conjugal dwelling
in Manila, thus committing concubinage.
A, a government employee, was administratively charged with
immorality for having an affair with B, a co-employee in the same
office who believed him to be single. To exculpate himself, A testi-
fied that he was single and was willing to marry B, He induced C
to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, however,
was that A had earlier married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty
of perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination of perjury? '97 –
Q14
NO. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood assert-
ed by him is not material to the charge of immorality. Whether A is
single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a govern-
ment employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil sta-
tus is not a defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a material
matter that could influence the charge.
There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now
treated as plain perjury with the one inducing another as the principal
inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation (People
v. Podol, 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for
perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot
therefore be held responsible as a principal by inducement when he
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not liable as prin-
cipal by direct participation in perjury, having testified on matters not
material to an administrative case.
Crimes against Public Morals
Grave Scandal
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in
Makati City sunbathed naked at its penthouse every Sunday
morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding
office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sun-
day morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on
gazing at her while she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing
became the talk of the town. '96 – Q15
1. What crime, if any, did Pia commit? '96 – Q15-1
Pia did not commit a crime, The felony closest to making Pia crim-
inally liable is Grave Scandal, but then such act is not to be considered
as highly scandalous and offensive against decency and good cus-
toms. In the first place, it was not done in a public place and within
public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the
executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public
and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
2. What crime, if any, did the business executives commit?
'96 – Q15-2
The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts
could not be acts of lasciviousness (as there was no overt lustful act),
or slander, as the eventual talk of the town, resulting from her sun-
bathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives, and besides
such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
Immoral Doctrines and Obscene Publications
Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy developed be-
tween them. One day, Juan sent Petra a booklet contained in a
pay envelope which was securely sealed. The booklet is unques-
tionably indecent and highly offensive to morals. Juan was there-
after charged under par. 3 of Article 201 of the RPC, as amended
by P.D. No. 969, which provides that the penalty of prision mayor
or a fine from P6,000 to P12,000, or both such imprisonment and
fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, give away or
exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are
offensive to morals. Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? ’93 – Q8
NO, Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the law (Arti-
cle 201, RPC) covers only the protection of public morals and not only
the moral of an individual.
Crimes Committed by Public Officers
To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surround-
ing areas that had been devastated by the strongest typhoon. to hit the
country in decades, the Government and other sectors, including
NGOs, banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs was Ba..,gon
Waray, Inc. (BaWI), headed by Mr. Jose Ma. Gulang, its President and
CEO. BaWI operated mainly as a social amelioration and charitable
institution. For its activities in the typhoon-stricken parts of Leyte Prov-
ince, BaWI received funds from all sources, local and foreign, including
substantial amounts from legislators, local government officials and the
EU. After several months, complaints were heard about the very slow
distribution of relief goods and needed social services by BaWI.
The COA reported the results of its audit to the effect that at least P10
Million worth of funds coming from public sources channeled to BaWI
were not yet properly accounted for. The COA demanded reimburse-
ment but BaWI did not respond.
Hence, Mr. Gulang was criminally charged in the Office of the Om-
budsman with malversation of public funds and failure of accountable
officer to render accounts as respectively defined and punished by Art.
217 and Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code. He was also· charged
with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for causing undue injury to
the Government.
41
In his defense, Mr. Gulang mainly contended that he could not be held
1iable under the various· charges because he was not a public officer.
’17 – Q5
(a) Who is a public officer? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) Under Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who,
by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall
perform in said Government or in any of its branches public du-
ties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class, shall be deemed to be a public officer
(b) Discuss whether the crimes charged against Mr. Gu-
lang are proper. Explain your answer. (3%)
As a general rule, malversation and failure to render accounting can
only be committed by an accountable public officer. However, Article
222 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the provisions on malver-
sation and failure to render account shall apply to private individuals
who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provincial
or municipal funds, revenues or property. The charges, therefore,
against Mr. Gulaog for malversation and failure to render accounting
are proper although he is a private individual.
As a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of
RA No. 3019 if he conspired with a public officer in committing this
crime (Go "· The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April
13, 2007). However, there is no showing in this case that a public offi-
cer violated RA No. 3019 and Mr. Gulang conspired with that public
officer in committing this crime. Hence, the charge against Mr. Gulang
as a private individual without a co-accused, who is a public officer, is
improper.
Who are public officers? ’99 – Q7a
Public officers are persons, who by direct provision of the law,
popular election or appointment by competent authority, takes part in
the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philip-
pines, of performs in said Government or in any of its branches public
duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class (Article 203, RPC.)
Direct Bribery
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a
drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the
judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused
agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk
of court. ‘14-Q14
The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence
and convicted the accused. (4%)
(A) Malowas charged with violation of Section 3(b), Repub-
lic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer
from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the
public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene
under the law. He was later charged also with indirect
bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he
can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal
Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?
No. One may be charged with violatio of RA No. 3019 in addition to a
felony under the Revised Penal Code for the same delictual act, either
concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the
Revised Penal Code. This is very clear from Section 3 of RA 3019.
Also, RA 3019 is a special law, the elements of the crime is not the
same as those punished under the Revised Penal Code.
(B) Malowas charged with estafa under Article 315 because
he misrepresented that he had influence, when he ac-
tually had none. Is the charge correct?
Yes. Estafa is committed by any person who shall ask money from
another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee
when in truth the offender intended to convert the money to his own
personal use and benefit (Article 315 (2)(c) of the Revisd Penal Code).
A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money handed
over to him commits: ’11 – Q50
(A) no crime.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
(B) attempted bribery.
(C) consummated bribery.
(D) frustrated bribery.
Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. From which of
the following elements of direct bribery can moral turpitude be
inferred? ’11 – Q51
(A) The offender receives a gift by himself or through another.
(B) The offender is a public officer.
(C) The offender takes a gift with a view to committing a crime in ex-
change.
(D) The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes
is connected with his official duties.
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for sell-
ing 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a
poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the
Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the
amount of P500,000 in consideration for the destruction by
Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State
with reasons whether Patrick committed the following crimes:
1. Direct Bribery;
2. Indirect Bribery;
3. Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act);
4. Obstruction of Justice under P.D. No. 1829. '05 – Q10
Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of
the RPC, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Prac-
tices Act (R.A. No. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section
1(b) of P.D. No. 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for consideration
of P500,000.00, he committed a violation of P.D. No. 1829 by destroy-
ing the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him in him official ca-
pacity.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the
P500,000.00 as a consideration for destroying evidence against the
offender, which was under his official custody as a public officer. The
money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason
of his public office.
Patrick also violated of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 causing
undue injury to the government through evident bad faith, giving un-
warranted benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of a crime.
Obstruction of justice under Section 1(b) of P.D. No. 1829 is
committed by destroying evidence intended to be used in official pro-
ceedings in a criminal case.
Qualified Bribery
What is the crime of qualified bribery? ’10 – Q2a
Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer who is
entrusted with law enforcement and who, in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or offer, refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death (Art. 211-A, RPC.)
May a judge be charged and prosecuted for qualified bribery?
How about a public prosecutor? A police officer? ’10 – Q2b
NO, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official
duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but the determination of
cases already filed in court.
On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted for this
crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside from dereliction of duty
committed in violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should
he refrain from prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present.
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting such of-
fender for the same consideration above-stated, may be prosecuted for
this felony since he is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement.
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a
Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria
42
Estrada v. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada,
Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he was given the neces-
sary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for exe-
cution in the total amount of P550, aside from P2,000 in consider-
ation of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her
lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. ’01 – Q10
1. What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? ’01 – Q10-1
The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the sec-
ond paragraph of Article 210, RPC, since the P2,000 was received by
him “in consideration” of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execu-
tion which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
Alternative Answer:
On the premise that even without the P2,000.00, Sheriff Ben Ri-
vas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that he would be
implementing the writ only because of the P2,000.00, the receipt of the
amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by reason of
his office and not as a “consideration” for the performance of an official
duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said sheriff.
2. Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her
lawyer and if so, what crime? ’01 – Q10-2
On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-
money, the crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212,
RPC.
Indirect Bribery
Arevalo, a judge who heard a civil case, received gifts from Mari-
cel, the plaintiff therein, but rendered judgment in favor of Julie,
the defendant therein. Who are criminally liable, and for what
crime or crimes? ’93 – Q3
Arevalo, the Judge, is liable for indirect bribery (Article 210, RPC)
and for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (Sec-
tion 7(d) R.A. No. 6713 and P.D. No. 46.)
Maricel is liable for corruption of public officers (Article, 212, RPC
and P.D. No. 46.)
Malversation
Governor A was give the amount of P10 million by the Department
of Agriculture for the purpose of buying seedlings to be dis-
tributed to the farmers. Supposedly intending to modernize the
farming industry in his province, Governor A bought farm equip-
ment through direct purchase from XY ■Enterprise, owned by his
kumpare B, the alleged exclusive distributor of the said equip-
ment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a
pending patent application or the said farm equipment. Moreover,
the equipment purchased turned out to be overpriced.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Governor A?
Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q5
Governor A committed the crimes of: (1) Technical Malversation;
and (2) Violation of Sections 3 (e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Governor A committed the crime of illegal use of public funds or
property punishable under Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code. This
offense is also known as technical malversation. The crime has three
elements: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that
he applies public funds or property under his administration to some
public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property
had been applied is different from the purpose for which they were
originally appropriated by law or ordinance (Ysidoro v. People, G.R.
No. 192330, 14 November 2012).
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Governor A can also be held liable for Violation of Section. 3 (e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
which has the following elements: (1) the accused is a public officer
discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must
have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcus-
able negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
The facts show that the first element is present The second ele-
ment is likewise present because, “through manifest partiality” in favor-
ing his kumpare, Governor A did not hold a public bidding and directly
purchased the farm equipment from the latter. With respect to the third
element, Governor A’s actions caused undue injury to to the govern-
ment as well as the farmers who were deprived of the seedlings. His
acts likewise gave his kumpare, a private party, the unwarranted bene-
fit, advantage or preference, to the exclusion of other interested sup-
pliers.
The act committed by the Governor is also in violation of Section
3 (g) of RA No. 3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the govern-
ment which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same.
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X
Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter as-
sistance program whereby construction materials were provided
to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor.
The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries
stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they
needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When
informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdraw-
al of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program,
which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter
assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining
to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding pro-
gram were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. ’15-
Q8
a) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-
Q8a
Answer: Mayor Maawaiin committed the crime of Illegal use of pub-
lic funds or property punishable under Article 220 of the RPC. This
offense is also known as Technical Malversation. The crime has
three (3) elements: 1. That the offender is an accountable public
officer, 2. That he applies public funds or property under his Admin-
istration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which
such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose
which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. The
funds for the feeding program are not specifically appropriated for
the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program in X Municipali-
ty’s annual budget. Mayor Maawain ought to use the boxes of food
earmarked particularly for the feeding program, which would cater
only to the malnourished among his constituents who needed the
resource for proper nourishment.
b) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that
he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes
of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance pro-
gram? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-Q8b
43
Answer: b) No. Mayor Maawain cannot revoke good faith when he
approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to
the Shelter Assistance program. “Criminal intent is not an element of
technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public
property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular purpose to
another public purpose. The offensive is mala prohibita, meaning that
the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal
offense because positive law forbids its commission based on consid-
erations of public policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission
of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof
that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence,
malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.” (Ysidoro v. People,
GR No. 192990, 14 November 2012).
What crime is committed by a public officer who, having control
of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
and for which he is accountable, permits any other person
through abandonment to take such public funds or property? ’12 -
Q70
a) The public officer commits malversation.
b) The public officer commits technical malversation.
c) The public officer commits the crime of failure of accountable
or responsible officer to render accounts.
d) The public officer commits the crime of failure to make deliv-
ery of public funds or property.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The public officer commits malversation.
It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation even if he does
not use public property or funds under his custody for his personal
benefit, if he allows another to take the funds, or through abandonment
of negligence, allow suck taking. The felony may be committed, not
only through the misappropriation or the conversion of public funds or
property to one’s personal use, but also by knowingly allowing others
to make use of or misappropriate the funds. The felony may thus be
committed by dolo or by culpa. The crime is consummated and the
appropriate penalty is imposed regardless of whether the mode of
commission is with intent or due to negligence (People vs. Pantaleon,
G. R. No. 158694-96, Mar. 13, 2009).
In malversation of public funds, the offender’s return of the
amount malversed has the following effect: ’11 – Q19
(A) It is exculpatory.
(B) It is inculpatory, an admission of the commission of the crime.
(C) The imposable penalty will depend on what was not returned.
(D) It is mitigating.
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of
San Rafael, Leyte, caused the distribution of public funds allocat-
ed for their local development programs for 2008. Records show
that the amount of P2-millon was purportedly used as financial
assistance for a rice production project. Upon investigation, how-
ever, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disburse-
ment vouchers in order to make it appear that qualified recipients
who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.
Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsifica-
tion and violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 for causing
undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the
charges filed against Roger and Jessie. ’09 – Q16
The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct
because the falsifications of several documents were not necessary to
obtain the money that was malversed. The falsifications were commit-
ted to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore, should be sepa-
rately treated from malversation. The given facts state that Roger and
Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents “in
order to make it appear” that qualified recipients received the money.
Article 48, RPC on complex crimes is not applicable.
They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No.
3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury caused to the
Government. The violation is a crime malum prohibitum.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the
property of Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of
ABC Corp., a GOCC with an original charter. However, the repre-
sentative of the winning corporation failed to attend the auction
sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased the property for
P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount
to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent
the money to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the
amount within 2 months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna
reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC, Eliseo failed to
remit the said amount. ’08 – Q14
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Eliseo commit? ’08 –
Q14-1
Eliseo committed Malversation for allowing Myrna to misappropri-
ate the money for which he, as Sheriff, is accountable (Article 217,
RPC.) In this case, the act of Eliseo of lending the amount to his of-
ficemate is tantamount to permitting any other person to take the public
funds, considering that the P100,000 involved is public funds, it should
be turned-over to the Office of the Clerk of Court.
2. Would your answer to the 1st question be the same if
ABC was a private corporation? ’08 – Q14-2
The answer would be the same since even if ABC is a private
corporation, Eliseo is still accountable for it, and the same should be
delivered to the Court.
In 1982, the PNB, then a government banking institution, hired
Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he
resigned and was employed by the PDIC, another government-
owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB man-
agement unearthed many irregularities and violations of the
bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have ma-
nipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time de-
posits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged with
malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a
motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of
the PNB but of the PDIC. '06 – Q6
1. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? '06 – Q6-1
No, de la Renta’s contention is not tenable for three reasons:
a. His contention that he is no longer an employee of PNB but
of PDIC has no merit since both PNB and PDIC are govern-
ment institutions and the funds thereof belong to the same
Government who suffers from the malversation (Section 4,
P.D. No. 1606, as amended);
b. Resignation or separation from office is not a ground for
extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code, for any crime committed while the offender was
connected with the office; and
c. The crime of malversation was discovered only in 1995 and
so, the prescriptive period of the crime only commenced to
run from then. Obviously, the amount misappropriated ex-
ceeds P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is within range
of prision mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision may-
or prescribe in 15 years. From 1995 to the present (2006) is
only around 11 years. Hence, the crime can still be prose-
cuted.
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for
his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an oppo-
sition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as
he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the
PDIC. Explain whether he may or may not be suspend-
ed. '06 – Q6-2
The accused may be validly suspended from office in PDIC be-
cause PDIC is a government-owned and controlled corporation; hence,
a public office. When the Information charges the accused with acts of
fraud involving Government funds, the suspension of the accused
pendent lite assumes a mandatory character and the court may order
the suspension of the accused regardless of whether or not the prose-
cution files a motion for the preventive suspension of the accused, or
the motion is filed by the counsel of the government agency con-
44
cerned, with or without the conformity of the public prosecutor (Robles
v. Layosa, 436 SCRA 337 [2004].)
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a RTC, levied on the
personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before said
court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued by the court.
Among the properties levied upon and deposited inside the "evi-
dence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a
refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs
and several lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the
judgment creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out
that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes,
chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the
police detectives assigned to the case, these missing items were
found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he
only borrowed them temporarily. If you were the fiscal /prosecu-
tor, what would be the nature of the information to be filed against
the accused? '01 – Q4
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for
Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chain and
lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under
his accountability as a public officer. Said properties being under levy,
are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the character of public
property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of malversa-
tion although said properties belonged to a private individual (Article
222, RPC).
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of
trust, he applied them to his own private use and benefit. His allegation
that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of
merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact
that it was only “after due and diligent sleuthing by the police detec-
tives assigned to the case”, that the missing items were found in the
house of Santos, negates his pretension.
Alternative Answer:
An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the sheriff
had already deposited the properties levied upon in the “evidence
room” of the Clerk of Court and may have already been relieved of his
accountability therefor.
If Juan Santos was no longer the public officer who should be
accountable for the properties levied upon and found in his house, his
taking of such properties would no longer constitute Malversation but
Theft, as there was taking with intent to gain, of personal property of
another without the consent of the latter.
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehouse-
men of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG se-
questered the assets, fund and properties of the owners-incorpo-
rators of the store, alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten wealth"
of the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos
were appointed as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they
were given custody and possession of the sequestered building
and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's
operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and
it was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After
demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give
any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn
them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversa-
tion of Public Property. During the trial, the two accused claimed
that they are not public accountable officers and, if any crime was
committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the
RPC. What is the proper offense committed? '01 – Q5
The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public Proper-
ty, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their applica-
tion, were constituted as “fiscal agents” of the sequestered firm and
were “given custody and possession” of the sequestered properties,
including the delivery vans which later they could not account for. They
were thus made the depositary and administrator of properties de-
posited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/posi-
tion they are accountable for such properties. Such properties, having
been sequestered by the Government through the PCGG, are in cus-
todia legis and therefore impressed with the character of public proper-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
ty, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Article
222, RPC).
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explana-
tion why the vans were missing, is prima facie evidence that they had
put the same to their personal use.
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or
property? '99 – Q11a
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any pub-
lic officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for
public funds or property, shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person
to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall other-
wise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property (Article 217, RPC.)
How is malversation distinguished from estafa? ’99 – Q11b
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed
by an accountable public officer involving public funds or property un-
der his custody and accountability; while estafa is committed by a non-
accountable public officer or private individual involving funds or prop-
erty for which he is not accountable to the government.
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property,
encashed with public funds private checks drawn in favor of his
wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in
the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private
checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office. Not-
withstanding restitution of the amount of the checks, can the Mu-
nicipal Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime
did he commit? '99 – Q11c
YES, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the check,
the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally liable as restitution does not
negate criminal liability although it may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance similar or analogous to voluntary surrender (People v.
Velasquez, 73 Phil 98 [1941]), He will be criminally liable for malversa-
tion.
However, if the restitution was made immediately, under vehe-
ment protest against an imputation of malversation and without leaving
the office, he may not be criminally liable.
Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales. On
January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, from the
DPWH, the amount of P100,000 known as the fund for construc-
tion, rehabilitation, betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zam-
bales, a project undertaken on proposal of the Barangay Captain.
Informed that the fund was already exhausted while the concret-
ing of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representa-
tive of the Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Eliza-
beth who failed to account for the P100,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth,
who was charged with malversation of public funds, was acquit-
ted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was nevertheless
convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal use of public
funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erro-
neous as she applied the amount of P50,000.00 for a public pur-
pose without violating any law or ordinance appropriating the
said amount for any specific purpose. The absence of such law or
ordinance was, in fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth
legally tenable? '96 – Q5
Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of public
funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, is legally tenable be-
cause she was charged for malversation of public funds under Article
217 of the RPC but was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which
is defined and punished under Article 220 of said Code. A public officer
charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of illegal use of
public funds (technical malversation) because the latter crime is not
necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of
malversation. The Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure
provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the filing
of the proper Information (Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA
45
173). From the facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordi-
nance appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a mat-
ter of fact, the problem categorically states that “The absence of such
law or ordinance was, in fact, established.” So, procedurally and sub-
stantially, the Sandiganbayan's decision suffers from serious infirmity.
Conniving with or Consenting Evasion
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a deten-
tion prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal jail and
entertain visitors in his house from 10 AM to 8 PM. B returned to
the municipal jail at 8:30 PM. Was there any crime committed by
A? '97 – Q11
YES, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a pris-
oner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody
over B. Even if B returned to the municipal Jail at 8:30 P.M. A, as cus-
todian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his
office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his
imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of
being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual
evasion of service under Article 223 of the RPC (People v. Bandino, 29
Phil. 459).
Anticipation of Duties of a Public Office
What crime is committed when a person assumes the perfor-
mance of duties and powers of a public office or employment
without first being sworn in? ’12 – Q26
a) anticipation of duties of a public office;
b) usurpation of authority;
c) prohibited transaction;
d) unlawful appointment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) anticipation of duties of a public office;
The crime of anticipation of duties of a public office is committed by
any person who shall assume the performance of the duties and pow-
ers of any public office or employment without first being sworn in or
having given the bond required by law Article 236 of the Revised Penal
Code).
Prolonging Performance of Duties and Powers
[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2.5%) ’16
– Q2(a)
“Malfeasance” is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at
all.
“Misfeasance” is the improper doing of an act which a person may/
might lawfully do.
“Nonfeasance” is the omission of an act which a person ought to do.
{Black's Dictionary, 6th Edition, West Publishing 1990)
[b] Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)
’16 – Q2(b)
There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: wheel
or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy.
A "wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single person or
group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or
groups (the spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather
than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common
purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the in-
stances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the oth-
er spokes, there are multiple conspiracies.
A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when there is
successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as
with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and whole-
saler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer
{Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, 26 February 2002).
AA was appointed for a two-year term to serve the unexpired por-
tion of a resigned public official. Despite being disqualified after
the lapse of the two-year term, PA continued to exercise the du-
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
ties and powers of the public office to which appointed. What is
the criminal liability of AA? ’12 – Q10
a) AA is criminally liable for malfeasance in office.
b) AA is criminally liable for prolonging performance of duties
and powers.
c) AA is criminally liable for disobeying request for disqualifi-
cation.
d) AA incurs no criminal liability because there is no indica-
tion that he caused prejudice to anyone.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) AA is criminally liable for prolonging performance of duties and
powers.
The crime of prolonging performance of duties and powers is commit-
ted by any public officer who shall continue to exercise the duties and
powers of his office, employment or commission, beyond the period
provided by law, regulations or special provision applicable to the case
(Article 237 of the Revised Penal Code).
Abandonment of Office
What crime is committed by a public officer who, before the ac-
ceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office to the detri-
ment of the public service in order to evade the discharge of the
duties of preventing, prosecuting or punishing the crime of trea-
son? ’12 – Q27
a) abandonment of office or position;
b) qualified abandonment of office;
c) misprision of treason;
d) negligence in the prosecution of offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) qualified abandonment of office;
Abandonment of office or position is committed by any public officer
who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office
to the detriment of the public service. The crime is qualified if the pur-
pose of abandonment is to evade the discharge of the duties of pre-
venting, prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes falling within Title
One, and Chapter One of Title Three of Book Two of the Revised Penal
Code such as treason (Article 238). Hence, the crime committed is
qualified abandonment of office.
Crimes Against Persons
Rape
Sixteen year old Aliswan prodded Amethyst, his girlfriend, to remove
her clothing while they were secretly together in her bedroom late one
evening. Failing to get a positive response from her, he forcibly un-
dressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the house-
hold who did not know of his presence inside her room, she resisted
him with minimal strength, but she was really sobbing in a muffled
manner. He then undressed himself while blocking- the door. Yet, the
image of a hapless and sobbing Amethyst soon brought him to his
senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did not notice in
his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting
alone on a sofa in the sala, saw him leave his daughter's room naked.
Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan spotted Allesso,
Amethyst's former suitor. Knowing how Allesso had aggressively pur-
sued Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso. Aliswan immediately
went into hiding afterwards.
Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an
enraged Amante wanted to teach Aliswan a lesson he would never
forget. Amante set out the next day to look for Aliswan in his school.
There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like Aliswan.
Amante immediately rushed and knocked the young man unconscious
on the pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared tarpaulin
reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN. Everyone else in the school
was shocked upon witnessing what had just transpired, unable to be-
lieve that the timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan's identical twin brother, had
committed rape.’17 -Q2
(a) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with
homicide was brought against Aliswan in the Prosecu-
tor's Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the
Investigating Prosecutor recommended the filing of two
separate informations - one for attempted rape and the
46
other for homicide. Do you agree with the recommenda-
tion? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
I do not agree with the recommendation for the filing or attempted
rape. Intent to have sexual Intercourse is an essential element of
attempted rape. In other words, intent to lie with the victim must
be ~loser. However, this intent is not established for failure to
show that Aliswan had done acts to have sex with Amethyst (Cruz
v.· People, G.R. No. 166441, October 08,2014, Bersamin); or that
Aliswan had actually commenced to force his penis into the vic-
tim's sexual organ (People v.· Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, Decem-
ber 11, 2013). Moreover, he spontaneously desisted from commit-
ting further lascivious acts after undressing Amethyst which is a
defense in attempted rape. Undressing the victim with lewd de-
sign merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness (People v. Sanico,
G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).
(b) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases
should be dismissed because he was entitled to the
exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion cor-
rect? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Since Aliswao 's age is above 15 but below 18, being the
brother of 16 year old Aliswan, the exempting circumstance of
minority shall be appreciated in his favor unless it is shown that
be acted with discernment. The cases are not dismissible since
the prosecution mUst be first given opportunity to present evi-
dence to establish that Aliswan acted with discernment.
(c) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you
about filing the proper criminal complaint against Amante. What
crimes, if any, will you charge Amante with? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) In People v. Lasala (G.R. No. L-12141, January 30,
1962) which is similar to this case, the Supreme
Court ruled that the crime committed is Less Seri-
ous Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the Revised
Penal Code as the medical attendance is for a peri-
od of ten (10) days only.
Considering, however, that the Less Serious Physical Injuries was
inflicted with manifest intent to insult or offend the offended party
or under circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, there
shall be an added penalty of the fine not exceeding P500 pesos
(Art. 265, par. 2)
(d)
Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante
contended that he had incurred no criminal liability for
lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim
being Aliswan, not Alisto. What is this defense of
Amante, and explain if the same will prosper? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(e) The defense raised by Amante is error in personae.
This defense is not proper because of Article 4 of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a per-
son committing a felony is liable criminally al-
though the wrongful act done be different from the
unlawful intent. Thus, under this provision, Amante
is liable for the wrongful act done, and that is child
abuse against Alisto, although it differs from the
wrongful act intended, and that is abusing Aliswan.
Maita was the object of Solito's avid sexual desires. Solito had at-
tempted many times to entice Maita to a date in bed with him but Maita
had consistently refused. Fed up with all her rejections, Solito abduct-
ed Maita around 7 p.m. one night. With his cohorts, Solito forced Maita
into a Toyota lnnova and drove off with her to a green-painted house
situated in a desolate part of the town. There, Solito succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of Maita against her will.
Meanwhile, the police authorities were tipped off that at 11:30 p.m. on
that same night Solito would be selling marijuana outside the green-
painted house. Acting on the tip, the PNP station of the town formed a
buy-bust team with PO2 Masahol being designated the poseur buyer.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
During the buy-bust operation, Solito opened the trunk of the Toyota
lnnova to retrieve the bag of marijuana to be sold to PO2 Masahol. To
cut the laces that he had tied the bag with, Solito took out a Swiss
knife, but his doing so prompted PO2 Masahol to effect his immediate
arrest out of fear that he would attack him with the knife. PO2 Masahol
then confiscated the bag of marijuana as well as the Toyota lnnova.
(a) Two informations were filed against Solito in the RTC -
one for forcible abduction with rape, raffled to Branch 8
of the RTC; the other for illegal sale of drugs, assigned
to Branch 29 of the RTC. Was Solito charged with the
proper offenses based on the circumstances? Explain
your answer. (5%) ’17 – Q4
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) The charge of rape through forcible abduction is
correct. The rule is settled that if the main objective
of the accused is to rape the victim, the crime is
rape even if he abducted for her forcefully. Forcible
abduction is absorbed. The doctrine of absorption
rather than Article 48 of RPC is applicable since
forcible abduction is an indispensable is an indis-
pensable means to commit rape (people v. Mejo-
randay, G.R. No. 102795m July 30, 1993; People v.
Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002; People v.
Sabadiab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012). If
forcible abduction, however, is a necessary means
to commit rape, this is a complex crime proper un-
der Article 48 of RPC (people v. Tami, G.R. Nos.
101801-03, May 02, 1995).
Where the victim was abducted with lew design and brought to a
house (People v. Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988;
People v. Buhos, G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980; En Banc; Peo-
ple v. Velasquez, G.R. No. 137383-84, November 23, 2000) in a
desolated place e.g. uninhabited grass upland (people v. Caraang,
G.R. No. 1247027, December 11, 2003) orforest People v. De Lara
G.R. No. 124703, June 27, 2000) where she was raped, forcible
abduction should be treated as a necessary means to commit
rape, and thus, the crime committed is a complex crime of rape
through forcible abduction under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
Code.
The charge of sale dangerous drugs is improper, since this crime
is consummated only upon the delivery of the dangerous drugs to
the poseur buyer for a consideration. Since in this case Solito has
not yet delivered the marijuana to PO2 Masahol when the latter
apprehended the form, the crime committed is not sale of dan-
gerous drugs but attempted sale of dangerous drugs. In People v.
Figuroa (G.R. no. 186141, April 11, 2012), where the sale was
aborted when the police officers immediately placed accused
under arrest, the crime committed is attempted sale.
(b) While the Prosecution was presenting its evidence in
Branch 29, Branch 8 convicted Solito. Immediately after
the judgment of conviction was promulgated, Solito filed
in both Branches a motion for the release of the Toyota
lnnova. He argued and proved that he had only bor-
rowed the vehicle from his brother, the registered own-
er. Branch 8 granted the motion but Branch 29 denied
it. Were the two courts correct in their rulings? Explain
your answer. (5%)
47
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) Yes. The two courts were correct in their rulings. The applica-
ble provisions of law are Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code and
Section 20 of RA No 9165. Under Article 45 of the Revised Penal
Code, every penalty imposed for the commission of a felony shall
include the forfeitureof the instruments or tools with which the
crime was committed, unless they be the property of a third per-
son not liable for the offense. The Supreme Court ruled that the
return of the instrument or tools to its owner cannot be prevented
unless said owner is charged with the offense for which said in-
strument or tool was used (PDEA v. Brodett, G.R. No. 1963990,
September 28, 2011, citing People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, Feb-
ruary 6, 1971). The Supreme Court further held that the foregei-
ture of said instrument or tools, if warranted, would be part of the
penalty prescribed (PDEA v. Brotte supra). Hence, the determina-
tion of whether it will be forfeited could be made only when judg-
ment is rendered.
In this case, the RTC Branch 8 already rendered a judgment of
conviction against Solito. Solito was able to prove that the car
belonged to his brother who was not charged with forcible abduc-
tion with rape; hence, it was correct for the RTC brnch 8 to order
the release of the Toyota Innova to his brother who is not liable
for the offense.
On the other hand, Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 satates in part, “(d)
uring the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no
property, or income derived (from the unlawful sale of any dan-
gerous drug), which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be
disposed, alienated, or transferred and the same shall be in cus-
todia legis, and no bond shall be admitted for the release of the
same.” The Supreme Court ruled that it is premature to release
the car used in the sale of dangerous drugs while the trial is still
ongoing (PDEA v. Brodett supra). The Supreme Court explained
that the status of the car for the duration of the trial of the RTC as
being in custodia legis primarily intended to preserve it as evi-
dence to ensure its availability as such (PDEA v. Bodett, supra).
The RTC Branch 29, thus was correct in denying Solito’s motion
to release the Toyota Innova considering that the trial for illegal
sale of drugs is still ongoing.
If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape by carnal knowledge, how does the accused
commit attempted rape by carnal knowledge? (2%) ’17 -Q6
SUGGESTED ANSWER
To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge, the
penis of the accused must not touch the labia of the pudendum of
the victim but his acts must be committed with clear intention to
have sexual intercourse. Intent to have sexual intercourse is
present if it is shown that the erectile penis of the accused is in
the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, Octo-
ber 08, 2014) or the accused actually commenced to force his
pen.is into the victim's sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, G.R. No.
202060, December II, 2013). If the offender touches the body of the
victim through force, with lewd design but without clear intention.
to have sexual intercourse, the crime committed is acts of lasciv-
iousness (People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).
(a) the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape by carnal knowledge, how does
the accused commit attempted rape by carnal
knowledge? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge, the
penis of the accused must not touch the labia of the pudendum of
the victim but his acts must be committed with clear intention to
have sexual intercourse. Intent to have sexual intercourse is
present if it is shown that the erectile penis of the accused is in
the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, Octo-
ber 08, 2014) or the accused actually commenced to force his
pen.is into the victim's sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, G.R. No.
202060, December II, 2013). If the offender touches the body of the
victim through force, with lewd design but without clear intention.
to have sexual intercourse, the crime committed is acts of lasciv-
iousness (People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, August 13, 2014).
Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Informa-
tion alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time the crime was
committed and that Charlie was AAA's stepfather. The presenta-
tion of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly established the
following: (1) that AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the
rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the late
CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after CCC's
death. The RTC found Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal,
the Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of simple rape. Charlie
appealed before the Supreme Court. How will you rule and why?
(3%) ’15-Q22
ANSWER: The CA ruling is correct. The crime committed by Charlie is
simple rape. To be held liable for qualified rape, a qualifying circum-
stance should be alleged in the information and proven by evidence
beyond reasonable doubt. Although minority and relationship as a
qualifying circumstance are alleged in the information, what is proven
by the evidence is the qualifying mother of victim. The concept of step-
relationship is different from that of common-law relationship because
the former the mother of the victim and the offender are legally married
while in the latter they are not. To appreciate this qualifying circum-
stance of minority and common-law relationships will offend the consti-
tutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the crime
charger against him.
Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she
was already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to
take advantage of the situation and drove Sexy to a deserted
place where he raped her for a period of two (2) weeks. What
crime did Pogi commit? ‘14-Q12
A: The crime committed by Pogi is kidnapping and serious illegal de-
tention with rape. Since Sexy was raped for two weeks, there was a
clear deprivatio of liberty, which constitutes the crime of kidnapping
with serious illegal detention. The crime is comimitted when one kid-
naps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives her of his
liberty and the kidnapping or detention has lasted more than three
days or the victim is a female. Since as a consequence of the deten-
tion, the victim is raped, the crime committed is special complex crime
of kidnapping with rape. No matter how many rapes had been commit-
ted in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant
crime is only kidnapping with rape. This is because these composite
acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact RA No 7659
punishes these acts with only single penalty (People v. Mirandilla, Jr.
GR No. 186417, July 27, 2011).
A criminal action for rape is extinguished when the offender is
forgiven by: ’11 – Q70
(A) the offender’s wife who herself is the rape victim.
(B) his wife for having raped another woman.
(C) the rape victim’s husband.
(D) the rape victim herself.
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced
to death. It was alleged in the information that the victim was a
minor below 7 years old, and her mother testified that she was
only 6 years and 10 months old, which her aunt corroborated on
48
the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused
was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution. On au-
tomatic review before the Supreme Court, accused-appellant con-
tends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him be-
cause of the inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of
the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of
rape beyond reasonable doubt. Is appellant's contention correct?
'04 – Q6b
YES, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the
victim is concerned. The age of the victim raped has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as qualified rape and
deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a
qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth
certificate;
2. In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim
maybe proven by authentic document, such as baptismal
certificate and school records;
3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear
and credible of the victim's mother or any member of the
family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify
on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or
date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40,
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but
only under the following circumstances: (a) If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 12 years old; (c) If the victim is
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic docu-
ment, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above-
stated, complainant's sole testimony can suffice, provided
that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused
(People v. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002].)
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of
1997, amending the RPC? '02 – Q8a
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997
are:
1. Having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of
fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
2. Having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man
even if none of the circumstances required in rape be
present; and
3. Committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's
penis into the victim's mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against
honor, a private offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will
the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? '02 – Q8b
YES. By express provision of Article 266-C of the RPC, as
amended, the subsequent valid marriage between the offender and
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty im-
posed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against
chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through
threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the
anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? '02 – Q9a
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual
assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter.
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par.
2 of Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended, “when the offender's penis
is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice.”
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to QC which was dri-
ven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing
his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not
bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and
became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City,
Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was
detained for two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration
of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the
crime of rape with serious illegal detention? '00 – Q10
NO, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape
with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of
multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished
separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna;
the detention was only incidental to the rape.
Alternative Answer:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape
with serious illegal detention, since the detention was incurred in rap-
ing the victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may be
prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite
against the latter's will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction
should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and
the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as
many rapes were charged and proved.
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an
intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years,
when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by
the accused, replied “Masarap, it gave me much pleasure.” With
the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee
to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the
complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were
the judge trying the case? '96 – Q12
YES, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a
mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12
years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sex-
ual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory
rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve
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, 31 March 1995) As a matter of fact, R.A. No. 7659,
the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the
phrase "or is demented."
Rape with Homicide
Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and
charms, attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would
become a nun, Pretty turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of
her most persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one
night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together
with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an
abandoned warehouse where heand Pogi forced Pretty to dance
for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her.After satisfying
their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house. ‘14-Q8
(A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?
The crimes committed by Guapo and Pogi are Forcible Abduction with
rape. There is no doubt at all that the forcible abduction of Pretty as
she walked home was a necessary if not indispensable means which
enabled them to commit the successive acts of rape upon her person.
It bears noting, however, that even while the first act of rape was being
performed, the crime of forcible abduction had already been consum-
mated, so that the second rape cannot be legally considered as still
connected with the abduction—in other words, the second rape should
be detached from, and considered independently of, that of forcible
abduction and therefore, the former can no longer by complexed with
the latter. (People v Jose, GR No. L-28232; People v. Garcia GR No.
141125)
49
(B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life
by hanging herself one hour after the rape. Would
Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death? Ex-
plain.
Guapo and Pogi cannot be held liable for the death of Pretty due to
suicide committed by reason of the rapes. Suicide is an intervening
cause that breaks the connection between the rapes and death. The
death resulting from suicide cannot be considered as the direct, natural
and logical consequence of the rapes committeed by Guapo and Pogi.
In People v. Napudo (GR No. 168448), the victim committed suicide
due to rape. However the accused was only charged with and convict-
ed of rape.
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house,
occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in
the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta’s room with the
use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao rav-
ished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed
Loretta to her death and, before leaving the room, took her jewel-
ry. ’09 – Q17
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit? ’09
– Q17-1
Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special com-
plex crime of rape with homicide; (2) theft; and (3) unlawful possession
of picklocks and similar tools under Article 304, RPC.
His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and
with the use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of
Loretta by reason of or on the occasion of the rape, gave rise to the
special complex crime of rape with homicide. Since the taking of the
jewelry was an afterthought, as it was done when he was about to
leave the room and when Loretta was already dead, the same consti-
tutes theft. His possession and use of the picklock “without lawful
cause” is by itself punishable under Article 304, RPC.
2. Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating
circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of
picklocks to enter the room of the victim. ’09 – Q17-2
Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in
the privacy of Loretta’s room which in law is considered as her
dwelling. It is well-settled that “dwelling” includes a room in a boarding
house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy,
peace of mind and sanctity of abode.
Nocturnity or night time is also aggravating because although it
was not purposely or especially sought after for by Wenceslao, night
time was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other
crimes. Under the objective test, nocturnity is aggravating when taken
advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus
facilitating the same.
The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an
aggravating circumstance under Article 14 of the Code but punished as
a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing
it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery
with force upon things.
3. Would your answer be to (1) be the same if, despite the
serious stab wounds she sustained, Loretta survived?
’09 – Q17-3
NO, the answer will be different. In that case, the crimes commit-
ted would be four (4) separate crimes of: (1) rape; (2) frustrated homi-
cide or murder; (3) theft; and (4) unlawful possession of picklocks and
similar tools under Article 304, RPC.
The special complex crime of rape with homicide is constituted
only when both the rape and the killing are consummated; when one or
both of them are not consummated, they are to be charged and pun-
ished separately. In any event, the possession of the picklock “without
lawful cause”, more so its use in an unlawful entry, is punished as a
crime by itself.
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate,
was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pur-
sued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her
sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend
Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They
brought them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced
them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a
nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfy-
ing their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine,
resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased
her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn
was never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and
Nonoy? '06 – Q13-1
Job and Nonoy each committed two (2) counts of the special
complex crime of rape with homicide under Article 266-B for the rapes
respectively committed on Dang and Lyn. Their felonious acts of grab-
bing and pushing the victims inside their van and later forcing them to
dance naked may only be appreciated as part of the violence and lewd
desires attending the rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.
Although, there is no indication that the same culprits killed Lyn
who was never seen again, it is reasonable to assume from what the
culprits did to Dang, and from the acts of violence employed on Lyn,
that they are answerable also for the presumed death of Lyn whom the
culprits took with then by force and was never seen again. Hence, the
rape committed against her is attended by homicide giving rise to the
special complex crime of rape with homicide also. It would be different
if Lyn was not subjected to physical violence (R.A. No. 7659.)
Alternative Answer:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal de-
tention with homicide and rape for the subsequent death of Dang, and
2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn. The victims, who were
kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed (as re-
gards Dang) in the course of their detention. The composite crime is
committed regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were pur-
posely sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R.
Nos. 138874-5, February, 2004).
Another Alternative Answer:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape (Article 342, RPC) and the separate of-
fense of murder against Dang. The crime committed is abduction be-
cause there was lewd design when they took the victims away and
subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the sepa-
rate offense of murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them? '06 – Q13-2
Because of the obvious conspiracy, each of the culprits should be
punished not only for the rape he committed but also for the rape
committed by the other; hence, for as many counts of rape committed
by him plus those committed by the other culprit against each of the
victims.
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was
death at the time the accused committed them, and the law (R.A. No.
9346) prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty took effect only
this year (2006), said new law should be given retroactive effect be-
cause it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents
and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion
perpetua for each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty
under Article 40 of the RPC will not follow because Section 2 of R.A.
No. 9346 does not so provide: it is the accessory penalty for reclusion
perpetua that shall now adhere to the principal penalty.
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? '06 – Q13-3
Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under R.A. No. 9344, referred
to as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, if he was 15 years
old or less; otherwise he will be criminally and civilly liable considering
that he acted with discernment when he also raped the victims. At
most, his minority will be appreciated as a privileged mitigating circum-
stance.
50
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the crimi-
nal liability of Job and Nonoy? '06 – Q13-4
NO. The corpus delicti or fact of commission of the crime is clear.
Even the death of Lyn may be established from the acts of the culprits,
without the need of the body of Lyn being presented.
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000 to Shirley,
an orphan and a prostitute and bought her to a motel. He inserted
a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that
she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Shirley was brought to
the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused
by hemorrhage. ’05 – Q11
1. What crime or crimes did Jet commit? ’05 – Q11-1
Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the
death of Shirley, assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the
following question) since the sexual assault was committed without any
of the circumstances mentioned in Article 266-A(1) of the RPC as rape.
It appears that the offender and the offended party went to the hotel for
mutual sexual gratification.
2. If Shirley was a minor when she died, would your an-
swer be the same? ’05 – Q11-2
If Shirley was a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and
child abuse in violation of R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Chil-
dren against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other
purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Shirley is not less
than twelve (12) years old. If Shirley was less than 12 years old then,
the crime committed by Matulis is Rape (through sexual assault) with
Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the RPC.
Parricide
After a heated argument over his philandering, Higino punched
on the head his wife Aika, who was six and a half months preg-
nant. Because of the impact, Aika lost her balance, fell on the
floor with her head hitting a hard object. Aika died and the child
was expelled prematurely. After thirty-six hours, the child died.
’15-Q17
1. a) What crime(s) did Higino commit? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-
Q17
ANSWER:With respect to the killing of the wife, parricide under Article
246 of Revised Penal Code is committed because of the qualifying
circumstance of relationship. With respect to the killing of the child, he
is not liable for unintentional abortion under Article 257 because the
child, who was born alive, was already viable or capable of indepen-
dent existence, his age being six months and a half months (U.S. v.
Vedra, 12 Phil. 96; People v. Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16,
2008; People v. Detablan, 40 O.G. No. 9, p. 30). Nor is he liable for
infanticide because the child is not less than three (3) day old for the
latter died after thirty-six hours from expulsion (Article 255 of RPC).
The crime committed is another parricide because the victim is his
child with his wife. Hence, relationship qualifies the killing. He shall
incur criminal liability for two parricides although these crimes commit-
ted are different from his criminal intention of maltreating his wife (Arti-
cle 4). This is a complex crime because the single act of punching the
victim constitutes two grave felonies (Article 48).
b) Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika was only six
months pregnant, and when she died, the fetus inside her womb
also died, will your answer be different? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-Q17
If the child died inside the womb of Aika, who was only six months, the
crime committed is complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion. Killing the unborn child as a result of the violence employed
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
against the mother without intent to abort is unintentional abortion.
Since the child died inside the womb of the mother, u n i n t e n-
tional abortion is committed regardless of viability of the victim.
Because the same violence that killed the mother also caused
unintentional abortion, the crime committed is a complex crime (People
v. Paycana, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People v. R o b i-
nos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No.
95851, March 01, 1995; People v. Salufrania, G.R. No. L-50884, March
30, 1988).
Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went
home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bed-
room to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife
Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged,
Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died.
’15-Q4
a) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance
attended the case? Explain. (3%) ’15-Q4a
Answer: (a) The crime committed by Procopio is parricide qualified
by the circumstance of relationship. Killing a spouse after having
been surprised in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another woman is death under exceptional circumstance under
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Cosde. However, in this case this
is not death under exceptional circumstance because Bionci was
having homosexual intercourse with another woman and not sexual
intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse” is not within the
contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” in Article 427. How-
ever, the crime of parricide is attended by the circumstance of pas-
sion arising from a lawful sentiment as a result of having caught his
wife in the act of infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino,
G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc).
b) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law
spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2%) ’15-Q4b
(b) The crime committed is Homicide if Procopio and Bionci were
common law spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by spouse who
are legally married.
The key element in a crime of parricide other than the fact of
killing is the relationship of the offender to the victim. Which one
of the following circumstances constitutes parricide? ’12 – Q28
a) Offender killing the illegitimate daughter of his legiti-
mate son.
b) Offender killing his illegitimate grandson.
c) Offender killing his common-law wife.
d) Offender killing his illegitimate mother.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Offender killing his illegitimate mother.
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is
killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or
other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused (People vs.
Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010). Killing his granddaughter,
grandson or wife shall only be considered as parricide of the relation-
ship is legitimate. Hence, “A”, “B” or “C” is not the answer. On the other
hand, killing his mother is parricide whether the relationship is legiti-
mate or illegitimate.
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his 10-year old
grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the in-
tersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV
Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement a meter
apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after hitting
the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang
Jose's prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car
forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived
but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, caus-
51
ing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with
Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries
through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are
the charges correct? '01 – Q6
YES, the charges are correct.
For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after
having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed
Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill
Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body
twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim
was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-
year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehi-
cle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence
which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the RPC. The
charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries
is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should
be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot,
which help he could have given to the victims.
Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? ’99 – Q16a
Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legiti-
mate or illegitimate, or his ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall
be guilty of parricide (Article 246, RPC.)
What crime or crimes did A commit if A killed:
1. A woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy.
HOMICIDE or MURDER as the case may be, for the killing of his
common-law wife who is not legally considered a “spouse”.
2. Their child who was only two days old.
INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than
three (3) days old (Article 255, RPC.) However, the penalty corre-
sponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child
within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.
3. Their daughter
PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, as long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the
time of the killing.
4. Their adopted son. '99 – Q16b
MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship
between A and the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to
arise.
A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C.
her husband, to whom she was lawfully married, A and B bought
pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to C,
but before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legit-
imate son, arrived. C. D and E shared the food in the presence of
A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died because of
having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A
and B commit? '97 – Q12
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her
lawful husband, D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All
these killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the RPC because
of her relationship with the victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the
killing of C because the killing was carried out by means of poison
(Article 248, par. 3, RPC). But for feloniously causing the death of D
and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill
C.
Murder
A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accoun-
tant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his earnings.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
After his stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the
paramour of a married man, C, and that all the monies he sent to
B were given by her to C. To avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z
and told them to kidnap C and his wife, I, so that he can inflict
injuries on C to make him suffer, and humiliate him in front of his
wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000. Each and were promised a
reward of P50, 000.00 each once the job is done.
At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly
opened the door and gained entrance to the house of C and D. C
put up a struggle before he was subdued by A's group. They
boarded C and D in a van and brought the two to a small hut in a
farm outside Metro Manila. Both hands of C and D were tied. With
the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C. X, Y and Z then took
turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he was black
and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and
his group set the hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D.
X, Y and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience, A
surrendered the next day to the police, admitting the crimes he
committed.
As the RTC judge, decide what crime or crimes were committed
by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and aggravating circum-
stances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%) ‘ 16
– Q20
A, X, Y and Z are liable for two counts of kidnapping with murder
qualified by means of fire, since C and D were killed in the course of
the detention. In a special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, it
is immaterial that other crimes were committed such as multiple rapes
and arson. Since multiple rapes and arson are committed by reason or
on occasion of kidnapping, they shall be integrated into one and indi-
visible felony of kidnapping with murder {People v. Larranaga, 138874-
75, 31 January 2004).
The mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntary surrender
can be appreciated in favor of A. The aggravating circumstances of
unlawful entry, by means of fire, and treachery can be appreciated
against A, X, Y and Z.
Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of
the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70-year
old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance
of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the
mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it
with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left
the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ran-
som for the release of the spouses' child to be paid within twenty-
four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of
days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already
dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxia-
tion barely minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain.
(5%) ’16 – Q18
Lina is liable for murder. Gagging the mouth of the child with
stockings, placing him in a box, sealing it with masking tape, and
placed the box in the attic were only methods employed by the defen-
dant in committing murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery
(People v. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, 30 March 1982). Taking advantage
of the defenseless condition of the victim by reason of his tender age in
killing him is treachery (People v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, 4 March
2004). She is not liable for kidnapping with murder, the essence of
which is the actual confinement or restraint of the victim or the depriva-
tion of his liberty. In this case, the victim was not deprived of liberty
since he immediately died. The demand for ransom did not convert the
offense into kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well aware
that the child would be suffocated to death in a few moments after she
left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the
defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand
money before the discovery of the cadaver (People v. Lora, supra).
Fely is not liable for murder as principal or accomplice. Since Fely
did not participate in the actual killing of the child, she can only be held
liable for murder as principal or acco mplice on the basis of-conspiracy
or community of design. But in this case, there is neither conspiracy
nor community of design to commit murder since her criminal intention
pertains to kidnapping for ransom. Moreover, her participation of de-
manding ransom for the release of the child is not connected to mur-
52
der. Neither is Fely liable for kidnapping for ransom. Her criminal mind
to assist Lina in committing kidnapping for ransom is not constitutive of
a felony. Mens rea without actus reus is not a crime.
Charges d’affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disor-
der after he was almost assassinated in his previous assignment.
One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers
whom he thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. He
asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) people and
wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The wounded
persons required more than thirty (30) days of medical treatment.
What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (5%) ’16 –
Q8
Volvik committed five frustrated murders for the unwounded victims
and five frustrated murders for the wounded victims. Treachery is
present since the sudden attack rendered the victims defenseless. The
nature of the weapon used in attacking the victims and extent of the
wounds sustained by the five victims showed intent to kill. His psychot-
ic condition is not an exempting circumstance of insanity in the ab-
sence of showing that there is a complete deprivation of intelligence in
accordance with the cognition test. However, he is immune from crimi-
nal prosecution. Since the position of Volvik as charges de affaires is
diplomatic, he is vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from criminal
suit (Minucher v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396,11 February 2003).
Honesto and Wilma were married but had been living separately
due to irreconcilable differences. Honesto later met Celia and fell
in love with her. Thinking that he could marry Celia if Wilma were
to die, Honesto decided to kill Wilma. He secretly followed Wilma
for weeks to learn her daily routine. He decided to kill her at night
on her way home. On the night he was to kill Wilma, Honesto wore
dark clothes so that he would not be easily seen. He waited in the
dark alley for Wilma to pass by. He saw someone whom he
thought looked like Wilma and shot her with a revolver. The bullet
passed through the person's head and grazed another passerby's
arm. Some bystanders who heard the shot were able to stop Hon-
esto.
It turned out that Wilma did not report for work on that day, and
the one who was shot in the head was Melba, who died. The
passerby whose arm was grazed by the bullet required medical
attendance for two days.
a) What crime(s) did Honesto commit? Explain. (2.5%)
Answer: Honesto is liable for murder qualified by the circumstance of
treachery for killing Melba due to error in personae or mistake of identi-
ty and slight physical injuries for the wound sustained by the passerby
of the blow. Although his intention to commit parricide, he is liable for
murder and slight physical injuries since they are the direct, natural
and logical consequence of act committed with intent to kill his wife.
b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that the other passer-
by was hit in the left eye which caused his/her blindness? Ex-
plain. (2.5%) ’15-Q10
Answer: If the passerby was hit in the left eye causing blindness, the
crime committed by Honesto is serious physical injuries. Unlike slight
physical injuries, serious physical injuries can be made a component of
a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Since a
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
single act of shooting the victim constitutes murder and serious physi-
cal injuries, they can be merged together to form a complex crime.
Thus, my answer would be different since the crime would be Murder
with Serious physical injuries.
What crime is committed by a person who kills a three-day old
baby? ’12 – Q18
a) infanticide;
b) homicide;
c) murder;
d) parricide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) murder;
The crime committed is not infanticide since the victim killed is not less
than three days of age. Killing of a three-day old baby constitutes mur-
der qualified by treachery. Minor children, who by reason of their tender
years, cannot be expected to put a defense. When an adult person
illegally attacks a child, treachery exists. (People vs. Fallorina, G.R.
No. 137347, March 4, 2004)
What crime is committed by a person who kills his legitimate
brother on the occasion of a public calamity? ’12 – Q19
a) parricide;
b) homicide;
c) murder;
d) death caused in a tumultuous affray.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) murder;
Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is
killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or
other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused (People vs.
Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010). Killing a legitimate brother is
not parricide since he is just collateral relative of the accused. Howev-
er, killing a person on occasion of public calamity is murder.
What crime is committed when a mother kills the three-day old
child of her husband with their daughter? ’12 – Q31
a) parricide;
b) infanticide;
c) murder;
d) homicide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) murder;
The crime committed is not infanticide since the victim killed is not less
than three days of age. As the child of her daughter, the baby is the
illegitimate grandchild of the mother. Killing illegitimate grandchild is
not parricide. However, killing of a three-day old baby constitutes mur-
der qualified by trechary.
With intent to kill, GGG burned the house where F and D were
staying. F and D died as a consequence. What is the proper
charge against GGG? ’12 - Q56
a) GGG should be charged with two (2) counts of murder.
b) GGG should be charged with arson.
c) GGG should be charged with complex crime of arson with
double murder.
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double mur-
der.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) GGG should be charged with complex crime of double murder.
If the main objective of the offender is to kill a particular person who
may ne in a building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to
accomplish such goal the crime committed is only murder. When the
Revised Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire is
murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a means to
that end. There can be no murder without a design to take life. Murder
qualified by means of fire absorbs the crime of arson since the latter is
an inherent means to commit the former (People vs. Baluntong, G.R.
No. 18206, March 15, 2015; People vs. Cedenio, G.R. No. 93485,
June 27, 1994). A single act of burning the house of victims with the
main objective of killing them resulting in their deaths resulted in the
complex crime of double murder committed by means of fire (People
vs. Gaffud, G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008).
53
On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in
pain and begging to die, Mona shut off the oxygen that was sus-
taining the patient, resulting in his death. What crime if any did
Mona commit? ’11 – Q55
(A) Homicide.
(B) Murder if she deliberated on her action.
(C) Giving Assistance to Suicide.
(D) Euthanasia.
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar was confined at the ICU of
the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo dis-
guised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying
on the hospital bed with several life-saving tubes attached to the
body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident
physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the dis-
connected tube, replaced them. The patient survived. It turned out
that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the
hospital earlier. Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, quali-
fied by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating cir-
cumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. ’09 – Q19
Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder
qualified by treachery – not evident premeditation because the victim
was different from the one premeditated against. Delmo has performed
all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but
for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death of the
victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the crime, because
the means, manner and method of committing the intended killing were
consciously adopted to insure its execution without risk that may arise
from the defense the victim may make. Evident premeditation is ab-
sorbed in treachery.
Roger, leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded
the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of
P10,000 a month as “protection money.” With the monthly pay-
ments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to
Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse,
Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his es-
tablishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection
money. Days later, at around 3 AM, Mauro, a member of the crimi-
nal syndicate, arrived at Antonio’s home and hurled a grenade
into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and
their 3 year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were
killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with reasons,
the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the ag-
gravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. ’08 – Q15
Roger and Mauro conspired to commit the crime of murder quali-
fied by treachery, with the use of means involving great waste and ruin.
In this case, Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation by
using a grenade and hurled into an open window of the victims’ bed-
room. Killing the victims while they were sleeping and in no position to
defend themselves, is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88 Phil.
693 [1951].)
The following are the aggravating circumstances:
1. Section 3, R.A. No. 8294 – when a person commits any of
the crimes under the RPC or special laws with the use of
explosives, etc., and alike incendiary devices which resulted
in the death of any person.
2. Article 23, R.A. No. 7659 – Organized/syndicated crime
group
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith-healer known as
“Mother Himala.” He was diagnosed by the faith-healer as being
possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the con-
duct of a “treatment” calculated to drive the “spirit” away from
the boy’s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted
in the boy’s death. The faith-healer and 3 others were charged
with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the
appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon
appeal? ’07 – Q7
NO, the conviction for murder should not be sustained, because there
is no indication that the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the
contrary, the facts show that the accused acted to “treat” the victim in a
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
way of driving the evil spirit which was believed to have “possessed”
him. Considering that the proximate cause of the victim’s death was
the healing ritual done by the accused which is not recognized by the
law as legitimate, the accused are criminally liable for the victim’s
death. As they may have overdone the “healing ritual” they conducted
on the victim’s body, causing the latter’s death, although the intent to
kill was absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
Alternative Answer:
No, because none of the circumstances qualifying the murder in Article
248 attended the crime.
The faith-healer and his co-accused should only be liable for homicide,
because they are not authorized by law to practice medicine and were
therefore acting illegally although the wrongful act done was different
from what they intended.
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally
bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stab-
bing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the
use of “shabu” at the time he committed the stabbing. What
should be the proper charge against Candido? '05 – Q6
Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery
because of the suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by sur-
prise and was totally defenceless. Being under the influence of dan-
gerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commis-
sion of a crime (Section 25, R.A. No. 9165, Comprehensive Drugs Act
of 2002). Hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in the maxi-
mum.
Alternative Answer:
Candido should be charged with homicide only because the inci-
dent which gave rise to the stabbing occurred accidentally. There is no
conscious and deliberate adoption of the means, method, and manner
of attack. However, the penalty for homicide shall be imposed in the
maximum because Candido was under the influence of dangerous
drugs when he committed the crime, which is a qualifying circumstance
under Section 25 of R.A. No. 9165.
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his 10-year old
grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the in-
tersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV
Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement a meter
apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after hitting
the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang
Jose's prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car
forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived
but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, caus-
ing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with
Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries
through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are
the charges correct? '01 – Q6
YES, the charges are correct.
For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after
having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed
Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill
Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body
twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim
was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-
year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehi-
cle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence
which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the RPC. The
charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries
is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should
be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot,
which help he could have given to the victims.
Define murder. '99 – Q5a
54
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would
constitute only homicide, had it not been attended by any of the follow-
ing circumstances:
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 insure or afford im-
punity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, de-
structive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse.
What are the elements of murder? '99 – Q5a
The elements of murder are:
1. That a person was unlawfully killed;
2. That such a killing was attended by any of the above-men-
tioned circumstances;
3. That the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and
4. That the accused killed the victim
The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot
the victim while the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed
at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died
because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide
or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but
there was no attempt to kill? '99 – Q5b
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he
merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, “not intending to kill the vic-
tim”, considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate
cause of death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logi-
cal consequences of his felonious act although different from what he
intended. However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for
said death is only homicide and not murder (People v. Pugay and
Samson, 167 SCRA 439 [1988].)
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge
who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the latter got preg-
nant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered
Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home late at
night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales where
they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle
of a rice field. Two days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his
body into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred
commit? '96 – Q4(2)
Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Article 248,
RPC, the killing being qualified by evident premeditation. This is due to
the long standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned
by the victim's refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her.
In People v. Alfeche, 219 SCRA 85 [1995], the intention of the
accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the intention
is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and
later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders in-
tended to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kid-
napped and taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is
kidnapping with homicide under Article 267, RPC.
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found him-
self surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the police
officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three
companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick,
and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a
result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants.
What crime or crimes were committed? '95 – Q6(1)
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treach-
ery, (which absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was
sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless. Con-
spiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct
assault would not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the
assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was
knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official
duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.
Death under Exceptional Circumstances
Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a
lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo
convinced Felipa to be a stay- at-home mom and care for their
children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and
caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their
female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo
retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom, cabinet and shot
Alma, immediately killing her.
[a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under excep-
tional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable
in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as
the erring spouse? (2.5%) ’16 – Q4(a)
No, Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable.
Under the Revised Penal Code, for Art. 247 to apply, the offender
must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing 'sexual' inter-
course with another person. In People of the Philippines v, Marciano
Gonzales (G.R. No, 46310, 31 October 1939), the Supreme Court held
that to avail of the privilege under Art. 247, the accused should surprise
his wife in the “very act if sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse gen-
erally presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that
of a woman’s.
In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring
spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of,
hence, Art. 247 is not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code is applicable. The requisites
of Art. 247 are: (1) a legally married person surprises his spouse in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; (2) he or she
kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any seri-
ous physical injury “while in the act” or immediately thereafter; and (3)
he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. All the
foregoing requisites are present in the case at hand. It is a given in the
problem that Jojo caught Felipa and Alma in the “act of sexual inter-
course.” The law did not qualify that the other person with whom the
spouse be caught committing sexual intercourse be “male or female.”
Hence, the gender of the paramour, Alma, being of the same gender
as the erring spouse, Felipa, is immaterial. The answer given presup-
poses that Jojo and Felipa are legally married.
[b] is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with
Alma? (2.5%) ’16 – Q4(b)
No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is commit-
ted by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a
“woman” not her husband. Thus, Felipa in having homosexual inter-
course with Alma, a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver
sleeping in the master’s bedroom. Outraged, the accused got his
gun and killed both. Can the accused claim that he killed the two
under exceptional circumstances? ’11 – Q44
(A) No, since the accused had time to reflect when he got his gun.
(B) No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual in-
tercourse.
(C) Yes, since the wife and their driver desecrated the marital bed.
(D) Yes, since the scene shows that they had an intimate relationship.
Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his
best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete
55
pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Benjie. Pete was
charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete contended that
he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be
acquitted of the crime. The court found that Benjie died under
exceptional circumstances and exonerated Pete of the crime, but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the
RPC. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of
the victim in the amount of P50,000. '05 – Q8
1. Is the defense of Pete meritorious? '05 – Q8-1
The defense of Pete lacks merit. He could have acted in defense
of honor, because there was no unlawful aggression against him. At
most, what Benjie did could be regarded only as sufficient provocation
to Pete. The Court correctly ruled that Benjie’s killing was done under
the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the RPC.
2. Under Article 247 of the RPC, is destierro a penalty? '05
– Q8-2
Destierro is one of the principal penalties under Article 25 of the
RPC, but under the exception circumstances provided for in Article 247
of the RPC, destierro is not intended as a penalty but a means to re-
move the accused from the vicinity, for his protection against possible
reprisal from the family or relatives of the other spouse or those of the
paramour or mistress (People v. Coricor, 79 Phil. 672 [1947].)
3. Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity de-
spite his exoneration under Article 247 of the RPC? '05 –
Q8-3
YES, the court correctly ordered Pete to pay indemnity, because
the legal consequence of the exceptional circumstances in Article 247
of the Code is that of an exempting circumstance where generally
there is civil liability although there may be no criminal liability.
Alternative Answer:
Pete may not be made to pay indemnity because this is part of
civil liability which arises only when there is criminal liability. He is not
civilly liable, because he is not criminally liable.
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard
at Landmark, his shift being from 11 PM to 7 AM. One night, he felt
sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight
after getting permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the
front yard of his home, he noticed that the light in the master bed-
room was on and that the bedroom window was open. Approach-
ing the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles
inside the bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and
peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse
with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the lat-
ter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window,
A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a furious
struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A then rushed
back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the
bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her
unconscious. The police arrived after being summoned by their
neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested and
charged for the death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. '01 –
Q13
1. Is A liable for C's death? '01 – Q13-1
YES, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circum-
stances in Article 247 of the RPC, where only destierro is prescribed.
Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having
sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was “immediately there-
after” as the discovery, escape, pursuit and killing of C form one con-
tinuous act (U.S. v. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194.)
2. Is A liable for B's injuries? '01 – Q13-2
Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on
his wife B but under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247
of the RPC, for the same reasons.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Homicide
Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of
homicide, taking into account the nature of the offense, the es-
sential element of each of the stages of execution and the manner
of committing such international felony as distinguished from
felony committed through reckless imprudence. (5%) ’12 – Q10a
Homicide as an international felony has three stages, attempted, frus-
trated and consummated. In whatever stages homicide is committed,
intent to kill must be established for being an indispensible element
thereof. However, if the victim died as a consequence of wounds
caused by an act committed with malice, intent to kill is conclusively
presumed. Hence, the crime committed is consummated homicide. If
the victim died as a consequence of an act committed with reckless-
ness, the crime committed is reckless imprudence resulting in homi-
cide. But if the victim did not die as a consequence of wounds caused
by an act committed with malice, intent to kill must be established be-
yond reasonable doubt. If intent to kill is proven, the crime committed is
frustrated or attempted homicide. If intent to kill is not proven, the crime
committed is physical injuries.
If the offender with the intent to kill attempted to inflict or inflicted non-
mortal wound upon the victim, he already directly commenced an overt
act to commit homicide. Hence, the crime committed is attempted
homicide if he failed to inflict mortal wounds upon the victim by reason
of come cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
If the offender with intent to kill inflicted mortal wounds upon the victim,
he alreadt performed all acts of execution which would produce the
homicide as a consequence. Hence, the crime is either frustrated
homicide if death is not produced despite the mortal character of the
wound due to cause independent of the will of the offender or con-
summated homicide if death is produced.
All the elements necessary for execution and accomplishment of homi-
cide are present if the victim die due to wounds inflicted with the of-
fender with intent to kill.
Three men gave Arnold fist blows and kicks causing him to fall.
As they surrounded and continued hitting him, he grabbed a knife
he had in his pocket and stabbed one of the men straight to the
heart. What crime did Arnold commit? ’11 – Q25
(A) Homicide with incomplete self-defense, since he could have run
from his aggressors.
(B) Homicide, since he knew that stabbing a person in the heart is
fatal.
(C) Homicide mitigated by incomplete self-defense, since stabbing a
person to the heart is excessive.
(D) No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing
reasonable means for doing so.
X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon sur-
prising her having sex with another man in a motel room. What is
the criminal liability of X? ’11 – Q28
(A) None since he killed her under exceptional circumstances.
(B) None since he acted under a mistake of fact.
(C) Parricide.
(D) Homicide.
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a
night club became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among
them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses.
Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation re-
vealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound
that did not cause the deceased's death nor materially contribute
to it. It was B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the de-
ceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to
slight physical injury. Would you agree? '03 – Q6
NO, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability should
be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be held liable for
attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a
firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a
firearm (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990].)
Alternative Answer:
56
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability
should be for slight physical injury only, because he fired his gun only
to pacify the unruly customers of the night club and therefore, without
intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased
may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot exist when there
is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for
their respective acts.
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he
resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay Gui-
haman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often
brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers
there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one afternoon Pas-
cual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were
operating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Nap-
nud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was
fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and
Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual re-
sented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him
to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? '95 – Q6(2)
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault
upon a person in authority (Articles. 148 and 249 in relation to Article
48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Article 152), a person in
authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official
duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is commit-
ted.
Article 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act
produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is
committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to
death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct as-
sault which is less grave.
At about 11 PM, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamer-
to. Jay, Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled
a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the
commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to
escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it
not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused his
death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit? '94 – Q20
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homi-
cide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the
assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be com-
plexed with frustrated homicide because when the trespass is commit-
ted as a means to commit a more serious offense, trespass to dwelling
is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggra-
vating circumstance of dwelling (People v. Abedoza, 53 Phil. 788
[1928].)
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay be-
cause he had already performed all the acts of execution which would
have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes
independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging
from the weapon used, the manner of committing the crime and the
part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical in-
juries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no
intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without using
the knife.
Death Cause in a Tumultuous Affray
A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a sea-
side restaurant, they were attacked by X, Y and Z, members of a
rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the above-named mem-
bers of the two fraternities assaulted each other in a confused
and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot
be ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the two fra-
ternities who took part in the rumble were charged for death
caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? ’10 – Q10
NO, the charge of death in a tumultuous affray will not prosper. In
death caused by tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Penal Code, it is essential that the persons involved did not compose
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking
each other reciprocally.
In this case, there is no tumultuous affray since the participants in
the rumble belong to organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of
the SFC Fraternity could not be any other but a member of the rival
fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among the attackers from
the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability
of the attackers should be collective for the crime of homicide or mur-
der as the case may be.
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public
plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal
and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D and
E were proven to be participants in the “rumble”, each using a
knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who among them
inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for
the death of A and for what? '97 – Q18
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and
having been proven to have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at
least, employed violence upon A, are criminally liable for the latter's
death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted
the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous
affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a
tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the RPC.
Giving Assistance to Suicide
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had object-
ed to their relationship because they were 1st cousins. They
forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The agreement was to
shoot each other in the head in which they did. Joan died. Due to
medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable
for the death of Joan? ’08 – Q8
YES. Francis is criminally liable for assisting in the suicide of
Joan, as evidenced by their written pact (Article 253, RPC.)
[Note: Giving assistance to suicide means giving means (arms,
poison, etc.) or whatever manner of positive and direct cooperation
(intellectual aid, suggestions.]
Infanticide
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2
years. She fell in love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated
her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead,
went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents
drove her away. So she returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok
in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in
an advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an
abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter
quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a
live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming
home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to
conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box
and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor
saw them and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who
was already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to
the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial,
they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction
correct? '06 – Q11
The conviction was incorrect because:
1. Under Article 41 of the Civil Code, a newborn with an intra-
uterine life of less than 7 months must live for at least 24
hours before it may be considered born and hence, before it
may acquire personality of its own;
2. The new born, therefore was still a foetus when killed and
was not yet a person. Hence, the crime in law is abortion. It
is legally a foetus who was killed, not a person/child because
legally it has no personality yet;
57
3. Infanticide and parricide involves a killing where the victim is
already a person.
Another Suggested Answer:
The conviction for parricide was correct if the infant was already
three (3) days old or more when killed because Ana and Oniok are
parents of the child. But if the child was less than 3 years old when
killed, the crime of both Ana and Oniok is infanticide and they should
be convicted for infanticide, not parricide.
Unintentional Abortion
What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman who
tried to commit suicide by poison, but she did not die and the
fetus in her womb was expelled instead? ’12 – Q12
a) The woman who tried to commit suicide is not criminally
liable because the suicide intended was not consum-
mated.
b) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally
liable for unintentional abortion which is punishable
when caused by violence.
c) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally
liable for abortion that resulted due to the poison that
she had taken to commit suicide.
d) The woman who tried to commit suicide occurs no crim-
inal liability for the result not intended.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) The woman who tried to commit suicide occurs no criminal liability
for the result not intended.
The pregnant woman cannot be held liable for abortion because intent
to abort, which is an essential element of this crime, is lacking. Neither
can she be held liable for unintentional abortion, because the element
of violence is wanting.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
(delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended (Article 4 of the Revised penal Code). Attempt to commit
suicide although an intentional act is not constitutive of a felony. Ac-
cording to Luis B. Reyes, “a person who attempts to commit suicide is
not criminally liable, because the society has always considered a
person who attempts to kill herself as an unfortunate being, a wretched
person more deserving of pity rather than of penalty.” Hence, the
woman, who tried to commit suicide, is not liable for the direct, natural
and logical consequence of her non-felonious act.
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reach-
ing home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for
her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the
nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to
the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died. What
crime was committed by Aldrich? '94 – Q7
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abor-
tion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi, with his fist, he committed
the crime of maltreatment under Article 266, par. 3 of the RPC, Since
Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally
liable of parricide under Article 246, RPC in relation to Article 4, par. 1
of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process,
but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich
committed unintentional abortion as defined in Article 257, RPC. Inas-
much as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave
felonies, he falls under Article 48, RPC, i.e., a complex crime (People
v. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or by Her Parents
An extenuating circumstance, which has the same effect as a
mitigating circumstance, is exemplified by: ’11 – Q24
(A) the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.
(B) the accused committing theft out of extreme poverty.
(C) the accused raping his victim in extreme state of passion.
(D) the accused surrendering the weapon he used in his crime to the
authorities.
Serious Physical Injuries
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
A jailer inflicted injury on the prisoner because of his personal
grudge against the latter. The injury caused illness of the prisoner
for more than thirty (30) days. What is the proper charge against
the jailer? ’12 - Q46
a) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner
and serious physical injuries.
b) The jailer should be charged with serious physical injuries
only.
c) The jailer should be charged with complex crime of mal-
treatment of prisoner with serious physical injuries.
d) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner
only.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner and
serious physical injuries.
Maltreatment of prisoner is committed since the victim maltreated is
under the charge of the offender. The offender shall be punished for
maltreatment of prisoner in addition to his criminal liability for physical
injuries (Article 235 of the Revised Penal Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) The jailer should be charged with serious physical injuries only.
Maltreatment must relate to the correction of handling of a prisoner
under his charge or must be for the purpose of extorting a confession,
or of obtaining some information from the prisoner. A jailer who inflicted
injuries on the prisoner because of personal grudge against him is
liable for physical injuries only (People vs. Javier, C.A., 54 O.G. 6622;
RPC by Luis Reyes).
To mitigate his liability for inflicting physical injury to another, an
accused with a physical defect must prove that such defect re-
stricted his freedom of action and understanding. This proof is
not required where the physical defect consists of: ’11 – Q23
(A) a severed right hand.
(B) complete blindness.
(C) being deaf mute and dumb.
(D) a severed leg.
X inflicted serious injuries on Y. Because of delay in providing
medical treatment to Y, he died. Is X criminally liable for the death
of Y? ’11 – Q67
(A) Yes because the delay did not break the causal connection be-
tween X's felonious act and the injuries sustained by Y.
(B) Yes because any intervening cause between the infliction of injury
and death is immaterial.
(C) No because the infliction of injury was not the immediate cause of
the death.
(D) No because the delay in the administration of the medical treat-
ment was an intervening cause.
X inflicted violent kicks on vital parts of E's body. E nevertheless
was able to flee for fear of his life. Refusing to undergo treatment
for his injuries, E died 3 days later. Is X liable for E’s death? ’11 –
Q69
(A) No, since kicks on the body cannot cause death.
(B) No, since it took too long for death to occur.
(C) Yes, since E cannot be compelled to undergo medical treatment.
(D) Yes, since it was a natural result of the injuries X inflicted on E.
Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment
What crime is committed when a person ill-treats another by deed
without causing any injury? ’12 - Q67
a) The offender commits maltreatment.
b) The offender commits slander by deed.
c) The offender commits assault.
d) The offender commits coercion.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The offender commits maltreatment.
Maltreatment is committed by an offender, who shall ill-treat another by
deed without causing any injury (Article 266 of the Revised Penal
Code).
58
Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security
Porthos made a sudden turn on a dark street, and his Rolls-Royce
SUV bumped the rear of a parked Cadillac Sedan inside which Aramis
was then taking a nap. Angered by the violent Impact, Aramis alighted
and confronted Porthos who had also alighted. Aramis angrily and
repeatedly shouted at Porthos: Putang Ina mo! Porthos, displaying
fearlessness, aggressively shouted back at Aramis: Wag kang magta-
pang-tapangan dyan, papatayin kita! Without saying anything more,
Aramis drew his gun from his waist and shot Porthos in the leg.
Porthos' wound was not life threatening. ’17 -Q8
(a) What are the kinds of unlawful aggression, and which
kind was displayed in this case? Explain your answer.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) actual or material unlaw-
ful aggression; and (b) imminent unlawful aggression. Actual or
material unlawful aggression means an attack with physical force
or with a weapon, an offensive act that positively determines the
intent of the aggressor to cause the injury. Imminent unlawful
aggression means an attack that is impending or at the point of
happening; it must not consist in a mere threatening attitude, nor
must it be merely imaginary, but must be offensive and positively
strong (like aiming a revolver at another with intent to shoot or
opening a knife and making a motion as if to attack). Imminent
unlawful aggression must not be a mere threatening attitude of
the victim, such as pressing his right hand to his hip where a
revolver was holstered, accompanied by an angry countenance,
or like aiming to throw a pot (Rustia v. People, G.R. No. 208351 ,
October 05, 2016, Bersamin).
(b) Standing trial for frustrated murder, Aramis pleaded self-defense.
The Prosecution's contention was that the plea of self-defense applied
only to consummated killings. Rule, with explanations, on the tenability
of Aramis' claim of self-defense, and on the Prosecution's contention.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(b) The prosecution's contention is not tenable. Shoot-
ing the leg of the victim without killing him may be a reasonable
means to prevent or repel an actual or imminent unlawful aggres-
sion; hence, self-defense is not confined to consummated killing.
(c) Porthos insisted that the element of treachery was present. To rule
out treachery, Aramis asserted that both he and Porthos were then
facing and confronting each other when he fired the shot. Rule, with
reasons, on the respective contentions. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) There is no treachery as the attack was preceded by
heated words. The act was spontaneous, arising from the said
circumstance. The sudden attack was not preconceived and de-
liberately adopted but was just triggered by the sudden infuriation
on the part of the accused, because of the provocative act of the
victim, where their meeting was purely accidental.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender re-
assignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She
changed her name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay
International. She came back to the Philippines and while she was
walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy
who took her to a house in the province. She was then placed in a
room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knife's point.
After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a
male. Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The
beatings that Angelina received eventually caused her death.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%) ’16 –
Q11
Razzy is liable for kidnapping with homicide. Abducting Angelino
is not forcible abduction since the victim in this crime must be a
woman. Gender reassignment will not make him a woman within the
meaning of Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no show-
ing, moreover, that at the time abduction is committed with lewd de-
sign; hence, his abduction constitutes illegal detention. Since Angelino
was killed in the course of the detention, the crime constitutes kidnap-
ping and serious illegal detention with homicide under Article 267.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Having sexual intercourse with Angelino is not rape through sexu-
al intercourse since the victim in this crime must be a woman. This act
is not rape through sexual assault, either, Razzy did not insert his pe-
nis into the anal orifice or mouth of Angelino or an instrument or ob ject
into anal orifice or genital orifice, hence, this act constitutes acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336. Since the acts of lasciviousness is
committed by reason or occasion of kidnapping, it will be integrated
into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with homicide {People v.
De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v. Jugueta, G.R. No.
202124, April 05, 2016; People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5,
2011; People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011; People v.
Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3, 2004).
Max is liable for kidnapping with homicide as an accomplice since
he concurred in the criminal design of Razzy in depriving Angelino his
liberty and supplied the former material aid in an efficacious way by
helping him beat the latter.
Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle
driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school
every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s
parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty.
However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s
parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla
was rescued while Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor consid-
ered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents
and filed a case of "Impossible crime to commit kidnapping"
against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct,
can he instead file a case of grave coercion? ‘14-Q23
A: The crime committed by Enrique is kidnapping for ransom. Even
before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with
serious illegal detention had already been committed. The act cannot
be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent
improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate
or ineffectual means. The delivery of the ransom note after the rescue
of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had already been
consummated when Enrique deprived Carla of her liberty. The sending
of the ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing the
penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article 267 (People v. Tan,
GR No. 95322). Furthermore, kidnapping is a crime against liberty
while in impossible crime it is important that the accused committed an
act that would have been a crime against person or property.
The prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion instead, since as
discussed above the crime committed by Enrique is kidnapping for
ransom.
Which among the following circumstances do NOT qualify the
crime of kidnapping? ’11 – Q35
(A) The victim is killed as a consequence of the detention.
(B) The offender is a public officer.
(C) Ransom is demanded.
(D) The victim is raped.
Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a major thorough-
fare in Manila, pointed the gun at the driver and shouted: “Tigil!
Kidnap ito!” Terrified, the driver, Juanito, stopped the van and
allowed Virigilio to board. Inside the van were Jeremiah, a 6-year-
old child, son of multi-millionaire, and Daday, the child’s nanny.
Virgilio told Juanito to drive to a deserted place, and there, or-
dered the driver to alight. Before Juanito was allowed to go, Virig-
ilio instructed him to tell Jeremiah’s parents that unless they give
a ransom of P10-million within 2 days, Jeremiah would be be-
headed. Daday was told to remain in the van and take care of Je-
remiah until the ransom is paid. Virgilio drove the van to his safe-
house. What crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? ’09 – Q9
The crime committed against Jeremiah, the 6 year-old child, is
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267(4), RPC.
The evident criminal intent of the offender, Virgilio, is to lock up the
child to demand ransom. Whether or not the ransom was eventually
obtained will not affect the crime committed because the demand for
ransom is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies the penalty to
death but the imposition of this penalty is now prohibited by R.A. No.
9346.
59
As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the
van and take care of the child until the ransom is paid, the crime com-
mitted is Serious Illegal Detention because the offended party deprived
of liberty is a female (Article 267(4), RPC.)
As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was seriously intimidated
with a gun pointed at him and directed to stop the van and allow the
gun-man to board the same, and thereafter to drive to a deserted
place, the crime committed by Virgilio is Grave Coercion (Article 286,
RPC) and Slight Illegal Detention (Article 268, RPC) for holding the
driver before he was allowed to go.
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke
Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One
afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by
Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Chris-
tian humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond in Navotas where
Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers,
asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running
from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where
they called up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke un-
less they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, be-
cause of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio
and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, espe-
cially when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order
for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of
Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and
buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay
kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police sta-
tion. Upon interrogation, they confessed and pointed to Jaime,
Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping.
Later, the 4 were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did
the 6 suspects commit? '06 – Q10
The six (6) suspects committed the following crimes:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the crime of kidnapping for
ransom for having seized Luke and causing his detention by Emil and
Louie in the latter’s place. Although the agreement among Jaime, Andy
and Jimmy was to kill Luke, the agreement appears to have been
abandoned when they left Luke to Emil and Louie to he kept and de-
tained by the latter, while they called up Luke’s family and detained by
the latter, while they called up Luke’s family and demanded ransom.
Mario, the taxi driver, only cooperated as an accomplice by taking
Luke to the fishpond after having learned of the unlawful purpose dis-
closed to him by Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. There was no indication,
however, that Mario knew of the demand for ransom. Hence, he may
only be held liable as an accomplice to the crime of slight illegal deten-
tion under Article 268 of the RPC.
Emil and Louie should be liable for serious illegal detention with
homicide (Last Par., Article 267, RPC) since the detention was attend-
ed by a killing. Their crime would have been slight illegal detention only
under Article 268 of the RPC were it not for the killing of the victim.
Another Suggested Answer:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide. The original intention was to
demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a conse-
quence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim
was deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though com-
mitted by another person, was a consequence of the detention. Hence,
this properly qualified the crime as the special complex crime of kid-
napping for ransom with homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No.
137554, October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried
the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse
of superior strength. They are not liable for kidnapping because they
did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to detain Luke
whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Article 248, RPC).
Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent
and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to
Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does not constitute a crime.
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week
old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz
learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she asked
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Martin for a cash advance of P1,000 but Martin refused. One
morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son with stockings;
placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed
the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5,000
as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ran-
som. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days, Mar-
tin discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead.
According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation
barely three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or
crimes did Paz commit? '05 – Q5
Paz committed a special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom
with homicide and the penalty shall be only one death penalty.
When any individual, in any manner, unlawfully deprives another
of his liberty, the crime is designated as kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under Article 267, RPC. The penalty shall be death where
the crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. It is not
necessary that the ransom be obtained by the offender; it is enough
that the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention be committed
for the purpose of demanding ransom.
Under the same Article of the Code, the death penalty is also
prescribed if the victim of the kidnapping dies as a result of the deten-
tion. However, since Paz committed only one felony, a special complex
crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide, she should be sen-
tenced to only one death penalty.
Alternative Answer:
Paz committed the crime of serious illegal detention because the
victim is a minor; and because the victim died as a consequence of the
detention, the special complex crime of serious illegal detention with
homicide under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the RPC is commit-
ted.
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the 2nd day,
DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed
against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that
he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child
before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceed-
ings for kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper?
'04 – Q2b
NO. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the
offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides,
such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the vic-
tim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious ille-
gal detention under Article 267, RPC, to which such circumstance,
does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime
of Slight Illegal Detention in Article 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA
673 [1964].)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed
in the custody of A the mother, subject to monthly visitations by
B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C in his company, B
decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him
to the United States where he intended for them to reside perma-
nently. What crime, if any, did B commit? '02 – Q16
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 271, in relation to Article 270, of the RPC, as amended.
Article 271 expressly penalizes any parent who shall take from and
deliberately fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or
guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the
custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother and B has only
the right of monthly visitation, the latter's act of taking C to the United
States, to reside there permanently, constitutes a violation of said pro-
visions of law.
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to
kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed to raping her
and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for
more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because
Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported
Edgardo to the police. May Edgardo be charged with attempted
kidnapping? '96 – Q8(1)
60
NO, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping
inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had
been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises
was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory
act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences
with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to
commit kidnapping is not a crime.
Unlawful arrest
What is the crime committed by any person who, without reason-
able ground, arrests or detains another for the purpose of deliver-
ing him to the proper authorities? ’12 – Q20
a) unlawful arrest;
b) illegal detention;
c) arbitrary detention;
d) grave coercion.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) unlawful arrest;
Unlawful arrest is committed by a person who, in any case other than
those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground thereof, shall
arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities (Article 269 of the Revised Penal Code).
A, B, C and D are members of the police department of a munici-
pality. Conspiring with one another, they arrested E, without rea-
sonable ground, for the purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities by imputing to E the crime of bribery. While E was
being investigated by A, B, C and D, one of them placed a marked
five hundred peso bill, together with the money taken from E, to
make it appear that E, an employee of the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar, agreed to perform an act not constituting a crime in
connection with the performance of E's duties, which was to ex-
pedite the issuance of a birth certificate. What is the crime com-
mitted by A, B, C and D? ’12 - Q63
a) A, 8, C and D committed incriminatory machination through
unlawful arrest.
b) A, 8, C and D committed intriguing against honor with unlaw-
ful arrest.
c) A, 8, C and D committed slight illegal detention.
d) A, 8, C and D committed corruption of public official.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A, B, C and D committed incriminatory machination through unlaw-
ful arrest.
Unlawful arrest was a necessary means to commit the crime of incrim-
inatory machinations. The accused had to arrest the offended party
because it was the only way that they could with facility detain him and,
more importantly, search with facility detain him and, more importantly,
search his person or effects and, in the process, commingle therewith
the marked one peso bill for purposes of incriminating him for the crime
of corruption of public officer (People vs. Alagao, G. R. No. L-20721,
April 30, 1966, En Banc).
After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on
the acts of enforced disappearances and extra-legal killing of the
son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military
officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers
be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and
extra-legal killing? ’08 – Q1a
Yes, the respondent military officers may be criminally charged in
court since “enforced disappearance” constitutes arbitrary detention
under Article 124 or Unlawful Arrest under Article 269 of the RPC.
Extra-legal killing can also be considered murder and/or homicide un-
der Articles 248 and 249, RPC.
Another Alternative Answer:
The petition for the writ of amparo is not a criminal proceeding
and will not determine the guilt of the respondents. If the evidence so
warrants, the amparo court may refer the case to the Department of
Justice for criminal prosecution (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC) of the military
officers for the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder or
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
homicide under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
R.A. No. 7659.
Exploitation of child labor
The statement that “The creditor who resorts to forced child labor
of a child under the pretext of reimbursing himself for the debt
incurred by the child’s father commits the crime of slavery” is
FALSE. ’09 – Q1b
The proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Article 273,
RPC.) Exploitation of child labor is committed by a person, who under
the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against
the minor’s will, retain him in his services.
Trespass to Dwelling
Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling,
residence, or other establishments without being liable for tres-
pass to dwelling? ’06 – Q2(2)
A private person may enter a dwelling, residence, or other estab-
lishment without being liable for trespass to dwelling in the following
situations:
1. Where the person so enters to avoid some serious harm to
himself; or
2. He did so to save or help an occupant thereof or some other
person from serious harm;
3. Where a person so enters to render service to humanity or to
the cause of justice; and
4. Where a person enters establishments which cater to public
service while still open for such patronage (Last Par., Article
280, RPC);
5. If a public officer or person authorized is conducting a valid
arrest or valid search and seizure (Rule 113, Rules on Crimi-
nal Procedure.)
Grave Coercion
A entered the house of B. Once inside the house of B, A took and
seized personal property by compulsion from B with the use of
violence and force upon things, believing himself to be the owner
of the personal property so seized. What is the criminal liability of
A? ’12 - Q58
a) A is criminally liable for robbery with violence because he
employed violence in the taking of the personal property from B, rob-
bery characterized by violence being graver than ordinary robbery
committed with force upon things.
b) A is criminally liable for robbery with force upon things in an
inhabited house because the act was committed in a house constitut-
ing the dwelling of one or more persons.
c) A is criminally liable for grave coercion because the pre-
sumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
d) A is criminally liable for qualified trespass to dwelling be-
cause he employed violence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) A is criminally liable for grave coercion because the presumption of
intent to gain is
rebutted.
A is not criminally liable for robbery since the presumption of intent to
gain, an element of this crime, is rebutted because he took the person-
al property under a bona fide belief that he owns the property (Gaviola
vs. People, G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006). However, A is liable
for grave coercion because he used violence in seizing the property by
reason of his mistake belief that he owned it (See: People vs. Bautista,
CA-G.R. No. 43390, December 17, 1936).
The three accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the
latter succeeded in freeing himself from their grip. What crime did
the three accused commit? ’11 – Q45
(A) forcible abduction.
(B) frustrated kidnapping.
(C) attempted kidnapping.
(D) grave coercion.
61
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. '99 – Q3a
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in
coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the employment of violence or
serious intimidation approximating violence, without authority of law, to
prevent a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual re-
straint or locking up of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty
without authority of law. If there was no intent to lock up or detain the
offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not commit-
ted.
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tor-
tured and maltreated by agents of the law in order to compel him
to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to
draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain
through the employment of such means. What crime was commit-
ted by the agents of the law? '99 – Q3b
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the
law is a suspect and may have been detained by them. If so and he
had already been booked and put in jail, the crime is and the fact that
the suspect was subjected to torture to extort a confession would bring
about a higher penalty. In addition to the offender's liability for the
physical injuries inflicted.
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters
to make him admit the crime and tortured / maltreated to make him
confess to such crime, but later released because the agents failed to
draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the vio-
lence employed to compel such confession without the offended party
being confined in jail (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil 143.)
It is noted that the offended party was merely “"brought” to the
police headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been
validly arrested, the crime committed would be maltreatment of prison-
ers.
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy
wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him the
necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew
his gun and told Roy, “If you will not give back the necklace to
me, I will kill you!” Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy
gave the necklace to Isagani, What offense did Isagani commit?
'98 – Q2
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Article 286, RPC)
for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or intimidation, to do
something against the latter's will, whether it be right or wrong. Serious
threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute grave coer-
cion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case
because it was committed with a gun, which is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential
element of robbery, is absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.
X was awakened by a loud noise coming from the 1st floor of his
house. He went down and discovered that the screen door to the
kitchen had been cut and the door itself opened. He called the
police. When they arrived, they saw Y lying on the sala. They ar-
rested Y but found no weapon, burglary tool or stolen goods in
his person. They examined the whole house and found everything
in order. No valuable was missing. Can the crime of attempted
robbery be charged against Y? If not, what crime did he commit?
’79 – Q2
The crime committed is consummated qualified trespass to
dwelling (Article 280, RPC.) The intention of Y in entering the house of
X was indeterminate. For this reason, it cannot be attempted robbery
because the overt acts committed had no direct and immediate relation
to robbery (People v. Lamahang, 61 Phil. 703 [1935].) Since the screen
door of the kitchen had been cut and the door opened, the entrance
was against the will of the owner.
Unjust Vexation
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
A was caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door
while a young 16-year-old lady was taking a bath. Ais liable for:
‘14-Q6
(A) Violation of R.A. 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Chil-
dren
(B) Violation of R.A. 7610 – Child Abuse Law
(C) Light coercion
(D) Acts of lasciviousness
Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When
Pinky refused to pay her rental, Giovannie nailed some wooden
barricades on one of the sides of the market stall and posted this
warning: “We have closed this portion of the door. Do not open it
or else something may happen to you.” What crime/s did Giovan-
ni commit, if any? ’07 – Q10
The crime committed by Giovanni is Light Coercion under Article
287 of the Revised Penal Code, commonly referred to as Unjust Vexa-
tion. Although what was one by Giovanni could reasonably be as-
sumed as retaliation to the lessee’s refusal to pay rent, absent any
clear violence in the premises, such would not bring about a case of
grave coercion. The situation should be interpreted liberally in favor of
the offender. The rule of pro reo precludes any finding for grave coer-
cion, because it would be against the offender.
The written warning which states “or else something may happen
to you” is so equivocal that it may not be interpreted as felonious. A
crime is never presumed; it the contrary that is presumed.
Alternative Answer:
The crime committed by Giovanni is grave coercion because
barricading one of the sides of the market stall was an act of violence
deliberately done. It is not only an act of unjust vexation or light coer-
cion but of grave coercion.
When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast consid-
ered only unjust vexation instead of acts of lasciviousness? '94 –
Q1(1)
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of
passion or other motive and the touching of her breast as a mere inci-
dent of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely unjust
vexation (People v, Ignacio, CA-G.R. No. 5119-R, September 30,
1950). However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching of the
breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts
of lasciviousness (People v. Gilo, 10 SCRA 753 [1964].)
Crimes Against Property
What crime is committed by a capataz who enrolls two fictitious names
in the payroll and collects their supposed daily wages every payday?
(2%) ‘17
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The crime committed is Estafa through Falsification of Public
Documents. A capataz is a foreman for the government and since
the falsification of of the public document is committed as a
means to commit estafa, the proper charge is estafa through falsi-
fication of documents.
Robbery
During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old
public utility vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and
Sencio, each armed with guns, hailed several MMDA buses then pro-
viding free transport to the stranded public to stop them from plying
their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses without
allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the
bus to Tanay, Rizal.
Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio
forcibly divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They
ordered the passengers to leave thereafter. Then, they burned the bus.
When a tanod of the barangay of the area came around to Intervene,
Pater fired at him, instantly killing him.
62
After Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio were arrested, the police authori-
ties recommended them to be charged with the following crimes, to wit:
(1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct assault with homicide; (4) kid-
napping; and (5) arson.
State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the police authori-
ties on the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sen-
cio. (10%) ’17 – Q9
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Because Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio commandeered
the bus for purpose of robbing the passengers, the crime commit-
ted is robbery (People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 94755, April 10, 1992).
Since the taking of the victims was merely to commit robbery and
not to transport them to another place for purpose of detention,
the crime committed was not kidnapping but robbery (People v.
Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993; Criminal Law Conspec-
tus by Florenz Regalado). Intent to deprive liberty is not present
since the deprivation of liberty is just incidental to the commis-
sion of robbery.
Since death results by reason or on occasion of robbery, the
crime committed is a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. This composite crime is committed even though the
victim of homicide is a responding Barangay Tanod (People v.
Pelagio, G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967). Even though only Pater
killed the Tanod, Percy, Pablo, and Sencio are also liable for rob-
bery with homicide since they failed to attempt to prevent the
same (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008;
People v. Castro, G.R. No: 187073, March 14, 2012). Since the
crime committed is robbery with homicide, all other felonies such
u arson and direct assault committed by reason or on occasion of
robbery shall be integrated into the special complex crime of rob-
bery with homicide (People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April 5,
2016, en bane; People v. Ebet, G.R. No. 181635, November IS,
2010; People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v.
Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 03, 2013). Arson shall not be consid-
ered as a separate crime but as a mere aggravating circumstance
of commission of the felony by means of fire (U.S. v. Bulfa, G.R.
No. 8468, August 20, 1913).
The elements of carnapping are: (a) the taking of the
motor vehicle which belongs to another; (b) the taking is without
consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimida-
tion of persons or by using force upon things; and (c) the taking
is done with intent to gain (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004).
In this case, the accused unlawfully took an MMDA bus
without tbe consent of its owner, which gives rise to ·the pre-
sumption of their intent to gain.
Considering that all elements of carnapping are present, the ac-
cused shall be liable therefor.
Since carnapping is punishable under a special law, it
shall be considered as a crime separate from robbery with homi-
cide (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 174658, February 24, 2009;
People c. Napalit, G.R. Nos. 142919/143876, February 4, 2003;
People v. Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913, September 2, 2015; People
v. Muit, G.R. No. 181043, October 8, 2008; People v. Roxas, G.R.
No. 172604, August 17, 2010).
Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bo!os, robbed the
house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were re-
siding. While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio
noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He
chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from
the house, but before bringing her back, raped her.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio
commit? Explain. (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(a)
Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since
he raped the daughter of Antonio on occasion or by reason of robbery.
Even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is
still robbery with rape since what is important is the direct connection
between the two crimes (People v. Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, 24
December 1948). Rape was not separate by distance and time from
the robbery.
Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable for robbery by band. There is
band in this case since more than three armed malefactors take part in
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
the commission of a robbery. Under Article 296 of the Revised Penal
Code, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a
robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the as-
saults committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same, The assault mentioned in Article 296 includes rape
(People v. Hamiana, G.R. Nos. L-3491-94, 30 May 1971). They are not
liable, however, for rape under Article 296 since they were not present
when the victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to pre-
vent the same. They are only liable for robbery by band (People v.
Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, 8 June 2011).
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification,
killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes,
if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2.5%) ’16 – Q15(b)
They are liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In
this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are
killed. It is also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are
committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Since homicides
are committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes
shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homi-
cide (People v. Diu, GR No. 201449, 3 April 2011)
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. Dat 10 o’clock in the
evening, with Cas the driver of the tricycle which they would use
in going to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and Aand Bas the ones
who would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As
planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B en-
tered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the
master’s bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could
see, while Bentered another room. While inside the room, B saw a
male person and immediately Bbrought out his gun but he acci-
dentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window,
hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened
by the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, police-
men arrived. Aand B panicked and got hold of a young boy and
shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the house
that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse.
Aand B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to
bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they
would release the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the
meantime, Cwas arrested by the policemen while he was about to
flee, while Aand B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.
What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit, and what modifying circum-
stances attended the commission of the crime/s? ‘14- Q9
A: A, B and C committed the crime of robbery with homicide under
paragraph 1 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. It is immaterial
that the death of a person occurred by mere accident. As long as
homicide is produced by eason or on the occasion of the robbery, the
crime is robbery with homicide as it is oly the result, without reference
or distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes, or persons in-
tervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into con-
sideration. They are not liable for the detention of the boy as illegal
detention is absorbed by the crime of robbery. The modifying circum-
stance of dwelling attended the commissio of the crime. The settled
rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery with homicide.
A, in a public place, fired his gun at B with the intention of killing
B, but the gun did not fire because the bullet is a dud. The crime
is: ‘14-Q11
(A) attempted homicide
(B) grave threat
(C) impossible crime
(D) alarm and scandal
A, B and C, all seventeen (17) years of age, waited for nighttime to
avoid detection and to facilitate the implementation of their plan
to rob G. They entered the room of G through a window. Upon
instruction of A, G opened her vault while 8 was poking a knife at
her. Acting as lookout, C had already opened the main door of the
house when the helper was awakened by the pleading of G to A
and B to just take the money from the vault without harming her.
When the helper shouted for help upon seeing G with A and B
63
inside the room, 8 stabbed G and ran towards the door, leaving
the house with C. A also left the house after taking the money of G
from the vault. G was brought to the hospital where she died as a
result of the wound inflicted by B. Under the given facts, are A, B
and C exempt from criminal liability? If not, what is the proper
charge against them or any of them? ’12 – Q24
a) A, B and C, being under eighteen (18) years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense, are exempt from criminal liability
and should be merely subjected to intervention program for child in
conflict with the law.
b) There being no indication of having acted with discernment,
A, B and C are exempt from criminal liability, subject to appropriate
programs in consultation with the person having custody over the child
in conflict with the taw or the local social welfare and development
officer.
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A,
B and C are not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged
with the complex crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic
suspension of sentence upon finding of guilt.
d) Under the given facts, A, 8 and C are not exempt from crimi-
nal liability because they conspired to commit robbery for which they
should be collectively charged as principals, and in addition, B should
be separately charged with homicide for the death of G, subject to
diversion programs for children over 15 and under 18 who acted with
discernment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A, B and C
are not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged with the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic suspen-
sion of sentence upon finding of guilt.
A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from criminal liability unless he / she has acted with
discernment (Section 6 of RA No. 9344). The discernment is his mental
capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong, and
such capacity may be known and should be determined by taking into
consideration all the facts, and the circumstances afforded by the
records in each case, the very appearance, the very attitude, the very
component and behavior of said minor (People vs. Doqueña, G.R. No.
46539, September 27, 1939). “A”, “B” and “C” are not exempt from
criminal liability since the manner they committed the crime indicates
discernment.
Although the original plan may have been to simply robbed the victim,
the conspirators are equally liable as co-principals for all the planned
or unanticipated consequences of their criminal design (People vs.
Bello, G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004). Whenever the commission of
the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is proven, all those
who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they
did not take part in the killing (People v. Sumalinog, G.R. No. 128387,
February 5, 2004) unless it appears that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 14756, April 4, 2003).
“A”, “B” and “C” should be charged with robbery with homicide despite
they merely plan to rob the victim and only “B” stabbed “G”.
Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing
items of jewelry in it. She found, however, that the jewelry were in
a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the chest out of the
shop. What crime did she commit? ’11 – Q1
(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
(B) Theft
(C) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.
(D) Qualified theft
A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the
house while C remained outside as lookout. After getting the
cash, A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any
evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit?
’11 – Q26
(A) Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the
robbery.
(B) Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.
(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
(D) Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
The crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is
mitigated when the offenders: ’11 – Q33
(A) entered the house using false keys.
(B) although armed did not fire their weapons.
(C) entered through a window without breaking it.
(D) although armed took property valued at only P200.
Christopher, John, Richard and Luke are fraternity brothers. To
protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry gun wher-
ever they go. One night after attending a party, they boarded a
taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter’s earnings.
’10 – Q23
1. What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the
elements of the crime. ’10 – Q23-1
The crime committed is robbery in a band since there were four
(4) offenders acting in concert in committing the robbery and all the
four were armed.
The elements of this crime are:
1. Unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another
(the earnings of the taxi-driver);
2. Intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings which belong to
the taxi-driver);
3. Violence against or intimidation of person or force upon
things was employed in the taking; and
4. There were more than three (3) armed malefactors taking
part in the commission of the robbery (Article 296 in relation
to Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.)
2. Would your answer be the same if they killed the driver?
’10 – Q23-2
NO. The answer would not be the same.
The crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity
brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only
as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were
unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating cir-
cumstance as provided for by Republic Act No. 8294 (People v.
Bolinget, 418 SCRA 85, [2003].)
The statement that “A person who, on the occasion of a robbery,
kills a bystander by accident, is liable for two separate crimes:
robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide” is
FALSE. ’09 – Q1d
Only one crime of robbery with homicide is constituted because
the Revised Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one indivisible
offense when a killing; whether intentional or accidental, was commit-
ted by reason or on the occasion of a robbery (Article 294(1), RPC;
People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 [1938].)
While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo were robbing a
bank, policemen arrived. A fire-fight ensued between the robbers
and the responding policemen, and one of the policemen was
killed. ’09 – Q8
1. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? ’09 –
Q8-1
The crimes committed are Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1),
RPC), a single indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple At-
tempted Homicide, a complex crime (Articles 48, 148 and 249, RPC;
People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 [1934].)
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the re-
sponding policemen was killed by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with
Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the offend-
ers’ firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of persons
in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such per-
formance (People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19,
2000.)
2. Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the respond-
ing policemen, what charges can be filed against
Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo? ’09 – Q8-2
64
The crime of which Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo can be charged
is Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1), RPC) because the killing
resulted by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is of no mo-
ment that the person killed is one of the robbers. A killing by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate or accidental, will be
a component of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, a single indivisi-
ble offense, as long as it is intimately connected to the robbery.
3. Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the po-
licemen arrived, Braulio shot and killed Alfredo follow-
ing a heated disagreement on who should carry the
money bags, what would be the criminal liability of
Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo? ’09 – Q8-3
Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with Homicide (Article 294(1),
RPC) for killing Alfredo, since the killing was by reason of the robbery.
Ciriaco and Domingo having conspired only in the commission of
the robbery, should incur liability only for the crime conspired upon –
the robbery, unless they were with Braulio during the killing and could
have prevented the same but they did not, in which case they shall
also be liable for Robbery with Homicide.
It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers and
he was killed during the robbery (People v. Barot, 89 SCRA 16 [1979].)
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia
for five years. One night, Nestor and Julia were out having dinner,
Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bed-
room with the use of a false key. They found Julia’s jewelry box in
one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Ju-
lia’s jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the
box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with
Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala,
pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand
over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just
arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the masters’ bed-
room with the box. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lucas and
Pedro commit? ’08 – Q13
Lucas and Pedro committed Robbery in an Inhabited House (Arti-
cle 299, RPC) for gaining entry into the house by means of a false key.
Another Alternative Answer:
Lucas and Pedro may also be charged with qualified theft be-
cause Lucas abused the trust and confidence of Nestor and Julia,
which gave him access to the house.
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a
bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to
get any money from the vault because the same was protected by
a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the
customers’ cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they
dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled
the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the
latter’s death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and
Jonathan commit? ’07 – Q3
Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan
committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, be-
cause that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed by
them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the
bank’s customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur
liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do
with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian,
aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about such death.
Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall
be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
because it was committed in the course of the commission of the rob-
bery.
Alternative Answer:
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide,
because there was conspiracy among them to commit the robbery and
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
the death of the pedestrian was caused on the occasion of the robbery.
Even though the death was accidental, it is enough that such death
was caused by any of its robbers’ felonious act and on the occasion of
the commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA 539
[1984].)
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They
learned that Jose won P500,000 in the lotto, and decided to rob
him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose’s
house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously
gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having
his dinner. Henry found the P500,000 and took it. Henry then took
a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to con-
ceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200
meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tan-
ods recovered the P500,000.
Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with
homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling,
and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was
not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed
the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an accom-
plice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with Henry to commit
robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider
the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery
with homicide with no aggravating circumstance, considering that
he and Mario did not benefit from the P500,000. He further alleged
that arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance;
dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide;
and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was
lighted at the time he was killed.
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
'05 – Q7
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as
an accomplice is without merit and therefore should be denied. There
was conspiracy to commit the robbery between him and Henry. There
being a conspiracy to commit robbery, the act of one is the act of all.
Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be
liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim’s house, could not
have known what Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose’s) house,
so much so that he was not in a position to stop the same. Mario,
therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what Henry did
inside Jose’s house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjec-
tive test to his participation as co-conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s
criminal liability should be aggravated by night time but not by dwelling
or arson.
Henry’s motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise without
merit and should be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with
homicide. His contention that he is only liable for attempted robbery
with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of the
P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control
of the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same.
The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a
robbery, becomes a component of the robbery, giving rise to the spe-
cial complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone com-
mitted the killing of Jose, a fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone should
be convicted of said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in rob-
bery with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is ag-
gravating in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of per-
sons.
The burning of the house or arson accompanying is only a com-
ponent of the robbery under Article 294(1), RPC. Such burning does
not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide.
Night time is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the
house of Jose was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the
offense.
Alternative Answer:
Mario should be convicted with robbery only, not for robbery with
homicide because he conspired only in the commission of the robbery.
As a conspirator in said crime, he is liable as co-principal and not as an
65
accomplice only. His motion for reconsideration claiming that he should
be liable only for robbery has merit, but not his contention that he
should be liable as an accomplice only.
On the other hand, Henry’s motion for reconsideration should be
denied for lack of merit. His contention that his liability should only be
for attempted robbery with homicide because they did not benefit from
the P500,000.00 lacks merit. In robbery, the crime is consummated the
moment the unlawful taking is complete even though the offender was
not able to appropriate or dispose of the personal property taken.
The contention that no aggravating circumstance attended the
commission of the crime is not correct. In robbery with violence or
intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating to the offender
who entered the dwelling of the offended party. Night time is not aggra-
vating because the house of the victim was lighted. The burning of the
victim’s house is not a separate crime of arson but only a component of
the robbery under Article 294, RPC.
Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered
her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After
taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave,
XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB
and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to
prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and
ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? '04 – Q9b
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of
Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Article 294(1) of
the RPC.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit
robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were
present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator.
Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC
thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspira-
tor XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as
principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a
single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is
just a component.
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting
to $10,000 from his daughter working in the United States. With
the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at
midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and
began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely
receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out
from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the
knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A
turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet underneath the
pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for.
A took the bills and left the house. What crime or crimes were
committed? '03 – Q9
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This
is so because A's primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and
in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the rob-
bery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent
being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery,
though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime
of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense
A entered the house of another without employing force or vio-
lence upon things. He was seen by a maid who wanted to scream
but was prevented from doing so because A threatened her with a
gun. A then took money and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of
theft or of robbery? '02 – Q14a
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he employed on
the maid before the taking of the money and other valuables. It is the
intimidation of person relative to the taking that qualifies the crime as
robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-employment of force upon
things is of no moment because robbery is committed not only by em-
ploying force upon things but also by employing violence against or
intimidation of persons.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A is a
barangay Kagawad and known to be a bully, while B is reputed to
be gay but noted for his industry and economic savvy which al-
lowed him to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including regis-
tered and unregistered lands in several barangays. Resenting B's
riches and relying on his political influence, A decided to harass
and intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands, consid-
ering that the latter was single and living alone. One night, A
broke into B's house, forced him to bring out some titles and after
picking out a title covering 200 square meters in their barangay,
compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said lot to
him for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All the while, A
carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of B, who signed the deed
out of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B sum-
moned enough courage and had A arrested and charged in court
after preliminary investigation. What charge or charges should be
filed against A? '01 – Q14
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the RPC should be
filed against A. Said Article provides that any person who, with intent to
defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him
to sign, execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall be
held guilty of robbery.
The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended
to intimidate B and thus, used in the commission of the robbery. If it
could be established that A had no license or permit to possess and
carry such firearm, it should be taken only as special aggravating cir-
cumstance to the crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecu-
tion.
Alternative Answer:
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B to
sign, had not attained the character of a "public" instrument or docu-
ment, A should be charged for the crime of Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling under Article 280 of the RPC for having intruded into B’s
house, and for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same
Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his will.
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his
friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a
bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their com-
mon key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends. '00 – Q11
1. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? '00 – Q11-1
A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things, because
the coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
and broken outside of their home (Article 299 (b) (2), RPC).
2. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of
the RPC for being a brother of B? '00 – Q11-2
NO, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Article 332 be-
cause said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief.
Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of
things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their origi-
nal plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he
saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady vic-
tim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B
watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop
the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? '99 –
Q17
YES, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of rob-
bery with rape under Article 294(1). Although the conspiracy of A and B
was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed
which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of
robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to
prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he
could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a compo-
nent of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape.
66
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses occupied by
different families located inside a compound enclosed by a 6-feet
high hollow block fence. How many robberies did the five com-
mit? '96 – Q8(2)
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law
because when they entered the compound, they were impelled only by
a single indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as they were
not aware that there were five families inside said compound, consider-
ing that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence.
The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the
same time constitutes one continued crime, motivated by one criminal
impulse.
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia
with considerable savings. Knowing him to be "loaded", his
friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a
rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he
was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he
decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered sever-
al bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to
drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to death.
Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of
his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away
but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The fol-
lowing day police investigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the
resort. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor
charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? '95 – Q12
NO, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and
arson.
Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation,
as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit
the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry
employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and
Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell
asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder
with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought
of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and
not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was
committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the of-
fended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry became liable
for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not neces-
sary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he commit-
ted. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Har-
ry's crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no
such crime.
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of
arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Theft
Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the
place, would be out of town for three days with no one left to
watch the house. He called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and
they planned to take the valuables in the house while Elgar was
away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve
as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When
Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben
went inside the house through the backdoor which was left un-
locked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They
took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and imme-
diately left using the getaway car.
After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag
and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house
was still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a
bench with Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be
texting using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him and
hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting
him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neigh-
bor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught.
Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and
Gorio? Explain. (5%) ’15-Q11
Answer: Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gordo are criminally liable as principals for
the crime of Theft. They conspired to take Elgar’s personal properties
without his knowledge, with intent to gain, and without violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308, RPC) Nel and
Ben entered the house through an unlocked backdoor and took the
valuables from the rooms and drawers that were likewise left unlocked.
Nel and Ben are liable as principals by direct participation while Ardo
and Gorio are principals by indispensable cooperation because they
have concurred in the criminal resolution and cooperated by perform-
ing another act as lookout and driver of a getaway car, respectively,
which were indispensable for the commission of the crime (Art. 17,
RPC).
Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homi-
cide for the death of Fermin. The killing of Fermin was a separate act
and was not a necessary means for committing Theft (Art. 48, RPC)
because the latter crime was already consummated. Nel killed Fermin
for a different reason perhaps because of his anger that Fermin was in
possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his smart
phone to contact the police.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
All the offenders are liable for the crime of Robbery with
Homicide.
They are in conspiracy with each other, and after unlawfully
taking the property of Elgar, killing occurred. In People v. Disimban, the
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for Robbery with Homicide
although the robbery victim was different from the homicide victim.
In People v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court ruled that those
who took part as principals in the Robbery will also be held guilty as
principals of Robbery with Homicide although they did not actually take
part in the Homicide.
Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the sum of P10,000.00
which would become due in one week. He was starting to worry
because he still had not raised the amount to pay for his debt.
Every day, he had prayed for divine intervention. One night, while
returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the back
seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly Pl 0,000.00
cash, the amount of his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine
intervention, and that his prayers were answered, he took the
money and used it to pay his debt.
a) What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain. (2.5%)
ANSWER: Bruno committed the crime of theft. The owner is known to
Bruno because there are IDs found in the wallet. Failure to deliver to
the local authorities or to its owner the lost property which he found
constitutes theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
b) Assuming that instead of using the money, Bruno turned over
the wallet and its contents to the nearby police station, and it was
67
the chief of police of that station who appropriated the money for
his own benefit, what crime was committed by the chief of police?
Explain. (2.5%) ’15-Q19
The chief of police is liable for theft. Although he is not the one who
found the property, he is considered as finder in fact since the property
was surrendered to him by the actual finder. He acquired the position
occupied by the actual finder and assumed by voluntary substitution
the obligation to surrender the property to the lawful owner. Appropriat-
ing the property is of the same character of that made by one who
originally found the same (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March
31, 1923). The liability of the finder in fact is the same liability of the
finder in law. Thus, what the Chief of Police committed is theft.
Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check
payable to cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to
the account of Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed
check, Madam X credited the amount to the account of her good
friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. Seven (7) days
after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her
that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam
W, thus, Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1
million from her accountand to turn over the same to Madam X.
As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was gifted by
Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of
the amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W
commit? Explain. ‘14- Q4
A: Madam X shall be liable as principal in the crime of qualified theft
committed with grave abuse of confidence anad punishable under Art
310 of the Revised Penal Code. Being a bank teller, she had only the
physical possession, not juridical possession of money received by
her. Consequently, her subsequent misapprpriation of the same shall
constitute the crime of theft, qualified with grave abuse of confidence.
Madam W, on the other hand, is not criminally liable. She had no
knowledge of the crime and withdrew the money from her account and
turned over the same to Madam X because of the misrepresentatio of
the latter that the P1 million was wrongfully deposited to her account.
Her participation is not based on conspiracy or community of design,
without which she cannot be held liable as principal by direct participa-
tion, principal by indispensable cooperation or accomplice. Receiving
an expensive Hermes bag from Madam X will not make Madam W
liable as an accessory since the latter has no actual knowledge of the
commission of the crime of theft by the former and the bag cannot be
considered as the “effects of the crime” since there is no showing that
the money withdrawn was used in buying it.
Is the crime of theft committed by a person who, with intent to
gain, takes a worthless check belonging to another without the
latter's consent? ’12 - Q15
a) Yes. All the elements of the crime of theft are present:
that there be taking of personal property; that the prop-
erty belongs to another; and that the taking be done
with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner.
b) No. The taking of the worthless check, which has no
value, would not amount to the crime of theft because
of the legal impossibility to commit the intended crime.
c) Yes. Theft is committed even if the worthless check
would be subsequently dishonored because the taker
had intent to gain from the check at the time of the
taking.
d) Yes. Theft is committed because the factual impossibili-
ty to gain from the check was not known to the taker or
beyond his control at the time of taking.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) No. The taking of the worthless check, which has no value, would
not amount to the crime of theft because of the legal impossibility to
commit the intended crime.
Stealing a worthless check constitutes impossible crime. There is im-
possibility to accomplish the crime of theft since the check has no val-
ue (See: Jacinto vs. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009).
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated
stage? Explain your answer in relation to what produces the
crime of theft in its consummated stage and by way of illustration
of the subjective and objective phases of the felony. (5%) ’12 –
QIIIa
No. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose
of the same. Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal
property, is the element which produces the felony in its consummated
stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution,
the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all. Thus, theft cannot
have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated
(Valenzuela vs. People, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007, En Banc).
Parsing through the statutory definition of theft under Article 308, it is
clear that theft is already “produced” upon the “tak[ing of] personal
property of another without the latter’s consent.”
Each felony under the RPC has a “subjective phase.” Of that portion of
the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins
the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender
which, without prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.
After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the
objective phase begins. It has been held that if the offender never
passes the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely at-
tempted. On the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed
in case of frustrated crimes, for in such instances, “subjectively the
crime is complete.”
Unlawful taking, which is the deprivation of one’s personal property, is
the element which produces the felony in its consummated stage, At
the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the of-
fense could only be attempted thefts, after all.
What crime is committed by a person who, having found a ring,
fails to deliver the same to the owner or to the local authorities?
’12 - Q61
a) The finder commits theft.
b) The finder commits concealment.
c) The finder commits qualified theft.
d) The finder commits usurpation of property.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The finder commits theft.
Theft is committed by a person whi, having found lost property, shall
fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner (Article
208 of the Revised Penal Code).
Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver
the same to the local authorities or to its owner is liable for: ’11 –
Q21
(A) occupation or usurpation of personal property.
(B) civil damages only.
(C) theft.
(D) other deceits.
Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in condominium in
Makati. For more than a year, he has been secretly saving money
in an envelope under their bed to buy her an engagement ring.
One day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she found the enve-
lope, took the money and left Paul. As prosecutor, what crime, if
any, would you charge Joan? ’10 – Q14
Joan may be charged for qualified theft because she took away
personal property belonging to Paul without the latter’s consent, so
obviously with intent to gain, and with grave abuse of confidence.
But Joan may invoke as a defense Article 332 of the Revised
Penal Code, under which no criminal liability but only civil liability shall
result from the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief commit-
ted by “spouses”, among others.
The reference to “theft” under the Article embraces both simple
theft and qualified theft, and the reference to “spouses” includes com-
mon-law or “live-in” relationship (People v. Constantino, 60 O.G. 3603
[1963].)
On their way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow chow puppy
behind a bush. Since the puppy did not have a collar, she brought
it home so she could have it as a pet.
68
1. Did Eva Marie incur criminal liability in bringing the
puppy home as a pet?
YES, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for the crime of simple
theft. The puppy is personal property which, is susceptible of taking
and has pecuniary value. Obviously, she took it with intent to own it;
hence, with intent to gain.
2. Did she incur civil liability? ’10 – Q18
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the owner of the puppy would
incur a loss due to non-restitution or return thereof to the owner. Find-
ing any property of value, legally regarded as lost property, would con-
stitute theft if the finder failed to deliver the same to the local authori-
ties or to its owner (Article 308, Par. 1, RPC.) Once Eva Marie is found
guilty of theft, she will incur civil liability which consists of restitution or
reparation for damage caused and indemnification for consequential
damages (Art. 100, RPC.) The general rule is: a person criminally li-
able is also civilly liable.
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing IDs and a diamond ring
along Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to the
nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag.
At the precinct, PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation,
Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, “in case you don’t find the owner,
let’s just pawn the ring and split the proceeds 50/50.” PO1 Melvin
then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for
P50,000. Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again. ’08 – Q5
1. What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? ’08 – Q5-1
Eman is guilty of theft (Article 308, RPC) for failure to return the
lost property to the rightful owner. His intent to gain became apparent
when he proposed to pawn the ring and to share the proceeds with
PO1 Melvin.
Another Alternative Answer:
Eman has no criminal liability. The fact alone that he suggested to
PO1 Melvin such an improper proposal does not make Eman criminally
liable. It is noted that there was no overt act on the part of Eman.
Hence, a criminal thought or mere intention, no matter how immoral or
improper it may be, will never constitute a felony (Luis B. Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code, Volume I, p. 32, 16th Ed., [2006].)
2. What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, if any? ’08 –
Q5-2
PO1 Melvin committed the crime of malversation of property un-
der Article 217, RPC since the subject ring appears to be his account-
ability and the act of pawning the same constitutes misappropriation.
DD was engaged in the warehouse business. Sometime in No-
vember 2004, he was in dire need of money. He, thus, sold mer-
chandise deposited in his warehouse to VR for P500,000. DD was
charged with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The court
convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the ground that he pur-
chased the merchandise in good faith. However, the court ordered
VR to return the merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered
DD to refund the P500,000 to VR. DD moved for the reconsidera-
tion of the decision insisting that he should be acquitted of theft
because being the depositary, he had juridical possession of the
merchandise. VR also moved for the reconsideration of the deci-
sion insisting that since he was acquitted of the crime charged,
and that he purchased the merchandise in good faith, he is not
obligated to return the merchandise to its owner. Rule on the mo-
tions with reasons. '05 – Q2(2)
The motion for reconsideration of DD is DENIED.
In this case, there being no proof that title to the goods was trans-
ferred to DD, only physical possession is presumed transferred to and
obtained by DD (U.S. v. Vera, 43 Phil. 1001 [1921].)
The principal distinction between the two crimes is that in theft the
thing is taken, while in estafa the accused received the property and
converts it to his own use or benefit. However, there may be theft even
if the accused has possession of the property, if he was entrusted only
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
with material or physical (natural) or de facto possession of the thing,
his misappropriation of the same constitutes theft, but if he has the
juridical possession of the thing, his conversion of the same constitutes
embezzlement or estafa (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990].)
The motion for reconsideration of VR is DENIED.
While VR is acquitted of theft, such acquittal does not of itself
negate civil liability of VR to return the property stolen by DD. Civil
liability on the part of VR exists despite his acquittal, since his acquittal
is premised on the finding that his liability is only civil in nature (De
Guzman v. Alva, 51. O.G. 1311 [1955].) DD was unlawfully deprived of
his personal property and as owner or possessor, he may recover such
movables.
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of
his working place in Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name
and address of the owner engraved on the inside. Remembering
his parents' admonition that he should not take anything which
does not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus
Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct with the instruction to locate
the owner and return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the
bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events
brought out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher
who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from where
Francis had found it and further investigation traced the last pos-
sessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned
out that he had not committed any crime because it was not he
who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it turned out to have
been stolen. Resolve the case. '01 – Q9
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention
that he has not committed any crime because he was not the one who
found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit.
It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and the failure to
restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.
The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not be-
long to him and which he only held to be delivered to its owner, is
furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for
delivery to the owner, the person to whom such property is entrusted
and who accepts the same, assumes the relation of the finder to the
owner as if he was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate it, he is
guilty of theft (People v. Avila, 44 Phil. 720 [1922].)
Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the
Ever Department Store and proceeded to the women's wear sec-
tion. The saleslady was of the impression that she brought to the
fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors.
When she came out of the fitting room, she returned only two (2)
pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became suspicious and
alerted the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the detec-
tive before she could leave the store and brought to the office of
the store manager. The detective and the manager searched her
and found her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and
pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated or
attempted? '00 – Q3
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation
was complete. The asportation is complete when the offender acquired
exclusive control of the personal property being taken. In this case,
when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her blouse and pants and
was on her way out of the store (Valenzuela v. People, 525 SCRA 306
[2007].) With evident intent to gain, the taking constitutes theft and
being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that the offend-
er is in a position to dispose of the property.
Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did not
belong to him, he approached policeman P and delivered the
watch with instruction to return the same to whoever may be
found to be the owner. P failed to return the watch to the owner
and, instead, sold it and appropriated for himself the proceeds of
the sale. Charged with theft, P reasoned out that he cannot be
found guilty because it was not he who found the watch and,
moreover, the watch turned out to be stolen property. Is P's de-
fense valid? '98 – Q19
69
NO, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that
the personal property subject thereof belongs to another and not to the
offender (P). It is irrelevant whether the person deprived of the posses-
sion of the watch has or has no right to the watch. Theft is committed
by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of another with-
out the consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when
the offender receives property of another but acquires only physical
possession to hold the same.
Qualified Theft
Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed
and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the
gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted around and after a few
minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with
some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them
with the proper offense. '06 – Q15
1. What is that offense? '06 – Q15-1
The offense committed is qualified theft, pursuant to Section 1 of
P.D. No. 330 and Section 8 of P.D. No. 705 defining the offense com-
mitted by any person who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes
or smuggles timber or other forest products in violation of existing laws,
rules and regulations, from any public forest reserves, and other kinds
of public forest or even privately owned forest lands.
2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial
proper, Rene and Dante contended that if they were to
be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the
newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to
those found outside the gate. If you were the judge,
what will be your ruling? '06 – Q15-2
If I were the judge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution
convincingly show a clear link between the accused and the cuts piled
outside the gate of the watershed, I will hold the accused criminally
liable not only for the newly-cut logs in their possession but also for
those found outside the gate. Circumstantial evidence proving that the
accused and no other person could have done the cutting of the logs,
such as the manner of cutting the logs, the area where they cut the
logs they were carrying, and other indications pointing to them as the
culprits may be considered.
Another Suggested Answer:
If I were the judge, I will rule in favor of Rene and Dante. The
liability of Rene and Dante is limited only to the newly-cut logs found in
their possession unless convincingly proved that they were the ones
who brought out the logs outside the gate.
It is fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that the guilt of the ac-
cused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to be con-
victed for the crime charged.
The facts of the case at bar does not show that Rene and Dante
were the ones who took and brought out the logs found outside the
gate. Culpability not having been sufficiently proved, they should not
be held liable.
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bula-
can. Among the first to arrive at the scene of the accident was A,
who found one of the victims already dead and the others uncon-
scious. Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of the
helpless condition of the victims, took their wallets and jewelry.
However, the police, who responded to the report of the accident,
caught A. What crime or crimes did A commit? '02 – Q5
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wal-
lets and jewelry of the victims with evident intent to gain and on the
occasion of a vehicular accident wherein he took advantage of the
helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified theft
was committed although there were more than one victim divested of
their valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were made on
one and the same occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage of the The following distinctions between brigandage and robbery by band:
confusion, entered the store and carried away goods which he The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation of
later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit? '02 – Q14b bands of robbers. The heart of the offense consists in the formation of
a band by more than three armed persons for the purpose indicated in
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the Art. 306. Such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation of Art.
goods on the occasion of and taking advantage of the fire which broke 306. It would not be necessary to show, in a prosecution under it, that
out in the department store. The occasion of a calamity such as fire, a member ir members of the band actually committed robbery or kid-
when the theft was committed, qualifies the crime under Article 310 of napping or any other purpose attainable by violent means. The crime is
the RPC, as amended. proven when the organization and purpose of the band are shown to
be such as are contemplated by Art. 306. On the other hand, if robbery
A, a receiving teller of the PNB, taking advantage of his position, is committed by a band, whose members were not primarily organized
appropriated the amount of P1,000 which he had in his posses- for the purpose of committing robbery or kidnapping, etc., the crime
sion. Did he commit malversation, estafa, theft or qualified theft? would not be brigandage, but only robbery. Simply because robbery
’75 – Q10 was committed by a band of more than three armed persons, it would
not follow that it was committed by a band of brigands. In the Spanish
The crime is qualified theft. The receiving teller has only the phys- text of Article 306, it is required that the band “sala a los campos para
ical possession of the amount of P1,000, which is presumably a de- dedicarse a robar” (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17,
posit received from a client of the bank. Although the PNB is a gov- 1993).
ernment bank, it however, performs proprietary functions and the re-
ceiving teller cannot be considered a public officer under Article 203 of
the RPC. In any event, malversation is committed by an accountable Brigandage Robbery in
public officer to whom public funds are entrusted for his custody. It band
cannot be estafa as the teller does not have juridical possession of the
Elements 1. There are at least 4 More than
amount. His possession of the money is in the possession of the bank.
persons; three armed
The crime cannot be simple theft because the duties of a receiving
2. They form a band or malefactors
teller, being pecuniary, are clothed with monetary responsibilities and
robbers; factors take
confidential in nature. The position involves trust and confidence. So,
3. The purpose is any part in the
qualified theft is committed as the misappropriation is with grave abuse
of the following: (see commission
of confidence (People v. Lacson, 57 Phil. 325.)
below) of a robbery.
Usurpation of Real Rights
Purpose 1. Commit robbery in a Commit
highway robbery, but
Teresita is the owner of a 2-hectare land in Bulacan which she
2. Kidnap to extort or not
planted to rice and corn. Upon her arrival from a 3-month vacation
get ransom necessarily in
in the U.S., she was surprised to discover that her land had been
3. Any other purpose to a highway.
taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who forcibly evicted her tenant-
be achieved by
caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the latter if she would
means of force or
resist their taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo
violence
plowed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest for themselves to
the exclusion of Teresita.
Agreement The agreement among The
1. What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo commit?
more than three armed agreement is
men is to commit robbery to commit
Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of usurpation of real
in the highway. only a
rights under Article 312 of the RPC for employing violence against or
particular
intimidation of persons. The threats to kill employed by them in forcibly
robbery.
entering the land is the means of committing the crime and therefore
absorbed in the felony, unless the intimidation resulted in a more seri-
ous felony.

2. Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the Estafa

latter refused to surrender possession of the land, what
crime or crimes did the two commit? '96 – Q17
The crime would still be usurpation of real rights under Article
312, RPC, even if the said offenders killed the caretaker because the
killing is the “violence against persons” which is the means for commit-
ting the crime and as such, determinative only. However, this gives way
to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein is “in addition to the
penalty incurred in the acts of violence (murder or homicide) executed
by them”. The crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is committed
by reason thereof, giving rise only to one indivisible offense (People v.
Judge Alfeche), plus the fine mentioned therein.
Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The
investors would buy the raw materials at a low price from Val. The
raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would
mix with water and let stand until a gel was formed. Val made a
written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the
gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit.
When the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors reached mil-
lions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business,
absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found.
What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain. (5%) ’16 –
Q7

Brigandage
Who are brigands? (5%) ’12 – QVIIa
When more than three armed persons from a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons
for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom, for any other purpose
to be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be deemed
highway robbers or brigands (Article 306 of the Revised Penal Code).
The crime committed is estafa through false pretenses (Art. 315 par.
2(a)). Val defrauded the investors by falsely pretending to possess
business or imaginary transactions. The fact that he sold all the equip-
ment of his perfume business, and absconded with the money when
the amounts to be paid by him to the investors reached millions of
pesos shows that the, transaction or his business is imaginary, and he
defrauded the victims.

Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band as to elements, pur-

pose of the offender and agreement among the offenders. (5%)
’12 - QVIIb

70
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses
owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to
Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the for-
mer when the cows are returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows
and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of
the horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the
loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the meat, and
sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses
were stolen.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain.
(2.5%) ’16 – Q13(a)
Tristan is liable for Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code. He received the cows under obligation involv-
ing the duty to return the same thing deposited, and acquired legal or
juridical possession in so doing, since their transaction is a commoda-
tum. Selling the cows as if he owned it constitutes misappropriation or
conversion within the contemplation of Article 315.
[b] What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo?
Explain. (2.5%) ’16 – Q13(b)
Domingo is liable for qualified theft under Article 308 of the Re-
vised Penal Code. Although Tristan received the horse with the con-
sent of the owner, Hannibal, his possession is merely physical or de
facto since the former is an employee of the latter. Slaughtering the
horse, which he physically possessed, and selling its meat to Pastor
shall be considered as taking without consent of the owner with intent
to gain, which constitutes theft (Balerta v. People, G.R. No. 205144, 26
November 2014). Since the horse is accessible to him, the theft is
qualified by the circumstance of abuse of confidence (Yongco v. Peo-
ple, G.R. No. 209373, 30 July 2014).
Further, Domingo committed the crime of violation of the Anti-
Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (P.D. No. 533). Cattle rustling is the taking
away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of large cattle, which includes cows and horses, whether
or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes
the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent
of the owner/raiser.
Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale
of plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and
regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and
purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5
million. Mr. Benjiereadily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3)
postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view
of the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon
presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immedi-
ately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The following
day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2)
postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete
the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be
honored upon presentment for payment. When the checks were
presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of
funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and re-
ceived by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dis-
honor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Ben-
jie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against
Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several
amounts from Mr. Edas partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie
protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite
the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no
demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely
civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie
accepted the partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if
any, of Mr. Ed. ‘14-Q16
A: Mr. Ed s liable for one count of estafa under Article 315 (2)(d) for the
issuance of the first three checks because he issued them simultane-
ous with the transaction in order to defraud another. However, the two
other checks are deemed to have been issued in payment of a pre-
existing obligatio, hence the same act could not have been the efficient
71
cause of defraudation required in estafa under the Revised Penal
Code.
He is also liable for two counts of violation of BP 22 for the issuance of
the five checks which were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The
gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless or unfunded check.
Deceit is not material to BP 22.
Mr. Ed’s defense of partial payments constituting novation and ab-
sence of demand letter will not exculpate him from the criminal liability
incurred. The partial payments made would only affect his civil liability
while his claim of absence of demand letter is negated by his receipt of
notices of dishonor.
William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of
real property. In 1994, William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William
caused the preparation of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) giv-
ing him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of land registered in
the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA was
forged and, through this forged SPA and without the consent and
knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2)
parcels for Php 2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale.
Mercedes eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed a
criminal complaint. William was subsequently charged with estafa
through falsification of public document.
Was the criminal charge proper? (7%) ’13-Q8
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The criminal charge of estafa through falsifi-
cation is correct. William forged the signature of his mother-in-law in
the Special Power of Attorney, which is a public document, as a neces-
sary means to sell her properties to third parties without delivering the
proceeds thereof. Although the relationship of affinity created between
William and his mother-in-law survived the death of either party to the
marriage, the coverage of the absolutory cause under Art. 332 (1) of
the Revised Penal Code cannot be applied to him. It is strictly limited to
the simple crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief. It does not
apply where any of the crimes mentioned is complexed with another
crime. This is because when estafa is committed through falsification of
a public document, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension
and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members
among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that
breaches the public interest in the integrity of public documents as a
means to violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed
from the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Art. 332 (In-
testate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v. People,
G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010).
The wife of AAA predeceased his mother-in-law. AAA was ac-
cused of defrauding his mother-in-law under a criminal informa-
tion for estafa, but the actual recital of facts of the offense
charged therein, if proven, would constitute not only the crime of
estafa, but also falsification of public document as a necessary
means for committing estafa. AAA invokes the absolutory cause
of relationship by affinity. Which statement is most accurate? ’12
– Q1
a. The relationship by affinity created be-
tween AAA and the blood relatives of his
wife is dissolved by the death of his wife
and the absolutory cause of relationship
by affinity is therefore no longer available
to AAA.
b. The death of.spouse does not severe the
relationship by affinity which is an absolu-
tory cause available to AAA for estafa
through falsification of public document.
c. If AAA commits in a public document the
act of falsification as a necessary means
to commit estafa, the relationship by affin-
ity still subsists as an absolutory cause
for estafa which should be considered
separately from the liability for falsifica-
tion of public document because there is
no specific penalty prescribed for the
complex crime of estafa through falsifica-
tion of public document.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
d. Considering that under the given situa-
tion, the two (2) crimes of estafa and falsi-
fication of public document are not sepa-
rate crimes but component crimes of the
single complex crime of estafa and falsifi-
cation of public document, the absolutory
cause of relationship by affinity is not
available to AAA.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Considering that under the given situation, the two (2) crimes of
estafa and falsification of public document are not separate crimes but
component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsifica-
tion of public document, the absolutory cause of relationship by affinity
is not available to AAA.
There are two views on whether the extinguishment of marriage by
death of the spouse dissolves the relationship by affinity for purpose of
absolutory cause. The first holds that relationship by affinity terminates
with the dissolution of the marriage, while the second maintains that
relationship continues even after death of the deceased spouse. The
principle of pro reo calls for the adoption of the continuing affinity view
because it is more favorable to the accused. However, the absolutory
cause applies to theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not
apply to theft through falsification or estafa through falsification (Intes-
tate estate of Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11,
2010).
What crime is committed by one who defrauds another by taking
undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in a blank
check and by writing the payee and amount of the check to the
prejudice of the offended party? ’12 – Q17
a) estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
b) estafa by false pretense;
c) estafa through fraudulent means;
d) estafa by other deceits.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
Estafa is committed by a person who shall defraud another with un-
faithfulness or abuse of confidence by taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing any document
above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or
of any third person (Article 315 [1] [c] of the Revised Penal Code).
Who among the following is liable for estafa? ’12 – Q22
a) The seller of a laptop computer who failed to inform the
buyer that the laptop had a defect.
b) The person who ran away with a cell phone which was
handed to him upon his pretense that he had to make an emer-
gency call.
c) The person who assured he will pay interest on the
amount but failed to do so as promised.
d) The son who induced his father to buy from him a land
which the son is no longer the owner.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The person who ran away with a cell phone which was handed to
him upon his pretense that he had to make an emergency call.
The person, who ran away with a cellphone which was handed to him
upon his pretence that he had to make an emergency call, is liable for
estafa through misappropriation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) The seller of a laptop computer who failed to inform the buyer that
the laptop had a defect.
Misappropriation of personal property in possession of the accused
may constitute estafa or theft depending upon the nature of posses-
sion. If his possession of the property is physical or de facto, misap-
propriation thereof is constitutive of theft. If the possession is juridical
or legal, misappropriation thereof is estafa through misappropriation
(People vs Mirto, G.R. No. 139479, October 19, 2011). Thus, the per-
son, who ran away with a cellphone which was handed to him upon his
pretence that he had to make an emergency call, is liable for theft
since the possession of offender is merely physical. Hence, “B” is not
the answer.
Fraud or deceit may be committed by omission. It is true that mere
silence is not in itself concealment. Concealment which the law de-
72
nounces as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which
the seller is, in good faith, bound to disclose may generally be classi-
fied as a deceptive act due to its inherent capacity to deceive. Sup-
pression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to dis-
close is equivalent to a false representation. A seller, who failed to
disclose the defect of the property sold to the buyer, is liable for other
deceit under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (Guinhawa vs.
People, G.R. No. 162822 August 25, 2005). Hence, “A” is the answer.
RR convinced WW to take a job in Taiwan, assuring her of a good
salary and entitlement to a yearly vacation. WW paid to RR the
processing fee for passport and visa, but no receipt was issued
for the payment. WW was made to use the alien certificate of reg-
istration of another person with a Chinese name and instructed
on how to use the Chinese name. The application of WW was
rejected by the Taiwanese authorities. Cases were filed against
RR for illegal recruitment and estafa. The case of illegal recruit-
ment was dismissed. Is RR liable for estafa? ’12 - Q57
a) RR is liable for estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confi-
dence.
b) RR is liable for estafa by means of false pretenses.
c) RR is not liable for estafa because WW participated in the
illegal travel documents.
d) RR can no longer be held liable for estafa because with the
dismissal of the case against him for illegal recruitment, double jeop-
ardy has already set in.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) RR is liable for estafa by means of false pretenses.
RR is liable for estafa by means of false pretenses. RR misrepresented
and falsely pretended that she had the capacity to deploy WW for em-
ployment in Taiwan. The misinterpretation was made prior to the pay-
ment for processing fee. It was RR’s misinterpretation and false pre-
tenses that induced WW to part with her money. As a result of RR’s
false pretenses and misinterpretations, WW suffered damages as the
promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she
paid was never recovered (People vs. Sy, G.R. No. 183879, April 14,
2010).
The fact that WW actively participated in the processing of the illegal
travel documents will not exculpate RR from liability. WW was a hap-
less victim of circumstance s and of frau committed by RR. She was
forced to take part in the processing of the falsified travel documents
because she had already paid the processing fee. RR committed de-
ceit by representing that she could secure WW with employment in
Taiwan, the primary consideration that induced the latter to part with
her money. WW was led to believe by RR that she possessed the
power and qualifications to provide WW with employment abroad,
when, in fact, she was not licensed or authorized to do so. Deceived,
WW parted with her money and delivered the same to RR (People vs.
Sy, supra).
Illegal recruitment and estafa cases may be filed simultaneously or
separately. The filing of charges for illegal recruitment does not bar the
filing of estafa, and vice versa. RR’s acquittal in the illegal recruitment
case does not prove that she is not guilty of estafa. Illegal recruitment
and estafa are entirely different offenses and neither once necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is con-
victed of illegal recruitment may, in addition, be convicted of estafa. In
the same manner, a person acquitted of illegal recruitment may be held
liable for estafa. Double jeopardy will not set in because illegal recruit-
ment is malum prohibitum, in which there is no necessity to prove crim-
inal intent, whereas estafa is malum in se, in the prosecution of which,
proff of criminal intent is necessary (People vs. Sy, supra).
Which of the following acts does not constitute estafa or other
forms of swindling? ’12 - Q65
a) When a person mortgages a real property by pretending to
be the owner thereof.
b) When a person disposes of the real property knowing it to be
encumbered.
c) When a person wrongfully takes real property from its lawful
possessor to the prejudice of the latter.
d) When a person mortgages real property while being a surety
given in a civil action without express authority from the court.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
c) When a person wrongfully takes real property from its lawful pos-
sessor to the prejudice of the latter.
Swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed by
the owner of any “personal property” who shall wrongfully take it from
its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter. In the facts giving in
choice letter “c”, what is involved is a real property.
ATERNATIVE ANSWER:
b) When a person disposes of the real property knowing it to be en-
cumbered.
Swindling under Article 316 (a) of RPC is committed by any person
who, knowingly that the real property is encumbered, shall dispose of
the same. The law was taken from Article 455 of the Spanish Penal
Code. However, the words “como libre” in the Spanish Penal Code,
which means “free from encumbrance” do not appear in the English
text of RPS, nonetheless, the same are deemed incorporated in the
RPC (In sum, the offender must dispose the real property free from
encumbrance despite knowledge that is encumbered). The gravamen
of the crime is the disposition of legally encumbered real property by
the offender under the express representation that there is no encum-
brance thereon. Hence, for one to be criminally liable for estafa under
the law, the accused must make an express representation in the deed
of conveyance that the property sold or disposed of is free from any
encumbrance (Naya vs. Abing, G.R. No. 146770, February 27, 2003).
A person, who disposes real property knowing it to be encumbered, is
not liable for swindling under Article 316 since the elements of “express
representation of no encumbrance” is not present. Hence, “b” is the
answer.
There is violation of Art. 316, RPC (Other forms of Swindling)
where: ’11 – Q15
(A) the owner of property sells a property and subsequently rescinds
the sale.
(B) the real property subject of the sale does not exist.
(C) the property was mortgaged for a usurious contract of loan.
(D) the owner disposes of his encumbered real property as if it is free
from encumbrances.
X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he
would merely show the check to his creditor to gain more time to
pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the
creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be prosecuted for
estafa based on the dishonored check? ’11 – Q29
(A) Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement
(B) X as the drawer of the check
(C) Both X and Y based on conspiracy
(D) None
Removing, concealing or destroying documents to defraud an-
other constitutes the crime of estafa if committed by: ’11 – Q36
(A) any public officer.
(B) a public officer officially entrusted with the document.
(C) private individuals who executed the same.
(D) private individuals.
The president, treasurer and secretary of ABC Corp. were charged
with syndicated estafa alleging that they defrauded Virna, Lana,
Deborah and several other persons by making it appear that were
in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading under ABC
Corp. knowing full well that ABC Corp. is not licensed nor autho-
rized to engage in foreign exchange trading; in inducing the com-
plainants to give and deliver to them at least P20,00,000 on said
manifestations and representations; and that such manifestations
and representations resulted to the damage and prejudice of the
complainants and other persons.
Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? ’10 – Q16
NO, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syn-
dicate for such crime under Presidential Decree No. 1689 must be
comprised of five (5) persons or more persons committing the estafa or
other forms of swindling defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised
Penal Code; whereas the case only involved three (3) accused who
are alleged to have conspired in the commission of the swindling. But
because the amount defrauded exceeds P100,000, the case is still
73
under the same P.D. No. 1689 with a lower penalty than syndicated
estafa.
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 per month. Myla
failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis,
prepared a letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized
him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to
Gabriel who kept the payment. ’08 – Q9
1. Did Gabriel commit a crime? ’08 – Q9-1
YES, Gabriel committed the crime of Estafa under Article 315,
Par. 2(a), RPC by fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous
with the fraud or false pretending to possess agency. Myla paid the
money because she relied upon the demand letter prepared by Gabriel
with the false allegation that he was authorized to collect rentals.
2. Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid
criminal liability? ’08 – Q9-2
NO. Gabriel cannot invoke Article 332, RPC (Persons exempt
from criminal liability). It is Myla, not the father Dennis, who is the of-
fended party under Article 315, Par. 2(a), RPC (Luis B. Reyes, The
Revised Penal Code, Volume I, p. 853, 16th Ed., [2006].)
Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a
gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning
less than it actually was writing in a “talaan” or ledger a figure
lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe
then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any?
’07 – Q8
If the “talaan” or ledger which Fe made to show a falsehood was a
private document, the only crime that Fe committed was estafa through
abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness. Criminal liability for falsification
of a private document does not arise without damage or at least proof
of intent to cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of intent to
cause damage. Since the “talaan” was falsified to cover-up or conceal
the misappropriation of the amount involved, whatever damage or
intent to cause damage attends the falsification, it will be the same
damage or intent to cause damage that will attend the estafa.
If such “talaan” or ledger was a commercial document, damage or
proof of intent to cause damage is not necessary. The falsification
alone, if done with intent to pervert the truth, would bring about the
criminal liability for falsification of a commercial document. Damage or
intent to cause damage, would sustain the estafa independently of the
falsification of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate
crimes are committed, namely: (1) estafa; and (2) falsification of a
commercial document. The falsification should not be complexed with
the estafa since it was not committed as a necessary means to commit
the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide the misappropria-
tion of the amount she pocketed.
Alternative Answer:
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private
document because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill
was only physical, not juridical possession, and having committed the
crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft.
The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was
not committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted
only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a
counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no
inkling that the credit card used by DD was counterfeit. What
crime or crimes did DD commit? '05 – Q4(2)
DD committed estafa and violated R.A. No. 8484, referred to as
Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.
Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC is committed because
he defrauded the owner of the establishment by falsely pretending to
possess credit with the credit card company when he used a fake cred-
it card.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
DD also violated Section 9(a) of R.A. No. 8484 which punishes,
among others, the act of using a counterfeit access device.
Alternative Answer:
DD committed a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a
commercial document. As a user of a false or fake credit card, a com-
mercial document, DD is presumed to have falsified the same. Hence,
he does not only commit the crime of using a false document but also
the crime of falsification. Since he used such false or fake credit card
to defraud the owner of the store from whom he purchased the televi-
sion set, the crime of swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru falsifica-
tion of said commercial document. He, therefore, committed the com-
plex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document.
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to discuss B's finan-
cial problems. On his way, one of A's car tires blew up. Before A
left following the meeting, he asked B to lend him (A) money to
buy a new spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank de-
posits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however, a replen-
ishment of his account soon, B issued A a post-dated check with
which A negotiated for a new tire. When presented, the check
bounced for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal case
against A and B. What would be the criminal liability, if any, of
each of the two accused? '03 – Q12
A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a new tire for
his car may only be prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time
of such negotiation that the check has no sufficient funds in the drawee
bank; otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be
prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having issued the check, knowing at the
time of issuance that it has no funds in the bank and that A will negoti-
ate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for
estafa because the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to
defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B issued
the post-dated check only to help A: criminal intent or dolo is absent.
A sold a washing machine to B on credit, with the understanding
that B could return the appliance within 2 weeks if, after testing
the same, B decided not to buy it. 2 weeks lapsed without B re-
turning the appliance. A found out that B had sold the washing
machine to a 3rd party. Is B liable for estafa? ’02 – Q12
NO, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an 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 the unpaid price of the washing
machine; his obligation is only a civil obligation. There is no felonious
misappropriation that could constitute estafa.
Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in jewelry who does
business in Timog, QC. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to
sell a diamond ring and bracelet to Victoria on a commission ba-
sis, on condition that, if these items can not be sold, they may be
returned to Victoria forthwith. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet,
Rosa delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City with the under-
standing that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the items to Victoria in
Timog, QC. Aurelia dutifully returned the bracelet to Victoria but
sold the ring, kept the cash proceeds thereof to herself, and is-
sued a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for
estafa under Article 315, RPC, Victoria insisting that delivery to a
third person of the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. Is
Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the circumstances? '99 –
Q14b
NO, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa. Although she
received the jewelry from Victoria under an obligation to return the
same or deliver the proceeds thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In
fact, she gave them to Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria.
The misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent the showing of
any conspiracy between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for Amelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above,
Rosa's negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to misappropriate
74
the jewelry does not make her criminally liable for estafa (Lim v. Court
of Appeals, 271 SCRA 12 [1997].)
Is there such a crime as estafa through negligence? '99 – Q14a
There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. In estafa,
the profit or gain must be obtained by the accused personally, through
his own acts, and his mere negligence in allowing another to take ad-
vantage of or benefit from the entrusted chattel cannot constitute
estafa (People v. Nepomuceno, CA 46 O.G. 6135 [1949].)
Divina, is the owner of a 500-square meter residential lot in Makati
City covered by TCT No. 1998. As her son needed money for his
trip abroad, Divina mortgaged her lot to her neighbor Dino for
P1,000,000. Later Divina sold the same lot to Angel for P2,000,000.
In the Deed of Sale, she expressly stated that the property is free
from any lien or encumbrance. What crime, if any, did Divina
commit? '98 – Q12
Divina committed estafa or swindling under Article 316, par. 2 of
the RPC because, knowing that the real property being sold is encum-
bered, she still made a misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the
same is free from any lien or encumbrance. There is thus a deceit or
fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot.
The accused opened a saving account with Bank A with an initial
deposit of P2,000. A few days later, he deposited in the savings
account a Bank B check for P 10,000 drawn and endorsed pur-
portedly by C. Ten days later, he withdrew P 10,000 from his sav-
ings account. C complained to Bank B when the check was de-
ducted from his account. Two days thereafter, the accused de-
posited another Bank B check of P 10,000 signed and endorsed
allegedly by C. A week later, the accused went to Bank A to with-
draw P10,000. While withdrawing the amount, he was arrested.
Convicted under two informations of estafa and attempted estafa
both through falsification of commercial documents, he set up the
defenses that, except for the showing that the signature of C had
been forged, no further evidence was presented to establish (a)
that he was the forger of the signature of C nor (b), that as to the
second charge C suffered any damage. Rule on the defense. ’97 –
Q13
The defense is not tenable; (a) the possessor of a falsified docu-
ment is presumed to be the author of the falsification (People v. Sen-
daydiego, 81 SCRA 120; Koh Tiek v. People, December 21, 1990); (b)
In estafa, a mere disturbance of property rights, even if temporary,
would be sufficient to, cause damage. Moreover, in a crime of falsifica-
tion of a commercial document, damage or intent to cause damage is
not necessary because the principal thing punished is the violation of
the public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corp. (OFC) received from
Maricar the sum of P500,000 as money market placement for 60
days at 15% interest, and the President of OFC issued a check
covering the amount including the interest due thereon, post-dat-
ed May 30, 1995. On the maturity date, however, OFC failed to
deliver back Maricar's money placement with the corresponding
interest earned, notwithstanding repeated demands upon said
Corporation to comply with its commitment. Did the President of
OFC incur any criminal liability for estafa for reason of the non-
payment of the money market placement? '96 – Q10
NO, the President of the financing corporation does not incur
criminal liability for estafa because a money market transaction par-
takes of the nature of a loan, such that non-payment thereof would not
give rise to estafa through misappropriation or conversion. In money
market placement, there is transfer of ownership of the money to be
invested and therefore the liability for its return is civil in nature (Perez
v. Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 636; Sebreno v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
84096, 26 January 1995).
Simultaneous Filing of Estafa and Illegal Recruitment
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission
basis. They agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale
and return the unsold items to Dora within sixty days. The period
expired without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or return-
ing the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by phone that Elen turn
over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of
jewelry. Elen promised to do so the following day. El en still failed
to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated
checks. Thereafter, Dora made several more demands, the last of
which was in writing, but they were all unheeded. When the
checks were deposited in Dora's bank account, the checks were
returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with
estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Will the charges
against Elen prosper? Explain. (4%) ’15-Q13
Answer: Art. 315, par1(b) of the RPC punishes Estafa through Misap-
propriation. To prove the foregoing crime, the prosecution must estab-
lish the following elements: (1) the offender’s receipt of money, goods
or other personal property in trust, or on commission, or for administra-
tion, or under any other obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to
return the same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of
the money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or denial is
to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the offended party that
the offender return the money or property received.
In the case at hand, the pieces of jewelry were received by
Elen from Dora, an act which transferred the juridicial possession of
the former. To have juridicial possessions means possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set
up against the owner.
Generally, demand for the return of the thing delivered in
trust in necessary before an accused is convicted of Estafa. However,
if there is an agreed period of for the return of the thing received in
trust and the accused failed to return it within the agreed period, de-
mand is unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within the agreed
period consummates the crime of Estafa, i.e. the misappropriation of
the thing received in trust. In this case, Dora and Elen agreed on a
period, within 60 days, for the delivery of the sale and return of the
unsold items to Dora. Elen’s failure to return within 60 days is a pre-
sumption of misappropriation of the jewelry. Thus, there would be no
more need to present any act of misappropriation.
Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising Nita that she
would take care of the processing of the necessary documents.
Dela collected P120,000.00 from Nita purportedly for the process-
ing of her papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita was made to
accomplish certain forms and was told that she would be de-
ployed to Taiwan within one month. After one month, Nita fol-
lowed up on her application. Dela made some excuses and told
Nita that the deployment would be delayed. Another month
passed and Dela made other excuses which made Nita suspi-
cious. Nita later discovered that Dela was not licensed to recruit.
Nita confronted Dela and demanded the return of her money. Dela
promised to return the same in a week's time.
a) A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. What crime(s) did
Dela commit? Explain. (2.5%)
Answer: Dela defrauded Nita by leading her to believe that she has the
capacity to send her to Taiwan for work, even though she does not
have license or authority for the purpose. Such misrepresentation
came before Nita gave Dela P120,000 for the processing of her pa-
pers. Clearly Nita would not have parted with her money were it not
found for such enticement by Dela. As a consequence of Dela’s false
pretenses, Nita suffered damages as the promised employment abroad
never materialized and the money she paid was never recovered.
Thus, the crime of estafa through falsification of public documents is
committed. Since Dela has no license to recruit, the crime of illegal
75
recruitment is also committed (People v. Chua, G. R. No. 187051,
September 13, 2012).
b) Will your answer still be the same, assuming that the promise
to deploy for employment abroad was made by Dela to Celia,
Digna and Emma, in addition to Nita, and from whom Dela also
collected the same amount of processing fee? Explain. (2.5%) ’15-
Q14
Yes. Dela shall be held liable for both Estafa under Par2(a) of Art. 315
of the RPC and Illegal Recruitment, but in large-scale. Illegal recruit-
ment is deemed committed in large-scale if committed against 3 or
more persons individually or as a group. Since there are at least 3
victims in this case, Cela, Digna, Emma, and Nita, Dela shall be held
liable for large scale illegal recruitment under the earlier cited provi-
sions. (People v. Tolentino, GR No 208686, 01 July 2015).
AA misrepresented to the complainant that he had the power,
influence, authority and business to obtain overseas employment
upon payment of placement fee. AA duly collected the placement
fee from complainant. As per certification of the Philippine Over-
seas Employment Administration, AA did not possess any author-
ity or license for overseas employment. Is it proper to file two (2)
separate Information for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code
and for estafa by means of deceit? ’12 – Q8
a. No. The filing of two (2) separate Informa-
tions for illegal recruitment under the Labor
Code and for estafa by means of deceit for
the same act is violative of the principle
against double jeopardy.
b. No. One Information for a complex crime of
illegal recruitment with estafa by means of
deceit should be filed, instead of two (2) sep-
arate Informations.
c. No. A person convicted of illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code may not, for the same
act, be separately convicted of estafa by
means of deceit.
d. Yes. A person convicted of illegal recruitment
under the Labor Code may, for the same act,
be separately convicted of estafa by means
of deceit.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Yes. A person convicted of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code
may, for the same act, be separately convicted of estafa by means of
deceit.
It is well-settled that a person who has committed illegal recruitment
may be charged and convicted separately of the crime of illegal re-
cruitment under RA No. 8042 and estafa. The reason for the rule is that
the crime f illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for convcition, while the crime of
estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is nec-
essary for conviction. In other words, a person convicted under the RA
No. 8042 may also be convicted of offenses punishable by other laws
(People vs. Logan, G.R. No. 135030-33, July 20, 2001). Moreover,
although the two crimes may arise from the same facts, they are not
the same. Not all acts, which constitute estafa, necessarily establish
illegal recruitment, for estafa is wider in scope and covers deceits
whether or not related to recruitment activities. More importantly, the
element of damage, which is essential in estafa cases, is immaterial in
illegal recruitment (People vs. Turda, G.R. No. 97044, July 6, 1994).
RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them
to London to work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She col-
lected and received from them various amounts of money for
recruitment and placement fees totalling P400,000. After their
dates of departure were postponed several times, the four
prospects got suspicious and went to POEA. There they found
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail. Is RR guilty
of any grave offense? '04 – Q1a
YES. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal
recruitment constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is
punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of P100.000.00.
ECONOMIC SABOTAGE is an offense defined in 38(b) of the
Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018, which is incurred when the
illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. It is in
a large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties, individu-
ally or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or
more persons conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out
the illegal transaction, scheme or activity.
Arson
Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One evening, during a drink-
ing spree at his house, Senio told his friends what he intended to
do and even showed them the gasoline in cans that he would use
for the purpose. Carlo, a common friend of Senio and Bal, was
present at the drinking spree. He was still sober when Senio told
them his plans. Before going home, Carlo warned Bal that Senio
would burn his house and had already bought gasoline that
would be used for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the
police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and
proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it
was at that point when he was caught by the police. What crime
did Senio commit, if any? Explain. (3%) ’15-Q20
ANSWER: Senio is liable for attempted arson. He manifested before
his intention to burn the house of Bal to his friends. He then performed
the act of pouring gasoline around the walls of the house to execute
his criminal design to commit arson. This is not just a preparatory act,
because it already ceased to be equivocal and revealed a clear inten-
tion to burn the house. In sum, he already commenced the commission
of the crime of arson directly by overt acts but he did not perform all
acts to execute his criminal design to commit arson by setting the
house on fire due to a cause other than his spontaneous desistance,
and that is, having been caught by the police.
With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the
two-storey residential house of his employer, mostly made of
wooden materials. The blaze spread and gutted down seven
neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire, six (6) persons
sustained burn injuries which were the direct cause of their death.
What crime was committed by AAA? ’12 - Q74
a) AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple
homicide.
b) AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
c) AAA committed simple arson.
d) AAA committed arson and multiple murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) AAA committed simple arson.
If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or
edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson, the
crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed (People
vs. Baluntong, G.R. No. 182601, March 15, 2010l People vs. Cedenio,
G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994).
Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by
setting Bugna’s house on fire. What crime or crimes did Dagami
commit? ’11 – Q37
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for
failing in his college courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suit-
case of FEL and burned it together with all its contents. '04 – Q6
76
1. What crime was committed by CD? '04 – Q6-1
The crime committed by CD is arson under P.D. No. 1613 (the
new Arson Law) which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to
the property of another (Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613).
2. Is CD criminally liable? '04 – Q6-2
CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose
property he burnt, because such relationship is not exempting from
criminal liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft, swin-
dling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332, RPC). The provi-
sion (Article 323) of the Code to the effect that burning property of
small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been
repealed by P.D. No. 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to con-
sider burning property of small value as malicious mischief.
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and
Mario Cortez. Later that evening, at about 11 PM, Eddie passed by
the house of Mario carrying a plastic bag containing gasoline,
threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside the house
watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house
started blazing and some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forth-
with, Mario poured water on the burning portion of the house.
Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under control before
any great damage could be inflicted and before the flames have
extensively spread. Only a portion of the house was burned. Dis-
cuss Eddie's liability. '00 – Q18c
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It
is destructive arson because fire was resorted to in destroying the
house of Mario which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is
consummated because the house was in fact already burned although
not totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises be totally
burned for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premis-
es suffer destruction by burning.
Tata owns a 3-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco,
Manila. She wanted to construct a new building but had no money
to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3
million. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary consid-
eration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to
its total loss. '94 – Q6
1. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi-commit? '94 –
Q6-1
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson
because they collectively caused the destruction of property by means
of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger the life or
property of others (Article 320, par. 5, RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
7659).
2. What is their respective criminal liability? '94 – Q6-2
Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced
Yoboy and Yongsi, for a price or monetary consideration, to commit
arson which the latter would not have committed were it not for such
reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct participation (Article
17, paragraphs 1 and 2, RPC).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime could only be malicious mischief as the problem does not
mention that he is carrying a match or a lighter. It was not shown that
Senio was about to light a match or ignite a lighter to set the house on
fire.
Malicious Mischief
DD, intending to kill EE, peppered the latter's bedroom with bul-
lets, but since the intended victim was not home at that time, no
harm came to him. What crime is committed? ’12 - Q66
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
a) DD committed the crime of attempted murder.
b) DD committed the crime of attempted homicide.
c) DD committed the crime of impossible crime.
d) DD committed the crime of malicious mischief.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) DD committed the crime of malicious mischief.
In Intod vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992–
Outside the house of the victim, accused with intent to kill fired at the
bedroom, where the victim is supposed to be sleeping. No one was in
the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun
fire. The accused were convicted of impossible crime. Accused shoot
the place where he thought his victim was not present in said place
and thus, the accused failed to accomplish their end due to its factual
impossibility.
What crime is committed by a utility worker in government who
destroys office files as an act of revenge against his supervisor?
’12 - Q75
a) The utility worker commits infidelity in the custody of papers.
b) The utility worker commits malicious mischief.
c) The utility worker commits estafa by removing, concealing or
destroying office files.
d) The utility worker commits crime involving destruction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The utility worker commits malicious mischief.
The crime of infidelity in the custody of papers under Article 226 of the
Revised Penal Code is not committed since the files are not officially
entrusted to the government utility worker by reason of his office. Offi-
cial custody of the paper is an element of this crime. Estafa by destroy-
ing office files under Article 315 (3) (c) is not committed because intent
to defraud another, which is an element of this crime, is lacking. The
crime committed by the utility worker is malicious mischief.
X and his step-father have a long-standing enmity. One day, irked
by an argument with his step-father, X smashed the windshield of
his step-father’s brand new Audi sports car. X is liable for: ’11 - 59
(A) malicious mischief.
(B) malicious mischief with the alternative mitigating circumstance of
relationship.
(C) malicious mischief with the alternative aggravating circumstance of
relationship.
(D) the civil damage he caused.
Crimes Against Chastity
Adultery
Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married in New York, and
have been living happily in Manila for the last three years. Hector
was removing junk from his basement when he came across an
unlabeled recordable cd. He put it in his computer's DVD drive to
check its contents. To his surprise, he saw a video of Wendy and
another man Ariel, in the act of sexual intercourse in the master's
bedroom of his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a com-
plaint for adultery against Wendy and Ariel. During the course of
the trial, and again to the surprise of Hector, it was proved that
Wendy was born male and underwent sex reassignment later in
life.
a) May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy and Ariel pros-
per? Explain. (3%) ’15-Q21a
ANSWER: Yes, Hector’s charge of Adultery will prosper.
Adultery has the following elements: (1) the woman is married; (2) she
has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; (3) as regards the
man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married.
In the case at hand, the discover by Hector of the video of Wendy hav-
ing sexual intercourse with another man, Ariel, is sufficient to charge
77
his wife with Adultery. The fact that Wendy was later discovered by
Hector to be born male who simply underwent sexual re-assignment
later in life, is immaterial to the charge of Adultery considering that the
marriage between the same sex is considered valid in the USA where
they were married.
A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was
not her husband. The man did not know she was married. What
crime, if any, did each of them commit? '02 – Q10a
A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under
Article 333 of the RPC, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with
a man not her husband while her marriage is still subsisting. But the
man who had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be married,
shall not be liable for adultery.
Concubinage
Suspecting that her husband of twenty years was having an affair,
Leilanie hired a private investigator to spy on him. After two
weeks, the private investigator showed a video of her husband
having sexual intercourse with another woman in a room of a five-
star hotel. Based on what she saw in the video, Leilanie accused
her husband of concubinage. Will the case of concubinage pros-
per? ’10 – Q15
NO, a case for concubinage will not prosper because said crime
may be committed only by a husband in three (3) ways, viz:
1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
2. By having sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife un-
der scandalous circumstances; or
3. By cohabiting with a woman not his wife in any other place
(Article 334, RPC.)
The facts of the case given do not constitute any of the situations
above-stated
A is married. He has a paramour with whom he has sexual rela-
tions on a more or less regular bass. They meet at least once a
week in hotels, motels and other places where they can be alone.
Is A guilty of any crime? '02 – Q10b
A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual inter-
course under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife.
Having sexual relations on a more or less regular basis in hotels,
motels and other places may be considered a scandalous circum-
stance that offends public conscience, giving rise to criticism and gen-
eral protest such acts being imprudent and wanton and setting a bad
example (People v. Santos, 86 SCRA 705 [1978].)
Alternative Answer:
A is not guilty of any crime because a married man does not incur
the crime of concubinage by merely having a paramour, unless under
scandalous circumstances, or he keeps her in the conjugal dwelling as
a mistress, or cohabits with her in any other place. His weekly meet-
ings with his paramour do not per se constitute scandalous circum-
stance.
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in
Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines
and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calam-
ba, Laguna. '94 – Q12
1. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? '94 – Q12-1
NO, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous
marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore. Hence, such
violation is not one of those where the RPC, under Article 2 thereof,
may be applied extra-territorially. The general rule on territoriality of
criminal law governs the situation.
2. If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? '94 –
Q12-2
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
YES. Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubi-
nage under Article 334 of the RPC for having cohabited as husband
and wife. But concubinage being a private crime requires the sworn
complaint of Liza, the offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Acts of Lasciviousness
Braulio invited Lulu, his I I-year old stepdaughter, inside the mas-
ter bedroom. He pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm
unless she submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest
and sex organ when his wife caught him in the act. The prosecu-
tor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness
under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610
(Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Dis-
crimination. Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is
the crime committed? Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q17
The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu,
who is under 12 years of age, are merely acts of lasciviousness and
not attempted rape because intent to have sexual intercourse is not
clearly shown (People v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, 11 December
2013). To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that the
erectile penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No.
166441, 8 October 2014) or the offender actually commenced to force
his penis into the victim’s sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, supra).
The same acts of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu under
psychological coercion or influence of her stepfather, Braulio, consti-
tutes sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 (People v. Op-
tana, G.R. No. 133922,12 February 2001).
Since the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code are met, in addition to the requisites for sexu-
al abuse under Section 5 of RA No. 7610, and the victim is under 12
years of age, Braulio shall be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness
under Revised Penal Code but the penalty imposable is that pre-
scribed by RA No. 7610 (Amployo v. People, G.R. No. 157718, 26 April
2005). Under Section 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, when the victim (child sub-
jected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall
be prosecuted (for acts of lasciviousness) under Article 336 of the Re-
vised Penal Code: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion temporal in
its medium period.
A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto felt that he had a
license to engage in voyeurism. While going up the escalator in a
shopping mall, he stayed a step behind a mini-skirted young
damsel and in a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left
hip and massaged it. The damsel screamed and hollered for help.
Canuto was apprehended and brought up on inquest. What
charge/s, if any, may he be held responsible for? ’10 – Q7
Canuto may be held liable only for the milder crime of “unjust
vexation” which is a form of light coercion under Article 287 of the Re-
vised Penal Code, instead of the crime of acts of lasciviousness al-
though the offender is known for his voyeurism.
Our Revised Penal Code inclines towards milder criminal respon-
sibility, consistent with the presumption of innocence under our funda-
mental law and the rule of pro reo permeating our system of applying
penal laws. Holding the hip of a person is not per se lascivious but
undoubtedly annoyed, irritated, and vexed the young offended party.
The attitude to prosecute the offender for the milder crime of unjust
vexation may be proper considering his age and civil status.
At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately
dancing a very seductive dance number. While gyrating with their
bodies, Leoncio dipped his private parts in Evely’s buttocks. In-
censed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio continued and tightly em-
braced her. ? ’09 – Q18
1. What crime or crimes, if any, did Leoncio commit? ? ’09
– Q18-1
Leoncio committed the crime of unjust vexation only because the
act was done in the course of dancing. The act of dipping his private
parts in Evelyn’s buttocks during a very seductive dance, although
78
offensive to Evelyn, may be viewed as part of a dirty dancing. Lewd
intent cannot be simply presumed from the act of dirty dancing. The
fact that the act was perpetrated in a public place and with an audience
negates lewd designs or lascivious intent, which is essential in the
crime of acts of lasciviousness.
2. Would your answer be the same if, even after the music
had stopped, Leoncio continued to dance dirty, rubbing
his private parts on Evelyn’s buttocks? ’09 – Q18-2
The crime would be then acts of lasciviousness. That the music
had already stopped, puts an end to any pretense of dancing by Leon-
cio. His continued dirty acts absent the dancing as there was no music
anymore is patently lewd and lascivious. More so, Evelyn protested
Leoncio’s lewd acts in the course of dancing. So where the dance
ended, Leoncio’s continued dirty acts cannot be veiled as still part of
the dancing.
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his
retirement at the age of 70 gave him the opportunity to engage in
his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high-powered
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activi-
ties, his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day,
he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.
While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in
a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently
massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was
arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designa-
tion of the crime correct? '06 – Q9
NO, the designation of the crime charged is not correct because
the overt act committed by Eduardo still falls short of the crime of acts
of lasciviousness. The nature of the act done does not manifest sexual
desire. It is more appropriate to consider such overt act as mere an-
noyance or vexation, constituting a crime of light coercion, commonly
referred to as unjust vexation. The Revised Penal Code favors a milder
criminal responsibility.
Another Suggested Answer:
Considering Eduardo’s voyeurism and propensity for lewdness,
he may be charged for acts of lasciviousness as his criminal intent in
doing the act is characterized by lewd desire.
Another Suggested Answer:
NO, the designation of the crime of acts of lasciviousness is not
correct. The crime committed is Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation in-
cludes any human conduct which, although not productive of some
physical or material harm, unjustly annoys, irritate, vex, torment or
distress the mind of an innocent person. Eduardo has indeed commit-
ted the crime of unjust vexation when he placed his hand on the hip of
a teenage girl and gently massaged it.
Alternative Answer:
The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10
of RA. No. 7610, par. b of Section 3, that refers to child abuse commit-
ted by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans
the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation
thereto, Section 10 provides criminal liability for other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development. The reaction of the victim, screaming for help
upon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived her
dignity was being debased or violated.
Mick, a gay foreigner, fondled and played with the private part of
Egay, an 11 year-old boy, who enjoyed it and gladly received the
P100.00 given him by the foreigner. ’93 – Q15
1. What crime, if any was committed by the foreigner? ’93
– Q15-1
Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstances of rape (Article
336, RPC and R.A. No. 7610)
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
2. If the act was committed on Cindy, an 11 year-old girl,
would your answer be the same? ’93 – Q15-2
YES, acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex (Arti-
cle 336, RPC.)
Qualified Seduction
What are the three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of quali-
fied seduction? Give an example of each. ’07 – Q5b
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduc-
tion are:
1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, such as
a priest who acts as spiritual adviser of the victim, or a
teacher in the school where the victim is enrolled;
2. A brother or ascendant by consanguinity of the victim, such
as her uncle; and
3. Those who are regarded as “domestic” in relation the victim,
enjoying the confidence and intimacy shared by members of
the same household, such as household helpers and board-
ers living under the same roof and with same household as
the victim.
Alternative Answer:
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduc-
tion are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public
authority, guardian, teacher or a person who, in any capacity,
is entrusted with the education or custody of the woman
seduced;
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Exam-
ples: priest, house servant, domestics;
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother
who seduced his sister; ascendant who seduced his de-
scendant (Article 337, RPC.)
“A” is a girl of 17 years and 4th year high school student whose
teacher is “B”. Teaching in the same the same school is “C”. One
afternoon, after class, “A” and “C” had sexual intercourse in the
storeroom of the school. “A” became pregnant. Prosecuted for
qualified seduction, “C” interposed the following defenses: (1)
“C” is not the teacher of “A”; (2) “A” is not a virgin; and (3) the
sexual relation was with the consent of “A”. Are the defenses of
“C” meritorious? ’81 – Q13
The defenses of C are not meritorious.
Qualified seduction may be committed as long as the accused is
a teacher in the same school where the student is studying. This is due
to the abuse of confidence and the moral influence which the teacher
exercises over the victim as a member of the faculty (Santos v. People,
40 O.G. (Sup. 6).
Virginity is not to be understood in the physical sense. It includes
a girl of good reputation (People v. Lanot, C.A.-G.R. No. 04557-CR, 18
January 1964.)
Consent of the woman is not a defense since it was accomplished
by abuse of authority or confidence in view of the position of “C” as a
teacher.
Consented Abduction
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his
farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not
offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man,
who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and prominent fam-
ily in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? '02 – Q9b
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343
of the RPC, as amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of a
virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age, carried out with her consent
and with lewd designs.
Although the problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin, vir-
ginity should not be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a
79
virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of the crime is
not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
(Valdepeñas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 [1966].)
Alternative Answer:
A committed “Child Abuse” under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined
in said law, “child abuse” includes sexual abuse or any act which de-
bases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.
Crimes Against the Civil Status of Persons
Bigamy
What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? (5%) ’12 – QIa
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis (G.R. No. 138509, 31 July 200), the
Supreme Court laid down the elements of bigamy thus: (1) the offender
has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a
subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have
been valid had it not been for the existence of the first.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
There are three (3) elements of bigamy: (1) an undissolved marriage;
(2) a new marriage; and (3) fraudulent intention constituting the felony
of the act. This last element is not stated in Article 349, because it is
undoubtedly incorporated in the principle antedating all codes, and,
constituting one of the landmarks of our Penal Code, that, where there
is no willfulness there is no crime (People vs. Manuel, G.R. No.
165842, November 29, 2005).
If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was
able to prove that the first marriage was null and void or a nullity,
would you render a judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain
your answer. (2%) – ’12 – QIb
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will render a judgment of conviction. Proof that the first marriage is
null and void is not a defense in bigamy. As long as the previous mar-
riage was not lawfully dissolved or judicially declared as null and void,
contracting a new marriage constitutes bigamy (People vs. Manuel,
supra).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
I will render a judgment of acquittal. According to Justice Florenz Re-
galado, in bigamy, it is essential that the first marriage is valid and
subsisting (People vs. Dumpo, 62 Phil. 246). If the first marriage was
null and void, there would be no bigamy (People vs. Mendoza, 95 Phil.
845). Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage being declared
void ab initio, the accused is deemed never to have been married.
Since bigamy requires that the accused must have been legally mar-
ried, he cannot be convicted of the crime of bigamy. See Morigo v.
People, G.R. No. 145226, 06 February 2004).
Assuming the existence of the first marriage when accused con-
tracted the second marriage and the subsequent judicial declara-
tion of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psycholog-
ical incapacity, would you render a judgment of conviction or
acquittal? Explain your answer. (3%) – ’12 – Q1c
I will render a judgment of conviction. A declaration of the nullity of the
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no
moment insofar as the State’s penal laws are concerned. Since mar-
riage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per
se an agreement for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Al-
though the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of
the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is con-
cerned, it is significant to note that said marriage is not without legal
effects. Among these legal consequences is incurring criminal liability
for bigamy. TO hold otherwise would render the State’s penal laws on
bigamy completely nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately en-
sure that each marital contract be flawed on some manner, and to thus
escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
beguiling throngs of hapless women with promise of futurity and com-
mitment (Tenebro vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
150758, February 18, 2004).
The prescriptive period for bigamy is 15 years counted from the
date of the: ’11 – Q64
(A) discovery of the second marriage by the offended spouse.
(B) registration of the second marriage in the Local Civil Registry.
(C) celebration or solemnization of the second marriage.
(D) discovery of the second marriage by the authorities.
Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took
graduate studies in NY and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The
1st wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secured a copy of
the marriage contract in NY. Eunice filed a case of bigamy against
Huber in the Philippines. ? ’08 – Q6
1. Will the case prosper? ? ’08 – Q6-1
NO, because Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime
committed outside of Philippine territory. Under the principle of territori-
ality, penal laws, specifically the RPC, are enforceable only within the
bounds of our territory (Article 2, RPC.)
2. If Eunice gave consent to the 2nd marriage, what will
your answer be? ’08 – Q6-2
The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice would not
confer jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.
Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been sepa-
rated for the last five years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suit-
or, who had no inkling that she was married. Raissa and Juan
accomplished an application for marriage license which they
subscribed and swore before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa
declared, in the application, that she is single. The marriage li-
cense was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the
mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in
the evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? ’08
– Q12
Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a second marriage while
her first marriage is still subsisting (Article 349, RPC.)
She is also guilty of perjury for making untruthful statements un-
der oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter, when she
declared that she was not married in the application for a marriage
license which is a public document (Article 171, RPC.)
Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Article 333, RPC) for having
sexual intercourse with Juan, although she is a married woman.
CBP is legally married to OEM. Without obtaining a marriage li-
cense, CBP contracted a second marriage to RST. Is CBP liable
for bigamy? '04 – Q5b
Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on
whether the second marriage is invalid or valid even without a mar-
riage license. Although as a general rule, marriages solemnized with-
out license are null and void ab initio, there are marriages exempted
from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family Code,
such as in Article 27 which is a marriage in articulo mortis. If the sec-
ond marriage was valid even without a marriage license, then CBP
would be liable for bigamy.
Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in
Article 350 for the RPC, specifically designated as “Marriage contract-
ed against provisions of laws.”
Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995, only to learn later on that
Ramona was previously married to David, from whom Ramona
had been separated for more than ten years. Believing that his
marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito contracted a
subsequent marriage with Anabelle. Can Joselito be prosecuted
for bigamy? '96 – Q6(2)
80
YES, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent
marriage with Anabelle even though his marriage with Ramona was an
absolute nullity.
Despite the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed
a case of dissolution of such marriage under Article 40, Family Code,
before contracting a second marriage with Anabelle.
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years,
Joe left Marcy and settled in Mindanao where he later met and
married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was regis-
tered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its cele-
bration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes dis-
covered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy
filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of bigamy
prescribes in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents.
Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than 15
years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous mar-
riage up to the filing of Marcy's complaint. He contended that the
registration of his 2nd marriage in the civil registry of Davao City
was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration
thereof thus binding upon Marcy. Has the crime of bigamy
charged against Joe already prescribed? '95 – Q2
NO. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed
from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the au-
thorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordi-
narily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the
crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a
complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglemen-
tary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on
10 October 1975 (Sermonia v. Court of Appeals, 233 SCRA 155
[1994].)
Simulation of Birth
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call
their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them.
Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be stated in the birth
certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in con-
nivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What
are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the
doctor? '02 – Q11
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable for the crime of
simulation of birth, penalized under Article 347 of the RPC, as amend-
ed. The act of making it appear in the birth certificate of a child that the
persons named therein are the parents of the child when they are not
really the biological parents of said child constitutes the crime of simu-
lation of birth.
C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking", a
violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 7610. The law punishes inter
alia the act of buying and selling of a child.
Alternative Answer:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the doctor being all
involved in the simulation of birth of the newborn child, violate R.A. No.
7610. Their acts constitute child trafficking which are penalized under
Article IV of said law.
Crimes Against Honor
Libel
A is the president of the corporate publisher, of the daily tabloid,
Bulgar; B is the managing editor;, and C is the author/writer. In
his column. Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the
BIR-RDO Manila as follows:
"Itong si Xay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste
Tshirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya
ay si A tty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at
ang para sa RP ay 10% long. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO
niya, Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bun-
dat na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot. "
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
A, B and C were charged with libel before the R TC of Manila.
The three (3) defendants argued that the article is within the ambit
of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in
law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the acts of
public officials which are related to the discharge of their official
duties do not constitute libel.
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable
for the crime? Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q16
Yes. The crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on acts of public
officers related to the discharge of their duties is a qualified privileged
communication, hence, the accused can still be held liable for libel if
actual malice is shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be estab-
lished by showing that comment was made with knowledge that it was
false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Guinggu-
ing v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128959, 30 September
2005). Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practic-
ing their profession, even when writing about public figures or matters
of public interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the
Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be considered as ’’fair” and
’’true” since he did not do research before making his allegations, and
it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles
are not ’’fair and true reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has
written and published the subject articles with reckless disregard of
whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No.
161032,16 September 2008). A, president of the publishing company,
B, managing editor, and C, writer of the defamatory articles, are all
liable for libel. Under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, the pub-
lisher, and editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the defama-
tions contained therein to the same extent. The law makes the pub-
lisher and editor liable for libel as if they were the author (Tulfo v. Peo-
ple, supra).
In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi wrote an unflatter-
ing article about Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation
from his wife. The article portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband
and caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo
charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi countered that she
did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of a
public figure so that even his personal life has become a legiti-
mate subject of public interest and comment.
Is Gigi correct? (7%) ’13-Q4
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Gigi is not correct. Although wider lati-
tude is given to defamatory utterances against public figures in relation
to matters of public interest involving them, such defamatory utter-
ances do not automatically fall within the ambit of constitutionally pro-
tected speech. If the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a
public figure’s work, the same may give rise to criminal liability (Fermin
v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008).
Any attack upon the private character of the public figure on matters
which are not related to their works may constitute libel under Art. 355
(Saxon v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120715, March 29,1996).
Here, Gigi was attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and
not his public life as a famous singer.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Gigi is correct. Pablo, a famous singer,
attained the status of a public figure so that even his personal life that
has something to do with his character and integrity became legitimate
public interest. Here, Pablo was portrayed as an abusive husband and
caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts. The article im-
pinges on the moral fiber and qualifications of Pablo as a famous
singer entitled to respect as a public figure. Subject only to the requi-
site that the author has knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disre-
gard of the truth, the article, thus, constituted a qualified privileged
communication protected by the freedom of expression. Gigi cannot be
convicted absent proof of actual malice.
Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y,
employing fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed
a criminal action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud
on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil com-
plaint for damages was baseless? ’11 – Q11
(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.
(B) No, since malice is not evident.
81
(C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of fraud was baseless.
(D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.
X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public offi-
cial, as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X
relied on a source from Y's own office who fed him the informa-
tion. Did X commit libel? ’11 – Q13
(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith
and reasonable care.
(B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public in-
terest.
(C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged communication.
(D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the
press.
X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing
to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift
from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y ac-
cused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the
case? ’11 – Q27
(A) No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.
(B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presid-
ing judge who has a duty to act on what it states.
(C) No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputa-
tions.
(D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.
Sam wrote a letter to his friends stating that Judge Odon loves
obscene magazines and keeps these in his desk. Charged with
libel, can Sam present proof that Judge Odon indeed loves ob-
scene magazines and keeps these in his desk? ’11 – Q38
(A) No, since the imputation is not related to the duties of a judge.
(B) No, since Sam does not impute a crime to Judge Odon.
(C) No, since Sam imputes the commission of a crime to Judge Odon.
(D) Yes, since truth can be a valid defense in libel.
Angelina maintains a website where visitors can give their com-
ments on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclu-
sive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag
shown in Angelina’s website is a fake and that Angelina is known
to sell counterfeit items. What case can be filed against Bettina?
’10 – Q11
I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina
because the imputation made by Bettina is libellous. Whether the im-
putation of a defect, status, or condition is real or imaginary, if it pub-
licly tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a par-
ticular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to
be malicious and this penalized as libel under Article 355 of the Re-
vised Penal Code.
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her state-
ment against the goods sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of
the law on Unfair Competition (Republic Act No. 8293.)
The statement that “In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute de-
fense” is FALSE. ’09 – Q11d
Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admis-
sible in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against
the public officer with respect to material facts related to the discharge
of their official duties, and moreover, must have been published with
good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, “truth” as a defense, on
its own, is not enough.
In an interview aired on television, Cindy uttered defamatory
statements against Erika, a successful and reputable business-
woman. What crime or crimes did Cindy commit? '05 – Q15
Cindy committed libel. Defamation made in a television program
is penalized as libel under Article 355 of the RPC. Television falls under
“similar means” in the enumeration as “radio, phonograph, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means” in said
Article (People v. Casten, C.A. G.R. No. 07924 – CR., 13 December
1974.)
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees
from the BOC and the BIR, A, the speaker, in the course of his
lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in
said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following
morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who
attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint
against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory
statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the
information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no
crime was committed. If you were the judge, how would you re-
solve the motion? '03 – Q11
I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged
do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or per-
sons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor
such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even
by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed.
Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating
an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a
seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the
statement is not actionable as defamatory
A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive
Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter submit-
ted to the Commission on Appointments (COA) for confirmation.
While the COA was considering the nomination, a group of con-
cerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-
page statement objecting to A's appointment They alleged that A
was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that
he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties
transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was
unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result
of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the COA.
The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for
libel and damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will
you decide the case? '02 – Q17
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers involved,
from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation
out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice.
Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a
Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the
public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest
of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denun-
ciation was made; hence, bereft of malice.
If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the
newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute
libel? '02 – Q17b
YES, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article
355 of the RPC punishes libel committed by means, among others, of
radio broadcast, inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public
and may be defamatory.
What is LIBEL and what pertinence has malice in law and malice
in fact in incurring criminal liability therefor. ’85 – Q20
Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or a juridical person or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation.
When the imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need not prove
malice. The law presumes that defamation is malicious. This is malice
in law.
In a conditionally privileged communication, malice is not pre-
sumed. The prosecution must prove malice in fact for the conviction of
the accused of libel involving qualifiedly privileged communication. This
means that the accused was prompted by personal ill-will or spite and
not in response to the performance of a duty but merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed. Malice in fact is inconsistent with
good motives and justifiable ends.
82
Slander
The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling
women in the presence of a crowd of people constitute: ’11 – Q20
(A) one count of grave slander against the woman who uttered the
more insulting expressions.
(B) grave slander against the woman who started it and light slander
against the other woman.
(C) two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.
(D) two separate counts of grave slander, one against each of them.
Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and crimi-
nal conversation. '04 – Q10(5)
Oral defamation, known as SLANDER, is a malicious imputation
of any act, omission, condition or circumstance against a person, done
orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, embar-
rassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penal-
ized in Article 358 of the RPC.
CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. The term is used in making a polite
reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduc-
tion and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime.
Distinguish slander by deed from maltreatment. ’94 – Q2(2)
SLANDER BY DEED is a crime committed when a person pub-
licly subjects another to an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor,
discredit or contempt upon the latter. Absent the intent to cast dishonor,
discredit, contempt, or insult to the offended party, the crime is only
MALTREATMENT under Article 266, par. 3, where, by deed, an of-
fender ill-treats another without causing injury.
Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2) belligerent la-
bor unions had a confrontation in a picket line during which the
President and the Secretary of one union shouted to the members
and officers of the rival union composed of men and women, the
following: “Mga tuta, mga walang bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga
tuta, mga segunda mano.” Are the President and the Secretary of
said union liable for oral defamation/slander? ’93 – Q7
NO. The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable
for oral defamation or slander because there is no identity of the of-
fended party. The individual defamed or slandered was not singled out
(People v. Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).
For some time, bad blood had existed between the two families of
Maria Razon and Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there
was a boundary dispute between them which was still pending in
court. Maria's mother also filed an administrative complaint
against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also
felt intimidated by the position and alleged influence of their
neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the practice of the
Gaiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Ra-
zon's premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Ga-
dioma “land grabber”, “shameless”, and “hypocrite.” What crime
was committed by Maria, if any? '88 – Q15b
Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only
because she was under the influence of anger. When Maria called
Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land grabber she imputed to him the
commission of crimes.
Incriminating Innocent Persons
A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana stick in a stu-
dent’s pocket and then arrested him for possession of marijuana
cigarette. What crime can the police officer be charged with? ’11 –
Q9
(A) None, as it is a case of entrapment
(B) Unlawful arrest
(C) Incriminating an innocent person
(D) Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person with unlawful
arrest
Quasi-Offenses
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
Reckless Imprudence
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor pre-
scribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to the drug store with the pre-
scription, and the pharmacist sold him 3 tablets. Upon arriving
home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and died.
The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not parac-
etamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was
charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it
be? ’08 – Q3
The charge was improper. The pharmacist should be charged
with criminal negligence, or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
because there was no intent to kill Olimpio. The accused inexcusably
lacked precaution in failing to dispense the proper medicine to the
victim which caused his death (Article 365, RPC.)
During a concert of Gary V, and in order to prevent the crowd
from rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) point-
ed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed
forward, Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare them off. How-
ever, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and
then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which
resulted in the latter’s confinement in a hospital for twelve days.
What crime/s did Rafael commit? ’07 – Q9
The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in
Less Serious Physical Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on
duty when he discharged the firearm. The discharge of the firearm was
not calculated to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward off the un-
ruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby challenging the
duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore,
should neither constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal under Article
155 of the Revised Penal Code nor may such discharge amount to a
crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Article 254 of the Code
since it was not directed towards a particular person when the firearm
was discharged.
However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge of the
firearm betrays a lack of precaution in a situation where the danger to
the discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest, thus considered as
simple imprudence only. The crime is Simple Imprudence Resulting In
Less Serious Physical Injuries, since the physical injuries required only
twelve (12) days of medical attention.
Alternative Answer:
The crime is reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physi-
cal injuries, because the discharge of the firearm was not necessary
under the circumstances and therefore, Rafael should be aware of the
possibility of injuries that could result from such discharge of the
firearm.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Anti-Alias Law
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias
legally? Give 3 instances. ’06 – Q2(1)
An alias may be legally used –
1. As pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field;
2. As a pen name in a literary composition or work;
3. As a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (Ursua
v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 147 [1996]; Sections 1 and 2,
R.A. No. 6085.)
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539)
A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to
Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is courting.
Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his return, B came to
know about the unauthorized use of the car and sued A for quali-
fied theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent to
83
gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from its use. On
the other hand, A argued that he has no intent of making himself
the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after
the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Ex-
plain. (5%)
The crime committed by A is carnapping. The unlawful taking of
motor vehicles is now covered by the Anti-Carnapping Law (R.A. 6539
as amended) and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery
(People v, Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, 8 June 2004). The concept of
carnapping is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence, rules ap-
plicable to theft or robbery are also applicable to carnapping (People v.
Asamuddin, G.R. No. 213913, 2 September 2015). In theft, unlawful
taking should be understood within the Spanish concept of
apoderamiento. In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical
taking must be coupled with the intent to appropriate the object, which
means intent deprive the lawful owner of the thing, whether perma-
nently or temporarily (People v. Valenzuela, G. R. No. 160188, 21 June
2007).
In this case, A took the car without consent of the B with intent to
temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the taking was "temporary"
and for a "joy ride", the Supreme Court in People v. Bustinera, (supra),
sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either
with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or
enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to anoth-
er, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by
taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and
using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility,
satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure.
What should be the proper charge against an offender who unlaw-
fully took and carried away a motor vehicle belonging to another
without the latter's consent, killing the driver in the process? ’12 -
Q72
a) The proper charge against the offender should be murder
with the use of motor vehicle.
b) The proper charge against the offender should be qualified
carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form.
c) The proper charge against the offender should be carnap-
ping and homicide.
d) The proper charge against the offender should be robbery
with homicide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The proper charge against the offender should be qualified car-
napping or carnapping in an aggravated form.
The last clause of Section 14 of RA No. 6539 as amended by RA No.
7659 provides: “the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor
vehicle is killed or raped in the course of the commission of the car-
napping or on the occasion thereof.” The amendment clarifies the in-
tention of the law to make the offense a special complex crime, in the
same way that robbery with homicide. As such, the killing merely quali-
fies the crime of carnapping which merely qualifies the crime of car-
napping which for lack of specific nomenclature may be known as
qualified carnapping or carnapping in an aggravated form (People vs.
Mejia, G.R. No. 118940-41 and G.R. No. 119407 July 7, 1997).
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was
in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official confer-
ence. He alighted from the government car which was officially
assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked,
and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car
and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20,000, al-
though the car was worth P800,000. ’05 – Q9
1. What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by
Allan, Danny and Jules? ’05 – Q9-2
Allan committed the crime of malversation by abandonment or
negligence in leaving the government car assigned to him for his offi-
cial use and for which he was accountable, with the ignition key in the
car unlocked.
Danny committed the crime of fencing for having bought the car
which was the proceeds of carnapping, a crime in the nature of theft or
robbery of a motor vehicle. The presumption of fencing applies to him
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
for he paid price so inadequate for the value of the car suggestive that
the car was not legitimately acquired by his brother.
Jules committed the crime of carnapping for the unlawful taking,
with intent to gain, of the government’s motor vehicle. Unlawful taking
of a motor vehicle is now governed by the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
(R.A. No. 6539), not by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on
theft or robbery.
Alternative Answer:
Danny should be liable as an accessory, not as a fence, if the
crime charged to Jules is qualified theft because there is no accessory
under the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539).
2. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? ’05 –
Q9-2
Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for restitution of the car
to the government, or if no longer possible, reparation of the damages
caused by payment of the replacement cost of the car minus allowance
for depreciation, and to indemnify for consequential damages.
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda mo-
torcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar,
poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge.
Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and
suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul
fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or
crimes did Raul commit? '98 – Q6
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide
under Section 14 of R.A. No. 6539, as amended, considering that the
killing “in the course” or “on the occasion of” a carnapping (People v.
De la Cruz, 183 SCRA 763 [1990].) A motorcycle is included in the
definition of a “motor vehicle” in said Rep. Act, also known as the “Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972”. There is no apparent motive for the killing of
the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The
fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclu-
sion perpetua to death.
Anti-Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610)
Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park
watching the statue of Jose Rizal when, without his permission,
Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial
assistance, allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in exchange
for sex. 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 Dis-
crimination 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 liable for the charge? Explain. (5%) ’16 – Q12
No, Arnold is not liable. Under Section 10 of RA No. 7610, any
person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12)
years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public
or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension
house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or
similar places is liable for child abuse.
Arnold is not liable for the charge. To be held liable under Section
10 (b) of RA No. 7610, it is indispensable that the child in the company
of the offender must be 12 years or under or who in 10 years or more
his junior in a public place. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and
only 8 years younger than Arnold.
Moreover, Leilani sat beside Arnold without his permission, hence,
he is not in the company of a child in a public place. Lastly, applying
the episdem generis principle, Arnold is not liable for child abuse be-
cause Luneta is not a place similar to hotel, motel, beer joint, dis-
cotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach
and/or other tourist resort.
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her
eldest son, asking for P2,000 to complete his semestral tuition
84
fees preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and
disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre Mang Juan
with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months
lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan
told Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will
allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a
housemaid in his house for 2 months at P1,000.00 a month. De-
spite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought
Annie to his house to work as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought
Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of repaying
her mother's loan? ’06 – Q17-1
YES, Mang Juan violated Section 12 of R.A. No. 7610 on child
abuse and exploitation, as amended by R.A. No. 7658, prohibiting
employment of children below 15 years of age, in relation to the crime
of Exploitation of Child Labor under Article 273, RPC. Annie is only 10
years old and under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt owed
by Annie’s mother, Mang Juan took Annie to his house to work as a
maid despite her mother’s objection. Annie could not have given con-
sent to the exploitation since she was only ten (10) years old and thus
could not give any valid consent.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid
in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan, did he com-
mit a crime? ’06 – Q17-2
If it was against her will that Aling Maria was made to work as a
housemaid in Mang Juan’s household to pay her debt to him, the latter
would be committing a crime under Article 274 of the RPC, which pun-
ishes any person who shall compel a debtor to work for him as a
household servant against her will just to enforce payment of a debt.
Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evi-
dence that she failed to give immediately the required medical
attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally
bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired
vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according
to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed
to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him for care-
lessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed with-
out supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that
there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually.
She added that the accident was caused by her driver's negli-
gence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness,
but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? '04 – Q9a
NO, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary
that movant's maltreatment of a child be “habitual” to constitute child
abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as “Child Abuse” under R.A. No.
7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, “whether habitual or not”;
this is expressly stated in Section 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA
should be liable for child abuse.
Sometime in December 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton celebrating
the first year of his compulsory retirement from the AFP, had in
his company a fourteen (14) year old girl whose parents were
killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has
been living or fending for herself in the streets of Manila. They
were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there for two
(2) nights. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl
P1,000 for her services. She gladly accepted it. ’93 – Q5
1. What crime may the retired colonel be charged with? ’93
– Q5-2
The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation
of R.A. No. 7610, a law providing special protection against child
abuse, exploitation, and discrimination.
One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under
Section 10(b), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610 is that of keeping company of
a minor who is twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or
more younger than the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, dis-
cotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach
and/or other tourist resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt. Col.
Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is only 14
years old, there must be an age difference of more than 10 years be-
tween them. This fact plus the circumstances that Lt. Col. Agaton
stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two
nights, and thereafter he gave her P1,000.00 “for her services”, consti-
tutes the very evil punished, among other acts, in said law.
2. What possible defenses can he interpose? ’93 – Q5-1
The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are that the
child is related to him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth
degree, or by a bond recognized by law, or local customs and tradi-
tions, or that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral, social, or
legal duty (Section 10(b), Article VI of R.A. No. 7610.)
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. No. 1612)
Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged
with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing
Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jew-
elry valued at PI 00,000.00 at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that
she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt
covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by
Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the
charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewel-
ries resulted from a legal transaction and that the prosecution
failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the
pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds
of the crime of theft.
[a] What is a "fence" under PD 1612? (2.5%) ’16 – Q6(a)
Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or
for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or
dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any
article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be
known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft (Section 2 of PD 1612).
[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%) ’16
– Q6(b)
No. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. While under the
said law mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be
prima facie evidence of fencing, such evidence when sufficiently over-
turned constitutes a defense.
In this case, Ofelia’s defense that she merely acquired the jewelries
through a legitimate transaction is sufficient. Further, there is no other
circumstance as regards the jewelries which would indicate to Ofelia,
an innocent purchaser, that the jewelries were the subject of theft.
There was even a receipt produced by Ofelia for the transaction.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Under Section 5 of PD No. 1612, mere possession of any good,
article, item, object, or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Failure to
prove that Ofelia knows, or should have known that the jewelry is
stolen, therefore, is not a defense since this element is presumed to be
present under Section 5 because Ofelia is in possession of this stolen
property. Moreover, there is no showing that Ofelia secured a permit or
clearance from the PNP station commander of the place of sale re-
quired in Section 6 of PD No. 1612 (Suggested Answer by UP Law
Center to a 1995 Bar question)
Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There,
Manolo noticed a nice painting that exactly looked like the paint-
ing which he reported was stolen from him some years back.
Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but Tonio denied any
knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from
a friend. Manolo later proved to Toniothat the painting was indeed
the stolen painting. ‘14-Q18
(A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?
Tonio may be charged with the crime of fencing. Under Section 5 of PD
1612, mere possession of a stolen article or object or anything of value
which has been the subject of robbery or thievery is prima facie evi-
85
dence of fencing. Since Tonio is in possession of a stolen property, it is
presumed that he committed the crime of fencing.
(B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and,
one night, broke into Tonio’s house by destroying the
wall and taking the painting. What, if any, would be the
liability of Manolo?
Manolo is liable for the crime of trespass to dwelling qualified by use of
force since he entered the house of Tonio against the latter’s will.
There is no robbery because the owner of the property taken cannot
commit robbery.
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While
driving his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that
made the examination of his vehicle's Registration Certificate
necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and
motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the Regis-
tration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be
different from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed
of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also
bore the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's Registra-
tion Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner
were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office,
to correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a car-
napped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a car-
napped vehicle.
If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge
Roberto with a crime? (7%) ’13-Q6
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will charge Roberto with violation of the
Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of “fencing” are: (1) robbery or theft
has been committed; (2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery
or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any other manner deals in any article
or object taken” during that robbery or theft; (3) the accused known or
should have known that the thing was derived from that crime; and (4)
by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another.
Here, someone carnapped the vehicle, and sold it to Roberto who did
not take part in the crime. Roberto should have known also that the car
was stolen because it was not properly documented as the deed of
sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct number of the
vehicle’s engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check
the papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto’s defense of good
faith is flawed because Pres. Decree No. 1612 is a special law and
therefore, its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no
proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, G.R. no. 181184, January 25,
2012).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The facts given show that Roberto “bought”
the car from Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the subject vehicle
was executed by Inigo; that there is also a copy of the “Registration
Certificate”; that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and
lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a carnapped vehicle.
As against the foregoing, there is only a certification from the Land
Transportation Office showing that the vehicle had been previously
reported as carnapped.
Consequently, in light of the satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his
possession of the vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft
upon a person found in possession of the stolen personal property
finds no application in the instant case.
There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to warrant the prosecu-
tion of Roberto for any wrongdoing.
Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments more
popularly known as “ukay-ukay.” Among the items found by the
police in a raid of her store were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with fencing.” Will the charge prosper? ’10 –
Q5
NO, a charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed
when a person, with intent to gain for himself or for another, deals in
any matter with an article of value which he knows or should be known
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
to him to have been derived from proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2,
P.D. No. 1612.) Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be
established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged
“fencing” has been committed – a fact which is wanting in this case.
It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell
of used garments, which are in the nature of personal property. In civil
law, possession of personal or movable property carries with it a prima
facie presumption. The presumption of “fencing” arises only when the
article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5,
P.D. No. 1612.)
The statement that “In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. No.
1512, it is a complete defense for the accused to prove that he
had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his posses-
sion had been the subject of robbery” is FALSE. ’09 – Q11c
Fencing is committed if the accused “should have known” that the
goods or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (Section 2(a),
P.D. No. 1612.) Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the
prima facie presumption of fencing.
Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received from the Provincial Trea-
surer five (5) brand new typewriters for use in the municipal trea-
surer’s office. Each typewriter is valued at P10,000. Since Pedro
needed money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four
(4) of the typewriters to his friend, Rodolfo, a general merchant in
San Isidro for P2,000 each or a total of P8,000. Rodolfo, a general
merchant knew that one typewriter could easily be between
P6,000 to P10,000, and for this reason, he readily agreed to buy
the four typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at P6,000
thus making a profit of P16,000. Two months after the transaction,
Pedro was audited and the investigation as to his accountabilities
led to the discovery that Rodolfo bought the four (4) typewriters
from Pedro. Is Rodolfo liable as an accessory or for violation of
the Anti-Fencing Law? ’87 – Q10b
Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law as this
refers only to the buy and sell of articles of value which are the pro-
ceeds of robbery and theft. Rodolfo is liable as an accessory to the
crime of malversation as he purchased the typewriters for P2,000 each
only, although he knew it could easily be sold for P6,000 to P10,000.
Therefore, he profited or assisted the principal to profit from the effects
or proceeds of the commission of the crime.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019)
May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019
[“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present,
share, percentage of benefit, for himself or for any other person,
in connection with any contract transaction between the govern-
ment and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official
capacity has to intervene under the law”] also be successively
charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the RPC? ’10 – Q3
YES, a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Services Act) may also be charged simultane-
ously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code, because the two crimes are essentially dif-
ferent and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas
violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the
crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.
Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to
facilitate the release of salary differentials and election duty per
diem of classroom teachers with the agreement that they would
reimburse her for her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a crime?
’10 – Q9
YES. Proserfina committed a violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No.
3019 which considers as a corrupt practice, the act of:
“(b) Directly or indirectly requesting any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction between the Gov-
ernment and any other party, wherein the public officer in his
official capacity has to intervene under the law.”
86
Being the assistant public high school principal, it is her duty to
intervene in the release of salary differentials and per diem of class-
room teachers under her. Her act of doing so, made with a request for
a share or benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt practice under
Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or
punished under this law are mala prohibita, and this punishable there-
under, whether done with criminal intent or not.
Charina, a clerk of court of an RTC Branch, promised plaintiff in a
case pending before the court that she would convince the Pre-
siding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff’s favor. In considera-
tion therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000. Charina was
charged with violation of Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, prohibiting
any public officer from receiving any gift, present, percentage, or
benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x
wherein the public officer in his official capacity, has to intervene
under the law. While the case is being tried, the Ombudsman filed
another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the
RPC. Charina demurred to the 2nd information, claiming that she
can no longer be charged for the same act under R.A. No. 3019. Is
Charina correct? ’09 – Q7
NO, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of
R.A. No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Article 211, RPC)
arose from the same act, the elements of the violation charged under
R.A. No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged under the Re-
vised Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988].) Hence,
the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with
different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a
motion to dismiss or a motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against
the accused.
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), by a resolution of the
monetary board, hires Theof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a
leading bank as a consultant. Theof later receives a valuable gift
from a bank under investigation by the BSP. May Theof be prose-
cuted under R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
for accepting such a gift? ’03 – Q15
NO, Theof may not be prosecuted under R.A. No. 3019, but may
be prosecuted for violation of P.D. No. 46, under which such act of
receiving a valuable gift is punished.
Although Theof is a “public officer” within the application of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019), yet his act of
receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punish-
able acts under R.A. No. 3019 since he is not to intervene in his official
capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws
must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Theof is ad-
ministratively liable.
A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the
HLURB, who was charged with violation of Section 3(h) of R.A.
No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandi-
ganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to
Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section 13 of the
Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion and suspended
accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the
constitutional validity of the suspension order on the ground that
it partakes of a penalty before Judgment of conviction is reached
and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed
innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on sus-
pension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to
appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. '00 – Q12
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private
Individual, went to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs
broker, and represented themselves as agents of Moonglow
Commercial Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys.
Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file
with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry and In-
ternal Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow's shipment. Mr.
Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a
commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Dec-
laration which declared the shipment as children's toys, the taxes
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
and duties of which were computed at P60,000. Mr. Ocuarto filed
the aforementioned documents with the Manila International Con-
tainer Port. However, before the shipment was released, a spot
check was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido,
who discovered that the contents of the van (shipment) were not
children's toys as declared in the shipping documents but 1,000
units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed
at P600,000. A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention
were then issued by the District Collector of Customs. Further
investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. Conse-
quently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted
for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 which makes it un-
lawful among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury
to any party, including the Government. In the discharge of official
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the
accused alleged that the decision was erroneous because the
crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage,
and that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.
'00 – Q16
1. Is the contention of both accused correct? '00 – Q16-2
YES, the contention of the accused that the crime was not con-
summated is correct. R.A. No. 3019 is a special law punishing acts
mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted violation of a special law is not
punished. Actual injury is required.
2. Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the
violation charged is not punishable, may the accused be
nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the
RPC under the facts of the case? '00 – Q16-1
YES, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of
commercial documents, a complex crime. They tried to defraud the
Government with the use of false commercial and public documents.
Damage is not necessary.
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus
not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
Under the law, the accused public officers shall be suspended from
office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court (Section 13,
R.A. No. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent
the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation
(Rios v. Sandiganbayan, 279 SCRA 581 (1997); Bunye v. Escareal 226
SCRA 332 [1993].)
Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspen-
sion pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed
ones like him. It applies to all public officials Indicted upon a valid in-
formation under R.A. No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective
officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the
career or non-career service (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA
328 [1998].)
A public officer was accused before the Sandiganbayan of a viola-
tion of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Just after arraignment and even before evidence
was presented, the Sandiganbayan issued an order for his sus-
pension pendente lite. The accused questioned the said Order
contending that it is violative of the constitutional provision
against an ex post facto law. Will you sustain the objection of the
accused? '99 – Q6b
NO, I will not sustain the objection of the accused. Suspension of
the accused pendente lite is not violative of the constitutional provision
against ex-post facto law. Ex-post facto law means making an innocent
act a crime before it is made punishable.
What are the pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied
before preventive suspension may be ordered? ’99 – Q7c
The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied before a sus-
pension may be ordered are: (1) there must be proper notice requiring
the accused to show cause at a specific date of hearing why he should
not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to R.A. No. 3019, as
87
amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a valid information
against the accused that warrants his suspension.
A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information that reads:
“That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused,
being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer,
Department of Public Works and Highways and in the dis-
charge of his official administrative functions, did then and
there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the ap-
proval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land
which the government had expropriated, and after the claim
was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the
approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully appro-
priated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing undue
injury to B and the Government.”
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it
does not charge an offense. Is he correct? '97 – Q20
YES, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to al-
lege that the undue injury to B and the government was caused by the
accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross Inexcusable
negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, i.e.,
violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the
DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the
price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the
Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no allegation in the
information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the
amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the
charge was solely based on the accused having followed up the pay-
ment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and
that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the
said land, the amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Sec-
tion 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the ac-
cused should be merely charged administratively.
Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Daily Time
Record (DTR) from January to March 2000 and did not get ap-
proval of his sick leave application for April because of evidence
that he was actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical
Director caused the withholding of his salary for the periods in
question until he submitted his DTRs in May 2000. Can Dr. Chow
prosecute the medical director for causing him undue injury in
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act? ’11 – Q17
(A) Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident bad faith.
(B) No, since the medical director has full discretion in releasing the
salary of government doctors.
(C) Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior hearing.
(D) No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit
the required DTRs.
Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049)
What is hazing as defined by law? ’02 – Q18a
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some em-
barrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial,
silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him
to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
What does the law require before initiation rites may be per-
formed? ’02 – Q18b
Section 2 of R.A. No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before
hazing or initiation rites may be performed, notice to the school authori-
ties or head of organizations shall be given seven (7) days before the
conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of
the initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of
those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation
rites.
Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6235)
The accused hijacked an airplane and at gunpoint ordered the
pilot to fly to Peking instead of to Davao, which was the plane’s
destination. Since the pilot refused, the accused shot him to
death. Afterwards, the accused was overpowered by the crew and
the co-pilot was able to fly the place safely to Davao. That crime
or crimes did the accused commit? ’75 – Q17
The accused is liable for the offense of hijacking which is an act
inimical to civil aviation, since he compelled unlawfully a change in the
course of the plane to Davao, which was its destination, to Peking,
while the plane was in flight. Under the law, it is not essential that the
hijacker should succeed in his purpose. The offense is punishable by
death since the accused fired upon the pilot causing his death, and
therefore the offense is accomplished by murder as the pilot did not
have any chance to defend himself. It is assumed that the plane is an
aircraft of Philippine registry (Sections 1 and 2, R.A. No. 6235.)
Anti-Money Laundering Law (R.A. No. 9160, as amended by R.A.
No. 9194)
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and trea-
sury warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10)
men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence and
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occu-
pants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and asportation
of the entire van and its contents. ’12 – QIV
a) If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the
ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presi-
dential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and
Anti -Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery.
The mere fact that the offense charged was committed on a highway
would not be the determinant of the application of PD No. 532. If a
motor vehicle, wither stationary or moving on a highway, is forcibly
taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy there-
to, the location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would
not necessarily put the offense within the ambit of PD No. 532. In this
case, the crime committed is violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972 (People vs. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993). More-
over, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws or-
ganized for the purpose of depredation upon the persons and proper-
ties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place
to another. What was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van. It
was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously attempted
at similar robberies by them to establish the “indiscriminate” commis-
sion thereof (Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 755943, October
16, 1996).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
As a public prosecutor, I would charge the ten (10) men who hijacked
the postal van with violation of PD 532. As oppose to brigandage under
Article 306 of the RPC, highway robbery under PD 532 does not re-
quire that there be at least four armed persons forming a band of rob-
bers. In this case, while there are ten (10) men who hijacked the postal
van, only two (2) were armed. Hence, they may be charged with high-
way robbery under PD 532.
b) If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements
of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should
prove to sustain a conviction? (5%)
Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery is defined as “(t)he
seizure of any person for random, extortion or other unlawful purposes,
or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence
against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful
means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway. Hence,
the elements of highway robbery are:
a. intent to gain;
b. unlawful taking of property of another;
c. violence against or intimidation of any person;
d. committed on a Philippine highway.
88
To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove
that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. If the purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is
only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed partici-
pants. (See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, 23 February 1996).
The Court of Appeals, not the Regional Trial Court, can issue a
freeze order under the AMLA. ’10 – Q6
The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct,
because jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now vested with the
Court of Appeals under Republic Act No. 9194, amending the Anti-
Money Laundering Act (Republic Act No. 9160.) The Regional Trial
Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order of the money in-
volved.
Definition of Money Laundering; Three (3) Stages in Money Laun-
dering. ’10 – Q12
Money Laundering is “the process by which a person conceals
the existence of unlawfully obtained money and makes it appear to
have originated from lawful sources. The intention behind the transac-
tion is to hide the beneficial owner of said funds and allows criminal
organizations or criminals to enjoy the proceeds of such criminal activi-
ties.”
The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
1. Placement/infusion or the physical disposal the criminal
proceeds;
2. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from
their sources by creating layers of financial transactions to
disguise such proceeds as legitimate and avoid the audit
trail; and
3. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy to the
criminal proceeds.
The statement that “For a person who transacts an instrument
representing the proceeds of a covered unlawful activity to be
liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. No. 9160, as
amended), it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identi-
ties of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate
crimes” is FALSE. ’09 – Q11e
There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must
know the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the
predicate crimes. To establish liability under R.A. No. 9160, it is suffi-
cient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, making them
appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of
the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regu-
larly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1
Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the
money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing
schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently
discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and
the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng opera-
tions. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable?
’05 – Q12
On the part of Don Gabito, the crimes committed were:
1. Money laundering under R.A. No. 9160 (Anti-Money Laun-
dering Act of 2001), as amended by R.A. No. 9194, since the
money proceeds from an unlawful activity, i.e., jueteng are trans-
acted as though coming from a legitimate source;
2. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the RPC for
having given the amounts that were deposited in an account
which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but for the
public position or office held by the Mayor; and
3. Illegal gambling under P.D. No. 1602 (Prescribing Stiffer
Penalties on Illegal Gambling) for being a jueteng operator.
On the part of the Mayor, the crimes committed were:
1. Money laundering under the same laws above-mentioned if
after learning that the money deposited in his account were pro-
ceeds of jueteng, he still continued using said funds;
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his
account by using them when they were given to him for no other
reason except for his public position as a Mayor; and
3. Violation of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such
gift from someone who may be affected by the functions of his
office.
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. No. 532)
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery
Division of the Western Police District and assigned to the South
Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less familiar with the
schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans,
as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the dif-
ferent export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time
to time, he gave valuable and detailed information on these mat-
ters to a group interested in those shipments in said container
vans. On several instances, using the said information as their
basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the vans.
Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City and
Bangkal, Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who then in-
spects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the valuable items
and disposes of them through his own sources or "fences". When
the hijackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon
custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal
charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan,
in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a princi-
pal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D. 532, other-
wise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of
1972. Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? ’01 – Q8
NO, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because
by express provision of P.D. No. 532, Section 4, a person who know-
ingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands,
such as giving them information about the movement of police officers
or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage, shall
be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in
accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code.
Distinguish Highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway. '00 – Q15a
Highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532 differs from ordinary Rob-
bery committed on a highway in these respects:
1. In Highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532, the robbery is
committed indiscriminately against persons who commute in
such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer; while
in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is
committed only against predetermined victims;
2. It is Highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532, when the offender
is a brigand or one who roams in public highways and car-
ries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever
the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under
the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a
public highway is only incidental and the offender is not a
brigand: and
3. In Highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532, there is frequency
in the commission of the robbery in public highways and
against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Rob-
bery in public highways is only occasional against a prede-
termined victim, without frequency in public highways.
A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway
having a drinking spree. At about 1 AM, they decided to leave and
so asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they
were still short of P2,000. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A,
B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of
all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A. B,
C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the
first taxicab they encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his
earnings, which amounted to P1,000 only, they needed P1,000
89
more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab
and they again robbed driver T of his hard-earned money amount-
ing to P1,000. On their way back to the beerhouse, they were ap-
prehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of
the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or
crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit? '00 – Q15b
A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under
Article 294 of the RPC; not for highway Robbery under P.D. No. 532.
The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise
money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of
money to pay the same.
While V was soundly asleep in his fishing boat then moored in the
Pasig River near Jones Bridge, Manila, W beat V unconscious-
ness and thereafter took his cash and valuables. What crime or
crime did W commit? ’77 – Q5b
P.D. No. 532 punishes piracy in the Philippine waters and refers
to any vessel or watercraft which includes boats used for fishing. Un-
der the decree, piracy is committed not only by attacking or seizing any
vessel but includes the taking away of personal belongings of a pas-
senger irrespective of the value thereof by any person. Since W beat V
to unconsciousness while he was sound asleep in his fishing boat then
moored in the Pasig River near the Jones Bridge and then took his
cash and valuables, the crime committed by W is piracy under P.D. No.
532.
Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659
Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a multi-billion government con-
tract for the development of an economic and tourism hub in the Prov-
ince of Blank, Mr. Gangnam allotted the amount of P100 Million to
serve as gifts for certain persons instrumental in his firm's winning the
award. He gave 50% of that amount to Governor Datu, the official who
had signed the contract with the proper authorization from the Sang-
guniang Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the Sangguniang Panlalaw-
igan member who had lobbied for the award of the project in the Sang-
guniang Panlalawigan; and 25% to Mayor Dolor of the Municipality
where the project would be implemented. Governor Datu received his
share through his wife, Provincial First Lady Dee, who then deposited
the amount in her personal bank account.
Previously, upon facilitation by Bokal Diva, Mr. Gangnam concluded an
agreement with Mayor Dolor for the construction of the Blank Sports
Arena worth ₱800 Million. The project was highly overpriced because it
could be undertaken and completed for not more than ₱400 Million.
For this project, Mayor Dolor received from Mr. Gangnam a gift of ₱10
Million, while Bokal Diva got ₱25 Million.
In both instances, Bokal Diva had her monetary gifts deposited in the
name of her secretary, Terry, who personally maintained a bank ac-
count for Bokal Diva's share in government projects. ’17 – Q3
(a) May each of the above-named individuals be held liable
for plunder? Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(a) The act of receiving P50 Million by Governor Datu
kickback in connection with any government con-
tract or project for the development of an economic
and tourism hub is a predicate crime of plunder. He
is not liable, however, for plunder. To be held liable
for plunder, the public officer must amass, accumu-
late or acquire ill-gotten wealth through a combina-
tion or series of overt or criminal acts. The word
“combination” means a tleast two different predi-
cate crimes; while the term “series” means at least
two different predicate crimes; while the term “se-
ries” means at least two predicate crimes of the
same kind (Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos.
157294095, November 30, 2006). A single predicate
crime amounting to 50 million pesos is not plunder.
The intention of the lawmakers is that if there is
only one predicate crime, the offender has prose-
cuted under the particular crime which is already
covered by existing laws. What is punishable under
the law is “acts of plunder”, which means that there
should be at least, two or more, predicate crimes
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
(See deliberation of Bicameral Committee on Jus-
tice, May 7, 1991).
The series acts of receiving by Mayor Dolor Kickback or gift in the
amount of P25 million and P10 million in connection with any
government contract or project for the development of an eco-
nomic and tourism hub and for the construction of the Blank
Sports Arena, respectively, are predicate crimes of plunder. How-
ever, the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth acquired is less
than P50 million. Hence, plunder is not committed since element
that the aggregate amount of ill-gotten wealth is at least P50 mil-
lion is not present.
Bokal Diva is liable for plunder because he acquired ill-gotten
wealth in the aggregate amount of P50 million through a series of
prediate crimes consisting of receipts of kickback or gift in the
amount of P25 million in connection with any government con-
tract or project for the development of an economic and tourism
hub and for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena, respec-
tively. Mr. Gangnam, for giving kickbacks to Bokal Diva, and Terry
for depositing the money in his account for Bokal Diva are also
liable for plunder. Under Ra. No. 7080, any person who participat-
ed with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for
such offense.
(b) Define wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. Is either
or both kinds existent herein? Explain your answer.
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) In the case at bar, both type of conspiracy exists.
The distribution of commissions or gifts by Mr.
Gangnam and the acceptance of Governor Datu,
Bokal Diva, Mayor Dolor is a type of wheel conspir-
acy where a single person, Mr. Gangnam, dealt
individually with the public officials to commit the
overt acts. The chain conspiracy, on the other hand,
is evident in the overpricing of the sports complex
through the facilitation of Bokal Diva, the conclu-
sion of the agreements by Mayor Dolor, and the
distribution of the gifts by Mr. Gangnam.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
(b) There are two structures of multiple conspiracies,
namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain con-
spiracy. Under the wheel or circle conspiracy, there
is a single person or group (the “hub”) dealing in-
dividually with two or more other persons or
groups (the “spokes”) (Fernan, Jr. v. People, G.R.
No. 145927, August 24, 2007).
In wheel conspiracy involving plunder, the hub or the principal
plunder amasses, accumulates and acquires ill-gotten wealth in
connivance with other or spokes. In plunder, the hub or principal
plunder must be, and is, a public officer (GMA v. People, G.R. No.
220598, July 19, 2016); but the spokes can be a private individual
Nerile v. People, G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015). In this case,
there is no wheel conspiracy involving plunder. Mr. Gangnam
cannot be considered as a hub since he is not a public officer.
Under the chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
narcotics or other contraband, in which there is successive com-
munication and cooperation in much the same way as with legiti-
mate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler,
then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer (Fer-
nan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 14597, August 24, 2007).
There is chain conspiracy involving plunder in this case. Bokul
Diva conspired with Mr. Gangnam in committing plunder, and
then, he conspired with Mr. Gangnam in committing plunder, and
then, he conspired with Terry, his secretary, In hiding his ill-gotten
wealth, by depositing the proceeds of plunder under the account
of the latter. Because of the chain conspiracy, Bokal Diva, Mr.
Gangnam and Terry are liable for plunder. Under Ra No.7080, any
person who participated with the said public officer in the com-
mission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall
likewise be punished for such offence.
90
(c) What provisions of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt
Practices Act), if any, were violated by any of the
above-named individuals, specifying the persons liable
therefor? Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(c) Governor Datu, Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable
liable for violations of Section 3 (b) or RA No. 3019 in receiving
money in connection with government contract or transaction for
the development of an economic and tourism hub where they
have the right to intervene under the law. Mr. Gangnam for giving
money to the said public officers and Dee, who received kick-
backs for her husband, Governor Dato, are also liable for violation
of Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019 on the basis of conspiracy (Go v.
The Fifth Division, Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 17602, April 13, 2007).
Mayor Dolor and Bokal Diva are liable for violations of
Section 3 (b) of RA No. 3019 for receiving money in connection
with government contract or transaction for the construction of
the Blank Sports Arena; or violation of Section 3 (e) for giving Mr.
Gangnam, a private party, unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference through manifest partiality and is highly overpriced; or
violation of Section 3 (g) for entering, on behalf of the Govern-
ment, into any contract or transaction for such construction mani-
festly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. Mr. Gangnam for
giving money to the said public officers or for entering such con-
tract is also liable for violation of Section 3 of RA No. 3019 on the
basis of conspiracy (Go v. The Fifth Division, Sandiganbaan, G.R.
No. 17602, April 13, 2007).
(d) What crimes under the Revised Penal Code, if any,
were committed, specifying the persons liable therefor?
Explain your answer. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
(d) Governor Datu, Mayor Dolo and Bokal Diva are liable
for indirect birbery under Art. 211, RPC for receiving money from
Mr. Gangnam offered to change by reason of their position as
public officers while the letter is liable for corruption of public
officer. Direct bribery is not committed since there is no showing
that they received the money by virtue of an agreement to commit
a crime or unjust act in connection with the development of an
economic and tourism hub and construction of the Blank Sports
Arena. The facts given above merely showed receipt of gifts.
Meanwhile, Mr. Gangnam is liable for corruption of pub-
lic office r under Article 212 of the RPC because of his act of giv-
ing gifts to the public officer under Article 212 of the RPC be-
cause of his act of giving gifts to the public officers.
City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City
of Kawawa, through an ordinance,allotted the amount of P100
million for the construction of a road leading to the poblacion.
City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the road leading
to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money
in the amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bid-
ders, who eventually lost in the bidding.
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2
million could not be accounted for although reports showed that
these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized drivers but the same
were never returned. Further, there were funds under City Engr.
A’s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be
missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he
was instrumentalin awarding a contract for the construction of a
city school building costing P10 million to a close relative, al-
though the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed
that City Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, which
was way beyond his legitimate income. –’14- Q3
(A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will
you file against City Engr. A?
A: If I am the Ombudsman, I would file a case of Plunder under RA No.
7080 against City Engineer A. It is very clear from the facts given that
all the elements of plunder are present, namely:
1. The offender is a public officer holding a public office in the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines;
2. The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten
wealth through a combination of overt or criminal acts of
misuse, misappropriation, conversion or malversation of
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
public funds, receiving kickbacks from persons in connection
with a government contract or project by reason of his office
or position and illegally or fraudulently conveying or dispos-
ing of assets belonging to the National Government or any of
its subdivisions; and
3. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth
amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50 million.
(B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. Ais less
than P50 million, will your answer still be the same?
Yes, the answer will still be the same since in plunder the basis is the
combination of criminal acts or series of acts, which constitutes the
accumulation of more than P50million. The predicate crimes are al-
ready absorbed in the crime of plunder. City Engineer A’s net worth
being less than P50million is not determinative of his liability, as long
as the wealth amassed/accumulated is more than P50M.
1. Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and
other fraudulent schemes /conveyances and taking ad-
vantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a sub-
urban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion
which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income.
Due to his influence and connections and despite
knowledge by the authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth, he
was charged with the crime of plunder only after twenty
(20) years from his defeat in the last elections he partic-
ipated in. ’93 – Q4
2. May Andy still be held criminally liable? ’93 – Q4-1
Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of R.A. No.
7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe
in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still be
charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.
3. Can the State still recover the properties and assets that
he illegally acquired, the bulk of which is in the name of
his wife and children? ’93 – Q4-2
YES, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties
unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22)
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan,
Frank issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a
month after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank
called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested
that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric de-
posited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to
pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for viola-
tion of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law).
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (7%) ’13-Q10
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charge brought against Frank is
correct. Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. (E.P.) 22 is malum prohibi-
tum which is committed by mere issuance of a check without sufficient
funds. Good faith is not a defense. As long as the check was issued on
account or for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance are irrelevant to the pros-
ecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of Frank to defer
the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate
against his prosecution for B.P. Big. 22. Despite notice, Frank can still
be charged.
Moreover, if what is charged is estafa, Frank, being a brother of the
offended party, cannot be held criminally liable under Art. 332, RPC.
Which of the following circumstances of dishonor of a check can
be a basis for prosecution under the bouncing checks law? ’11 -
Q58
(A) The check was returned unpaid with stamp "stop payment," al-
though the drawer’s deposit was sufficient.
91
(B) The check, drawn and issued in the Philippines, was dishonored by
the drawee bank in a foreign country.
(C) The check was presented to the bank for payment 6 months after
the date of issue.
(D) The drawer of the dishonored check paid its value within 5 days
from notice of dishonor.
A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accom-
modated her by issuing her a post-dated check in the sum of
P90,000. Both of them knew that the check would not be honored
because B’s account had just been closed. The two then ap-
proached trade C who they asked to change the check with cash,
even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000 with
the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon
C’s presentment of the check for payment on due date, it was
dishonored because the account had already been closed. What
action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to ac-
count for the loss of her P85,000? ’10 – Q8
A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who
drew the post-dated check against a closed bank, for value paid by C,
and with knowledge at the time he issued the check that the account
thereof is already closed.
A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere
endorser of B’s check to C who exchanged the check with cash. BP 22
does not apply to endorser of checks. Hence, only a civil action may be
filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for
the issuance of a worthless check, under the given facts, the check
was discounted and thus issued is a credit transaction for a pre-exist-
ing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a
check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
A, a businessman, borrowed P500,000 from B, a friend. To pay the
loan, A issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment 30
days after the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of
the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit the check on
the date stated on the face thereof, as A had not deposited in the
drawee bank the amount needed to cover the check. Neverthe-
less, B deposited the check in question and the same was dis-
honored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to settle the amount
with B in spite of the latter's demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P.
Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law? '02 – Q13
YES, A Is liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks
Law), Although knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of
funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an essential element
of the violation, the law presumes prima facie such knowledge, unless
within five (5) banking days of notice of dishonor or non-payment, the
drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due thereon or makes
arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such checks.
A mere notice by the drawer A to the payee B before the maturity
date of the check will not defeat the presumption of knowledge created
by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P. 22 will be rendered
useless.
The accused was convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 for having issued
several checks which were dishonored by the drawee bank on
their due date because the accused closed her account after the
issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she could not be
convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the closing of her ac-
count because said law applies solely to checks dishonored by
reason of insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued
the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the bank. While
she admits that she may be held liable for estafa under Article 315
of the RPC, she cannot however be found guilty of having violat-
ed Blg. 22. Is her contention correct? '96 – Q7(1)
NO, the contention of the accused is not correct. As long as the
checks issued were issued to apply on account or for value, and was
dishonored upon presentation for payment to the drawee bank for lack
of insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within the ambit of
B.P. Blg. 22. Said law expressly punishes any person who may have
insufficient funds in the drawee bank when he issues the check, but
fails to keep sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check when
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
presented to the drawee bank within ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon.
What is a memorandum check? Is the “bouncing” thereof within
the purview of B.P. Blg. 22? '95 – Q4(1)
A “Memorandum Check” is an ordinary check, with the word
“Memorandum”, “Memo” or “Mem” written across its face, signifying
that the maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely thus
partaking the nature of a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is
a bill of exchange within the purview of Section 185 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law (People v. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79 [1992].)
YES, a memorandum check is covered by B.P. Blg. 22 because
the law covers any check whether it is an evidence of Indebtedness, or
in payment of a pre-existing obligation or as a deposit or guarantee
(People v. Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79 [1992].)
Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman who has been
borrowing money from Jane by rediscounting his personal
checks to pay his loans. In March 1989, he borrowed P100,000
from Jane and issued to her a check for the same amount. The
check was dishonored by the drawee bank for having been drawn
against a closed account. When Edmund was notified of the dis-
honor of his check he promised to raise the amount within five
days. He failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for violation of
the Bouncing Checks Law (BP. Blg. 22). The defense of Edmund
was that he gave the check to Jane to serve as a memorandum of
his indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be encashed. Is
the defense of Edmund valid? '95 – Q4(2)
The defense of Edmund is NOT valid. A memorandum check
upon presentment is generally accepted by the bank. It does not mat-
ter whether the check is in the nature of a memorandum as evidence
of indebtedness. What the law punishes is the mere issuance of a
bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating thereto. The mere act of issuing a worth-
less check is a malum prohibitum. The understanding that the check
will not be presented at the bank but will be redeemed by the maker
when the loan falls due is a mere private arrangement which may not
prevail to exempt it from the penal sanction of B.P. Blg. 22 (People v.
Nitafan, 215 SCRA 79 [1992].)
Exidor issued a check in payment of goods delivered to him by
Virginia. Unfortunately the check bounced for lack of sufficient
funds. 1. ’90 – Q10
1. What is the criminal liability of Exidor? ’90 – Q10-1
Exidor is liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22) and
for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d), RPC.
2. Suppose the bouncing check was post-dated, will your
answer be the same? ’90 – Q10-2
He will only be liable under the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg.
22).
Code of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No.
6713)
Commissioner Marian Torres of the BIR wrote solicitation letters
addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corpora-
tions requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party.
She used the Bureau's official stationery. The response was
prompt and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner Torres'
office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers,
electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several en-
velopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas
luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety
or irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate? ’06 – Q8
YES, Commissioner Torres committed impropriety. She violated
Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise known as the “Code of Con-
duct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.” Sec-
tion 7(d) mandates that public officials and employees shall not solicit
92
or accept directly or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment, loan or
anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their offi-
cial duties or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
their office.
Another Suggested Answer:
The solicitation for her office Christmas Party violated P.D. No. 46
which makes it punishable for any public official or employee to re-
ceive, directly or indirectly, any gift, present or other valuable thing on
any occasion, including Christmas when such gift or present is given
by reason of her official position.
Another Suggested Answer:
YES, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety and violated
Section 211 of the RPC on indirect bribery. She accepted gifts by rea-
son of her office
Robert Sy, a well known businessman and a founding member of
the Makati Business Club, aside from being a classmate of the
newly-elected President of the Philippines, had Investments con-
sisting of shares of stocks in the Urban Bank, the PNB, the Rural
Bank of Caloocan City and his privately-owned corporation, the
RS Builders Corp. and Trans-Pacific Air. After the President had
taken his oath and assumed his office, he appointed Robert as
Honorary Consul to the Republic of Vietnam. Robert took his oath
before the President and after furnishing the DFA with his ap-
pointment papers, flew to Saigon, now Ho Chi Min City, where he
organized his staff, put up an office and stayed there for three
months attending to trade opportunities and relations with local
businessman. On the 4th month, he returned to the Philippines to
make his report to the President. However, the Anti-Graft League
of the Philippines filed a complaint against Robert for (1) falling to
file his Statement of Assets and Liabilities within thirty (30) days
from assumption of office; (2) failing to resign from his business-
es, and (3) falling to divest his shares and investments in the
banks and corporations owned by him, as required by the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employ-
ees. Will the complaint prosper? ’01 – Q12
The complaint will not prosper because the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713),
expressly exempts those who serve the Government in an honorary
capacity from filing Statements of Assets and Liabilities, and from re-
signing and divesting themselves of interest from any private enter-
prise (Sections 8A and 9).
Alternative Answer:
Yes, the complaint will prosper under Section 7 of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended), which re-
quires all public officers within 30 days from assuming public office to
file a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities. Violations
of this law are mala prohibita which admits of no excuses.
Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 9165)
Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the
policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried and pho-
tographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a
barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by Macario and the
tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu
the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP
Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the
counsel de oficio of Dimas stipulated that the substance con-
tained in the sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted
of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned
the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to ob-
serve the requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu"
seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General
claimed that despite non-compliance with some requirements, the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance
was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the
requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance
seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be
affirmed.
What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses?
(2.5%) ’16 – Q14(a)
To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the
movements of the dangerous drugs from its confiscation up to its pre-
sentation in court. The purpose of establishing the chain of custody is
to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti (People v. Magat, G.R. No.
179939, 29 September 2008). The following links that must be estab-
lished in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court (People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, 29
January 2010).
To establish the first link in the chain of custody, and that is the
seizure of the drug from the accused, the prosecution must com-
ply with Section 21 of RA No. 9165, which requires that the appre-
hending officer after the confiscation of drug must immediately
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscat-
ed, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected pub-
lic official who shall be required to sign the copies of the invento-
ry and be given a copy thereof and within twenty-four (24) hours
upon such confiscation, the drug shall be submitted to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for examination.
[b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%) ’16 – Q14(b)
The contention of the State is meritorious. Macario, the policeman
failed to comply with Section 21 of RA No 9165 since the inventory and
photograph of the drugs was only made in the presence of barangay
tanod and the same was not submit PNP Crime Laboratory within 24
hours. The rule is settled that failure to strictly comply with Section
21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an ac-
cused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inad-
missible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized item. Moreover, the issue of non-
compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal {People v. Badillo, G.R. No. 218578, August 31,
2016).
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence
reports about the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not
arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team
leader, approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-
buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying that
93
he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have
anything to do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to
help when SP03 Relio explained that only he could help capture
Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave
Emilo the marked money to be used in buying shabu from Rado.
The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money
to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams,
and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03
Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and
Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, other-
wise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from
criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%)
Answer: Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art, II. RA 9165 or the “Com-
prehensive Drugs Act of 2002”. He may have violated Section II of RA
9165 for possession of shabu but he is immune from prosecution and
punishment because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the entrapment
operation. There was virtually an instigation. He is exempted from
prosecution or punishment because the information obtained from him
by the PDEA agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence of
Rado’s drug-pushing activities, led to the whereabouts, identity and
arrest of Rado. So long as the information and testimony given are
pleaded and proven, Ernilo cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA
9165.
b) May Rado adopt as his own Ernilo's defense? Explain. (2.5%)
’15-Q9
Answer: No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arrest-
ing violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law
offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the
idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody
inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, the immunity
does not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA 9165 or the sale of
shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the crime and
apparently the most guilty of the offense.
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of
the crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17)
years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Pos-
session of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is
life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law provides
that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor
offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetuato death. Under
R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privilege mitigating
circumstance. ‘14-Q25
(A) May the privilege mitigating circumstance of mi-
nority be appreciated considering that the penalty
imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?
A: Yes. Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is always con-
sidered as a modifying circumstance in the imposition of penalty of a
child in conflict with the law.
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable con-
sidering that life imprisonment has no fixed dura-
tion and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum pro-
hibitum?
A: Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special
laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua,
which in turn was graduated to reclusion temporal, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is inapplicable (People v. Montalba)
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years
and a notice of appeal was filed by Aand given due
course by the court, may A still file an application
for probation?
A: Yes. A my still file an application for probation even if he filed a no-
tice of appeal. Section 42 of RA No. 9344 provides that “The court may,
after it shall have been convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with
the law, and upon application at ay time, place the child on probation in
lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest
of the child.” The said section also provides that the Probation Law is
amended accordingly. The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section
42 means the child in conflict with the law may file application for pro-
bation at any time, even beyond the period for perfecting an appeal
and even if the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will
Aserve his sentence?
If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor shall serve his sen-
tence in the agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance
with Section 51 of No. 9344 (sic).
Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was
convicted of violation of Section, R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, Tom-
my questioned the admissibility of the evidence because the po-
lice officers who conducted the buy-bus operation failed to ob-
serve the requisite “chain of custody” of the evidence confiscated
and/or seized from him. What is the “chain of custody” require-
ment in drug cases? What is its rationale? What is the effect of
failure to observe the requirement? ’09 – Q14
“Chain of custody” requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly
recorded, authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous
drugs, controlled chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the time of confisca-
tion/seizure thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the
forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and eventual
presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal violation, and for
destruction (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002.)
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or
body of the crime by rendering it improbable that the original item
seized/confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or substituted
with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is a method of au-
thenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reason-
able doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims to be.
Failure to observe the “chain of custody” requirement renders the
evidence questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the
corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be ac-
quitted on reasonable doubt.
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join the group for a “session”. Think-
ing that it was for a mah-jong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon
reaching Tiburcio’s house, Anastacio discovered that it was actu-
ally a shabu session. At that precise time, the place was raided by
the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime
can Anastacio be charged with, if any? ’07 – Q2
Anastacio may not be charged of any crime.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive, or
resort where dangerous drugs are used in any form. But for a visitor of
such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite that he “is aware of the
nature of the place as such and such knowingly visit the same.” These
requisites are absent in the facts given.
After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious
drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR 181, PNP Chief
Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents.
When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and
seized his attaché case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration
holding area, the attaché case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin
weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attaché
case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito
Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes
94
to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the
trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to
alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of
heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go
home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of
agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction.
They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Mean-
while, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him.
All of them were later charged. What are their respective criminal
liabilities? '06 – Q16
Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes incur
criminal liability under Article 11, Section 4, last par., of R.A. No. 9165,
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.” They acted as “protector/coddler” to the unlawful bringing into
the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. A “protector/coddler” refers to
any person who uses his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the
escape of any person whom he knows or believes, has violated the
Dangerous Drugs Law, in order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and
conviction of the violator.
The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of Section
27 of the same law for misappropriation or failure to account for the
confiscated or seized dangerous drugs.
On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the illegal
importation or bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs
(Article 11, Section 4, R.A. No. 9165.)
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified
amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”. An en-
trapment operation was conducted by police officers, resulting in
his arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the said dan-
gerous drug in his possession. He was subjected to a drug test
and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another danger-
ous drug. He was subsequently charged with two crimes: Viola-
tion of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the possession of
“shabu” and violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for
the use of marijuana.
1. Are the charges proper?
The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the mere posses-
sion of such drug is punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is
not proper as Section 15 of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Act of 2002) expressly excludes penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs
when the person tested “is also found to have in his possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug” provided for in Section 11 of such Act.
2. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to
plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he do so? '05 – Q13
NO, because Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly provides that
“Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on
plea-bargaining.” For this reason, Obie Juan cannot be allowed to
plead to a lesser offense.
MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pre-
trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense concerning
use of dangerous drugs. Should the Judge allow MNO's plea to
the lesser offense? '04 – Q2b
NO, the Judge should not allow MNO's plea to a lesser offense,
because plea bargaining in prosecutions of drug-related cases is no
longer allowed by Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty.
A and his fiancée B were walking in the plaza
At about 9 AM in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to en-
trap and apprehend A, a long suspected drug dealer, through a
“buy-bust” operation. At the appointed time, the poseur-buyer
approached A who was then with B. A marked P100 bill was hand-
ed over to A who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer one (1) tea bag of
marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were then posi-
tioned behind thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift
enough since A and B were able to run away. Two days later, A
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
was arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that
during the operations, the police officers were not able to seize
the marked money but were able to get possession of the mari-
juana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act, During the trial, the marked money was
not presented. Can A be held liable? '00 – Q13b
YES. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked money will
not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of
the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. There was a perfected con-
tract of sale of the drug (People v. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733 [1995];
People v. Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625 [1995].)
Illegal Possession of Firearms
X, Y and Z agreed among themselves to attack and kill A, a police
officer, but they left their home-made guns in their vehicle before
approaching him. What crime have they committed? ’11 – Q54
(A) Conspiracy to commit indirect assault.
(B) Attempted direct assault.
(C) Conspiracy to commit direct assault.
(D) Illegal possession of firearms.
PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor
of their town. The Information against PH alleged that he used an
unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court con-
victed PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession of
firearms. Is the conviction correct? ’04 – Q8a
NO, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal pos-
session of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on illegal posses-
sion of firearms and explosives, R.A. No. 8294, a person may only be
criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is
committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravat-
ing circumstance.
PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an
unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be appreciated as a
special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged
specifically in the information for Murder.
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various
crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a tipster,
the police proceeded to an apartment where A was often seen.
The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed.
At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder
sister of A, opened the door and let the policemen in inside, the
team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a
clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik
revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities
discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber
paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that
only military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades.
Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession
of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that the
bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade be-
longed to A, his friend, and that he was not in actual possession
thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritori-
ous? '00 – Q13a
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential
element of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only
actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the
firearm and explosive are subject to one's control and management
(People v. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716 [1994]; U.S. v. Juan, 23 Phil. 105:
People v. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565 [1960].)
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended)
Who among the following convicts are not entitled to the benefits
of the Intermediate Sentence Law? ’12 – Q6
95
a) Those who are recidivists.
b) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment
exceeds one (1) year.
c) Those convicted of inciting to sedition.
d) Those convicted of misprision of treason.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) Those convicted of misprision of treason.
Recidivists, those convicted of indicting to sedition and those whose
term of imprisonment exceed one year are entitled to the benefits of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law; while those convicted of misprision of
treason are not.
What is the nature of the circumstance which is involved in the
imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence?
’12 – Q23
a) qualifying circumstance;
b) aggravating circumstance;
c) modifying circumstance;
d) analogous circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) modifying circumstance;
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL) the court shall sentence
the accuses to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which
shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of Revised Penal Code. The plain
terms of the ISL how that the legislature did not intend to limit “attend-
ing circumstances” as referring to Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC. If the
legislature intended that the “attending circumstances” under the ISL
be limited to Articles 13 and 14, then it could have simply so stated,
The wording of the law clearly permits others modifying circumstances
outside Articles 13 and 14 of the RPC to be treated as “attending cir-
cumstances” for purposes of the application of the ISL, such as quasi-
recidivism and circumstance involving incremental penalty rule in
estafa and theft (People vs. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December
17, 2008, En banc).
AA was convicted of proposal to commit treason. Under Article
115 of the Revised Penal Code, proposal to commit treason shall
be punished by prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
P5,000.00. Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable to AA?
’12 - Q47
a) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to AA
because the maximum of prision correccional exceeds one ( 1) year.
b) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to AA
because there is no showing that he is a habitual delinquent.
c) No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to AA
considering the penalty imposable for the offense of which he was
convicted.
d) No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable con-
sidering the offense of which he was convicted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d) No. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable considering
the offense of which he was convicted.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to persons convicted
of proposal to commit treason (Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sen-
tence Law).
1.
Chris Brown was convicted of a complex crime of direct assault
with homicide aggravated by the commission of the crime in a
place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. On
the other hand, the penalty for direct assault is pns10n correc-
cional in its medium and maximum periods. What is the correct
indeterminate penalty? ’12 – Q13
a) Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty
(20) years of reclusion ten1poral as maximum.
b) Ten ( 1 0) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
c) Eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum to eighteen (18)
years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
d) Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen
(17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
a) Twelve (12) years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty (20) years
of reclusion ten1poral as maximum.
In People v. Rillorta, G.R. No. 57415, December 15, 1989, and in Peo-
ple v. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001, the Supreme Court
En Banc found the accused guilty of the complex crime of homicide
with assault upon a person in authority and sentenced him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor,
as minimum, to twenty years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting
criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (5%)
’12 – QVIa
The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the
principle of pro reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in
doubt, for the accused.” (Interstate Estate of Gonzales vs. people, G.R.
No. 181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule
for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guaran-
tee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless
his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. (See People v. Tem-
porada, G.R. No. 173473).
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in imposing a
sentence? (5%) ’12 - QVIb
If crime is punishable under the Revised Penal Code, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term
of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances,
could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the
minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the offense is punishable
under special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeter-
minate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same (Section 1 of the Act 4103).
The judge found A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide
and imposed on him a straight of penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor. The public prosecutor objected to
the sentence on the ground that the proper penalty should have
been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal.
The defense counsel contends that the Indeterminate Service Law
should apply and a penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY
of prision correccional only must be imposed. Who of the three is
on the right track?’10 – Q1
None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate
Service Law (Act No. 4103), as amended) has not been followed.
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, which is pe-
nalized by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is
covered by the Indeterminate Service Law. The said law requires that
the sentence in this case should reflect a minimum term for purposes
of parole and a maximum term fixing the limit of the imprisonment.
Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after render-
ing overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his
best friend, in act of having sexual intercourse, Macky pulled out
his service gun then shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with
murder for the death of Ken. The court found that Ken died under
exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the
RPC. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs
in the amount of P50,000.
1. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity
even though he was exonerated of murder?
NO, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to in-
demnify the victim. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the
exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, it
is the consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the pro-
nouncement in People v. Cosicor, 79 Phil. 672 [1947], that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather
than the as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal
Code is the consequence of criminal liability, there would be no legal
basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.
96
2. While serving sentence, Macky entered the prohibited
area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joy’s sister). Is
Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he
is found guilty of use of prohibited substances? ’07 – Q4
NO, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sen-
tence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) for having evaded the sen-
tence which banished or placed him on destierro. Section 2 of said law
expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall have
“evaded sentence”.
Alternative Answer:
No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous drug by a first
offender is not imprisonment but rehabilitation in a government center
for a minimum period of six (6) months (Section 15, R.A. No. 9165.)
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty is
imprisonment not exceeding one (1) year.
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a spe-
cial penal law where the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as
minimum, to 3 years, as maximum. State with reasons whether
the court may correctly impose the following penalties:
1. A straight penalty of 10 months;
The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months
imprisonment because the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment
of 6 months to 3 years, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment which does not ex-
ceed one year.
Alternative Answer:
Yes, the trial court may impose a straight penalty of ten months.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to crimes punished either by
the RPC or by special laws, where the maximum imprisonment ex-
ceeds one year.
2. 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum;
A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maxi-
mum may not be imposed by the court because the Indeterminate
Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed as maximum
of the sentence is imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year.
Obviously, the Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where
the sentence imposed reflects a minimum and a maximum.
Alternative Answer:
No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law cannot be applied
where the maximum period of imprisonment imposed, which is eleven
months, does not exceed one year.
3. A straight penalty of 2 years. '05 – Q3(1)
The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of two years
because the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court to set a
minimum and a maximum of the sentence where the imprisonment to
be imposed already exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is dis-
qualified from the benefits of the said Law.
Alternative Answer:
No, because a straight penalty may be imposed only up to a max-
imum imprisonment of one (1) year. Here, it is two years. Hence, there
is a need to impose an indeterminate sentence, the minimum term of
which shall not be less than 6 months while the maximum term shall
not exceed 3 years (People v. Peña, 80 SCRA 589 [1977].)
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indetermi-
nate sentence for offenses punishable under the RPC deter-
mined? '02 – Q3a
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maxi-
mum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
imposable under the same Code after considering the attending miti-
gating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of said
Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within
the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the
crime under the said Code.
Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the maximum and
the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence? '02 – Q3b
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence
is to set the grace period at which the convict may be released on
parole from imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not deserving of
parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term in jail but in
no case to go beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence.
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The
penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less
than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon ar-
raignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the
proper penalty, should the ISL be applied? If you were the Judge
trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? '99 –
Q8
YES, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because
the minimum imprisonment is more than one (1) year.
If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the
maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the
minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the
same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said mini-
mum and maximum.
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and 2
Thompson sub-machine guns punishable under the old law [RA
No. 4] with imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The
trial court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five
(5) years and one (1) day. Is the penalty thus imposed correct? '99
– Q12b
The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct
because it does not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law
which applies to this case. Said law requires that if the offense is pun-
ished by any law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
term of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law
and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty pre-
scribed by the same.
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? '03
– Q13; ’99 – Q12a
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
2. Those persons convicted of offenses punished with death
penalty or life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
3. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to com-
mit treason;
4. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition
or espionage;
5. Those convicted of piracy;
6. Those who are habitual delinquents;
7. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded
sentence;
8. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof;
9. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not ex-
ceed one year;
10. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of
approval of this Act; and
Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve
imprisonment, like destierro.
The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is “to uplift and
redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic useful-
ness”. Explain how the law achieves that purpose. ’75 – Q7
97
The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides for an indeterminate
sentence which has a minimum and a maximum. After the prisoner has
served the minimum, depending upon his conduct and behavior during
confinement, he may be released on parole. The law, therefore, en-
courages the prisoner to reform. Once released on parole, provided
the conditions are not violated, he will no longer serve the remainder of
the sentence. The law hence treats the accused first as an individual
and second as a member of society. It shortens his term of imprison-
ment, depending upon his behavior.
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. No. 9344)
Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of
Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By the time he
was convicted and sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The
court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of impris-
onment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as mini-
mum, to seventeen (17) years and four(4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied for
probation but his application was denied because the probation
law does not apply to drug offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael
then sought the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or
the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code.
Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence provided
under this law? (7%) ’13-Q5
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The benefits of a suspended sentence can
no longer apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until
the offender reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. Here,
Michael has already reached 21 years of age and thus, could no longer
be considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act No. 9344.
However, he shall be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation,
and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him the chance to
live a normal life and become a productive member of the community.
Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural camp and
other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of Rep. Act No.
9344 (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011; People v.
Salcedo, G.R. No. 186523, June 22, 2011; Padua v. People, G.R. No.
168546, July 23, 2008 and People v. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, Sep-
tember 10, 2009).
A child in conflict with the law shall enjoy all the rights of a child
until: ’11 – Q61
(A) he is found to have acted with discernment.
(B) his minority is setoff by some aggravating circumstance.
(C) he is proved to be 18 years or older.
(D) he forfeits such rights by gross misconduct and immorality.
Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The
crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hid-
ing, he was arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007.
Since R.A. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of inter-
vention or diversion.
1. What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to in-
tervention or diversions?
The two terms are different.
“Intervention” refers to a series of activities which are designed to
address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take
the form of an individualized treatment program which may include
counselling, skills training, education, and other activities that will en-
hance his/her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.
This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the com-
mission or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of
commission of the crime, the child acted without discernment.
“Diversion” refers to an alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with
the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological
or educational background without resorting to formal court proceed-
ings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but
below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with
discernment.
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
YES. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the
time he committed the crime of homicide, he is treated as a child in
conflict with the law under R.A. No. 9344.
2. Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention of diversion was
denied, and he was convicted two (2) years later when
Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge apply the
suspension of sentence?
NO. The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because
Joe was already 21 years old. Suspension of sentence is availing un-
der R.A. No. 9344 only until a child reaches the maximum age of twen-
ty-one (21) years.
3. Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a
special aggravating circumstance and was denied sus-
pension of sentence, would he be eligible for probation
under P.D. No. 68, considering that the death penalty is
imposable for the consummated felony? ’09 – Q15
YES. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty im-
posable on Joe will not exceed 6 years of imprisonment.
Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was pun-
ishable by death, the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be
reclusion perpetua because R.A. No. 9344 forbids the imposition of the
capital punishment upon offenders thereunder.
The murder being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two
degrees lower that reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor. Because
Joe was 17 years old when committed the crime, the penalty of prision
mayor should be lowered further by one degree because his minority is
a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, prision correccional or
imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is
the imposable penalty.
A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the
crime. He was charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23
when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of pre-
paring to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the sen-
tence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender.
1. Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence?
NO, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he
is no longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. For
purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender's age at the time of
promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age when
he committed the crime. So although A was below 18 years old when
he committed the crime, but he was already 23 years old when sen-
tenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
[Note: In People v. Arpon, 662 SCRA 506 [2011], it was held that
“If the accused committed the crime while he was a minor but was
convicted when he was over 21, he can no longer benefit from a sus-
pended sentence, as he is above the maximum age therefor.”
Likewise, the Court said in People v. Mantalaba, 654 SCRA 188
[2011], that “While Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that suspen-
sion of sentence can still be applied even if the child in conflict with the
law is already eighteen years of age at the time of the pronouncement
of his guilt, Section 40 of the same law limits the said suspension of
sentence until the child reaches the maximum age of 21.]
2. Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask
for suspension of sentence? '03 – Q8
YES, the child is entitled to an automatic suspension of sentence.
Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344 provides that “instead of pronouncing
sentence, the court shall place the child in conflict with law under sus-
pended sentence. Provided, however, that suspension shall be sup-
plied even if the juvenile is already eighteen (18) years of age or more
at the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt.”
If said child in conflict with the law has reached eighteen (18)
years of age while under suspended sentence, the court shall deter-
mine whether to discharge the child, to order execution, or to extend
the suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child
reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years (Section 40, R.A.
No. 9344.)
98
Ombudsman Law
Judge Rod Reyes was appointed by former President Fidel
Ramos as Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas for a term of 7
years commencing on July 5,1995. Six months thereafter, a lady
stenographer filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint
for acts of lasciviousness and with the Supreme Court a petition
for disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions
to dismiss the complaint for acts of lasciviousness and petition
for disbarment, claiming lack of jurisdiction over his person and
office. Are both motions meritorious? ’06 – Q12
NO, the motions filed by Judge Reyes are both without merit.
Being only a Deputy Ombudsman, he is not included among the gov-
ernment officials who may be removed only by impeachment from
office under the Constitution (Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of
Appeals, 452 SCRA 715 [2005].) Hence, he may be charged criminally
and administratively for the acts of lasciviousness complained of be-
fore the Office of the Ombudsman, and for disbarment in a petition with
the Supreme Court.
Probation (P.D. No. 968, as amended)
The period of probation of the offender sentenced to a term of
one ( 1) year shall not exceed: ’12 - Q33
a) two (2) years;
b) six (6) years;
c) one (1) year;
d) three (3) years;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) two (2) years;
Since the offender was sentenced to term of not more than one year,
the period of probation shall not exceed two years (Section 14 of PD
No. 698).
Under which of the following circumstances is probation not ap-
plicable? ’12 - Q60
a) Probation is not applicable when the accused is sentenced
to serve a maximum of six (6) years.
b) Probation is not applicable when the accused has been con-
victed by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of
less than one (1) month and/or fine of less than P200.00.
c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of
indirect assault.
d) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of
indirect bribery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect
assault.
The benefit of probation shall not be extended to those: (a) sentenced
to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; (b)
convicted of any offense against the security of the State; (c) who have
previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and / or a fine of
not less than one month and one day and / or a fine not less than Two
Hundred Pesos (Section 9 of PD 968). Thus, probation is applicable (1)
when the accused have presently (not previously) been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than
one (1) month and one day / or fine of not less than P200; and (3)
when the accused is convicted of indirect bribery, which is not a crime
against national security or public order. However, probation is not
applicable when the accused is convicted of direct assault, which is a
crime against the public order.
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger broth-
er Jeff was found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous acts under Sec-
tion 12, R.A. No. 9165. Matt filed for probation. Jeff appealed his
conviction during the pendency of which he also filed a petition
for probation. The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first
time offenders, their petitions for probation should be granted.
How would you resolve the brothers’ petition for probation? ’10 –
Q20
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
The brothers’ petition for probation should be denied.
Matt’s petition for probation should be denied because he was
convicted of drug-trafficking. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly provides,
“Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act,
regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the
privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968,
as amended.”
On the other hand, Jeff’s application for probation cannot also be
entertained or granted because he has already appealed his conviction
by the trial court (Section 4, P.D. No. 968, as amended.)
Maganda was charged with violation of B.P. Blg. 22 punishable by
imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or
a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the
check, which fine shall not exceed P200,000, or both. The court
convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of
P50,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda
was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The
court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others,
that she should not change her residence without the court’s pri-
or approval.
1. What is the proper period of probation?
The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of
days of subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of
days as computed at the rate established under the Revised Penal
Code, which is one (1) day imprisonment for every P8.00 fine but not
to exceed six (6) months (Section 14(b), P.D. No. 968 (Establishing a
Probation System) in correlation to Article 39, RPC.)
2. Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by
the court but after the lapse of the period of probation,
Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of
the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation
and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? '05
– Q4(1)
YES, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the
convicted accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she
violated the condition of her probation before the Order of Discharge
was issued by the court. The conditions of probation are not co-termi-
nous with the period of probation: such conditions continue even after
the period of probation has ended and thus requires faithful compli-
ance or fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on
probation has not issued the Order of Discharge that would release her
from probation (Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 [1990].)
PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days
and a fine of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of
another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty
days only. Is PX entitled to probation? '04 – Q3b
YES, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for
another crime with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceed-
ing one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation;
the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either
from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed
six (6) years (Section 9, P.D. No. 968).
Juan was convicted of the RTC 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
Juan's conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of four
years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file
an application for probation? '03 – Q14
NO, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he ap-
pealed 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 enter-
tained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the
judgment of conviction.
99
[Note: In Colinares v. People, 662 SCRA 266 [2011], it was held
that “The Probation Law, said the Court in Francisco, requires that an
accused must have not appealed his conviction before he can avail
himself of probation. However, the Court’s finding that Arnel (the ac-
cused) was guilty not of frustrated homicide but only of attempted
homicide is an original conviction that for the first time imposes upon
him a probationable penalty.]
A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and
sentenced to six (6) years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion tempo-
ral, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found guilty
of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto manor
and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? '02 –
Q4a
No, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law (P.D.
No. 968, as amended) does not extend to those sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years (Section 9(a).)
It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a
penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00.
May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of
probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof? '02 –
Q4b
NO. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order
granting or denying probation is not appealable.
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati
for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full
payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one year Imprison-
ment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals
but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for probation? '01
– Q17
NO, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he ap-
pealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law
(P.D. No. 968, as amended by P.D. No. 1990) now provides that no
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused
has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Section 4,
P.D. No. 968).
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery with the RTC of Manila and
sentenced to two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years as maxi-
mum and Juanito. Juanito did not appeal. When he applied for
probation, it was discovered that in March 1960, a municipal court
has sentenced him to six-month imprisonment for less serious
physical injuries which he fully served. May his application for
probation be granted? ’93 – Q2(2)
He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9(c) pro-
vides that probation shall not be extended to those “who have previ-
ously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by
imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine
of not more than P200.00”
Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115)
Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank in order to im-
port auto tires from Japan. To secure payment of his letter of
credit, Julio executed a trust receipt in favor of the bank. Upon
arrival of the tires, Julio sold them but did not deliver the pro-
ceeds to the bank. Julio was charged with estafa under P.D. No.
115 which makes the violation of a trust receipt agreement pun-
ishable as estafa under Art. 315, par. (1), subpar. (b), of the Re-
vised Penal Code. Julio contended that P.D. No. 115 was unconsti-
tutional because it violated the Bill of Rights provision against
imprisonment for non-payment of debt. Rule on the contention of
Julio. ’95 – Q8
Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt arrangement doesn't
involve merely a simple loan transaction but includes likewise a securi-
ty feature where the creditor bank extends financial assistance to the
 The Sigma Rho Fraternity
Bar Operations 2018
Bar Ques)ons and Answers
debtor-importer in return for the collateral or security title as to the
goods or merchandise being purchased or imported. The title of the
bank to the security is the one sought to be protected and not the loan
which is a separate and distinct agreement. What is being penalized
under P.D. No. 115 is the misuse or misappropriation of the goods or
proceeds realized from the sale of the goods, documents or instru-
ments which are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In other
words, the law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the
handling of money or goods to the prejudice of the other, and hence
there is no violation of the right against imprisonment for non-payment
of debt (People v. Nitafan, 207 SCRA 725 [1992].)
Anti-Torture Act (R.A. No. 9745)
a) acts that promote trafficking in persons;
b) trafficking in persons;
c qualified trafficking in persons;
d) use of trafficked person.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) qualified trafficking in persons;
Adoption or facilitating the adoption of child for the purpose of prostitu-
tion constitutes trafficking in person (Section 4 [f] of RA No. 9208). The
means to commit trafficking in person can be dispensed with since the
trafficked victim is a minor (Section 3). However, trafficking is qualified
when trafficked person is a child or when the adoption is effected
through Inter-Country Adoption Act of and said adoption is for the pur-
pose of prostitution (Section 6 [a] and [b]).

AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in Conspiracy to commit felony is punishable only in cases in which
solitary confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks the law specifically provides a penalty therefor. Under which of
of defection. During the period of detention, he was not given any the following instances are the conspirators not liable? ’12 - Q73
food. Such deprivation caused him physically discomfort. What
crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary con-
a) Conspiracy to commit arson.
finement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (5%)
’12 – Q10b b) Conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Food deprivation and confinement in solitary cell are considered as
physical and psychological torture under Section 4 (2) of RA No. 9745. c) Conspiracy to commit child pornog-
Hence, the crime committed is torture. raphy.
d) Conspiracy to commit trafficking in
X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected persons.
drug pusher, and watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat up and
tortured W to get his confession. X is liable as: ’11 – Q16 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
(B) a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act. d) Conspiracy to commit trafficking in persons.
(C) a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
(D) an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law. Conspirators are liable for conspiracy to
commit arson (Section 7 of PD No. 1613), conspiracy to
Anti-Child Pornography Act (R.A. No. 9775)
commit terrorism (Section 4 of RA No. 9372) and con-
Mr. P owns a boarding house where he knowingly allowed chil- spiracy to commit child pornography (Section 4 [k] of
dren to be videotaped while simulating explicit sexual activities. RA No. 9775) because the law provides penalty thereof.
What is Mr. P's criminal liability, if any? ’11 – Q62 However, conspirators are not liable for conspiracy to
(A) Corruption of minors under the Penal Code commit trafficking in persons because RA No. 9208 has
(B) Violation of the Child Pornography Act not provided a penalty for it.
(C) Violation of the Child Abuse Law
(D) None

Obstruction of Justice (P.D. No. 1829)

A private person who assists the escape of a person who commit-

ted robbery shall be liable: ’11 – Q34
(A) as a principal to the crime of robbery.
(B) as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
(C) as a principal to the crime of obstruction of justice.
(D) as an accessory to the crime of obstruction of justice.

Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. No. 9208)

Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commer-

cial models for a TV advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty,
applied for the project. Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda
signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out
to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most featured
attraction. What is Loko’s liability, if any? What effect would Gan-
da’s minority have on Loko’s liability? ‘14-Q10
Loko may be held liable for the crime of trafficking in persons under RA
No. 9208 for recruiting, offering and hiring Ganda by means of fraud or
deception for the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. Loko recruited
Ganda in the guise of making her a commercial model, the deceit that
Loko employed in order to recruit Ganda for the purpose of prostitution
making him liable for trafficking in persons.
Ganda’s minority is a qualifying circumstance. The criminal liability or
the penalty for the trafficker is higher when the crime committed is
qualified trafficking.

When the adoption of a child is effected under the Inter-Country

Adoption Act for the purpose of prostitution, what is the proper
charge against the offender who is a public officer in relation to
the exploitative purpose? ’12 – Q30

100