Territoriality (1994) ............................

14
Table of Contents Territoriality principle (2008).............. 15
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND
Distinguish between ex post facto law and
CONCEPTS ............................................... 6
bill of attainder (2015) ........................ 15
Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se
Ex Post Facto Law (2014) .................... 16
Considered As Criminal Offense (2008) . 6
What are the constitutional provisions
Human Rights Violation (2008) ............. 7
limiting the power of Congress to enact
Simultaneous prosecution of two
penal laws? (2012 BAR) ....................... 16
different offenses (1991) ....................... 7
Constitutional limitations on the power of
Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
Congress to enact penal laws (1988) .... 16
reasonable doubt (2006) ........................ 7
Constitutional limitations on the power of
Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of
Congress to enact penal laws (2013) .... 17
pro reo (2010) ....................................... 7
Due process – Proper allegation of the
Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of
offense charged (1997) ........................ 17
desistance; effect thereof (1993) ........... 8
What is aberratio ictus? (2015) ........... 18
Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) ............ 8
Aberratio Ictus Vs Impossible Crime
Corpus delicti (2001) ............................. 9
(1993).................................................. 18
Absence of corpus delicti ...................... 9
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala
Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13— prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997,
(1989) ................................................. 10 1988) .................................................. 19

Aberratio ictus and error in personae .. 11 ART 3 Motive (1999)............................ 19

Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and ART 3 Mala in se; mala prohibita
Praeter intentionem (1999 ................ 11 (1997).................................................. 19

Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions— ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988) .............. 19

(2015) ................................................. 11
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required
Characteristics of criminal law (1988) . 12 (2006).................................................. 20

Generality – Diplomatic Immunity ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent

(2016) ................................................. 13 (2004, 1996) ........................................ 20

Generality – Diplomatic Immunity ART 3 How are felonies committed?

(2014) ................................................. 14 (2015).................................................. 21

Territoriality (2004) ............................ 14 CRIMINAL LIABILITY .............................. 21

Page 1 of 417
 ART 4 (1) Criminal liability –when Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
incurred (1994) ................................... 21 (1998).................................................. 30

Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible

8 Conspiracy (1992) ............................ 21 crime .................................................. 31

Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000) ........ 31

Cause In relation to robbery with
ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008) 32
homicide (1999) .................................. 22
ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
ART.4--Criminal liability – when incurred (1994).................................................. 32
(1996) ................................................. 22
ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
serious physical injuries (1998) ........... 33
(2001) ................................................. 23
STAGES OF EXECUTION ........................... 34
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
ART. 6-Stages of execution –
(2004) ................................................. 24
Consummated theft (1998) .................. 34
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of
(2008) ................................................. 24
theft; attempted; consummated (2000) 34
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ............................... 24
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014) ..... 24
felony (2005) ....................................... 34
ART.4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) ....... 25
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder murder (2009) ..................................... 35
(2009) ................................................. 26
Art 6: Consummated theft (1998) ........ 35
ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated
(2009) ................................................. 27 (2000).................................................. 36
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)
LIGHT FELONIES.................................... 37
........................................................... 27
Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder
(1988).................................................. 37
(2004) ................................................. 28
CONSPIRACY ........................................... 37
ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain
(2004) ................................................. 28
(2016).................................................. 37
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) ..... 28
Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) .......... 38
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991)..................... 38
(1994) ................................................. 29
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994)..................... 39

Page 2 of 417
 Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) ........ 40
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) ........ 41
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all (204) 42
Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime
of robbery with serious physical injuries
(1992) ................................................. 44
Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex
crime of robbery with rape (Art 294)
(2004) ................................................. 45
Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In
relation to Special complex crime of
robbery with homicide (2003) ............. 45
Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal ........... 46
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 47
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 47
ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) ......... 48
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) .................. 49
ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) ..... 49
ART.8-Conspiracy to commit robbery
(1996) ................................................. 50
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit
kidnapping (1996) ............................... 50
ART.8--Conspiracy (1994) ................... 50
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable
(1997) ................................................. 51
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
(1998) ................................................. 52
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003) .... 52
Art. 8: Proposal (1996) ........................ 52
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 53
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ............... 61
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 69
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ............. 77
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
.............................................................. 89
a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of
Apprehension and Prosecution of
Criminal Offenders (P.D.1829) ........... 101
(i) Punishable acts (ii) Compare with Art. 20,
RPC (accessories exempt from
criminal ........................................... 101
PENALTIES ............................................ 101
b) Purposes ........................................ 118
c) Classification ................................. 118
d) Duration and Effect ....................... 118
e) Application (i) Indeterminate Sentence
Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) ....... 118
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ....... 146
CIVIL LIABILITY ...................................... 159
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND
THE LAW OF NATIONS............................ 164
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
OF THE STATE ....................................... 167
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ........... 170
CRIMES COMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS 182
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST ....... 192
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ................... 198
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY ............................................. 199
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ................. 200
Page 3 of 417
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY ....................203
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS ..............................................204
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR .......................204
QUASI-OFFENSES ...................................210
MISCELLANEOUS ...................................211
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS ............................213
Table of Contents
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND
CONCEPTS ............................................... 6
Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se
Considered As Criminal Offense (2008) . 6
Human Rights Violation (2008) ............. 7
Simultaneous prosecution of two
different offenses (1991) ....................... 7
Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
reasonable doubt (2006) ........................ 7
Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of
pro reo (2010) ....................................... 7
Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of
desistance; effect thereof (1993) ........... 8
Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) ............ 8
Corpus delicti (2001) ............................. 9
FELONIES................................................ 18
Absence of corpus delicti ...................... 9
Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13—
(1989) ................................................. 10
Aberratio ictus and error in personae .. 11
Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and
Praeter intentionem (1999 ................ 11
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions—
(2015).................................................. 11
Characteristics of criminal law (1988) . 12
Generality – Diplomatic Immunity
(2016).................................................. 13
Generality – Diplomatic Immunity
(2014).................................................. 14
Territoriality (2004) ............................ 14
Territoriality (1994) ............................ 14
Territoriality principle (2008).............. 15
Distinguish between ex post facto law and
bill of attainder (2015) ........................ 15
Ex Post Facto Law (2014) .................... 16
What are the constitutional provisions
limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (2012 BAR) ....................... 16
Constitutional limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws (1988) .... 16
Constitutional limitations on the power of
Congress to enact penal laws (2013) .... 17
Due process – Proper allegation of the
offense charged (1997) ........................ 17
What is aberratio ictus? (2015) ........... 18
Aberratio Ictus Vs Impossible Crime
(1993).................................................. 18
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala
prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997,
1988) .................................................. 19
Page 4 of 417
 ART 3 Motive (1999) ........................... 19 ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(2009).................................................. 27
ART 3 Mala in se; mala prohibita
(1997) ................................................. 19 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)

ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988) .............. 19 ........................................................... 27

Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder

ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required
(2004).................................................. 28
(2006) ................................................. 20

ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder

(2004, 1996) ....................................... 20 (2004).................................................. 28

Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) ..... 28

ART 3 How are felonies committed?
(2015) ................................................. 21 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder

CRIMINAL LIABILITY ............................. 21 (1994).................................................. 29

Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder

ART 4 (1) Criminal liability –when
(1998).................................................. 30
incurred (1994) ................................... 21
ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art
8 Conspiracy (1992) ............................ 21 crime .................................................. 31

ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less

Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate
serious physical injuries (1998) ........... 33
Cause In relation to robbery with
homicide (1999) .................................. 22 STAGES OF EXECUTION ........................... 34

ART.4--Criminal liability – when incurred ART. 6-Stages of execution –

(1996) ................................................. 22 Consummated theft (1998) .................. 34

ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of

(2001) ................................................. 23 theft; attempted; consummated (2000) 34

ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated

(2004) ................................................. 24 felony (2005) ....................................... 34

ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated

(2008) ................................................. 24 murder (2009) ..................................... 35

IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ............................... 24 Art 6: Consummated theft (1998) ........ 35

Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014) ..... 24 Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated
(2000).................................................. 36
ART.4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) ....... 25
LIGHT FELONIES.................................... 37
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
(2009) ................................................. 26

Page 5 of 417
 Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16
(1988) ................................................. 37
CONSPIRACY .......................................... 37
ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain
(2016) ................................................. 37
Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) .......... 38
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991) .................... 38
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994) .................... 39
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) ........ 40
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) ........ 41
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all (204) 42
Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime
of robbery with serious physical injuries
(1992) ................................................. 44
Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex
crime of robbery with rape (Art 294)
(2004) ................................................. 45
Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In
relation to Special complex crime of
robbery with homicide (2003) ............. 45
Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal ........... 46
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008 47
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 47
ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) ......... 48
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) .................. 49
ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) ..... 49
ART.8-Conspiracy to commit robbery
(1996) ................................................. 50
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit
kidnapping (1996) ............................... 50
ART.8--Conspiracy (1994) .................... 50
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable
(1997).................................................. 51
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
(1998).................................................. 52
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003) .... 52
Art. 8: Proposal (1996) ......................... 52
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND
CONCEPTS
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE --
Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se
Considered As Criminal Offense (2008)
After due hearing on a petition for a writ of
amparo founded on the acts of enforced
disappearance and extralegal 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 extralegal
killing? Explain fully. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. "Enforced disappearance and
extralegal killing" is not per se a
criminal offense although it is wrongful.
The grant of a writ of amparo only
provides a relief; it does not establish a
basis for a crime. Unless the writ was
issued because of specific overt acts
shown to have been committed by the
Page 6 of 417
respondent military officers and such
acts are crimes under penal laws, no
criminal charge may be routinely filed
just because the petition for the writ was
granted.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE --
Human Rights Violation (2008)
Are human rights violations considered as
crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Not necessarily, since there are human
rights violations which do not amount to
criminal offenses. In this country, there
can be no crime when there is no law
punishing an act or omission as a crime.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Simultaneous prosecution of two
different offenses (1991)
May a ranking leader of the NPA who has
taken up arms against the government be
simultaneously prosecuted for violation of
Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the AntiSubversion
Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the two offenses are
punished under separate laws. Besides,
the elements of the two offenses differ.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
reasonable doubt (2006)
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.
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? 2.5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge and the evidence
adduced by the prosecution
convincingly show a clear link between
the accused and the cut logs 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 persons 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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES—
Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of
pro reo (2010)
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does
it relate to Article 48 of the Revised
Penal Code? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 7 of 417
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 guarantee that an
accused shall be presumed innocent
until his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt.
Following the pro reo doctrine, under
Art. 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 demonstrates lesser perversity
than when the crimes are committed by
different acts and several criminal
resolutions. (People v. Comadre, 431
SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48
shall be applied only when it would
bring about the imposition of a penalty
lesser than the penalties imposable for
all the component crimes if prosecuted
separately instead of being complexed.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINICIPLE —
Grounds for dismissal of cases;
affidavit of desistance; effect thereof
(1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental
retardate, with a bolo into having sexual
intercourse with him. Rachel’s mother
immediately filed a complaint, supported by
her sworn statement, before the City
Prosecutor’s Office, After the necessary
preliminary investigation, an information
was signed by the prosecutor but did not
contain the signature of Rachel nor of her
mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.),
Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case.
Resolve with reasons.
After the prosecution had rested its case,
Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of
desistance executed by Rachel and her
mother stating that they are no longer
interested in prosecuting the case and that
they have pardoned Ariel.
What effect would this affidavit of
desistance have on the criminal and civil
aspects of the case? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This
is allowed by law (People vs. Horde, 125
SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint
was filed by the offended party or the
parents in the Fiscal’s Office.
The affidavit of desistance will only
amount to the condonation of civil
liability but not criminal liability hence
the case should still proceed.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
Corpus delicti, Elements (2000)
A. Define “corpus delicti". (2%) (2000
Bar Question)
B. What are the elements of "corpus
delicti"? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789).
B. Elements of corpus delicti:
Page 8 of 417

The actual commission by someone of
the particular crime charged. It is a
compound fact made up of two things:
a.the existence of a certain act or result
forming the basis of the criminal
charge; and
b.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
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Corpus delicti (2001)
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 incline 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 station that
her husband had not yet come home. A
search was conducted by the residents of
the barangay but after almost two days, B
or his body could not be located and his
disappearance continued 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? State
the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 without 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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
Absence of corpus delicti
Dang was a beauty queen in a university.
Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored
with her that he persistently wooed and
pursued her. Dang, being in love with
another man, rejected him. This 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 in 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
satisfying 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.
Page 9 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -
Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13—
(1989)
What do you understand by aberratio ictus;
error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
liability of an accused? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberatio ictus, error in personae and
praeter intentionem are the three ways
by which a person may commit a felony
although the wrongful act done is
different from that which he intended.
In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in
the blow meaning to say that the
offender intending to cause an injury to
one person actually inflicts it on another
because of lack of precision, as far for
example when A, intending to kill B,
fires his gun at the latter but because of
poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C
instead, who suffers serious physical
injury.
In error in personae, there is a mistake
in the identity of the victim, as for
instance, when A, intending to kill B, his
enemy lay in ambush for the latter to
pass along a dark alley. Because of the
darkness, A fired his gun at a person
passing by, thinking him to be B. It
turned out that the person shot was C,
A's father.
In praeter intentionem, the injurious
result is greater than that intended by
the offender, the act exceeds the intent,
as for instance, where A, without intent
to kill, strikes B with his fist at the back
of the head, causing B to fall down with
his head hitting the asphalt pavement,
resulting in the fracture of his head that
caused his death.
The presence of these circumstances
will alter the criminal liability of the
accused. Thus:
In aberratio ictus, two offenses are
actually committed by the offender, that
which he intended to commit and that
which he actually committed. But if
these two offenses are both either grave
or less grave, since they are produced
by one single act, a complex crime will
result.
In the case of error in personae, the
offender shall be guilty of the crime
actually committed by him, but the
penalty to be imposed shall either be the
penalty for the crime actually committed
or that for the crime intended to be
committed. Which ever is lower, but the
same will be imposed in its maximum
period.
In the case praeter intentionem, the
offended, will incur criminal liability for
the felony actually committed by him,
but he will be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of not having intended to
commit so grave a wrong as that which
he committed.
Page 10 of 417
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to
ART. 48, 49-
Aberratio ictus and error in personae
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in
personae. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
occurs when a felonious act missed the
person against whom it was directed
and hit instead somebody who was not
the intended victim. Error in personae,
or mistake in identity occurs when the
felonious act was directed at the person
intended, but who turned out to be
somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings
about at least two (2) felonious
consequence. i.e the attempted felony
on the intended victim who was not hit
and the felony on the unintended victim
who was hit. A complex crime of the first
form under Art. 48, RPC generally result.
In error in personae only one crime is
committed.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to
ART. 48, 49, 13—
Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and
Praeter intentionem (1999)
What do you understand by aberratio ictus:
error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
occurs when the offender delivered the
blow at his intended victim but missed,
)unintended victim. The situation
generally 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
penalties 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 (Art. 49. RPC).
Praeter intentionem or where the
consequence went beyond that
intended or expected. This is a
mitigating circumstance (Art. 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.
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions—
(2015)
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
Page 11 of 417
national, seated at the back portion of the
cabin and who was busy reading a
newspaper. Ando stealthily approached
Iason and when he was near him, Ando
stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is
registered in Malaysia. The killing
happened just a few moments after the
vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives
from the PNP Maritime Command arrested
Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason,
Ando contended that he did not incur
criminal liability because both he and the
victim were Indonesians. 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.
Suggested 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 Philippine
territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code).
The foreign characteristic of an offender
and offended party does not exclude
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 Philippines shall have force and
effect within its territory. Here, since the
killing took place within the Philippine
territory, our penal laws applies and
Ando may be held criminally
responsible despite his being and
Indonesian citizen.
Likewise, the contention of Ando that he
could not be prosecuted 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 crimes merely affect things within
the vessel or when they only refer to the
internal management thereof. Here,
since the crime was committed within
the Philippine waters 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 territorial 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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE-
Characteristics of criminal law (1988)
State the characteristics of criminal law and
explain each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 12 of 417
The characteristics of criminal law are
as follows:
1. GENERALITY — That the law is
binding upon all persons who reside to
sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective
of age, sex, color, creed, or personal
cricumtances.
2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is
applicable to all crimes committed with
in the limits of Philippine territory,
which includes its atmosphere interiors
waters and maritime zone (Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY — that the law
does not have any retroactive effect,
except if it favors the offender unless he
is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the
law otherwise provides.
Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code
however provides for the following
exception: “Treaty stipulations or by a
law of preferential application”
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
Characteristics of Philippine criminal law
(1998)
What are the three cardinal features or
main characteristics of Philippine
criminal Law? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three main characteristics of
Philippine criminal law are:
1. Generality or its being binding to
all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory subject to certain
exceptions;
2. Territoriality or its having force
and effect only within Philippine
territory, subject to certain exceptions
also;
3. Irretrospectivity or its application
only to acts and omissions
committed/incurred after the effectivity
of the law.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE --
Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2016)
Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers
from a psychotic disorder 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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
psychotic condition is not an exempting
circumstance of insanity in the absence
of showing that there is complete
deprivation of intelligence in
accordance with the cognition test.
However, he is immune from
criminal prosecution. Since the position
of Volvik as charges de affaires is
diplomatic, he is vested with blanket
immunity from criminal suit (Minucher
Page 13 of 417
v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396, 11
February 2003).
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2014)
Pierce is 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 laws or treaties of
preferential application, more
particularly under R.A. 75.
Scope of application and characteristics
of Philippine criminal law –
Territoriality (2004)
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
beer and taking two 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
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He
moved to quash the Information for lack of
jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 (US vs. Fowler, 1 PhiL 614)
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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE--Application
of Philippine Criminal law –
Territoriality (1994)
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 Calamba,
Laguna.
A. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
(1994 Bar Question)
B. If not, can he be prosecuted for any
other crime? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No, Abe may not be prosecuted
for bigamy since the bigamous marriage
was contracted or solemnized in
Page 14 of 417
Singapore, hence such violation is not
one of those where the Revised Penal
Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be
appplied extraterritorially. The general
rule on territoriality of criminal law
governs the situation.
B. Yes, Abe, together with Connie,
may be prosecuted for concubinage
under Art. 334 of the Revised Penal
Code 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.
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion
to quash the information on the ground
of prescription. The crime of false
testimony under Art. 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 Art. 180. par. 4.
RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor
prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 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, thence the prescriptive period
of the crime commenced to run. From
January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is
more than five (5) years.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE-- Application
of Philippine criminal law –
Territoriality principle (2008)
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I,
while cruising off Batanes, was forced to
seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung,
Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While
anchored in said harbor, 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 apprehension, all four were charged
with qualified piracy before a Philippine
court.
Was Dodong correctly charged before the
Philippine court for qualified piracy?
Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Dodong was not correctly charged
with qualified piracy because
committing piracy was never in his mind
nor did he have any involvement in the
piracy committed. He merely took
advantage of the situation in killing the
passenger. He should be charged with
murder since there was evident
premeditation and intent to kill.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
Distinguish between ex post facto law
and bill of attainder (2015)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ex post facto law is any 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
aggravates 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
Page 15 of 417
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 post facto law pertains to the act
while a bill of attainder pertains to a
named individual or to members of a
group.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Ex Post Facto Law (2014)
Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-
Subversion Law, making it a criminal
offense again for a person to join the
Communist Party of the Philippines.
Reporma, a former high-ranking member of
the Communist Party, was charged under
the new law for his membership in the
Communist Party when he was a student in
the 80’s. He now challenges the charge
against him. What objections may he
raise?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reporma may raise the limitations
imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the
power of Congress to enact retroactive
penal laws which are prejudicial to the
accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution such is classified as an ex
post facto law. It should be noted that
when Congress decriminalized the
crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637, it
obliterated the felony and its effects
upon Reporma. Consequently charging
him now under the new law for his
previous membership in the Communist
Party would be constitutionality
impermissible.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
What are the constitutional provisions
limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (2012 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The constitutional provisions limiting
the power of Congress to enact penal
laws are the following:
1. The law must not be an ex post
facto law or it should not be given a
retroactive effect.
2. The law must not be a bill of
attainder, meaning it cannot provide
punishment without judicial process.
3. The law must not impose cruel,
unusual or degrading punishment.
4. No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
Constitutional limitations on the power
of Congress to enact penal laws (1988)
A. What are the limitations upon the
power of congress to enact penal laws?
(1988 Bar Question)
B. Are there common law crimes in our
jurisdiction? (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The limitations upon the power of
congress to enact penal laws are as
follows:
1. Congress cannot enact an ex
post facto law.
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of
attainder.
Page 16 of 417
3. Congress cannot provide for a
cruel punishment.
However, other limitations may be
considered like:
a. Congress cannot enact a law
which shall punish for a condition.
Congress shall punish an act and not
the condition or status. (Robinson vs.
California).
b. Congress should consider Article
21 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that “penalties that may be
imposed. No felony shall be punishable
by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.”
B. There are none. The rule is,
nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege,
there is no crim if there is no law
punishing it.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
Constitutional limitations on the power
of Congress to enact penal laws (2013)
Assume that you are a member of the legal
staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to file a
bill about imprisonment at the National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to
make the State prison a revenue earner for
the country through a law providing for
premium accommodations for prisoners
(other than those under maximum security
status) whose wives are allowed conjugal
weekend visits, and for those who want
long-term premium accommodations.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent
out rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates
equivalent to those charged by 4-star
hotels; 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%)?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advise Senator Salcedo not to
file the said bill. First, the bill is
unconstitutional as it violates the equal
protection clause of the Constitution. It
will create economic inequality in our
criminal justice system. Rich prisoners
will enjoy better amenities and
privileges than those who are poor.
Second, the bill will defeat the purpose
of penalties in criminal law, which is to
secure justice, retribution, and
reformation.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE –
Due process – Proper allegation of the
offense charged (1997)
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 1 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 discharge of his
official administrative functions, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully work for
and facilitate the approval 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
Page 17 of 417
PI,000.00 of the approved claim
ofP5,000.00and willfully and unlawfully
appropriated for himself the balance of
P4,000.00, 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The
information failed to allege that the
undue lnjury 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 payment 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
P4.000.00 for his services. No violation
of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Act appears. At most, the
accused should be merely charged
administratively
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art
48—
What is aberratio ictus? (2015)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow.
Under the principle of aberration ictus,
a 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.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art
48, 49, 13—
Aberratio Ictus Vs Impossible Crime
(1993)
Explain and illustrate the following: 1)
aberratio ictus, 2) impossible crime, and 3)
subordination of perjury.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Aberratio ictus - A fired a gun at
his father to kill him but hit instead a
stranger.
2. Impossible crime - Killing a dead
person.
3. Subordination of perjury -
Procuring another to swear falsely and
testify under circumstances rendering
him guilty of perjury.
FELONIES
Page 18 of 417
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala
prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997,
1988)
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and
crimes mala prohibita.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished
from crimes mala insets follows, to wit:
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are
not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They
are punished only because there is a
law prohibiting them for public good,
and thus good faith or lack of criminal
intent in doing the prohibited act is not
a defense.
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by
nature wrong, evil or bad, and so
generally condemned. The moral trait of
the offender is involved; thus, good
faith or lack of criminal intent on the part
of the offender is a defense, unless the
crime is the result of criminal
negligence. Correspondingly,
modifying circumstances are
considered in punishing the offender.
ART 3 Motive (1999)
When is motive relevant to prove a case?
When is it not necessary to be established?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“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.
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 imputed 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.
ART 3 Mala in se; mala prohibita (1997)
May an act be malum in se and be, at the
same time, malum prohibitum?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an act may be malum in se and
malum prohibitum at the same time. In
People v. Sunico, etaL, (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 perse because it
disenfranchises a voter of his right to
vote. In this regard it is considered as
malum in se. Since it is punished under
a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised
Election Code), it is considered malum
prohibitum.
ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988)
May a crime be committed without criminal
intent? Explain.
A crime may be committed without
criminal intent in two cases:
Page 19 of 417
1. Offense, punishable as mala
prohibita; and
2. Felonies committed by means of
culpa.
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not
required (2006)
Motive is essential in the determination of
the commission of a crime and the liabilities
of the perpetrators. What are the instances
where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an
accused? Give at least 3 instances. 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Proof of motive is not required –
a. Where the offender is positively
identified or
b. has admitted the commission of
the crime (People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA
26 (1984] citing People v. Realon, et. al.,
94 SCRA 422 [1980]);
c. Where the crime committed is a
malum prohibitum; or
d. Where the crime is the product of
culpa or criminal negligence.
ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent
(2004, 1996)
A. What are the different schools of
thought or theories in Criminal Law and
describe each briefly. (1996 Bar Question)
B. To what theory does our Revised
Penal Code belong? (1996 Bar Question)
C. Distinguish intent from motive in
Criminal Law. (2004, 1996 Bar Question)
D. May crime be committed without
criminal intent? (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 inquired into.
B. We follow the classical school of
thought although some provisions of
eminently positivist in tendencies, like
punishment of impossible crime,
juvenile circumstances, are
incorporated in our Code.
C. Intent is the purpose for using a
particular means to achieve the desired
result; while motive is the moving power
which impels a person to act for a
definite result. Intent is an ingredient of
dolo or malice and thus an element of
deliberate felonies; while motive is not
an element of a crime but only
considered when the identity of the
offender is in doubt.
D. Yes, a crime may be committed
without criminal intent if such is a
culpable felony, wherein intent is
substituted by negligence or
imprudence, and also in a malum
Page 20 of 417
prohibitum, or if an act is punishable by
special law.
ART 3 How are felonies committed?
(2015)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Felonies are committed 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 act results from
imprudence, negligence, lack of
foresight, or lack of skill (Article 3 of
Revised Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
ART 4 (1) Criminal liability –when
incurred (1994)
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon,
Bhey’s father, Robin, and brother, Rustom,
went to Scott’s house. Upon reaching the
house, Rustom inquired from Scott about
his sister’s whereabouts, while Robin
shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The
latter then went downstairs but Rustom
held his (Scott’s) waist. Meanwhile Olive,
the elder sister of Scott, carrying her two-
month old child, approached Rustom and
Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to
remove Rustom’s hand from Scott’s waist.
But Rustom pulled Olive’s hand causing
her to fall over her baby. The baby then
died moments later.
Is Rustom criminally liable for the death
of the child?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the
death of the child because his felonious
act was the proximate cause of such
death. It was Rustom’s act of pulling
Olive’s hand which caused the latter to
fall on her baby. Had it not been for said
act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly
felonious (at least slight coercion) there
was no cause for Olive to fall over her
baby. In short, Rustom’s felonious act is
the cause of the evil caused. Any person
performing a felonious act is criminally
liable for the direct, natural and logical
consequence thereof although different
from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1.
RPC: People vs. Pugay, et aL, GR No.
74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art
8 Conspiracy (1992)
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo
engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob
Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3)
Manolo Yabang suddenly approached
them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom
he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally
shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo
and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito,
using his own pistol, shot and wounded
Yabang.
What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong,
Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang?
(1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If they have to be criminally liable at all
each will be responsible for their
individual acts as there appears to be no
conspiracy, as the acts of the three were
spontaneous and a reflex response to
Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was
Page 21 of 417
no concerted act that will lead to a
common purpose.
Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate
Cause In relation to robbery with
homicide (1999)
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one
of the culprits happened 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? Why? (4%)
(1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I will not sustain the defense. The
act being felonious and the proximate
cause of the victim's death, the offender
is liable therefor although it may not be
intended or different from what he
intended.
The offender shall be prosecuted for the
composite crime of robbery with
homicide, whether the killing was
intentional or accidental, as long as the
killing was on occasion of the robbery
Art 4 (1) What is the criminal liability of
Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Carlos did not incur criminal liability
because his act of firing at the rear
wheel of the car to stop the vehicle and
prevent Paolo from taking away his
(Carlos') car is neither done with dolo
nor culpa. The act does not constitute a
crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his
right to prevent or repel an actual
unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property pursuant to
Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
ART.4--Criminal liability – when
incurred (1996)
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck
on board a Superlines Bus bound for
Manila from Bicol and killed ten (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? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the
death of Carol and Benjamin 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,
prompting 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.
(C7.S. os. Valdez. 41 Phil. 1497; People
vs. Apra. 27 SCRA 1037.)
Page 22 of 417
ART.4 Criminal liability – when incurred
(1997)
While the crew of a steamer prepared to
raise anchor at the Pasig River, A,
evidently impatient with the progress of
work, began to use abusive language
against the men. B, one of the members of
the crew, remonstrated saying that they
could work best if they were not insulted. A
took B's attitude as a display of
insubordination and, rising in a rage,
moved towards B wielding a big knife and
threatening to stab B. At the instant when A
was only a few feet from B, the latter,
apparently believing himself to be in great
and immediate peril, threw himself into the
water, disappeared beneath the surface,
and drowned.
May A be held criminally liable for the death
of B?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A can be held criminally liable for
the death of B. Article 4 of the Revised
Penal Code provides in part that
criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony although
the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended. In U.S. vs.
Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, where the victim
who was threatened by the accused
with a knife, jumped into the river but
because of the strong current or
because he did not know how to swim,
he drowned, the Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction for homicide of
the accused because, if a person
against whom a criminal assault is
directed believes himself to be in
danger of death or great bodily harm
and in order to escape jumps into the
water, impelled by the instinct of self-
preservation, the assailant is
responsible for the homicide in case
death results by drowning.
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
(2001)
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 cellphone
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 grandfather 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? State your reasons. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
Page 23 of 417
passengers’jumping out of the train;
hence their deaths.
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code,
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 vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037;
U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497)
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
(2004)
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. Fearing 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 ZZs death? Explain briefly.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Arpat 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]).
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred
(2008)
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but
their parents had objected to their
relationship because they were first
cousins. They forged a pact in writing to
commit suicide. The agreement was to
shoot each other in the head which they
did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance,
Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable
for the death of Joan? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Francis is criminally liable for
Joan's death. His act of shooting her,
although done pursuant to a solemn
pact, is nevertheless felonious and is
the proximate cause of Joan's death
(Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere
act of giving assistance to a suicide is a
crime (Art. 253, RPC)
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014)
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,
Page 24 of 417
Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the
police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
was arrested. The prosecutor considered
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?
ANSWER:
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is
no “Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime
applies only to Crimes against Persons
and Crimes against Property under
Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively.
Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal
Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC.
Second, even if the ransom note was not
received by Carla’s parents, the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
for ransom is already consummated.
Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for
Ransom is committed “when the
kidnapping or detention is for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the
victim or any other person.” To
consummate the crime, it suffices that
the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not
necessary that the ransom note be
received or that ransom be paid.
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of
grave coercion because the crime
committed, as explained above, is
kidnapping for ransom.
ART.4(2) Impossible Crime (2014)
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 Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic
solution which, when mixed with Pula’s
food, did not kill Pula.
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
(B) Would your answer be the same if,
as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset
stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10
days?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) Puti committed the impossible
crime of murder. All the elements of an
impossible crime are present. Puti’s act
of mixing a solution with Pula’s food
would have been murder, a crime
against persons. The act was done evil
intent which is to kill Pula. However, the
crime was not accomplished because of
the employment of ineffectual means,
i.e., the solution turned out to be non-
toxic which would not kill Pula. And said
act would not fall under any other
provision of the RPC.
(B) No, my answer would not be the
same. If as a result of the mixture, Pula
got an upset stomach and had to be
hospitalized for 10 days, the crime
committed by Puti is Less Serious
Physical Injuries. It is not an impossible
crime because the last element of an
impossible requires that the act
performed should not constitute a
violation of another provision of the
RPC.
Art. 4 (2) Impossible Crime In relation to
Art. 265: Less serious physical injuries
(1998)
Page 25 of 417
Buddy always resented his classmate,
Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun
by mixing poison in his lunch. Not
knowing where he can get poison, he
approached another classmate. Jerry to
whom he disclosed his evil plan.
Because he himself harbored
resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave
Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on
Jun's food. However, Jun did not die
because, unknown to both Buddy and
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered
milk.
(A) What crime or crimes, if any, did
Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%J (1998 Bar
Question)
(B) Suppose that, because of his severe
allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the first question be
the same? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-
called “impossible crime” because, with
intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun
and thus perpetrate murder, a crime
against persons. Jun was not poisoned
only because the would-be killers were
unaware that what they mixed with the
food of Jun was powdered milk, not
poison. In short, the act done with
criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
would have constituted a crime against
persons were it not for the inherent
inefficacy of the means employed.
Criminal liability is incurred by them
although no crime resulted, because
their act of trying to poison Jun is
criminal,
(B) No, the answer would not be the
same. Charlie would be, criminally 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 committed must be
directly linked to the means employed,
not to the intent. Liability for an
impossible crime can only arise from a
consummated act.
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
(2009)
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad,
because the latter was assiduously
courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie
went to a veterinarian 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.
(A) Did Charlie commit any crime? If so;
what and why? If not, why not?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charlie committed an impossible crime
of murder. His act of mixing the non-
toxic powder with Brad's food, done
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,
Page 26 of 417
unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4,
par. 2, RPC).
ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(2009)
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad,
because the latter was assiduously
courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie
went to a veterinarian 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.
[a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so;
what and why? If not, why not? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charlie committed an impossible crime
of murder. His act of mixing the non-
toxic powder with Brad's food, done
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 (Art.4,
par. 2, RPC).
[b] 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 ten (10) days?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same.
Charlie would be, criminally 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 committed
must be directly linked to the means
employed, not to the intent. Liability for
an impossible crime can only arise from
a consummated act.
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft
(2008)
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of
spouses Nestor and Julia for five years.
One night, while Nestor and Julia were out
having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro
gained entry into the masters' bedroom
with the use of a false key.
They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the
cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas
believed that Julia'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 house pointing
a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop
hand over the box. Pedro complied. It
turned out that Nestor had just arrived in
time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving
masters' bedroom with the box.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if
any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only
for impossible crime of theft because
what they had in in in taking the jewelry
box was to take Julia's jewelry.
Page 27 of 417
However, it turned out to be empty. The
impossibility of committing the crime of
theft is factual or physical since there is
no jewelry to steal inside the box.
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder
(2004)
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 arsenic. It
turned out that the substance was white
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing
happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any?
Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (Art. 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.
ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(2004)
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 arsenic. It
turned out that the substance was white
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing
happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any?
Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (Art. 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.
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000)
A. What is an impossible crime? (2%)
(2000 Bar Question)
B. Is an impossible crime really a
crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Page 28 of 417
C. 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 peppered 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?
Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
D. 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 * P500.000.00 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 ’‘Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%) (2000
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. An impossible crime is an act
which would be an offense against
person or property, were if not for the
inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
B. 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.
C. 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, the 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 vs. Court of Appeals
(215 SCRA 52). 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.
D. 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
impossible crime of kidnapping
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
(1994)
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a
resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel,
Page 29 of 417
Batangas. They asked the assistance of
Ella, who is familiar with the place.
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the
evening, 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 attended a
prayer meeting that evening in another
barangay in Laurel.
JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of
attempted murder by the Regional Trial
Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the
accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
error of finding them guilty of attempted
murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you
decide the appeal?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the
judgment convicting the accused of
attempted murder and instead find them
guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4,
par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 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 accomplishment. 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 independent of
the actor’s will which is an element of
attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs.
CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
(1998)
Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun.
One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached
another classmate. Jerry to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed
on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die
because, unknown to both Buddy and
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered
milk
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and
Buddy commit? [3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the
so-called “impossible crime” because,
with intent to kill, they tried to poison
Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime
against persons. Jun was not poisoned
only because the would-be killers were
unaware that what they mixed with the
food of Jun was powdered milk, not
poison. In short, the act done with
criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
would have constituted a crime against
persons were it not for the inherent
inefficacy of the means employed.
Criminal liability is incurred by them
although no crime resulted, because
their act of trying to poison Jun is
criminal.
Page 30 of 417
ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible
crime
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 considered
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? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER:
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is
no “Impossible crime to commit
kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime
applies only to Crimes against Persons
and Crimes against Property under
Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively.
Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal
Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC.
Second, even if the ransom note was not
received by Carla’s parents, the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
for ransom is already consummated.
Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for
Ransom is committed “when the
kidnapping or detention is for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the
victim or any other person.” To
consummate the crime, it suffices that
the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not
necessary that the ransom note be
received or that ransom be paid.
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of
grave coercion because the crime
committed, as explained above, is
kidnapping for ransom.
ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000)
A. What is an impossible crime? (2%)
(2000 Bar Question)
B. Is an impossible crime really a
crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
C. 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
peppered 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? Explain. (3%) (2000
Bar Question)
D. 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 * P500.000.00 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 ’‘Impossible Crime to
Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is
the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
Page 31 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. An impossible crime is an act
which would be an offense against
person or property, were if not for the
inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or
ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
B. 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.
C. 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, the 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 vs. Court of Appeals
(215 SCRA 52). 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.
D. 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
impossible crime of kidnapping
ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008)
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of
spouses Nestor and Julia for five years.
One night, while Nestor and Julia were out
having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro
gained entry into the masters' bedroom
with the use of a false key.
They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the
cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas
believed that Julia'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 house pointing
a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop
hand over the box. Pedro complied. It
turned out that Nestor had just arrived in
time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving
masters' bedroom with the box.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if
any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only
for impossible crime of theft because
what they had in in in taking the jewelry
box was to take Julia's jewelry.
However, it turned out to be empty. The
impossibility of committing the crime of
theft is factual or physical since there is
no jewelry to steal inside the box.
ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(1994)
JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a
resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel,
Page 32 of 417
Batangas. They asked the assistance of
Ella, who is familiar with the place.
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the
evening, 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 attended a
prayer meeting that evening in another
barangay in Laurel.
JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of
attempted murder by the Regional Trial
Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the
accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
error of finding them guilty of attempted
murder.
If you were the ponente, how will you
decide the appeal?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the
judgment convicting the accused of
attempted murder and instead find them
guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4,
par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 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 accomplishment. 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 independent of
the actor’s will which is an element of
attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs.
CA, 215 SCRA 52).
ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder;
less serious physical injuries (1998)
Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun.
One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached
another classmate. Jerry to whom he
disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself
harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry
gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed
on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die
because, unknown to both Buddy and
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered
milk
What crime or crimes, if any, did
Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
Suppose that, because of his severe
allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
Would your answer to the first question be
the same? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the
so-called “impossible crime” because,
with intent to kill, they tried to poison
Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime
against persons. Jun was not poisoned
only because the would-be killers were
unaware that what they mixed with the
food of Jun was powdered milk, not
poison. In short, the act done with
criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy,
would have constituted a crime against
persons were it not for the inherent
inefficacy of the means employed.
Page 33 of 417
Criminal liability is incurred by them
although no crime resulted, because
their act of trying to poison Jun is
criminal,
2. No, the answer would not be the
same as above. Jerry and Buddy would
be liable instead for less serious
physical injuries for causing the
hospitalization and medical attendance
for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing
with the food eaten by Jun the matter
which required such medical
attendance, committed with criminal
intent, renders them liable for the
resulting injury.
STAGES OF EXECUTION
ART. 6-Stages of execution – consummated, frustrated or attempted?
Consummated theft (1998)
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?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of
theft; attempted; consummated (2000)
Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department
Store and proceeded to the women’s wear
section. 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
detective 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
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
With evident intent to gain the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it
is consummated. It is not necessary that
the offender is in a position to dispose
of the property.
ART.6--Stages of execution –
Frustrated felony (2005)
Taking into account the nature and
elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and
Page 34 of 417
rape, may one be criminally liable for
frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a person may not be held liable for
frustrated coup d'etat 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.
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated
murder (2009)
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was
confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of
the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to
kill Oscar, Delmo disguised 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
disconnected tubes, 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,
qualified by evident premeditation and
treachery as aggravating circumstances.
Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 absorbed in
the treachery.
Art 6: Consummated theft (1998)
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?
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
Page 35 of 417
Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated
(2000)
Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department
Store and proceeded to the women’s wear
section. 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
detective 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?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
With evident intent to gain the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it
is consummated. It is not necessary that
the offender is in a position to dispose
of the property.
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art.
249; Art. 263; Homicide, Serious
Physical Injuries and Damage to
property resulting from reckless
imprudence (1993)
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's
permit, found a parked car with the key left
in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it
away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the
owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make
Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and
pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to
escape, and because of his inexperience,
violently collided with a jeepney full of
passengers. The jeepney overturned and
was wrecked. One passenger was killed:
the leg of the other passenger was crushed
and had to be amputated. The car of Ting
was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00.
What offense or offenses may Dodoy be
charged with? Discuss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dodong may be charged with
consummated carnnaping. Homicide,
Serious Physical Injuries and Damage
to property resulting from reckless
imprudence.
Please take note that with respect to
Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is
enough to consummate the crime: although
in the Dino case, it is still frustrated
because there is inability to dispose freely
the object.
Art 6: Frustrated felony (2005)
Taking into account the nature and
elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and
rape, may one be criminally liable for
frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a person may not be held liable for
frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated
Page 36 of 417
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.
Art 6: Frustrated murder (2009)
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was
confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of
the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to
kill Oscar, Delmo disguised 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
disconnected tubes, 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,
qualified by evident premeditation and
treachery as aggravating circumstances.
Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo was correctly charged with the
crime of frustrated murder. 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.
LIGHT FELONIES
Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16
(1988)
When are light felonies punishable and
who are liable in light felonies?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Light felonies, according to Article 7 of
the Revised Penal Code are punishable
“only when they have been
consummated, with the exception of
those committed against persons or
property.”
Article. 16 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “the following are
criminally liable for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.
CONSPIRACY
ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain
(2016)
Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain
conspiracy. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
(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
Page 37 of 417
the instances when each spoke is
unconcerned with the success of the
other 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 wholesaler,
then wholesaler and retailer, and then
retailer and consumer (Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. 138965, 26
February 2002).
Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
Art. 8: 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. (2012 BAR)
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A”
and “B” conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a
felony.
Rebellion – if they committed rebellion,
they are equally liable for the crime of
rebellion. However, they will not be
additionally charged with 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.
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991)
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing
a knife, asked Constancio whether he was
the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the
year previous. Vicente (father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his
other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run
away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael
Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed
him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell
down, his feet entangled with some vines.
While Bienvenido was lying on the ground,
Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting
slight injuries on the shoulder of
Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At
that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation
to the Marco brothers), came out of
nowhere and, together with Simeon,
stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted
fatal wounds resulting in the death of the
victim.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo,
Simeon and Rafael.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for
the death of Bienvenido as the fatal
injuries sustained by the victim were
inflicted by the two.
Rafael is not liable for slight physical
injuries as conspiracy was not present,
and there was no apparent intent to kill
when he inflicted the slight physical
injuries on the aim of the victim.
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1993)
Page 38 of 417
As a result of a misunderstanding during a
meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan,
Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his
house but the four chased and caught him.
Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his
back and attacked him. Nestor used a
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and
Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe,
Reden ordered the digging of a grave to
bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the
four (4) left together. Convicted for the
killing of Joe,
Arthur now claims that his conviction is
erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the
fatal blow.
Would you sustain his claim? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The
offenders acted in conspiracy in killing
the victim and hence, liable collectively.
The act of one is the act of all.
The existence of a conspiracy among
the offenders can be clearly deduced or
inferred from the manner they
committed the killing, demonstrating a
common criminal purpose and intent.
There being a conspiracy, the individual
acts of each participant is not
considered because their liability is
collective.
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
(1996)
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were
in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of
Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away,
ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the
daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
Robbery, while Fernando committed
complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
Conspiracy can be inferred from the
manner the offenders committed the
robbery but the rape was committed by
Fernando at a place “distant from the
house” where the robbery was
committed, not in the presence of the
other conspirators. Hence, Fernando
alone should answer for the rape,
rendering him liable for the special
complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et
at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, 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.
Is there conspiracy in this case?
Page 39 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the
offenders, as manifested by their
concerted actions against the victims,
demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The
existence of the conspiracy can be
inferred or deduced from the manner
the offenders acted in commonly
attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks,
thereby demonstrating a unity of
criminal design to inflict harm on their
victims.
Art. 8: Criminal law – Conspiracy (1997)
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill
F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed
themselves with knives and proceeded to
the house of F, taking a taxicab for the
purpose. About 20 meters from their
destination, the group alighted and after
instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on
foot to the house of F. B positioned himself
at a distance as the group's lookout. C and
D stood guard outside the house. Before A
could enter the house, D left the scene
without the knowledge of the others. A
stealthily entered the house and stabbed F.
F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
forcing him to flee towards another
direction. Immediately after A had stabbed
F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F.
Thereafter, A exited from the house and,
together with B and C, returned to the
waiting taxicab and motored away.
G died, F survived.
Who are liable for the death of G and the
physical injuries of F?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the
death of G. The object of the conspiracy
of A
B, C, and D was to kill F only.
Since B, C, and D did not know of the
stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held
criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot
be also held liable for the death of G
since the former was completely
unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of A, B and C,
should be held liable therefore. Even if it
was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C
are nonetheless liable for conspiring
with A and for contributing positive acts
which led to the realization of a common
criminal intent. B positioned himself as
a lookout, while C blocked F's escape.
D, however, although part of the
conspiracy, cannot be held liable
because he left the scene before A could
enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. Although he was earlier part
of the conspiracy, he did not personally
participate in the execution of the crime
by acts which directly tended toward the
same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44
Phil. 38).
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot
be also held liable for the infliction of
physical injuries upon F because there
is no showing that he had knowledge of
the plan to kill F.
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998)
What is the doctrine of implied
conspiracy? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 40 of 417

The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or
more persons participating in the
commission of a crime collectively
responsible and liable as co-
conspirators although absent any
agreement to that effect, when they act
in concert, demonstrating unity of
criminal intent and a common purpose
or objective. The existence of a
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced
from their criminal participation in
pursuing the crime and thus the act of
one shall be deemed the act of all.
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003)
State the concept of “implied
conspiracy” and give its legal effects.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) 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 commission of the
crime will be considered as
coconspirators; and
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval
of the commission of the crime, without
any act of criminal participation, shall
not render one criminally liable as
coconspirator.
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1988)
In the course of funeral procession, a
young mourner who was marching in front
of the funeral hearse, momentarily stooped
down to tie her shoelaces which had
become untied. The driver of the hearse,
who was driving at 5 miles an hour, was
then looking at the stores by the roadside
and did not see her. He continued to drive
on and ran over the girl. When the people
around shouted and gestured, he backed
up and ran over the girl a second time,
killing her.
If you were the-parent of the girl-victim,
what crime would you charge, if you think a
crime had been committed, and against
whom? Explain your answer briefly.
At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty
of people were milling and walking about or
standing close together, a mad killer shot
up the wedding party. The three appellants
were convicted by the owner court as co-
conspirators of the killer because they were
allegedly with him before, during, and after
the shooting. It was proven conclusively
that the appellant were friends of the killer;
that they went together with the killer to the
celebration; and that they left at the same
time with the killer, after the shooting.
However, the appellants had no guns and
passively witnessed the without intervening
in the killing in any way nor shielding killer.
Is there conspiracy among them? Why?
Page 41 of 417

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Only the driver could be charged of
homicide thru reckless imprudence or
homicide thru simple negligence which
preclude conspiracy against those who
shouted and gestured.
There is no conspiracy among them
because as the problem has stated, they
passively witnessed the shooting. No
overt act was committed therefore the
element that the conspiracy must be
proved as the essence of the crime itself
is not present.
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit sedition
(1987)
A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who
deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose
and Pedro, two big landowners, called A. B,
C, D, and E to a conference. Jose and
Pedro proposed to these former soldiers
that they recruit their comrades and
organize a group of 100 for the purpose of
challenging the government by force of
arms in order to prevent the enforcement or
implementation of the Land Reform Law in
Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro
promised to finance the group and to buy
firearms for the purpose. The former
soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left,
A, the leader of the former soldiers, said
that in the meanwhile he needed money to
support his family. D suggested that they
rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan
on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown to
all of them, as they were conferring with
Jose and Pedro and as they were planning
to rob the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was
within hearing distance. On the pretext of
buying cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went
directly to the Police and told them what
transpired. All the former soldiers, as well
as Jose and Pedro, were arrested.
A. What crime, if any, did the former
soldiers commit?
B. What about Jose and Pedro?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The former soldiers committed
the crime of conspiracy to commit
sedition. What Jose and Pedro
proposed to the soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a
group of 100 for the purpose of
challenging the government by force of
arms in order to prevent the
implementation of the Land Reform Law
in Cotabato Province is to commit
sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is
not punished. But since the soldiers
agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition
resulted which is now punishable.
Conspiracy arises on the very moment
the plotters agree (People vs. Peralta 25
SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12
SCRA 402).
B. Jose and Pedro will also be liable
for conspiracy to commit sedition since
they are members of the conspiracy
where the act of one is the act of all. If
the soldiers did not agree to their
proposal, they would not incur any
criminal liability because there is no
pro-posal to commit sedition.
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all (204)
A. 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
Page 42 of 417
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, contending that by preventing ST
from shooting BB and CC, he merely
avoided a greater evil.
Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 relatives;
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.
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
(2005)
Jose employed Mario as gardener and
Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won
P5, 000,000.00 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 P5,000,000.00 and
took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline
from the garage and burned the house to
conceal the acts.
Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested
around 200 meters away from the house by
alert barangay tanods. The tanods
recovered the P500,000.00.
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 robber, as an accomplice. Mario also
claimed that he conspired with Hemy 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; 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. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion of Mario contending that he
should be liable only as an accomplice
is without merit. There was conspiracy
to commit the robbery between him and
Henry. Thus, 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
Page 43 of 417
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 subjective
test to his participation as a co-
conspirator to the robbery, Mario’s
criminal liability should be aggravated
by nighttime 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 special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. Since Henry
alone committed the killing of Jose a
fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone
should be convicted for said crime.
Dwelling, although not aggravating in
robbery with force upon things where
the circumstance is inherent, is
aggravating in robbery with violence
against or with intimidation of persons.
The burning of the house or arson
accompanying the robbery is only a
component of the robbery under Article
294 (1), Revised Penal Code. Such
burning does not constitute a separate
crime from robbery with homicide.
Nighttime is aggravating, applying the
subjective test, unless the house of
Jose was indeed well-lighted during the
commission of the crime.
Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex
crime of robbery with serious physical
injuries (1992)
Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues
and carrying unlicensed firearms, barged
into the residence of Amulfo Dilat at Scout
Lazcano St. (Before making their entrance,
they gave instructions to their companion
Sakay to stand watch outside). Once
inside, they announced that they were
members of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) on an official mission. Inside the
master bedroom, they demanded from
Luningning, the wife of Amulfo, cash and
jewelries. After receiving the jewelries but
before the money could be handed to them,
they heard their companion Sakay
shouting: “Pulis! Pulis!" Panic-stricken,
Efren shot Amulfo who was seriously
injured. Greggy and Hilarto picked up the
jewelry box whose contents spilled all over
the floor as they rushed out. Before they
could make good their escape, however,
the police blocked their way, one of them
clutching Sakay by the collar. They were
forthwith brought to the Police
Headquarters nearby.
Discuss the individual and collective
criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy,
Hilario and Sakay.
Page 44 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There appears to be conspiracy
amongst the four offenders; in which
case the act of one becomes the act of
all. Ergo, they are all liable for the
consequent crime, which is robbery
under Art. 299, special complex crime of
robbery with serious physical injuries,
committed in an inhabited house, by
pretending to be persons in authority.
There is no band as only three are
armed.
Sakay, who seems to have participated
only as lookout, still will be liable as
principal because of the conspiracy.
Even if there is none, he is criminally
liable as a principal by indispensable
cooperation.
Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex
crime of robbery with rape (Art 294)
(2004)
B. 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? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. The crime committed by XA, YB and
ZC is the composite crime of Robbery
with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal
Code.
Although the conspiracy among the
offenders was only to commit robbery
and only XA raped CD, the other
robbers, 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
coconspirator 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.
Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In
relation to Special complex crime of
robbery with homicide (2003)
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? Reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 45 of 417

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 money 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 governs 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 apprehension. 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 robbery with
homicide.
Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal
In relation to Special complex crime of
robbery with homicide (2007)
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? Explain your
answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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, because 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 robbery.
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal
In relation to PENALTIES (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university.
Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored
with her that he persistently wooed and
pursued her. Dang, being in love with
another man, rejected him. This angered
Page 46 of 417
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 in 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
satisfying 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.
What crime or crimes were committed by
Job and Nonoy? 2.5%
What penalties should be imposed on
them? 2.5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Because of 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 (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting
the imposition of the death penalty took
effect only this year (2006), said new law
should be given retroactive effect
because 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 Art. 40 of the
Revised Penal Code will not follow
because RA 9346, Sec. 2 does not so
provide: it is the accessory penalty for
reclusion perpetua that shall now
adhere to the principal penalty.
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008)
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when
the commander of a vigilante group came
to him and showed him a list of five
policemen 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 vigilante group liquidated
the three other policemen in the list. The
commander of the vigilante group reported
the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally
liable? Explain. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ricky is not criminally liable
because he has not done any overt act
that the law punishes as a crime. He did
not conspire with the vigilante group.
Although his act of pointing out two
policemen as honest men may imply his
acquiescence to the vigilante's
conclusion that the others were corrupt
and deserved to be killed, mere
acquiescence to a crime, absent any
criminal participation, does not make
one a coconspirator.
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008)
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing
identification cards 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
Page 47 of 417
P01 Melvin attended to him. In the
investigation Eman proposed to P01
Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner
let's just pawn the ring and split the
proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin
then went straight to the pawnshop and
pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never
saw P01 Melvin again.
a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if
any? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Eman has no criminal liability,
unless he received part of the proceeds
of the pawned ring. The facts do not
state that Eman received any part of the
P50,000.00 proceeds of the ring
pledged. The facts state that after
turning over the bag to P01 Melvin,
Eman never saw P01 Melvin again. The
proposal Eman made to P01 Melvin is
not a crime as to bring about criminal
liability.
Art. 8 Conspiracy In relation to Art. 294
robbery with rape (1999)
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob
a residential house of things of value. They
succeeded in the commission of their
original plan to simply rob. A, however, was
sexually aroused when he saw the lady
owner of the house and so, raped her.
The lady victim 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? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the
composite crime of robbery with rape
under Art. 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 component of the robbery
and so he is also liable for robbery with
rape.
ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.
ART.8--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.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A”
and “B” conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a
felony. Rebellion – if they committed
rebellion, they are equally liable for the
crime of rebellion. However, they will
not be additionally charged with
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.
Page 48 of 417

Conspiracy to commit homicide, not
punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to
kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable.
The law provides no penalty for
conspiracy to be commit homicide.
Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to
commit homicide, “A” embraced “X”
and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the
conspirators are equally liable for
homicide. Conspirators are equally
liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this
case will be considered as a manner of
incurring liability.
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991)
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing
a knife, asked Constancio whether he was
the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the
year previous. Vicente (father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his
other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run
away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael
Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed
him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell
down, his feet entangled with some vines.
While Bienvenido was lying on the ground,
Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting
slight injuries on the shoulder of
Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At
that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation
to the Marco brothers), came out of
nowhere and, together with Simeon,
stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted
fatal wounds resulting in the death of the
victim.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo,
Simeon and Rafael.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for
the death of Bienvenido as the fatal
injuries sustained by the victim were
inflicted by the two.
Rafael is not liable for slight physical
injuries as conspiracy was not present,
and there was no apparent intent to kill
when he inflicted the slight physical
injuries on the aim of the victim.
ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993)
As a result of a misunderstanding during a
meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan,
Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his
house but the four chased and caught him.
Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his
back and attacked him. Nestor used a
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and
Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe,
Reden ordered the digging of a grave to
bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the
four (4) left together. Convicted for the
killing of Joe,
Arthur now claims that his conviction is
erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the
fatal blow.
Would you sustain his claim? Why?
What was the crime committed by the four
assailants? Discuss with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The
offenders acted in conspiracy in killing
the victim and hence, liable collectively.
The act of one is the act of all.
The existence of a conspiracy among
the offenders can be clearly deduced or
inferred from the manner they
committed the killing, demonstrating a
common criminal purpose and intent.
Page 49 of 417
There being a conspiracy, the individual
acts of each participant is not
considered because their liability is
collective.
The crime committed is murder,
qualified by treachery because the
offenders, taking advantage of their
superiority in number, rendered the
victim defenseless and without any
chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at
his back before attacking him.
Treachery exists at least in the second
and final stage of the attack, after the
offenders caught up with the victim.
ART.8-Conspiracy to commit robbery
(1996)
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were
in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of
Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away,
ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the
daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
Robbery, while Fernando committed
complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
Conspiracy can be inferred from the
manner the offenders committed the
robbery but the rape was committed by
Fernando at a place “distant from the
house” where the robbery was
committed, not in the presence of the
other conspirators. Hence, Fernando
alone should answer for the rape,
rendering him liable for the special
complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et
at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit
kidnapping (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in
consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he
is courting so that he may succeed in
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? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with
attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no
overtact 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.
ART.8--Conspiracy (1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura
Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock
Page 50 of 417
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.
Is there conspiracy in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is conspiracy among the
offenders, as manifested by their
concerted actions against the victims,
demonstrating a common felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The
existence of the conspiracy can be
inferred or deduced from themannerthe
offenders acted in commonly attacking
Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby
demonstrating a unity of criminal
design to inflict harm on their victims.
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable
(1997)
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill
F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed
themselves with knives and proceeded to
the house of F, taking a taxicab for the
purpose. About 20 meters from their
destination, the group alighted and after
instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on
foot to the house of F. B positioned himself
at a distance as the group's lookout. C and
D stood guard outside the house. Before A
could enter the house, D left the scene
without the knowledge of the others. A
stealthily entered the house and stabbed F.
F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
forcing him to flee towards another
direction. Immediately after A had stabbed
F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F.
Thereafter, A exited from the house and,
together with B and C, returned to the
waiting taxicab and motored away.
G died, F survived.
Who are liable for the death of G and the
physical injuries of F?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the
death of G. The object of the conspiracy
of A B, C, and D was to kill F only
Since B, C, and D did not know of the
stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held
criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot
be also held liable for the death of G
since the former was completely
unaware of said killing.
For the physical injuries of A, B and C,
should be held liable therefore. Even if it
was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C
are nonetheless liable for conspiring
with A and for contributing positive acts
which led to the realization of a common
criminal intent. B positioned himself as
a lookout, while C blocked F's escape.
D, however, although part of the
conspiracy, cannot be held liable
because he left the scene before A could
enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. Although he was earlier part
of the conspiracy, he did not personally
participate in the execution of the crime
by acts which directly tended toward the
same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44
Phil. 38).
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot
be also held liable for the infliction of
Page 51 of 417
physical injuries upon F because there
is no showing that he had knowledge of
the plan to kill F.
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
(1998)
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?
[3%] (Distinguish between recidivism and
quasi-recidivism. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or
more persons participating in the
commission of a crime collectively
responsible and liable as co-
conspirators although absent any
agreement to that effect, when they act
in concert, demonstrating unity of
criminal intent and a common purpose
or objective. The existence of a
conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced
from their criminal participation in
pursuing the crime and thus the act of
one shall be deemed the act of all.
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003)
State the concept of “implied conspiracy”
and give its legal effects.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) 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:
Not all those who are present at the
scene of the crime will be considered
conspirators;
1. Only those who participated by
criminal acts in the commission of the
crime will be considered as
coconspirators; and
2. Mere acquiescence to or approval
of the commission of the crime, without
any act of criminal participation, shall
not render one criminally liable as
coconspirator.
Art. 8: Proposal (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in
consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he
is courting so that he may succeed in
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? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
Page 52 of 417
preparatory act. Proposal to commit
kidnapping is not a crime.
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
ART.11 DEFENSE OF RELATIVE AND
STRANGER (2016)
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. the relatives of the accused
for purpose of defense of relative under
Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code
are his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or
adopted brothers or sisters, 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 consanguinity. Juan,
therefore is not a relative of Pedro for
purpose of applying the provision on
defense of relative.
Pedro, however can invoke
defense of 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 elements 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.
ART. 11: SELF-DEFENSE (1987)
Pedro confronted Jose one morning near
the letter's house and angrily inquired why
he let loose his carabaos which destroyed
his plants. Pedro saw that Jose was aimed
with a dagger tucked on his waist and
thinking that Jose would react violently.
Pedro immediately drew his revolver.
Instinctively, Jose grabbed the gun from
Pedro’s hand and a struggle for possession
of the gun ensued, as a result of which the
gun was thrown one meter away. Pedro
jumped for the gun, and Jose unsheathed
his dagger and stabbed Pedro at the base
of his neck, causing the latter to fall down.
Jose ran away as he was afraid Pedro’s
relatives might kill him. He was
apprehended three days later in another
barrio. Fortunately, Pedro survived after 40
days of hospitalization. The gun turned out
to be without live bullets. During the trial for
Page 53 of 417
frustrated homicide against Jose, Pedro
testified that he drew his gun even while he
knew it had no bullets, merely to scare
Jose, and he jumped for it when it was
thrown away for the same purpose. Jose
pleaded self-defense. The Fiscal argued
that Jose’s act of running away is evidence
of guilt and negates self-defense. He also
said that, in any event, there was no
reasonable necessity of the means
employed — namely, stabbing with a
dagger — because Pedro’s gun had no
bullets.
Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is entitled to self-defense.
Considering the circumstance of the
case, unlawful aggression, the first
element of self-defense is present.
Pedro loose his carabaos which
destroyed his plants and he then loose
his carabaos whicn destroyed his plants
and then immediately drew his revolver
which Jose instinctively grabbed from
Pedro’s hand. In the struggle for the
possession for the revolver, it was
thrown one meter away, and when
Pedro jumped for the gun, Jose
unsheathed his dagger and stabbed
Pedro who fell down. Jose ran away.
The intimidating attitude of Pedro when
he drew his revolver constitutes
imminent unlawful aggression. Jose did
not give any provocation to Pedro.
Pedro was in a violent mood and in the
mind of Jose, was armed, with revolver,
in hand, and what Jose did in grabbing
the gun was to prevent an aggression
that is expected (People vs. Domingo
CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing Pedro with a
dagger was the only available means to
prevent the expected aggression
considering that Jose acted by
following his instinct of self-
preservation. The flight of Jose after
stabbing Pedro cannot be considered
as evidence of guilt because he did so
as he was afraid the relatives of Pedro
might kill him.
ART. 11: SELF-DEFENSE
Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate,
escaping from jail and ordered the latter
to surrender. Instead of doing so,
Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a
bamboo spear. Filemon missed in his
first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before
he could strike again, Pat. Negre shot
and killed him.
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense?
Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot,
and Filemon ran away without parting
with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued
Filemon but the latter was running so
fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots
into the air shouting for Filemon to stop.
Inasmuch as Filemon continued
running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting
and killing him.
Is the plea of self-defense sustainable?
Why would you then hold Pat. Negre
criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, self-defense can be claimed as
there is an imminent and great peril on
the life of Negre;
Page 54 of 417
No, self-defense is no longer
sustainable as there is no more peril on
his life;
Yes, excessive force is used.
ART. 11: AVOID GREATER EVIL (1990)
A. In mercy killing, is the attending
physician criminally liable for deliberately
turning off the life support system
consequently costing the life of the patient?
State reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
B. How about in an instance when in
saving the life of the mother, the doctor
sacrificed the life of the unborn child?
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The attending physician is
criminally liable. Euthanasia is not a
justifying circumstance in Philippine
jurisdiction.
b. There is no criminal liability on
the part of the doctor because his acts
are justified under Article 11(4) of the
Revised Penal Code which provides
that: "The following do not incur any
criminal liability: x x x 4) any person,
who in order to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following
requisites are present: First: That the
evil sought to be avoided actually
exists; Second. That the injury feared be
greater than that done to avoid it; Third.
That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it."
ART 11 LAWFUL DEFENSE OF
PROPERTY (2008)
While Carlos was approaching his car, he
saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief.
Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at
him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his
car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his
gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and
fired. The shot blew the tire which caused
the car to veer out of control and collide
with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle
driver.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Carlos did not incur criminal
liability because his act of firing at the
rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle
and prevent Paolo from taking away his
(Carlos') car is neither done with dolo
nor culpa. The act does not constitute a
crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his
right to prevent or repel an actual
unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property pursuant to
Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
ART. 11 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
RIGHTS (1990)
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the
footsteps of an intruder inside their house.
Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man,
Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s
personal effects in his study. He shot and
killed Gorio.
Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the
robber Gorio? State your reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Enyong is not criminally liable because
he was acting in defense of property
rights. Under the case of People v.
Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20,
1983, 121 SCRA 389) defense of
Page 55 of 417
property need not necessarily be
coupled with aggression against
persons.
ART. 11: DEFENSE OF HONOR – WHEN
NOT SUSTAINED (2000)
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?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 paragraph 1,
Art. 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
injured 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. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the
Code does not govern.
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.
ART. 11: DEFENSE OF HONOR; WHEN
UNTENABLE (1998)
One night, Lina, a young married woman,
was sound asleep in her bedroom when
she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was
her husband Tito, who came home a day
early from his business trip, Una let him
have sex with her. After the act, the man
said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I
did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned
upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her
husband. Furious. Una took out Tito's gun
and shot the man. Charged with homicide
Una denies culpability on the ground of
defense of honor. Is her claim tenable?
15%.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Lina's claim that she acted in
defense of honor, is not tenable
because the unlawful aggression on her
honor had already ceased. Defense of
honor as included in self-defense, must
have been done to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression. There is no
defense to speak of where the unlawful
aggression no longer exists.
ART. 11: DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
Page 56 of 417
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 he thought
were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After
seeing 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
brotherin-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?
Why? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 property
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 immediate danger. Although the
accused acted out of a misapprehension of
the facts, he is not absolved from criminal
liability.
Art. 11: Defense of a stranger
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? Why? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
induced by revenge, resentment, or any
other evil motive in shooting C, his act is
justified under par. 3, Article 11 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome
Ms. A had 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. B
was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and 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 hospital. 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. B
arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed
Ms. A several 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. A validly put up a defense?
Explain. (2014, 2010)
Page 57 of 417
A: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of
battered woman syndrome. It appears that
she is suffering from physical and
psychological or emotional distress
resulting from cumulative abuse by her
husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262,
“victim survivors who are found by courts to
be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self defense under the
RPC.”
Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome
Ms. A had 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. B
was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and 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 hospital. 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. B
arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed
Ms. A several 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. A validly put up a defense?
Explain. (2014, 2010)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of
battered woman syndrome. It appears that
she is suffering from physical and
psychological or emotional distress
resulting from cumulative abuse by her
husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262,
“victim survivors who are found by courts to
be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self defense under the
RPC.”
Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome
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 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. (2015
BAR)
a) May Talia invoke the defense of
Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself
from criminal liability? Explain.
Answer:
No, a single act of battery or physical harm
committed by Dion against Talia resulting
Page 58 of 417
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
Woman Syndrome”. The defense of
Battered Woman Syndrome can be
invoked if the woman with 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. 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 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,
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.
Answer:
Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of
Battered Woman 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 Woman
Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil
liability despite the absence of the
requisites of self-defense.
Art. 11: Justifying Circumstance-
Battered Woman Syndrome
Jack and Jill have been married for seven
years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started
hitting Jill only to apologize the following
day.
A week later, the same episode occurred -
Jack came home drunk and started hitting
Jill.
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with
her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her
floral arrangements of spotted lilies and
confectioneries. Two days later, Jill
returned home and decided to give Jack
another chance. After several days,
however, Jack again came home drunk.
The following day, he was found dead.
Jill was charged with parricide but raised
the defense of "battered woman
syndrome."
A. Define "Battered Woman Syndrome?
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a
scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse (Section 31dj, Rep. Act No. 9262).
What are the three phases of the "Battered
Woman Syndrome"? (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The three (3) phases of the "Battered
Woman Syndrome" are: (1) the
tensionbuilding phase; (2) the acute
battering incident; and (3) the tranquil,
loving, or nonviolent phase (People v.
Page 59 of 417
Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15,
2004).
Would the defense prosper despite the
absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262
provides that victim-survivors who are
found by the courts to be suffering from
battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding
the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code.
Art 11: Justifying Circumstances in
relation to Art 12: Exempting
Circumstances - Distinction
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%)
Between justifying and exempting
circumstances in criminal law. (2004 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not
the actor; while exempting circumstance
affects the actor, not the act. In justifying
circumstance, no criminal and, generally,
no civil liability is incurred; while in
exempting circumstance, civil liability is
generally incurred although there is no
criminal liability
Art. 11; Art 12: Exempting
circumstances – in comparison with
justifying circumstances; illustration of
exempting circumstances; minor below
nine (9) years old;
A. Distinguish between justifying and
exempting circumstances. [3%] (1998 Bar
Question)
B. John, an eight-year old boy, is fond
of watching the television program "Zeo
Rangers." One evening while he was
engrossed watching his favorite television
show.
Petra, a maid changed the channel to
enable her to watch “Home Along the
Riles."
This enraged John who got his father's
revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at
the back of her head causing her
instantaneous death. is John criminally
liable? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. In justifying circumstances:
1. The circumstance affects the act,
not the actor;
2. The act is done within legal bounds,
hence considered as not a crime;
3. Since the act is not a crime, there is
no criminal;
4. There being no crime nor criminal,
there is no criminal nor civil liability.
Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
1. The circumstance affects the actor,
not the act;
2. The act is felonious and hence a
crime but the actor acted without
voluntariness;
Page 60 of 417
3. Although there is a crime, there is no
criminal because the actor is regarded only
as an instrument of the crime;
4. There being a wrong done but no
criminal, there is civil liability but no criminal
liability.
B. No, John is not criminally liable for killing
Petra because he is only 8 years old when
he committed the killing. A minor below
nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from
criminal liability although not from civil
liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art. 12 : Exempting circumstances;
when not appreciated
Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s, gun, a
high-powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs.
Nicandro was accompanied by his friend,
Felix. On their way to the hunting ground,
Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut.
Pedro told them where to hunt. Later,
Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed
it. The same bullet, however, that killed the
pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting
Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May
Nicandro be held liable for the death of
Pedro? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nicandro may be held liable for the death
of Pedro. While Pedro’s death would seem
to be accidental, the requisites of
exempting circumstance of accident are
not all present. Said requisites are:
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by
mere accident;
d. Without fault or intention of causing
it (Art. 12, par. 4, RPC).
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s high
powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting
wild pigs, he committed the crime of illegal
possession of firearms, as he does not
appear to have either a license to possess
a high-powered gun or to carry the same
outside of his residence. At the time he shot
at the wild pig, therefore, Nicandro was not
performing a lawful act.
Furthermore, considering that the M-16 is a
high- powered gun. Nicandro was negligent
in not foreseeing that bullets fired from said
gun may ricochet.
Two separate crimes of serious physical
injuries (against the first neighbor whose
injuries requires 35 days of medical
attendance), and slight physical injuries
(against the second neighbor), both
through reckless imprudence, were
committed by Rodolfo. Although both of
these offenses were the result of one single
act, a complex crime is not committed
because it is only when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies that a complex crime may be
committed under the first clause of article
48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a
grave or less grave felonies
Art. 12: Exempting circumstances -
Insanity
A raped X. In the process, X resisted and
slapped A Angered. A grabbed a stone and
hit X. She was dying when A consummated
the sexual attack. A psychiatrist from the
National Center for Mental Health testified
that he conducted physical, mental and
psychological examinations on A and found
Page 61 of 417
him to be suffering from a mental disorder
classified under organic mental disorder
with psychosis. A's father testified that A
was playful but cruel to his brothers and
sisters, stole his mother’s jewelry which he
sold for low sums, wandered naked
sometimes, and oftentimes did not come
home for extended periods of time. The
prosecution on the other hand, presented
an array of witnesses to prove A that was
lucid before and after the crime was
committed and that he acted with
discernment. After trial, the court convicted
the accused and sentenced him to “life
imprisonment" considering that under the
Constitution death penalty could no longer
be imposed.
Given the conflicting testimonies as to
sanity of the accused, was the trial court
correct in ruling out insanity as an
exempting circumstances in this case? Is
the sentence of “life imprisonment” a
correct imposition of penalty? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the court is correct in ruling out
insanity as an exempting circumstance.
While there was testimony that A was
suffering from a mental disorder, the
testimony of A’s father disclosed that A had
lucid intervals. Because what is presumed
is sanity, not insanity, it is to be presumed
that A was sane when he committed the
crime. Consequently, evidence being
wanting that A is completely deprived of
reason at the moment of committing the
crime, he should be liable. Besides, the
crime committed and the acts done by the
accused in the commission of the crime
hardly reconciles with insanity of the
offender, as rape presupposes evident
premeditation.
The sentence of “life imprisonment" is not a
correct imposition of penalty for the rape: it
should be reclusion perpetua, the technical
designation of the penalty for the crime
under the Revised PenalBCode. It is not
correct to use the term “life imprisonment”
because the accessory penalties to
reclusion perpetua does not follow the
penalty of “life imprisonment".
Furthermore, in reclusion perpetua the
duration is stated to be for 30 years.
Art. 12: Exempting circumstances –
Insanity as a defense
While he 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.
Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not
prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after
he committed the crime, insanity as a
defense to the commission of a crime must
Page 62 of 417
have existed and proven to be existing at
the precise moment when the crime was
being committed. The facts of the case
indicate that Romeo committed the crime
with discernment.
What is the effect of the diagnosis of the
NCMH on the case (2%) (2010
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH
is possibly a suspension of the proceedings
against Romeo and his commitment to
appropriate institution for treatment until he
could already understand the proceedings.
Art.12: Exempting circumstances – Michael was 17 years old when he was
Insuperable cause
VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow
the Philippine Government. VG was
recognized as the titular head of the
conspiracy. Several meetings were held
and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered 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 committed?
What is his criminal liability? (1994 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a
crime because the conspiracy involved is
one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to
commit treason which makes a person
criminally liable under Art. 116, RPC. And
even assuming that it will fall as misprision
of treason. Father Abraham is exempted
from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7,
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 (US vs.
Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56
Phil. 353).
Art. 12: Exempting Circumstance-
Suspended sentence under The Child
and Youth Welfare Code; when not
applicable
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
imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
day of prision mayor, as minimum, 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? (2013 BAR)
Answer:
The benefits of a suspended sentence can
no longer apply to Michael. The suspension
of sentence lasts only until the law reaches
the maximum age and thus, could no
Page 63 of 417
longer be considered a child for purposes
of applying R.A. 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 Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344
(People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239,
March 16, 2011).
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when
not applicable
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the
store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie
posted themselves at the door.
After ordering beer Ricky complained that
he was shortchanged although Mang
Pandoy vehemently denied it.
Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he
announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed
Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the
store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from
helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to
seek help from people next door she was
chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had
stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up
the money from the cash box. Then Victor
and Ricky dashed to the street and
shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!”
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The
money and other articles looted from the
store of Mang Pandoy were later found in
the houses of Victor and Ricky.
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to
suspended sentence under The Child and
Youth Welfare Code? Explain. (1995 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Rod is only 14years old, his act of
boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping
Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of
discernment, thus he cannot invoke
exemption from crimi-nal liability under Art.
12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are,
however, entitled to two and one degrees
lower, respectively from the penalty of the
principal under Art. 68. RPC.
No, because the benefits of suspension of
sentence is not available where the
youthful offender has been convicted of an
offense punishable by life imprisonment or
death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192.
The complex crime of robbery with
homicide is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RPC
(People vs. Galit, 230 SCRA 486).
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when
not applicable
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 preparing to serve a
jail term, he sought a suspension of the
sentence on the ground that he was a
juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to
a suspension of sentence? Reasons. (2003
Bar Question)
(a) Can juvenile offenders, who are
recidivists, validly ask for suspension of
sentence? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
Page 64 of 417

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. 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
sentenced, he is no longer eligible for
suspension of the sentence.
b. Yes, so long as the offender is still a
minor at the time of the promulgation of the
sentence. The law establishing Family
Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this
effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the
court should promulgate the sentence and
ascertain any civil liability which the
accused may have incurred. However, the
sentence shall be suspended without the
need of application pursuant to PD 603,
otherwise known as the “Child and Youth
Welfare Code” (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is
under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required and
thereunder it is one of the conditions for
suspension of sentence that the offender
be a first time convict:
this has been displaced by RA 8369.
Art. 12: RA 9344) – When applicable
Dang was a beauty queen in a university.
Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored
with her that he persistently wooed and
pursued her. Dang, being in love with
another man, rejected him. This 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 in 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
satisfying 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.
Will Nonoy’s minority exculpate him? 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under
Rep. Act 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 privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Art 12: Persons exempt from criminal
liability In relation to Art 332
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for
P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the
rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of
Dennis, prepared a demand 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.
Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with
Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain.
(3%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 65 of 417
If Gabriel would be made criminally liable
for falsification of a private document, he
cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis,
his father, to avoid criminal liability because
Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code
provides exemption from criminal liability in
crimes against property only for theft,
swindling or malicious mischief but not for
falsification of documents.
If he would be made criminally liable for
swindling, he can invoke his relationship
with Dennis because this crime cannot be
complexed with falsification of a private
document. The charge could, therefore,
stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will
obtain.
Art 12: Exempting - minority;
In relation to Art 13: Mitigating
circumstances
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 ballpen. The top of the
ballpen 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.
Discuss the attendant circumstances and
effects thereof. (2%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 generally exempt from
criminal liability. The exception is where the
prosecution proved that the act was
committed with discernment The burden is
upon the prosecution to prove that the
accused acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted
without discernment and this is
strengthened by the fact that Katreena only
reacted with a ballpen which she must be
using in class at the time, and only to stop
Pomping’s vexatious act of repeatedly
pulling her ponytail. In other words, the
injury was accidental.
The attendant circumstances which may be
considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting
circumstance under Article 12, paragraph
3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be
exempt from criminal liability, unless it was
proved that she acted with discernment
She is however civilly liable;
If found criminally liable, the minority of the
accused as a privileged mitigating
circumstance. A discretionary penalty
lower by at least two (2) degrees than that
prescribed for the crime committed shall be
imposed in accordance with Article 68,
paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The
sentence, however, should automatically
be suspended in accordance with Section
5(a) of Rep. Act No. 8369otherwise known
as the “Family Courts Act of 1997";
Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary
mitigating circumstance of not intending to
commit so grave a wrong as that
Page 66 of 417
committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3,
Rev. Penal Code; and
The ordinary mitigating circumstance of
sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the
act.
(i) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also refer to
Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603,
as amended)
(a) Definition of child in conflict with the
law
(b) Minimum age of criminal
responsibility
(c) Determination of age
(d) Exemption from criminal liability
(e) Treatment of child below age of
responsibility
(f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of
R.A. No. 9344
Offenses not applicable to children under
Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9344
ART. 12--warrantless arrest;
entrapment; in relation to prohibited
drugs
Members of the Narcotics Command, upon
learning from an informer that Tee Moy,
notorious drug lord was plying his trade and
selling methamphetamine hydrocholide
(popularly known as shabu) in a motel at
Bambang St, planned a buy-bust operation
to capture him. Camotes was to enter the
lobby of the motel where Tee Mqy hangs
around and pose as buyer. The moment
the drug vendor hands the drug to him.
Camotes would scratch his ear as a signal
to his companions deployed near the motel
entrance.
So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near
the registration desk, approached the
latter. When asked if he would like a
“score”, he answered in the affirmative. He
was then handed a matchbox with the
assurance that it contained the drug, for
which he gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon
giving the pre-arranged signal, the
NARCOM agents rushed inside and
arrested Tee Moy.
In the course of time, Tee Moy was
prosecuted for the crimes of possession
and sale of prohibited drugs under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, his
counsel interposed the following defenses:
a) The arrest, having been effected
without a warrant of arrest, was violative of
Tee Moy’s constitutional rights.
b) Accused was the victim of a frame-
up instigated by the law enforcement
officers, such that he was practically forced
to sell his goods to a total stranger which
was abnormal and unrealistic for one in the
kind of business he is in.
c) The prosecution deliberately failed
to present the informer as a witness so that
he could have been subjected to cross-
examination by the counsel for the
accused.
d) Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for
the separate offenses of possession and
sale of prohibited drugs but of only one
criminal offense.
e) Tee Moy was made to sign a
Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM
headquarters which has been admitted as
evidence against him, thus violating his
constitutional right against self-
incrimination.
If you were the prosecutor, how would you
traverse the above arguments of counsel
for the accused? Take up each number
separately. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 67 of 417

a. There is no need for a warrant of
arrest, as this falls under the instances of
warrantless airest sanctioned by law,
where a public officer or private individual
may arrest a person if, in his personal
presence, the person arrested is actually
committing, is about to commit, or has just
committed a crime.
b. This is a pure case of entrapment as
Tee Moy has already decided to commit a
crime and the agents of persons in
authority merely devised ways and means
to entrap him. There was no inducement of
Tee Moy as the latter precisely decided to
make a “score” or sale. No pressure or
investigation was applied on him.
c. Failure to present the informer is not
fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the
testimony of the latter will be merely
corroborative to the testimony of the other
witnesses who were eye-witnesses to the
commission of the crime. There are
sufficient evidence to convict the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
d. While as a general rule the offense
of possession is integrated in selling
prohibited drugs, in this case, I will argue
that, the quantity of the drugs confiscated
from Tee Moy was so large that it cannot
be deemed absorbed in the crime of
“pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the
matchbox with shabu inside, was not the
only evidence taken from the accused.
The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee
Moy was merely presented as part of the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses and
such evidence is not material to the
conviction of the accused. Again,
overwhelming evidence are presented that
inevitably supports conviction
ART. 12--Entrapment and instigation
Rodolfo is an informer who told the police
authorities that Aldo is a drug pusher.
Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and
persuaded Aldo to sell marijuana worth
P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He
delivered the goods and so was
apprehended with the marked money. He
is now prosecuted for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
Aldo’s defense is that he1 was the victim of
an instigation of the police who persuaded
him to sell the goods to him. Decide the
case with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldo’s defense in untenable as what
happened here was entrapment. With or
without the act of Policemen Taba, Aldo
would have went on selling the marijuana
to another buyer. The finding, it must be
noted, was that Aldo was continously
engaged in the act of pushing drugs.
(People v. Tia, 51 O.G. 1863).
ART.12--Entrapment and instigation;
illustration of instigation
A. Distinguished entrapment from
instigation. Discuss fully. (1995 Bar
Question)
B. Suspecting that Juan was a drug
pusher, SP02 Mercado, leader of the
Narcom team, gave Juan a P 100-bill and
asked him to buy some marijuana
cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SP02
Mercado, Juan went inside the shopping
mall while the officer waited at the comer of
the mall. After fifteen minutes, Juan
returned with ten sticks of marijuana
cigarettes which he gave to SP02 Mercado
who thereupon placed Juan under arrest
and charged him with violation of The
Page 68 of 417
Dangerous Drugs Law by selling marijuana
cigarettes.
Is Juan guilty of any ofense punishable
under The Dangerous Drugs Act?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. In instigation, the instigator
practically induces the prospective
accused into commission of the offense
and himself becomes co-principal. In
entrapment, ways and means are resorted
to for the purpose of trapping and capturing
the lawbreaker while executing his criminal
plan,
B. Juan cannot be charged of any
offense punishable under The Dangerous
Drugs Act Although Juan is a suspected
drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the
basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the
money with which to buy marijuana
cigarettes, SP02 Mercado practically
induced and prodded Juan to commit the
offense of illegal possession of marijuana.
Set against the facts instigation is a valid
defense available to Juan.
ART.12--entrapment and instigation
Distinguish fully between entrapment and
instigation in Criminal Law. Exemplify each.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In entrapment -
a. the criminal design originates from
and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker
even before entrapment;
b. the law enforcers resort to ways and
means for the purpose of capturing the
lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and
c. this circumstance is no bar to
prosecution and conviction of the
lawbreaker.
In instigation -
a. the idea and design to bring about
the commission of the crime originated and
developed in the mind of the law enforcers;
b. 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
c. this circumstance absolves the
accused from criminal liability (People v.
Dante Marcos, 185 SCRA154. [1990]).
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 signalled 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, 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
participation in the transaction because he
was acting only under instigation by the law
enforcers.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 13 Mitigating Circumstance –
incomplete self-defense
Page 69 of 417
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the
footsteps of an intruder inside their house.
Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man,
Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s
personal effects in his study. Suppose
Enyong shot Gorio while he was running
away from Enyong’s house with his
television set, what is Enyong liable for?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There is criminal liability this time with the
mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-
defense. Under the case of People v.
Narvaez, defense of property can be
availed of even when there is no assault
against a person. It is recognized as an
unlawful aggression.
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance:
Intoxication;
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. Asa result, B suffered serious
physical injuries. May the intoxication of A
be considered aggravating or mitigating?
(5%) (2002 Bar Question)
Answer:
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
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance –
Privileged In relation to Penalties
What is a privileged mitigating
circumstance? Distinguish a privileged
mitigating circumstance from an ordinary
mitigating circumstance as to reduction of
penalty and offsetting against aggravating
circumstance/s. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
Privileged mitigating circumstances are
those that mitigate the criminal liability of
the accused by graduating the imposable
penalty for the crime being modified to one
or two degrees lower. These
circumstances cannot be offset by
aggravating circumstance. The
circumstance of incomplete justification or
exemption (when majority of the conditions
are present), and the circumstance of
minority (if the child above 15 years of age
acted with discernment) are privileged
mitigating circumstance.
The distinctions between ordinary and
privileged mitigating circumstances are as
follows:
i. Under the rules for application of divisible
penalties (RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a
mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by
aggravating circumstance, has the effect of
applying the divisible penalty in its
minimum period. Under the rules on
graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69),
the presence of privileged mitigating
circumstance has the effect of reducing the
penalty one to two degrees lower;
Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be
off-set by aggravating circumstances.
Privileged mitigating circumstances are not
subject to the offset rule.
Page 70 of 417

Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance
In relation to Penalties
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the
time of the commission of the crime, was
convicted when he was already seventeen
(17) years of age for violation of Section 11
of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable
penalty is life imprisonment and a fine.
Section 98 of the same law provides that if
the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to
death on minor offenders, the penalty shall
be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A.
9344, a minor offender is entitled to a
privileged mitigating circumstance. (2014
BAR)
(A) May the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority be appreciated
considering that the penalty imposed by
law is life imprisonment and fine?
(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law
applicable considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the
Dangerous Drugs Law is malum
prohibitum?
(C) If the penalty imposed is more than
six (6) years and a notice of appeal was
filed by A and given due course by the
court, may A still file an application for
probation?
(D) If probation is not allowed by the
court, how will A serve his sentence?
ANSWER:
(A) Yes. As stated above, under Section
98, RA 9165, if the offender is a minor, the
penalty of life imprisonment shall be
considered as reclusion perpetua. Now that
it has the nomenclature of penalties under
the RPC, the modifying circumstances
therein may also be applied. Even if
reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible
penalty, the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority would still be
considered to lower the imposable penalty.
The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the
penalty prescribed by law is a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating
circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.
(B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence
Law is applicable even to special penal
laws. Since life imprisonment was
converted into reclusion perpetua, which in
turn was graduated to reclusion temporal
because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate
Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs.
Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011)
(C) Yes. A may still file an application for
probation even if he filed a notice of appeal.
Section 42, RA 9344 provides: “The court
may, after it shall have convicted and
sentenced a child in conflict with the law,
and upon application at any time, place the
child on probation in lieu of service of
his/her sentence taking into account the
best interest of the child. For this purpose,
Section 4 of PD 968, otherwise known as
the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby
amended accordingly.”
The phrase “at any time” mentioned in
Section 42 means that the child in conflict
with the law may file an application for
probation at any time, even beyond the
period for perfecting an appeal and even if
the child has perfected the appeal from the
judgment of conviction.
(D) If probation is not allowed by the
court, the minor offender shall serve his
sentence in agricultural camp or other
training facility in accordance with Section
51 of RA 9344 as amended.
Page 71 of 417
Art. 13 Mitigating Circumstances
Immediate Vindication
The victim Dario went to the Civil Service
Commission at about 11:00 a . m . to have
some documents signed, and because his
efforts were frustrated, he angrily remarked
in the presence of the accused Benito that
the Civil Service Commission is a hang-out
of thieves. The accused felt alluded to
because he was then facing criminal and
administrative charges on several counts
involving his honesty and integrity, and
pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot
Dario, inflicting a fatal wound. Benito is now
invoking the mitigating circumstances of
immediate vindication of grave offense.
Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mitigating circumstances of immediate
vindication of grave offense cannot be
considered because to be applicable,
Article 13 par. 5 requires that: “Mitigating
circumstances.— xxxx 5. That the act was
committed in the immediate vindication of a
grave offense to the one committing the
felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted
brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees.”
Instead, the circumstances of passion or
obfuscation should be considered. Benito
should be charged with frustrated homicide
with the mitigating circumstances of
passion.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances –
Voluntary surrender
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a
scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the
latter. After the stabbing, he brought his
son home. The Chief of Police of the town,
accompanied by several policemen, went
to Hilario’s house.
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching
policemen, came down from his house to
meet them and voluntarily went with them
to the Police Station to be investigated in
connection with the killing. When
eventually charged with and convicted of
homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the
trial court for not appreciating in his favor
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender. Is he entitled to such a
mitigating circumstance? Explain. (1996
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
crux of the issue is whether the fact that
Hilario went home after the incident, but
came down and met the police officers and
went with them is considered “voluntary
surrender."
The voluntariness of surrender is tested if
the same is spontaneous showing the
intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities. This must
be either (a) because he acknowledges his
guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses necessarily
incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes’
Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the
accused in hiding after commission of the
crime, but voluntarily went with the
policemen who had gone to his hiding
place to investigate, was held to be
mitigating circumstance.[People vs. Dayrit,
cited in Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 299)
Page 72 of 417
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances -
Voluntary surrender and plea of guilty;
when not considered
Upon learning that the police wanted him
for the killing of Polistico. Jeprox decided to
visit the police station to make inquiries. On
his way, he met a policeman who
immediately served upon him the warrant
for his arrest. During the trial, in the course
of the presentation of the prosecution’s
evidence. Jeprox withdrew his plea of not
guilty and entered a plea of guilty.
Can he invoke the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty? Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender as his
going to the police station was only for the
purpose of verification of the news that he
is wanted by the authorities. In order to be
mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous
and that he acknowledges his guilt.
Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating
circumstances because it was qualified
plea; besides. Art. 13, par. 7 provides that
confession of guilt must be done before the
prosecution had started to present
evidence.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances –
Voluntary surrender; plea of guilty
After killing the victim, the accused
absconded. He succeeded in eluding the
police until he surfaced and surrendered to
the authorities 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? (1997
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Voluntary surrender should be
considered as a mitigating circumstance.
After two years, the police were still
unaware of the whereabouts 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 remorse or
repentance on the part of said accused and
therefore, by his surrender, the accused
saved the Government expenses, efforts,
and time.
A. In order that the plea of guilty may
be mitigating, what requisites must be
complied with? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. An accused charged with the crime
of homicide pleaded “not guilty" during the
preliminary investigation before the
Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the
case to the Regional Trial Court the Court
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 Art. 13(7),
RPC? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. For plea of guilty to be mitigating,
the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously
pleaded guilty to the crime charged;
Page 73 of 417
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 evidence for the
prosecution.
B. Yes, his plea of guilty before the
Regional Trial Court can be considered
spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance 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.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances –
Voluntary surrender
When is surrender by an accused
considered voluntarily, and constitutive of
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered
voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the
authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
- spontaneous, i.e., indicative of
acknowledgment of guilt and not for
convenience nor conditional;
- made before the government incurs
expenses, time and effort in tracking down
the offender's whereabouts; and
- made to a person in authority or the
letter's agents.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances –
Voluntary surrender
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating
circumstance in all acts and omissions
punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Voluntary surrender may not be
appreciated in cases of criminal negligence
under Art. 365 since in such cases, the
courts are authorized to impose a penalty
without considering Art. 62 regarding
mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances - No
intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed; intoxication
Despite the massive advertising campaign
in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas
and Jaja bought ten 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 Jona's place by exploding
their high-powered firecrackers in their
neighborhood. 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
tatter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos inside
Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the tatter'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
Page 74 of 417
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 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 five year old son who was
following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.If you were Jonas' and
Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses
would you set up in favor of your clients?
Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use
the following defenses:
(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 us. Forttch, 281 SCRA 600 [1997]:
Art 15, RFC).
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances –no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that which was committed
Maryjane had two 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 student
and could only ask Mary to see a movie
which was declined. 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
police 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? Why? (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 (Art. 13, par. 3,
RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar’s room
without the letter's consent 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 Cesar1'.
Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play
a practical joke on Cesar" does not
Page 75 of 417
persuade, considering that they are not
friends but in fact rivals in courting
Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case
of People vs. Pugay, et al.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances -
Immediate vindication of a grave
offense to a descendant
When A arrived home, he found B raping
his daughter. Upon seeing 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 mitigating circumstance or
circumstances? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 descendant, his daughter, under par. 5,
Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended.
Art. 13: Mitigating circumstances - Lack
of intention to commit so grave a wrong
as that committed
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock
of a neighbor and reported 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 rewed 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.
What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%)
(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 committed
(Art. 13 (3), RPC). The act, having been
deliberately done with malice, is felonious
and being the proximate cause of Belle’s
death, brings about criminal liability
although the wrong done was different from
what was intended (Art. 4, [1], RPC).
Art. 13: Mitigating and Art; 14:
aggravating circumstances
B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with
M, a sixteen year old boy, with C, who had
been previously convicted of Serious
Physical Injuries, and with R, whose sister
was raped by X a day before, to kill the
latter. B, C and R were armed with .38
caliber revolvers, while M carried no
weapon and acted only as a look out. They
proceeded to the house of X riding in a
motorized tricycle. Thereupon, C, on
instruction of B to give X no chance, shot X
who was then sleeping. Indicted for
Homicide, as the information alleges no
qualifying circumstance, specify the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances
present, and explain in whose favor, and
against whom, must they be considered.
(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 76 of 417

1. Mitigating circumstances:
a) B is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance under paragraph 8 of Article
13 of the Revised Penal Code;
b) M is entitled to the privileged
mitigating circumstances of minority under
Article
68 of the Revised Penal Code;
c) Vindication of a grave offense in
favor of R because his sister was raped by
X a day before the shooting, and even if
there was an interval of one (1) day
between the rape and the killing.
2. Aggravating circumstances:
a) The aggravating circumstance of
recidivism under paragraph 9. Article 14
should be considered against C if alleged
in the Information (People vs. Peter
Cadevida, et al, G.R. No. L-94528, March
1. 1993).
b) The aggravating circumstance of
motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article
14 of the Code, all the accused having used
a motorized tricyle;
c) Treachery should be aggravating
against all of the accused including M who
acted as a lookout because all of them
were present when X was shot (Article 62.
paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). X
was sleeping when shot to death.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Art 14: Aggravating Circumstances
Cruelty
The robbers killed a mother and her baby,
then threw the body of the baby outside the
window. Can the aggravating
circumstances of “cruelty” be considered in
this case?
Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)
(a) Cruelty cannot be considered in this
case because the aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires
deliberates prolongation of the suffering of
the victim. In this case, the baby was dead
already so that there is no more
prolongation to speak of.
Art. 14 Aggravating Circumstance –
Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 Habitual
Delinquency
Who is a habitual delinquent? Distinguish
habitual delinquency from recidivism as to
the crimes committed, the period of time
the crimes are committed, the number of
crimes committed and their effects in
relation to the penalty to be imposed on a
convict. (2012 BAR)
Answer:
A person shall be deemed to be habitual
delinquent, if within a period of ten years
from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa
or falsification, he is found guilty of any of
said crimes a third time or oftener (Art. 62,
RPC).
The following are the differences between
recidivism and habitual delinquency:
Art. 14: Aggravating Circumstances -
Recidivism
Page 77 of 417
 During trial for theft in 2014, the The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is
prosecution managed to show that about to convict AA. What circumstances
First crime and the First, second and third affecting the liability or penalty may the
aggravated second crimes must be a habitual judge appreciate against AA? (2014 BAR)
Nature crime are embraced delinquency crime, that is,
of in the same Title of serious or less serious Answer:
crime the RPC. physical injuries, theft,
robbery, estafa or
falsification of document. The judge may appreciate the aggravating
Accused was The accused was circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is
convicted of the first convicted of first habitual one who, at the time of his trial for one
crime by final delinquency crime; within crime, shall have been previously
judgment at the time ten years after conviction convicted by final judgment of another
of the trial of the or release, he was found
second crime. guilty or habitual- crime embraced in the same title of the
Time RPC. Robbery, theft, estafa are crimes
delinquency crime for the
elemen
t
second time; within 10 against property embraced in Title Ten of
years after conviction or the RPC. The judge may also appreciate
release, he was found the aggravating circumstance of habituality
guilty of habitual-
delinquency crime for the or reiteracion, because there have been
third time or oftener. two or more crimes committed for which
she has been published, regardless of the
Numbe At least two crimes At least three crimes degree of penalty.
r of committed committed
Crimes
Arti. 14 Aggravating circumstances -
Ordinary Extraordinary or special
aggravating aggravating Recidivism
circumstance the circumstance, the In relation to Art. 62 reiteracion
presence of any of presence of which will
Nature
which will trigger the trigger the imposition of Andres was earlier convicted of adultery
of the
application of the additional penalty for the
aggrav and served an indeterminate penalty, the
penalty for the third or subsequent crime.
ating
second crime maximum term of which did not exceed two
circum (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
committed in its This is not subject of the
stance
maximum period off-set rule. of prision correctional. A month after his
unless it is off-set by release from prison, he was charge with the
a mitigating
crime of serious physical injuries. Later,
circumstance
Andres was again charged with homicide
accused AA has also been convicted by
punishable by re-clusion temporal. He
final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she
entered a plea of guilty in the homicide
eluded capture. A subsequent verification
case. May the aggravating circumstances
showed that AA had several convictions, to
of recidivism and/or habituality (reiteracion)
wit:
be appreciated against Andres?
1. In 1998, she was convicted of
Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
estafa;
2. In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
3. In 2004, she was convicted of
frustrated homicide;
The aggravating circumstance of
recidivism cannot be taken against Andres.

Page 78 of 417
For this circumstance to exist, it is
necessary that —
a. The offender is on trial for an
offense;
b. He was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
c. Both the first and second offenses
are embraced in the same title of the Code;
and
d. The offender is convicted of the new
offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC).
At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres
was not previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Adultery, which is his only previous
conviction by final judgment is a crime
against chastity, and therefore is not
embraced in the same title of the Code as
homicide, which is a crime against person.
As for the charge of serious physical
injuries, although serious physical is also a
crime against person, it appears that he
had not as yet been conviced, much less
by final judgment, of the charge at the time
that he was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habitually
or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order that this
circumstance can exist, it is necessary that
he was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of
habituality or reiteracion can likewise not
be taken against Andres because in order
for this circumstance to exist, it is
necessary that—
a. The accused is on trial for an
offense;
b. He previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law attaches
an equal or greater penalty, or for two or
more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty than that for the new offense;
c. He is convicted of the new offense.
In the case at bar, Andres had previously
served sentence only for one offense that
of adultery, but the penalty for adultery
(prison correctional) is lighter than then
penalty for homicide (reclusion-temporal).
Consequently, there is no aggravating
circumstance of habituality or reiteracion.
Art. 14 Aggravating Circumstances –
Recidivism
And Art. 160. Quasi-recidivism
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-
recidivism. (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism -
a. The convictions of the offender are
for crimes embraced in the same Title of
the Revised Penal Code; and
b. This circumstance is generic
aggravating and therefore can be offset by
an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Whereas in quasi-recidivism -
a. 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
Page 79 of 417
b. This circumstance is a special
aggravating circumstance which cannot be
offset by any mitigating circumstance.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstances –
recidivism;
In relation to Art. 62 habitual
delinquency
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? Explain. (5%) (2001
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious.
Recidivism and habitual delinquency are
correctly considered in this case because
the basis of recidivism 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 Homicide, which are both crimes
against property, embraced under the
same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the
Revised Penal Code. The implication is
that he is specializing in the commission of
crimes against property, hence aggravating
in the conviction for Robbery with
Homicide.
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 With
Homicide. And the crimes specified as
basis for habitual delinquency includes,
inter alia, theft and robbery.
Art. 14. Aggravating Circumstances -
Recidivist
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted
an absolute pardon by the President, and
one year thereafter, convicted of homicide,
is a recidivist.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
conviction therefore unless expressly
remitted by the pardon.
Art. 14. Aggravating circumstance –
Quasi recidivism in relation to Art 160
During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing
a knife, asked Constancio whether he was
the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the
year previous. Vicente (father of
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his
other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run
away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael
Page 80 of 417
Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed
him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell
down, his feet entangled with some vines.
While Bienvenido was lying on the ground,
Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting
slight injuries on the shoulder of
Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At
that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation
to the Marco brothers), came out of
nowhere and, together with Simeon,
stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted
fatal wounds resulting in the death of the
victim.
Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on
parole, will the aggravating circumstances
of quasi-recidivism be appreciated against
him? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because quasi-recidivism under Art.
160, RPC occurs when the accused
commits a felony while serving or about to
serve sentence (or if he escapes from
prison). A parolee who commits a felony
cannot be a quasi-recidivist.
Art. 62 Habitual delinquency
A was charged with homicide. During the
trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of
medical certificates were presented
showing that the accused had sustained
injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while
engaged in fisticuffs with different persons.
He was also confined at the National
Mental Hospital for mental ailment
diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal
instincts.” During his second confinement
thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the
prosecutor objected to the application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law
contending that the accused is a habitual
delinquent and an escapee from the
National Mental Hospital.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection.
(1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The objection should be overruled. A could
not be legally considered a habitual
delinquent. Habitual delinquency cannot be
validly invoked without being alleged in the
Information and proven during the trial.
Besides there is no indication that A was
convicted within ten (10) years from last
conviction or release, three times or oftener
of the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa,
physical injuries or falsification.
Art. 14 Aggravating Circumstance –
Treachery
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in
Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by
Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area,
of P10,000 a month as “protection money".
With the monthly payments, Roger
assured, the syndicate would provide
protection to Antonio, his business, and his
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger
warned, the motel owner would either be
killed or his establishment destroyed.
Antonio refused to pay the protection
money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the
morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and
hurled a grenade into an open window of
the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and
their three year-old daughter were
sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes
that had been committed as well as the
aggravating circumstances, if any,
Page 81 of 417
attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Roger & Mauro conspired to commit the
crime of murder qualified 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 victim‟s bedroom. 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. Sec. 3, R.A. 8294 – when a person
commits any of the crime under the RPC or
special laws with the use of explosive, etc.
and alike incendiary devices which resulted
in the death of any person.
2. Art. 23, R.A. 7659 – SUGGESTED ANSWER:
organized/syndicated crime group.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstance of
treachery; when not considered
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo
engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob
Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3)
Manolo Yabang suddenly approached
them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom
he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally
shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo
and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito,
using his own pistol, shot and wounded
Yabang.
B. Was there conspiracy and treachery?
Explain. (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are
justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11,
RPG, that is, self-defense or defense of a
stranger, as they have reason to suspect
that Yabang might not be satisfied in killing
Sergio ONLY, the three being friends and
companions of the victim. Hence, they are
entitled to protect their own lives and limbs
from the unlawful aggression of Yabang.
Alternatively they have the justified right to
defend a stranger (Sergio) whose life at
that moment might still be saved by
ganging up on Yabang to prevent the latter
from any further attack by the latter. In
either case reasonable necessity of the
means employed and lack of sufficient
provocation are present.
In turn, is yabang criminally liable for the
death of Sergio? (1992 Bar
Question)
Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing
of Sergio as the attack was frontal Sergio,
being a suspected killer, is no jurisdiction to
be killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis).
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Evident Premeditation, Treachery
In an information for Murder against A. B,
and C, the prosecution alleges Treachery
as the qualifying circumstance and the
following generic aggravating
circumstances: (1) noctumity, (2) abuse of
superior strength, and (3) employing
means to weaken the defense. At the trial,
the prosecution, without objection from the
de ofvcio counsel for the accused, proved
evident premeditation. It likewise
successfully proved the qualifying and the
generic aggravating circumstances alleged
in the information.
Page 82 of 417

For the purpose of determining the
appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the
accused, may the court take into account
evident premeditation and the other
generic aggravating circumstances? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as far as evident premeditation is
concerned, but only as a generic a
gravating circumstance.
Since treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse
of superior strength and employing means
to weaken the defense, they can no longer
be considered as additional circumstances.
Supposing that treachery was not proved,
may evident premeditation, which was duly
proved, be considered as the qualifying
circumstances? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, since it was not alleged in the
information; qualifying circumstances not
alleged if proved during trial will only be
considered as generic.
If the prosecution failed to prove treachery
and did not offer any evidence to prove
evident premeditation, does acquittal of the
accused follow? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, but liability will only be for homicide, as
there is no circumstances to qualify it to
murder.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Nighttime
At about 9:30 in the evening, 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 appreciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band?
(1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance 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 nighttime (People vs. De
los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). 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.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances;
cruelty; relationship
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
cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed
while raping her.
Page 83 of 417
What aggravating circumstances are
present in this case? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cruelty, for burning the victim’s face with a
lighted cigarrete, 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 vs. Lucas, 181
SCRA 316).
Relationship, because the offended party
is a descendant (daughter) of the offender
and considering that the crime is one
against chastity.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Band, Nocturnity, Dwelling,
Uninhabitted Place
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were
in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of
Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away,
ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the
daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
Under the facts of the case, what
aggravating circumstances may be
appreciated against the four? Explain.
(1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The aggravating circumstances which may
be considered in the premises are:
i) Band because all the four offenders are
armed:
ii) Nocturnity because evidently the
offenders took advantage of night time;
iii) dwelling: and
iv) Uninhabited place because the house
where the crimes were committed was “at
a desolate place" and obviously the
offenders took advantage of this
circumstance in committing the crime.
Art. 14: Aggravating Circumstances
Evident premeditation, treachery, night
time and unlawful entry
The accused and the victim occupied
adjacent apartments, each being a
separate dwelling unit of one big house.
The accused suspected his wife of having
an illicit relation with the victim. One
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife
together on board a vehicle. In the evening
of that day, the accused went to bed early
and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed
over the suspected relation between his
wife and the victim, he could not sleep.
Later in the night, he resolved to kill the
victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a
knife. He entered the apartment of the
victim through an unlocked window. Inside,
he saw the victim soundly asleep. He
thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting
several wounds, which caused his death
within a few hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended
by the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation,
treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
(1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 84 of 417

Evident premeditation cannot be
considered against the accused because
he resolved to kill the victim 'later in the
night" and there was no sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and
execution, to allow his conscience to
overcome the resolution of his will.
Treachery may be present because the
accused stabbed the victim while the latter
was sound asleep. Accordingly, he
employed means and methods which
directly and specially insured the execution
of the act without risk himself arising from
the defense which the victim might have
made (People us. Dequifto. 60 Phil. 279
People vs. Miranda, et aL, 90 Phil. 91).
Nighttime cannot be appreciated because
there is no showing that the accused
deliberately sought or availed of nighttime
to insure the success of his act The
Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its commission
(People vs. Pardo. 79 Phil. 568). Moreover,
nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance, Inasmuch as
the accused entered the room of the victim
through the window, which is not the proper
place for entrance into the house (Art. 14,
par. 18, Revised Penal Code. People vs.
Baruga. 61 Phil. 318).
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Four Kinds
Generic vs Qualifying
A. Name the four (4) kinds of
aggravating circumstances and state their
effect on the penalty of crimes and nature
thereof. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. Distinguish generic aggravating
circumstance from qualifying aggravating
circumstance. (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 penalty prescribed by law;
2. Specific aggravating or those that
apply only to particular crimes and cannot
be offset by mitigating circumstances;
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 accompany the commission of
the crime and does not affect the penalty
whatsoever.
B. Generic aggravating circumstances:
1. affects the nature of the crime or
brings about a penalty higher in degree
than that ordinarily prescribed.
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 circumstances:
1. must be alleged In the Information
and proven during trial;
2. cannot be offset by mitigating
circumstances;
Page 85 of 417
3. affects the nature of the crime or
brings about a penalty higher in degree
than that ordinarily prescribed.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Explosive, Treachery
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in
Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by
Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area,
of P10,000 a month as 'protection money".
With the monthly payments, Roger
assured, the syndicate would provide
protection to Antonio, his business, and his
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger
warned, the motel owner would either be
killed or his establishment destroyed.
Antonio refused to pay the protection
money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the
morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and
hurled a grenade into an open window of
the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and
their three year-old daughter were
sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes
that had been committed as well as the
aggravating circumstances, if any,
attendant thereto. (7%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing is qualified by the use of an
explosive (hand grenade). The treachery
attending the killing shall be separately
appreciated as another aggravating
circumstance aside from the use of
explosive as the qualifying circumstance.
Other aggravating circumstances which
may be appreciated are:
1. Dwelling, because the killings were
committed in the home of the victims who
had not given any provocation;
2. Nocturnity, considering that the
offenders carried out the killing at around
3:00 AM, indicative of a deliberate choice
of night time for the commission of the
crime;
3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16,
RPC, mentioned above, considering that
victims were all asleep when killed; and
4. The offense was committed by a
person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group under
the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A.
7659), amending for this purpose Art. 62(1)
of the Revised Penal Code.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Dwelling, Nighttime
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
ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his
lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death
and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry.
[b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant
aggravating circumstances of dwelling,
nocturnity and the use of the picklock to
enter the room of the victim. (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
Page 86 of 417
occupied by the offended party where she
enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity
of an abode.
Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating
because although it was not purposely or
especially sought for by Wenceslao,
nighttime 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 Art.
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.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances
Qualifying circumstance in rape cases
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 seven years old, and
her mother testified that she was only six
years and ten months old, which her aunt
corroborated on the witness stand. The
information also alleged that the accused
was the victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the
prosecution.
On automatic review before the Supreme
Court, accused- appellant contends that
capital punishment could not be imposed
on him because 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? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 may be 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;
4. 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.
5. In the absence of a certificate of live
birth, authentic document, or the testimony
of the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age under the
Page 87 of 417
circumstances above-stated,
complainant’s sole testimony can suffice,
provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused (People vs.
Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002D])
Art. 14: Qualifying Aggravating
circumstances
(b) When would qualifying circumstances
be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime?
(2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) 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.
Art. 14: Special aggravating circumstance
Use of an unlicensed firearm in the
commission of a crime
A. 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 convicted PH of two crimes:
murder and illegal possession of firearms.
Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly.
(5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. No, the conviction of PH for two crimes,
murder and illegal possession of firearm is
not correct. Under the new law on illegal
possession of firearms and explosives,
Rep. Act 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
aggravating 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.
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances - Use of
an unlicensed firearm in homicide or
murder
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in
homicide is considered a generic
aggravating circumstance which can be
offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Offsetting may not take place
because the use of an unlicensed firearm
in homicide or murder is a specific
aggravating circumstance provided for by
Rep. Act No. 8294. It is not one of the
generic aggravating circumstances under
Page 88 of 417
Art.14 of the Revised Penal Code (People
v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011).
Article 14 Aggravating Circumstances -
treachery
As a result of a misunderstanding during a
meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan,
Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his
house but the four chased and caught him.
Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his
back and attacked him. Nestor used a
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and
Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe,
Reden ordered the digging of a grave to
bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the
four (4) left together. Convicted for the
killing of Joe,
What was the crime committed by the four
assailants? Discuss with reasons (1993
Bar Question)
The crime committed is murder, qualified
by treachery because the offenders, taking
advantage of their superiority in number,
rendered the victim defenseless and
without any chance to retaliate, by tying his
hands at his back before attacking him.
Treachery exists at least in the second and
final stage of the attack, after the offenders
caught up with the victim.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR
FELONIES
ART. 17- PRINCIPALS BY DIRECT
PARTICIPATION
QUESTION:
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr.
White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green
with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow.
Already 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. Yellow. (2014 BAR)
What, if any, are the respective liabilities of
Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the
death of Mr. Green?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the
death of Mr. Green as principals by direct
participation. They were the ones who
participated in the criminal resolution and
who carried out their plan and personally
took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end. Mr. Red
cannot be held criminally liable as principal
by inducement because his statement that
Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take care of
Mr. Green was not made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of
the crime. There is no showing that the
words uttered by him may be considered as
so efficacious and powerful so as to
amount to physical or moral coercion
(People v.
Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, February 24,
1931). Neither is there evidence to show
that Mr. Red has an ascendancy or
influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue
(People v. Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, March 1,
1995).
What, if any, are the respective liabilities of
Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the
injuries of Ms. Yellow?
Page 89 of 417
Answer:
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.
ART. 17- PRINCIPALS
(Principal by direct participation and co-
principal by indispensable cooperation)
Despite the massive advertising campaign
in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas
and Jaja bought ten 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 Jona's place by exploding
their high-powered firecrackers in their
neighborhood. 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
tatter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos inside
Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the tatter'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 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 five year old son who was
following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.
If you were the judge, how would you
decide the case? Explain. (1%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
ART. 17 PRINCIPALS
(Principal by inducement; Accessory)
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a
number of years. As Juan was earning
down his house, he saw his brother,
Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from
behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a
second time while the latter was prostrate
on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son,
shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted
Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling.
Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos.
While the two were fighting, Juan shouted
to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they
are our enemies.” Calling suffered a
Page 90 of 417
number of wounds and died on the spot,
Pedro who was in serious condition was
rushed to the hospital. He died five days
later for loss of blood because the blood
purchased from Manila which could have
saved him, according to the doctor, did not
arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and
Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and
he gave them money for the purpose.
When the police investigators saw Jose, he
told the police investigators that Juan and
Rodolfo went to Mindanao.
What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b)
Juan and Jose commit? Explain your
answer and state whether the acts
committed are accompanied by
circumstances affecting criminal liability.
(1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an
accessory to the crime of murder
committed by Rodolfo because he assisted
him to escape to Manila. But he is not
criminally liable because of his relationship
to Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an
accessory to the crime of homicide,
because this crime is not included in
treason, parricide, muraer, attempt against
the life of the Chief Executive or the
principal is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime if the accessory is a
private person. However, this is moot and
academic because of the relationship of
Jose to Rodolfo.
Art. 17 Criminal Liability – Minors
In relation to robbery with homicide
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the
store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie
posted themselves at the door. After
ordering beer Ricky complained that he
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy
vehemently denied it.
Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he
announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed
Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the
store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from
helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out
of the store to seek help from people next
door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon
as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cash box.
Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street
and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!”
Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The
money and other articles looted from the
store of Mang Pandoy were later found in
the houses of Victor and Ricky.
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor,
Ricky, Rod and Ronnie. (1995 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All are liable for the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky
in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod
in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from
helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing
the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help,
of Victor in scooping up money from the
cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in
dashing to the street and announcing the
escape, are all indicative of conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide
takes place as a consequence or on the
occasion of a robbery, all those who took
part in the robbery are guilty as principals
of the crime of robbery with homicide,
unless the accused tried to prevent the
killing {People vs. BaeUo, 224 SCRA 218).
Page 91 of 417
Although Rod is only 14 years old, his act
of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping
Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of
discernment, thus he cannot invoke
exemption from criminal liability.
ART. 17 PRINCIPALS
(Principal by inducement; Accessory)
QUESTION:
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
unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers
inside were locked. They took the money,
jewelry and other valuables therefrom and
immediately 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
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 neighbor 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. (2015 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio 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 wer 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
performing 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 Homicide 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.
QUESTION:
Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the
death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of
Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to
Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro
by promising him P50,000 to be paid after
he had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio
agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court
the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall
Page 92 of 417
to attend the hearing involving the death of
Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the
plan at that exact time in the court room, to
which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m.,
Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the
Police Department and told him that
Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at
the city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to
prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city
hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio
had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as
co-principal with Dalmacio for the killing of
Pedro? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is a principal by inducement. By
promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio,
which is an agreement for a consideration
for the purpose of avenging his brother's
death the inducement was made directly
with the intention of procuring the
commission of the crime. Furthermore, the
facts show that Dalmacio has no personal
reason to kill Pedro except the inducement,
which is therefore the determining cause
for the commission of the crime by
Dalmacio.
Mario's change of mind and heart at the last
minute, which did not, after all, prevent the
consummation of the crime, because it was
too late, does not alter the course of his
criminal liability as a co-principal by
inducement. Desistance from carrying out
a criminal design is no defense if such
desistance has not actually and
successfully prevented the commission of
the crime.
QUESTION:
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 inducement? (5%) (2002
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal by
inducement because the reward he
promised S is not the sole impelling reason
which made B to kill C. To bring about
criminal liability of a co-principal, the
inducement 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.
ART 17- PRINCIPALS
(principal by indispensable
cooperation; principal by inducement)
To secure a 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 Chita gave her
P50,000.00, she consented.
She then prepared an Order requiring the
appearance in court 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 P50,000.00
Page 93 of 417
to leave the two inmates unguarded for
three minutes and provide them with an
opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and
Vincent were able to escape.
What crime or crimes, if any, had been
committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the
Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail
warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed in this case are as
follows:
Chito committed the crimes of -
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156,
RPC) for working out the escape of
prisoners Willy and Vincent;
Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials
(Art. 212, RPC); and 3. Falsification of
Public Documents, as a principal by
inducement (Art. 172 [1], RPC).
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of
Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a
principal by indispensable cooperation 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.
Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence
by final judgment, committed the crime of
Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157,
RPC) for escaping during the term of his
imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court
committed the crimes of:
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 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
(Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art.
156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by
indispensable cooperation for making the
false Order and forging the judge's
signature thereon, to enable the prisoners
to get out of jail;
4. 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence
(Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of
Vincent by indispensable cooperation for
making the false Order that enabled
Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
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 conniving with or consenting to
Evasion for leaving unguarded the
prisoners escorted by him and provide
them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223,
RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the
P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the
opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);
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.
ART. 18-ACCOMPLICES
a.) Distinguish between an accomplice and
a conspirator. (2007 Bar Question)
Page 94 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER: criminal design of the principal, their
participation, the penalty to be imposed in
The distinctions between an accomplice relation to the penalty for the principal, and
and a conspirator are: the requisites/elements to be established

1. An accomplice incurs criminal ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR

liability by merely cooperating in the They know and They know of
execution of the crime without participating agree with the and join in the
as a principal, by prior or simultaneous criminal design. criminal
acts; whereas a conspirator participates in They come to know design. They
Knowledge it after the know the
the commission of a crime as a co- of the principals have criminal
principal. criminal reached the intention
2. An accomplice incurs criminal design of the decision and only because they
liability in an individual capacity by his act principal then do they agree themselves
alone of cooperating in the execution of the to cooperate in its have decided
execution. upon such
crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal course of
liability not only for his individual acts in the action.
execution of the crime but also for the acts Accomplices are Conspirators
of the other participants in the commission mere instruments are the authors
of the crime collectively. The acts of the who perform acts of the crime.
Participation
not essential to the
other participants in the execution of the
commission of the
crime are considered also as acts of a crime.
conspirator for purposes of collective One degree lower Same as
criminal responsibility. than that of the principal
3. An accomplice participates in the principal. NOTE:
execution of a crime when the criminal Conspiracy
alone is not
design or plan is already in place; whereas Penalty punishable
a conspirator participates in the adoption or except in cases
making of the criminal design. where the law
4. An accomplice is subjected to a specifically
penalty one degree lower than that of a prescribes a
penalty.
principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the (1) community of (1) that two
penalty of a principal. criminal design; or more
that is, knowing the persons come
ART. 18- ACCOMPLICES criminal design of to an
the principal by agreement;
direct (2) that the
Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012 BAR) participation, he agreement
concurs with the concerned the
A: Accomplices are those persons who, not Requisites latter in his commission of
being the principal, cooperate in the purpose; (2) the a crime; and (3)
execution of the offense by previous or performance of the that the
previous or execution of
simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC). simultaneous acts the felony was
that are not decided upon.
Q: Distinguish an accomplice from a indispensible to
conspirator as to their knowledge of the the commission of
the crime

Page 95 of 417
by the prosecution in order to hold them
criminally responsible for their respective
roles in the commission of the crime. (2012
BAR)
A: The differences between an accomplice
and conspirator are as follows:
QUESTION:
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder
Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house,
Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and
shoot Joel where the latter passes through
on his way to work. Arturo will come from
the other end of the alley and
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On
the appointed day, Arturo was
apprehended by the authorities before
reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as
planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. 15% (1998 Bar
Question)
ANSWER:
Arturo, being one of the two who devised
the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes
a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is
needed only is an overt act and both will
incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
conspirator arose from his participation in
jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan,
to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that
conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The
conspiracy here is actual, not by inference
only. The overt act was done pursuant to
that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-
conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the
act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore,
should be liable as a co-conspirator but the
penalty on him may be that of an
accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96
SCRA1; People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA
335) because he was not able to actually
participate in the shooting of Joel, having
been apprehended before reaching the
place where the crime was committed.
Art. 19. Accessories
And Art. 20 Accessories who are
exempt
In relation to Composite crime of rape
with homicide; theft
King went to the house of Laura who was
alone. Laura offered him a drink and after
consuming three 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. (10%](1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 commission of the crime
and obviously to conceal the body of the
Page 96 of 417
crime to prevent its discovery, makes him
an accessory to the crime of rape with
homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev.
Penal Code, 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 brother of King, the exemption
under Article 20 does not include the
participation 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.
ART. 19- ACCESSORIES
QUESTION:
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 circumstances, 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? (2013 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be
criminally liable as an accessory under Art.
19, 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 the crime has been
committed is not sufficient. Even if he can
be considered as an accessory under Art.
19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being
the brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC.
QUESTION:
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: "0,
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.
[a] What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice
only because he merely cooperated in
Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie.
Such cooperation 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 decisionmaking of Ponciano to kill
Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying
Page 97 of 417
out the criminal plan which was already in
place (Art. 18, RPC).
[b] Would your answer be the same if,
instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative
of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano
using Ruben's gun? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 Ruben's gun in
killing a person other than Freddie is
beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing
involvement. Only Ponciano 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.
ART. 19- ACCESSORIES
QUESTION:
Ricardo secured the services of Atty.
Juanito to defend him in an arson case
pending in court. Juanito asked his client
what actually happened. Ricardo informed
his lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a
department store, hired him to bum the
store because Sing Hua was losing heavily
and wanted to get the insurance on the
store. Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him
P5,000.00, and promised an additional
10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000.00
lire insurance once this was collected from
the insurance company. He further said
that Sing Hna’s claim for payment of the fire
insurance was still pending and its approval
depended on the outcome of the arson
case. This meant that the ABC Insurance
Company would pay the claim should
Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case.
Then he would also get the 10% share of
the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer
Juanito that by depending him in the arson
case, the latter would be helping collect the
10% which would amount of
P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo’s
story, Atty. Juanito told him he could not
further give him professional advice or
services and so Ricardo left That same
day, Juanito went to the NBI and told the
NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The NBI
alerted ABC Insurance Company, which
immediately denied the daim for payment
of insurance and filed a complaint for
attempted estafa through arson against
Sing Hua and Ricardo.
A. Did Juanito commit any crime?
(1987 Bar Question)
B. Would the situation be different if at
the time Ricardo secured the professional
services of Juanito, ABC Insurance
Company had already paid Sing Hua the
insurance and the latter had in turn paid
Ricardo 10% thereof? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Juanito did not commit any crime.
By telling Ricardo that he could not give him
professional advice or services, after being
informed that the owner of the department
store hired him to bum the store because it
was losing heavily and wanted to get the
insurance on the store, and that he was
paid already P5,000 with a promise of an
Page 98 of 417
additional 10% of the proceeds of the
PI0,000,000 fire insurance once collected
from the insurance company, Atty. Juanito
complied with his obligation as a lawyer to
report to the authorities whatever
knowledge he has regarding the
commission of a crime.
B. Juanito will be liable as an
accessory because by accepting 10% of
the insurance proceeds even in payment of
the professional services, he profited or
assisted the principal, Ricardo, to profit
from the proceeds of the commission of the
crime.
QUESTION:
Emilio and Andres were walking home from
the farm at 8:00 o’clock in the evening
when they met Asiong whom Emilio
suspected as the one who stole his fighting
cock two (2) days before; Emilio confronted
Asiong and after a heated discussion, a
bolo fight between the two (2) ensued.
Asiong sustained fatal wounds and died.
Emilio asked Andres to help him carry the
body of Asiong and bury it behind the
bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked
up the jute bag Asiong was then holding
and found inside P600 which Emilio and
Andres divided each getting P300. A week
after the investigation by the police, a
complaint was filed in the Office of
Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres
for robbery with homicide with the
aggravating circumstances of nighttime
and uninhabited place. If you were the
fiscal, what information or informations will
you file against Emilio and Andres? What
are their respective criminal liabilities?
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate
informations against Emilio and Andres,
one for homicide with Emilio as principal
and Andres as accessory, and another for
theft against both Emilio and Andres as
principals. This is so because of the
following reasons:
1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is
homicide. It is not attended by any
qualifying circumstance of murder. It was a
killing at the spur of the moment, in the
course of a bolo fight, as an aftermath of a
heated discussion.
2. Neither was the killing by reason of
or on the occasion of a robbery. There was
no intention of either Emilio or Andres to
rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of
the killing. The taking of Asiong’s P600.00
was only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the
killing was already perpetrated. There is no
causal or other connection between the act
of killing and the act of taking the money.
3. Andres is liable as an accessory in
the homicide case because he had no
participation either as co-principal or
accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died
solely because of the wounds inflicted on
him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the
principal. However, when Andres agreed to
help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and
bury it behind the bushes, thus concealing
or destroying the body of the crime (corpus
delicti) to prevent its discovery, he became
an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art.
19, RPC).
With respect to the taking of the P600.00
which Emilio and Andres divided between
themselves, they committed the crime of
theft as co-principals. Theft because with
intent to gain but without violence against
or intimidation of persons no force upon
things, they took personal property of
another without the latter’s consent. They
Page 99 of 417
acted with unity of purposes and intention,
thus making them co-principals by direct
participation.
QUESTION:
B. 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? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. No, MCB’s defense will not prosper
because the exemption from criminal
liability of an accessory by virtue of
relationship with the principal does not
cover accessories who themselves profited
from or assisted 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 Art. 20 of the Revised Penal
Code.
QUESTION
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake
went to his 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 apprehended by the police.
Can Jake's mother and aunt be made
criminally liable as accessories to the crime
of murder? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her
son's having committed a felony, such that
her 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.
QUESTION:
Mancolo 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 revolver. 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.
a) Can he be held liable for the charge?
Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder
criminal responsibility of an accomplice, not
of a co-principal by indispensable
cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could
not be liable as an accessory to Cece's
Page 100 of 417
murder. To incur criminal liability of an
accessory for helping or assisting in the
escape of an offender, he must be a
principal of the crime committed. Unless
Domeng would be considered as a co-
principal by indispensable cooperation in
the commission of the murder, the Mayor,
by assisting him to escape, would be an
accessory to the felony.
a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of
Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal
Offenders (P.D.1829)
(i) Punishable acts (ii) Compare with Art.
20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal
liability)
QUESTION:
Mancolo 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 revolver. 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.
Can he be held liable for any other
offense? Explain fully. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Although the Mayor may not be held
liable as an accessory to the killing of Cece,
he may be held liable for obstruction of
justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829
for assisting Domeng, who was involved in
the commission of a crime, to escape from
Manila to Mindanao.
PENALTIES
ART.48- Special Complex Crime-
A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several
years as a chief accountant, religiously
sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his
earnings. 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,
D, 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
P20,000.00 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
circumstances will be applied in imposing
the penalty. Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
Page 101 of 417
 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 indivisible 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.
ART. 48 in rel ART. 296--Pedro, Pablito,
Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos,
robbed the house where Antonio, his wife,
and three (3) daughters were residing.
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%) (2016 BAR)
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, GR
No. L-2055, 24 December 1948). Rape
was not separated 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
took part in the commission of robbery.
Under Art. 296 of the RPC, 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 assaults
committed by the band unless it be shown
that he attempted to prevent the same. The
assault mentioned in Art. 296 includes rape
(People v. Hamiana, GR Nos. L-3491094,
30 May 1971). They are not liable,
however, for rape under Art. 296 since they
were not present when the victim was
raped and thus, they had no opportunity to
prevent 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%) ( 2016 BAR)
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 homicide (People v. Diu, GR
No. 201449, 3 April 2013).
Art. 48. Complex Crimes
Page 102 of 417
In relation to Art. 294 (1) Robbery with
homicide; direct assault with multiple
attempted homicide
While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and
'Domingo were robbing a bank, policemen
arrived. A firefight ensued between the
bank robbers and the responding
policemen, and one of the policemen was
killed.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, had
been committed? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed are Robbery with
homicide (Art. 294(1], RPC), a single
indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with
Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex
crime (Art. 48, Art. 148 and Art. 249, RPC;
People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 (1934]).
Robbery with Homicide was committed
because one of the responding policemen
was killed by reason or on occasion of the
robbery being committed. The complex
crime of Direct Assault with Multiple
Attempted Homicide was committed in
respect of the offender's firing guns at the
responding policemen who are agents of
person in authority performing their duty
when fired at to frustrate such
performance. (People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R.
Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000)
Art 48 Complex Crimes, Art 294 Robbery,
Art 249 Homicide, Art 320 Arson
Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of
arson with quadruple homicide and
robbery; improper charge of offense
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 several 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 following 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? Discuss fully.
(1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
Page 103 of 417
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 cany 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 offended 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
necessary for the consummation of the two
(2) previous offenses he committed. The
fact that the caretaker died from the blaze
did not qualify Harry’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.
Art. 48: Complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his
employer. Upon reaching 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?
(1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich
struck his wife, Carmi with his fist, he
committed the crime of maltreatment under
Art. 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
Since Carmi died because of the felonious
act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of
parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to
Art. 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 Art.
257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of
Aldrich produced two grave or less grave
felonies, he falls under Art 48, RPC, i.e. a
complex crime [People vs. Salufrancia, 159
SCRA 401).
Art. 48: Complex crime of Murder, qualified
by explosion, with direct assault
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP)
officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat
with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A
and B who were in a banca, for dynamite
fishing. The latter’s banca was towed
towards the municipality. On the way, the
PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third
banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried
to negotiate for the release of A and B and
their banca. The PNP officers refused and
instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are
all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E
simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the
PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed
X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its
explosion killed Y and Z.
Page 104 of 417
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E
commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C, D and E are liable for the complex crime
of Murder, qualified by explosion, with
direct assault for the death of X. A and B
are liable for the complex crime of Murder
Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and
simple Murder qualified by explosion for the
death of Z.
No crime of direct assault can be filed
insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he
being a civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no
conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E,
otherwise all would have the same criminal
liability as the act of one becomes the act
of all.
Art 48: Special Complex Crime
In relation to Art. 14: Qualifying
Aggravating Circumstance
Diego and Pablo were both farmers
residing in Barangay Damayan. On one
occasion, Diego called Pablo to come
down from his house in order to ask him
why he got his (Diego’s) plow without
permission. One word led to another.
Diego, in a fit of anger, unsheathed his bolo
and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo’s 9-year
old son, Mario, who was inside the house,
saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he
might also be killed by Diego, Mario
covered himself with a blanket and hid in a
comer of the house. To conceal the killing
of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo’s body
inside the house and burned it. Mario was
also burned to death.
What crime or crimes did Diego commit?
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide
for the death of Pablo and (2) the special
complex crime of arson with homicide as
provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
house and the death of Mario.
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide,
the killing not being attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder. It was
killing in the course of a quarrel.
The burning of the house to conceal the
killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it
not for the death of Mario, this separate
offense would have been arson. But inside
the house was unknown to Diego, the
resulting crime is under PD No. 1613,
because the death resulted from the arson.
If by reason or on the occasion of the arson,
death results, the offense is the special
complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5,
PD 1613, which expressly repealed Art.
320 and consequently the ruling case
therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665, March
6, 1950).
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the
house when he set it on fire, the crime
committed, instead of arson, would be
MURDER, with fire as the qualifying
circumstance.
Art. 48 Special Complex crime of Robbery
with Rape
After raping the complainant in her house,
the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene.
The brief light from the match allowed him
to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded
that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her.
Page 105 of 417
The accused was charged with and
convicted of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape.
Was the court correct? (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court erred in convicting the
accused of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape. The accused should
instead be held liable for two (2) separate
crimes of robbery and rape, since the
primary intent or objective of the accused
was only to rape the complainant, and his
commission of the robbery was merely an
afterthought. The robbery must precede
the rape, in order to give rise to the special
complex crime for which the court
convicted the accused.
Art. 48 Criminal law – Complex crimes -
Robbery with Homicide in relation to Art.
297
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a desolate
place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were
in the process of ransacking Danilo’s
house, Fernando, noticing that one of
Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away,
ran after her and finally caught up with her
in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the
daughter to the house, raped her first.
Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
Suppose, after the robbery, the four took
turns in raping the three daughters of
Danilo inside the latter's house, but before
they left, they killed the whole family to
prevent identification, what crime did the
four commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would be Robbery with Homicide
because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion
of the robbery. The multiple rapes
committed and the fact that several
persons were killed (homicide), would be
considered as aggravating circumstances.
The rapes are synonymous with ignominy
and the additional killing synonymous with
cruelty. [People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA:
People vs. Plagcu 202 SCRA 531)
Art. 48 – Continuing crimes in relation to BP
22
Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which
500 persons were deceived into investing
their money upon a promise of a capital
return of 25%, computed monthly, and
guaranteed by post-dated checks. During
the first 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
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to
quash, Angelo contends that he committed
a continued crime, or delito continuado,
hence, he committed only one count of
estafa and one count of violation of BP 22.
[a] What is delito continuado? (1%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delito continuado refers to a crime
constituted by several overt acts committed
by the offender in one place, at about the
Page 106 of 417
same time, and all such overt acts violate
one and the same provision of 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.
[b] Is Angelo's contention tenable?
Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. His contention is not tenable. He
committed as many counts of estafa
against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of
violation of BP 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 payee is a separate criminal
resolution, as they must be 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.
Art 48 - Complex crime; requirement of two
or more grave or less grave felonies as a
result of single act
Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his
service pistol inside his house when it fell
from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a
neighbor on the stomach and a second
neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained
by the two neighbors required thirty-five
(35) days and nine (9) days of medical
attendance, respectively. The investigating
fiscal later filed an information for frustrated
homicide and slight physical injuries
through reckless imprudence against
Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain.
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge is not correct.
One single act of accidental shooting
cannot give rise to two felonies. One of
which is intentional and the other negligent.
Frustrated homicide presupposes intent to
kill. The facts do not show any intent to kill
on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was
careless, and therefore only negligent.
Art 48 – Complex crimes; when proper
Jose purchased roofing materials worth
P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction
Company owned by Pedro, and paid the
latter a check in the said amount. The
following day, Pedro deposited the check,
but it was returned dishonored because it
was drawn against a closed account.
Notwithstanding written demands, Jose
failed to make good said check. Atty.
Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two
complaints against Jose with the Office of
the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and
another for violation of Batas Pambansa
Big. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for
Jose, claimed that if his client was at all
liable, he could only be liable for violation of
Batas Pambansa Big. 22 and not for estafa
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code because one precludes the other and
because Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is more
favorable to the accused as it carries a
lighter penalty. The investigating fiscal, on
his resolution, stated that only one crime
was committed, namely, the complex crime
of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code and violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act
Page 107 of 417
of issuing the bouncing check constitutes
two offenses, one under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and another under
Batas Pambansa Big. 22.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to
review the matter, how would you resolve
it? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is
erroneous. There is no complex crime of
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A
complex crime refers only to felonies which
are punished in the Revised Penal Code.
Batas 22 which punishes the offense of
issuing a worthless check is a special law.
The contention of Atty. San Pascuai,
counsel of Jose that his client should be
liable only for Batas 22 and for estafa under
the Revised Penal Code because one
precludes the other and because Batas 22
is more favorable to the accused as it
carries a lighter penalty cannot also be
sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides
that liability under said act is without
prejudice to any liability for estafa under the
Revised Penal Code. The check issued by
Jose in payment of roofing materials from
PY and Sons was worthless. Said bouncing
check having been issued in payment of a
simultaneous obligation constitutes estafa
under the Revised Penal Code and also the
offense punished under Batas 22. There is
no identity of offenses. Damage is not an
element of the offense punished in Batas
22 whereas in estafa damage is an
element. Estafa is an act mala in se in
which requires intent as an element while
the offense punished in Batas 22 is an act
mala prohibita where intent is not an
element.
Art 48 –Complex crimes
1. A, actuated by malice and with the
use of a fully automatic M-14 submachine
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 submachine 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
performed 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? Explain. (4%) (1999
Bar Question)
2. What constitutes a complex crime?
How many crimes maybe involved in a
complex crime? What is the penalty
therefor? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. 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 bullet, 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.
2. A complex crime is constituted when
a single act caused two or more grave or
Page 108 of 417
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)
Art. 48 Complex crime; Special complex
crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with
rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with
sedition
A. Distinguish between an ordinary
complex crime and a special complex
crime as to their concepts and as to the
imposition of penalties. (2003 Bar
Question)
B. Can there be a complex crime of
coup d’etat with rebellion? (2003 Bar
Question)
C. Can there be a complex crime of
coup d'etat with sedition? (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) 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 Revised
Penal Code.
As to penalties -
In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for
the most serious 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.
B. Yes, if there was conspiracy
between the offender/ offenders
committing the coup d’etat 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'etat may be 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’etat may be committed singly,
whereas rebellion requires a public uprising
and taking up arms to overthrow the duly
constituted government. Since the two
crimes are essentially different and
punished with distinct penalties, there is no
Page 109 of 417
legal impediment to the application of Art.
48 of the Revised Penal Code.
C. Yes, coup d’etat can be complexed
with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly punished
under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition
may not be directed against the
Government or non-political in objective,
whereas coup d’etat is always political 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. Art. 48 of the
Code may apply under the conditions
therein provided.
Art. 48 Compound and complex crimes
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004
Bar Question)
Between compound and complex crimes
as concepts in the Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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, Revised Penal Code, 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
Art 48 Complex crime of estafa thru
falsification of a commercial document
In relation to Art 315 Swindling
(2) 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?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2) DD committed a complex crime of
estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document. As a user of a false or fake
credit card, a commercial 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 television set, the crime of
swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru
the falsification of said commercial
document. He, therefore, committed the
complex crime of estafa thru falsification of
a commercial document.
Art. 48 – Complex crime; Special complex
crime; Delito continuado
Distinguish the following from each other:
1. Complex crime under Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code;
2. Special complex crime; and
3. Delito continuado. (3%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. a) In a complex crime, the component
crimes are defined and penalized under
Page 110 of 417
separate and distinct Articles of the
Revised Penal Code but are allowed to be
alleged in one Information as an exception
to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure, because they are
committed under the circumstances
provided in Article 48 of same Code, i.e.,
two or more grave or less grave felonies
resulted from a single act, or one offense
was a necessary means for committing the
other offense.
In a special complex crime, also known as
composite crime, the component crimes
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 Art. 294 of the
Code.
Delito continuado, also known as
continued crime, is constituted by a series
of overt acts committed by the offender in
one place a penal law, and therefore
regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible
criminal resolution; hence, punished as one
crime offense
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Frustrated
robbery, with homicide and damage to
property
While Carlos was approaching his car, he
saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief.
Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at
him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his
car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his
gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and
fired. The shot blew the tire which caused
the car to veer out of control and collide
with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle
driver.
b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if
any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of
frustrated robbery, with homicide and
damage to property (tricycle) in trying to rob
the car. This resulted in the shooting of the
car by Carlos and the subsequent collision
destroying the tricycle and the death of the
driver.
Art. 48 - Complex crime of attempted
murder with homicide
Despite the massive advertising campaign
in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas
and Jaja bought ten 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 Jona's place by exploding
their high-powered firecrackers in their
neighborhood. 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
tatter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos inside
Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the tatter'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
Page 111 of 417
Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter
again started 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 five year old son who was
following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and
Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%) (2000
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the
complex crime of attempted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a
less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48,
RPC).
Attempted murder is a less grave felony,
while consummated homicide is a grave
felony: both are punishable by afflictive
penalties.
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Malversation
through falsification
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and
Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael,
Leyte, caused the disbursement of public
funds allocated for their local development
programs for 2008. Records show that the
amount of P2-million was purportedly used
as financial assistance for a rice production
livelihood project. Upon investigation,
however, it was found that Roger and
Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers
and supporting documents 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 falsification. Discuss
the propriety of the charge filed against
Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of malversation through
falsification is not correct because the
falsifications of several documents were
not necessary means to obtain the money
that were malversed. The falsifications
were committed to cover up or hide the
malversation and therefore, should be
separately 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. Art. 48, RPC on complex
crimes is not applicable.
Art 48 Special Complex Crimes - Robbery
with homicide
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? (2003
Bar Question)
Page 112 of 417

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
robbery 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.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery
with homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank,
and when they were about to get out of the
bank, policemen came and ordered them to
surrender but they fired on the police
officers who fired back and shot it out with
them.
Suppose a bank employee was killed and
the bullet which killed him came from the
firearm of the police officers, with what
crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%]
(1998 Bar Question)
Suppose it was robber D who was killed by
the policemen and the prosecutor charged
A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide.
They demurred arguing that they (A, B and
C were not the ones who killed robber D,
hence, the charge should only be Robbery.
How would you resolve their argument?
(2%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B. C and D should be charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought
about by the acts of said offenders on the
occasion of the robbery. They shot it out
with the policeman, thereby causing such
death by reason or on the occasion of a
robbery; hence, the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
The argument is valid, considering that a
separate charge for Homicide was filed. It
would be different if the charge filed was for
the composite crime of robbery with
homicide, which is a single, indivisible
offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not
correct because their liability is not only for
Robbery but for the special complex crime
of Robbery with homicide. But the facts
stated impresses that separate crimes of
Robbery “and" Homicide were charged,
which is not correct. What was committed
was a single indivisible offense of Robbery
with homicide, not two crimes.
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery
with homicide
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are
fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns
wherever they go. One night, after
attending a party, they boarded a taxicab,
held the driver at gunpoint and took the
latter's earnings.
What crime, if any, did the four commit if
they killed the driver? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 113 of 417
No, 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 circumstance
as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294
(People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52,
December 11, 2003).
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime
In relation to Art 267 Serious illegal
detention with homicide
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 Martin for a
cash advance of PI,000.00 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
P5.000.00 as ransom for the release of his
son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
Subsequently, Paz disappeared.
After a couple of days, Martin 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?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED 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 Revised Penal Code is committed.
Art 48Special complex crime
In relation to Art. 266 - B rape through
sexual assault with homicide
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile,
gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a
prostitute and brought 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. Sherly
was brought to the hospital and died a few
days later because of shock caused by
hemorrhage.
If Sherly were a minor when she died,
would your answer be the same?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the
crimes of homicide and child abuse in
violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special
Protection of Children against abuse,
exploitation, discrimination and for other
purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis,
provided Sherly is not less than 12 years
old. If Sherly 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 Revised Penal Code.
Art 48 Special Crime
In relation to Art. 266 - B - of rape with
homicide
Dang was a beauty queen in a university.
Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored
with her that he persistently wooed and
pursued her. Dang, being in love with
another man, rejected him. This angered
Page 114 of 417
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 in 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
satisfying 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.
What crime or crimes were committed by
Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
PENALTIES: What penalties should be
imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy each committed two (2)
counts of the special complex crime of rape
with homicide under Art. 266-B for the
rapes respectively committed on Dang and
on Lyn. Their felonious acts of grabbing
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 they employed on Lyn, that
they are answerable also for the presumed
death of Lyn whom the culprits took with
them 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. 7659)
Although the penalty for the crime of rape
with homicide was death at the time the
accused committed them, and the law
(Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty took effect
only this year (2006), said new law should
be given retroactive effect because 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 Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code
will not follow because RA 9346
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime
In relation to Art 267. Kidnapping for
ransom with homicide
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the
noodles 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 Christian 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 unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a
leak, the kidnapping was announced over
the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the
Page 115 of 417
broadcast and panicked, especially 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 station. 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? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the
special complex crime of kidnapping for
ransom with homicide because their
purpose was to kill Luke when they seized
him.
Mario, the taxi driver, does not incur
criminal liability for the acts of Jaime, Andy
and Jimmy because he had no participation
therein.
Emil and Louie should be liable only for
murder for killing Luke in a defenseless
position, but not for keeping Luke since it
was not their intention to detain him.
Art 48 Special Complex Crime
in relation to Art. 304 Rape with homicide
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
ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his
lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death
and, before leaving the room, took her
jewelry.
[a] What crime or crimes, if any, did
Wenceslao commit? Explain. (4%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wenceslao committed the following crimes:
(1) the special complex crime of rape with
homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful
possession of picklocks and similar tools
under Art. 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 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
only when he was about to leave the room
and when Loretta was already dead, the
same constitutes theft. His possession and
use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is
by itself punishable under Art. 304, RPC.
[c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if,
despite the serious stab wounds she
sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (3%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer will be different. In that
case, the crimes committed would be four
separate crimes of (1) rape (2) frustrated
homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4)
unlawful possession and use of picklocks
under Art. 304, RPC. The special complex
crime of rape with homicide is constituted
only when both the rape and the killing are
Page 116 of 417
consummated; when one or both of them
are not consummated, they are to be
charged and punished 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.
QUESTION:
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 subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency.
a) Is the penalty proper? Explain.
b) May the judge impose an alternative
penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain.
(4%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 1. Imposing the penalty of fine jointly
and severally on the two convicted accused
is not proper. The penalty should be
imposed individually on every person
accused of the crime. Any of the convicted
accused who is insolvent and unable to pay
the fine, shall serve the subsidiary
imprisonment.
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.
b) The accused was found guilty of 10
counts of rape for having carnal knowledge
with the same woman. In addition to the
penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to
pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00
for each count. On appeal, the accused
questions the award of civil indemnity for
each count, considering that the victim is
the same woman.
SUB-QUESTION:
How would you rule on the contention of the
accused? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of the accused is without
merit. Each count of rape is a violation of
the person of the victim and thus gives rise
to corresponding criminal and civil
liabilities. The trial court is correct in
imposing a penalty for each rape and
awarding corresponding civil indemnity for
each count even though the victim is the
same woman. Rape is not a continued
crime.
QUESTION:
Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life
imprisonment. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided
for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes
defined in and penalized therein except for
some crimes defined by special laws which
impose reclusion perpetua, such as
violations of Republic Act 6425, as
amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD
1860; while life imprisonment is a penalty
usually provided for in special laws.
Reclusion perpetua has a duration of
twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty
Page 117 of 417
(40) years under Republic Act 7659, while
life imprisonment has no duration;
reclusion perpetua maybe reduced by one
or two degrees; reclusion perpetua has
accessory penalties while life imprisonment
does not have any accessory penalties
(People vs. Baguio. 196 SCRA 459, People
vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
QUESTION:
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 given in the
Ospital ng Maynlla Because the weapon
usfed by Benjamin was unlicensed and the
qualifying circumstance of treachery 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
imprisonment the same and can be
imposed interchangeably as in the
foregoing sentence? Or are they totally
different? State your reasons. (3%) (2001
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the
penalty of life imprisonment are totally
different from each other and therefore,
should not he used interchangeably.
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed
by the Revised Penal Code, 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.
QUESTION:
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[a] Life imprisonment is a penalty more
favorable to the convict than reclusion
perpetua.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to
a convict because the penalty is without a
fixed duration, unlike the penalty of
reclusion perpetua which has a fixed
duration of 40 years and the convict may be
eligible for pardon after 30 years of
imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205
SCRA 546 (1992).
b) Purposes
c) Classification
d) Duration and Effect
e) Application (i) Indeterminate Sentence
Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended)
(a) Application on the imposed sentence
(b) Coverage (c) Conditions of parole (ii)
Three-fold rule (iii) Subsidiary
imprisonment
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE
ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANES AND
OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
QUESTION:
Page 118 of 417
Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial
court appreciated the following modifying
circumstances: the aggravating
circumstance of nocturnity and the
mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a
wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender.
The imposable penalty for homicide is
reclusion temporal the range of which is
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years.
Taking into account the attendant
aggravating and mitigating circumstances,
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, determine the proper penalty to be
imposed on the accused. (1995 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It appears that there is one aggravating
circumstance (noctumity), and four
mitigating circumstances (passion and
obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a
wrong as that committed and voluntary
surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be
applied. Hence there will be off-setting of
modifying circumstances, which will now
result in the excess of three mitigating
circumstances. This will therefore justify in
reducing the penalty to the minimum
period.
The existence of an aggravating
circumstance, albeit there are four
aggravating, will not justify the lowering of
the penalty to the next lower degree under
paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is
applicable only if THERE IS NO
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
present.
Since the crime committed is Homicide and
the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal,
the MAXIMUM sentence under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the
minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years
and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The
MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty
next lower in degree, which is prision
mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day
to 12 years).
Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years
and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1
day, as maximum. I believe that because of
the remaining mitigating circumstances
after the off-setting it would be very logical
to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM
sentence under the ISL and the minimum
of the MAXIMUM sentence.
QUESTION:
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing
the 75-year old owner of his rooming
house. The prosecution proved that Bruno
stabbed the owner causing his death; and
that the killing happened 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 attacked 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
reclusion temporal.
Assuming a judgment of conviction and
after considering the attendant
circumstances, what penalty should the
judge impose? (2013 BAR)
ANSWER
Page 119 of 417
Bruno should be sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto
mayor in any of its period 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 (voluntary surrender and
plea of guilt) without any aggravating
circumstance under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the
RPC respectively, which lowers the
prescribed penalty for homicide which is
reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
PENALTIES – DISQUALIFIED
OFFENDERS FOR PAROLE; HEINOUS
CRIMES
Because of the barbarity and the
hideousness of the acts committed by the
suspects/ respondents in cutting off their
victims’ appendages, stuffing their torsos,
legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet-
riddled vehicles and later on burying these
oil drums, vehicles with the use of
backhoes and other earthmoving
machinery, 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 upon the
recommendation? Explain? (5%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The CHR is correct in describing the crimes
committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined
in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes
Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite the
passage of Rep. Act 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 respectively 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
parole or life imprisonment without the
benefit of parole, as the case maybe in lieu
of the death penalty.
ART 25-PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE
IMPOSED
A. State the two classes of penalties
under the revised Penal Code. Define
each. (1988 Bar Question)
B. May censure be included in a
sentence of acquittal? Why or why not?
(1988 Bar Question)
C. What offenses, if any, may be
punished with the death penalty in our
jurisdiction at present? Explain. (1988 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The two classes of penalties under
Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as
follows:
Page 120 of 417
 Principal 1. Determine the crime committed;
Accessory 2. Stage of execution and degree of
participation;
A principal penalty is defined as that 3. Determine the penalty;
provided for a felony and which is imposed 4. Consider the modifying
by court expressly upon conviction. circumstances;
An accessory penalty is defined as that 5. Determine whether Indeterminate
deemed included in the imposition of the Sentence Law is applicable or not.
principal penalty.
NOTE ON QUESTIONS VI, VII and VIII
B. Censure may not be included in a
sentence of acquittal, because a censure is In answering the three succeeding
a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is problems below, you may need to recall the
essentially inconsistent and contrary to an following ranges of penalty:
acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil.
623.) DEATH
Reclusion Perpetua
C. At present, no offense may be Reclusion Temporal: 12 years and 1 day to
punished with the death penalty in our 20 years
jurisdiction at present. The 1987 Minimum 12 years and 1 day to 14 years a
Constitution has abolished the death 8 months
penalty and the abolition affects even those Medium 14 years, 8 months and 1 day to
who has already been sentenced to death years and 4 months Maximum
penalty. Therefore, unless Congress day to 20
enacts a law, no offense may be punished years
with the death penalty at present. But until Prision Mayor: 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
today, Congress has not yet passed a law
to this effect. Minimum 6 years and 1 day to 8 years
Medium 8 years and 1 day to 10 years
ART 27-DURATION OF PENALTIES Maximum 10 years and 1 day to 12
QUESTION: years
Prision Correcional: 6 months and 1 day to
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, 6 years
and based on the evidence presented and Minimum 6 months and 1 day to 2 years a
the applicable law, you have decided on Medium 2 years, 4 months and 1 day
the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the months
five (5) steps you would follow to determine Maximum 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to
the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated
differently, what are the factors you must Arresto Mayor: 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
consider to arrive at the correct penalty? Minimum 1 month and 1 day to 2 months
(1991 Bar Question) Medium 2 months and 1 day to 4 months
Maximum 4 months and 1 day to 6 months

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ART 27- DURATION OF PENATIES

QUESTION:

Page 121 of 417

A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of
parricide. The court found three mitigating
circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack
of instruction and lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed. The
prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion
perpetua to death.
Impose the proper principal penalty. (1997
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Even if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the
penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3,
Revised Penal Code; People vs.
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs.
Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where the crime
committed was parricide with the two (2)
mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and
lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong, and with no aggravating
circumstance, the Supreme Court held that
the proper penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua.
QUESTION:
A was convicted of the complex crime of
death through falsification of public
document. Since the amount involved did
not exceed P200.00, the penalty
prescribed by law for estafa is arresto
mayor in its medium and maximum
periods. The penalty prescribed by law for
falsification of public document is prision
mayor plus fine not to exceed P5.000.00.
Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE
WITHIN prision correccional (six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years) as
MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision
mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM.
This is in accordance with People vs.
Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549. where it was ruled
that for the purpose of determining the
penalty next lower in degree, the penalty
that should be considered as a starting
point is the whole of prision mayor, it being
the penalty prescribed by law, and not
prision mayor in its maximum period, which
is only the penalty actually applied because
of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
The penalty next lower in degree therefor is
prision correctional and it is within the
range of this penalty that the minimum
should be taken.
QUESTION:
Assume In the preceding problem that
there were two mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstance. Impose
the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There being two (2) mitigating
circumstances without any aggravating
circumstance, the proper prison penalty is
arresto mayor (in any of Its periods, le.
ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day
to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision
correctional in its maximum period four (4)
years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to
six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64,
par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a
penalty contains three periods, each one of
which forms a period In accordance with
Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and
Page 122 of 417
there are two or more mitigating
circumstances and no aggravating
circumstances, the penalty next lower in
degree should be Imposed. For purposes
of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
penalty next lower In degree should be
determined without regard as to whether
the basic penalty provided by the Revised
Penal Code should be applied In its
maximum or minimum period as
circumstances modifying liability may
require. The penalty next lower In degree
to priskm correctional Therefore, as
previously stated, the minimum should be
within the range of arresto mayor and the
maximum is within the range of prision
correccional maltnits maximum period.
ART 27 – PENALTIES – RECLUSION
PERPETUA; PECUNIARY PENALTIES;
PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
QUESTION:
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)
No. 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from
20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this
mean that reclusion perpetua is now a
divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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. Conrado
Lucas 240 SCRA 66 (1995), it was held that
reclusion perpetua has remained an
indivisible penalty as there is no clear
legislative intention to make the penalty
divisible.
ART 38- PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
QUESTION:
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from
pecuniary liabilities. (2%) (2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pecuniary penalties are those which a
convicted offender may be required to pay
in money to the Government. These are:
- fine; and
- costs of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are
those which a convicted offender is
required to pay in money to the offended
party and to the Government. They are:
- reparation of the damage caused;
- indemnification of consequential
damages;
- fine; and
- costs of the proceedings (Art. 38,
RPC)
The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are
payable as civil indemnity to the private
parties offended by the crime; while the last
two (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the
Government.
ART 39-SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
QUESTION:
Pedro was convicted of the crime of
damage to property through reckless
imprudence for bumping the car of Jose
and the court of sentenced him to pay a fine
of P3,Q00. Pedro failed to pay die amount
of the fine for he was insolvent. Later, the
Page 123 of 417
court ordered the incarceration of Pedro so
that the latter could serve subsidiary
imprisonment to satisfy the fine. Pedro filed
a petition for habeas corpus alleging that
his confinement is illegal. Will the petition
prosper? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The petition for habeas corpus will prosper.
Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
penalty which inheres to a principal penalty
and may therefore be imposed even if it is
not expressly provided in the sentence. It is
a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in
the sentence. Hence, unless the judgment
or sentence expressly provides for
subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot
be made to undergo the same (People vs.
Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639).
In this case, the court merely sentenced
Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It was only
LATER that the Court ordered the
incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary
imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay
the amount of the fine. Subsidiary
imprisonment cannot be imposed unless it
is expressly provided in the sentence.
ART 47- CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH
PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED
(Note: no longer of any force or effect
because of the substantive provisions
thereof being inconsistent with RA 9346)
QUESTION:
What are the instances when the death
penalty could not be imposed, although it
should otherwise ordinarily be meted out?
(1997 Bar Question)
ANSWER:
1. When the guilty party is below 18
years of age at the time of the commission
of the crime or when the offender is more
than 70 years of age.
2. When upon appeal or automatic
review of the case by the Supreme Court,
the required majorityvoteisnot obtained for
the imposition of the penalty, in which case
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
QUESTION
A. When was the constitutional
proscription against the imposition of the
death penalty lifted? (1995 Bar Question)
B. When is the execution of the death
penalty suspended under the Revised
Penal Code? (1995 Bar Question)
C. When is the death penalty
commuted under the same Code? (1995
Bar Question)
ANSWER
A. The constitutional proscription
against the imposition of the death penalty
was lifted with the enactment of RA 7659,
otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes
Law, which took effect fifteen (15) days
after publication on December
16,1993,thatisonDecember31,1993
{People vs. Martin Simon, 234 SCRA 555).
B. Death penalty shall not be executed
(a) upon a woman within three years after
date of the sentence, (b) while she is
pregnant, (c) upon a person over 70 years
old (Art. 83 RPC), or (d) upon a convict who
becomes insane after final sentence (Art.
79. RPC).
C. When the convict reaches the age of
70 years the death sentence is commuted
to reclusion perpetua (Art. 83, RPC).
QUESTION:
The death penalty cannot be inflicted under
which of the following circumstances:
Page 124 of 417
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 before 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. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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” (Art. 47, Revised Penal
Code). Instead, the penalty shall be
commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the
accessory penalties provided in Article 40,
RPC.
In circumstance no. I 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 vs. Etfren 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 before they
are elevated to the Supreme Court.
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death
penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the
law violated although its execution shall be
suspended 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.
ART. 48--Delito continuado and continuing
offense
Differentiate delito continuado from a
continuing offense. (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a
term used to denote as only one crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a
single criminal resolution, not susceptible
of division, which are carried out in the
same place and at about the same time,
and violating one and the same penal
provision. The acts done must be impelled
by one criminal intent or purpose, such that
each act merely constitutes a partial
execution of a particular crime, violating
one and the same penal provision. It
involves a concurrence of felonious acts
violating a common right, a common penal
provision, and impelled by a single criminal
impulse (People vs, Ledesma, 73 SCRA
77).
On the other hand, a continuing offense is
one whose essential Ingredients took place
in more than one municipality or city, so
much so that the criminal prosecution may
be instituted and the case tried in the
Page 125 of 417
competent court of any one of such
municipality or city.
The term “continued crime" or delito
continuado mandates that only one
information should be filed against the
offender although a series of felonious acts
were performed; the term “continuing
crime" is more pertinently used with
reference to the venue where the criminal
action may be instituted.
ART. 48--Doctrine of aberratio ictus
At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot
Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead,
resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito,
invoking the doctrine of aberratio ictus,
claims exemption from criminal liability.
If you were the judge, how would you
decide the case? (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will convict Pedrito and
find him guilty of the complex crime of
Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The
single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the
commission of two felonies, one grave
(homicide) and the other less grave
(attempted homicide) thus falling squarely
under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty
would be for the more serious crime
(homicide) in its maximum period (17 years
4 months and 1 day to 20 years).
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could
not be used as a defense as it is not an
exempting circumstance. Pedrito is liable
under the principle of Art. 4, RPC. which
makes a person criminally liable for all the
natural and logical consequences of his
felonious act.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery
with homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank,
and when they were about to get out of the
bank, policemen came and ordered them to
surrender but they fired on the police
officers who fired back and shot it out with
them.
Suppose a bank employee was killed and
the bullet which killed him came from the
firearm of the police officers, with what
crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%]
(1998 Bar Question)
Suppose it was robber D who was killed by
the policemen and the prosecutor charged
A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide.
They demurred arguing that they (A, B and
C were not the ones who killed robber D,
hence, the charge should only be Robbery.
How would you resolve their argument?
(2%) (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B. C and D should be charged with the
crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought
about by the acts of said offenders on the
occasion of the robbery. They shot it out
with the policeman, thereby causing such
death by reason or on the occasion of a
robbery; hence, the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
The argument is valid, considering that a
separate charge for Homicide was filed. It
would be different if the charge filed was for
the composite crime of robbery with
homicide, which is a single, indivisible
offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 126 of 417

2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not
correct because their liability is not only for
Robbery but for the special complex crime
of Robbery with homicide. But the facts
stated impresses that separate crimes of
Robbery “and" Homicide were charged,
which is not correct. What was committed
was a single indivisible offense of Robbery
with homicide, not two crimes.
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery
with homicide
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are
fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns
wherever they go. One night, after
attending a party, they boarded a taxicab,
held the driver at gunpoint and took the
latter's earnings.
What crime, if any, did the four commit if
they killed the driver? Explain.
(2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, 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 circumstance
as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294
(People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52,
December 11, 2003).
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art. 249;
Art. 263; Homicide, Serious Physical
Injuries and Damage to property resulting
from reckless imprudence.
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's
permit, found a parked car with the key left
in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it
away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the
owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make
Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and
pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to
escape, and because of his inexperience,
violently collided with a jeepney full of
passengers. The jeepney overturned and
was wrecked. One passenger was killed:
the leg of the other passenger was crushed
and had to be amputated. The car of Ting
was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00.
What offense or offenses may Dodoy be
charged with? Discuss. (1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Consummated carnnaping. Homicide,
Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to
property resulting from reckless
imprudence.
Please take note that with respect to
Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is
enough to consummate the crime: although
in the Dino case, it is still frustrated
because there is inability to dispose freely
the object.
Criminal law – Execution and service –
Probation Law (PD 968, as amended);
Disqualified offenders
1. A was charged with homicide. After trial,
he was found guilty and sentenced to six
years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as
minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1)
day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
Prior to his conviction, he had been found
guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten
(10) days of arresto menor and fined fifty
Page 127 of 417
pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible for
probation? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he is not eligible. The benefits of the
Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does
not extend to those sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six years (Sec. 9a).
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.
Special law – Probation law – Period;
termination
(1) Maganda was charged with violation of
Bouncing Checks Law (BP 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
P200.000.00, or both. The court convicted
her of the crime and sentenced her to pay
a fine of P50,000.00 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 prior approval.
1. What is the proper period of
probation?
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?
Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. 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. (P.D. 968, Sec.
14[b] (establishing a Probation System) in
correlation with Art. 39, RPC)
2. 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-
terminous with the period of probation;
such conditions continue even after the
period of probation had ended and thus
requires faithful compliance 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 [1990D
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
What is the fundamental principle in
applying and interpreting criminal laws,
including the Indeterminate Sentence Law?
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law
Page 128 of 417
applied in imposing a sentence? (2012
BAR)
Answer:
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.”
(Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People,
G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). In
dubio pro reo, is in consonance with the
constitutional guarantee that the accused
ought to be presumed innocent until and
unless his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt (People v. Temporada,
G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008). If
crime is punishable under the RPC, the
court shall sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term
of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstance, could be properly
imposed under the rules of the said 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. If
the offense is punishable under a 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 prescribed in the same (R.A.
4103, Sec. 1).
QUESTION:
A. Under what circumstances is the
Indeterminate Sentence Law not
applicable? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. A was convicted of illegal
possession of grease guns and two
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?
Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply to:
1. Persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or life
imprisonment*
2. Those convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who violated the terms of
conditional pardon granted to them by the
Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who, upon the approval of the
law (December 5, 1933), had been
sentenced by final judgment;
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of
destierro or suspension.
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 punished 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
Page 129 of 417
the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum prescribed by the same.
QUESTION:
State the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in
cases where the penalty imposed is more
than one year and the ISL shall apply
where there is a minimum penalty which is
not lower than the penalty next lower in
degree provided by law and the maximum
not higher than the maximum penalty
provided by law in cases of felonies but
when it comes to statutory offenses it must
be lower than the minimum penalty
provided by law and not higher than the
maximum penalty provided by law except
in the following cases as provided by
section 2 of Art. 4103:
1. life imprisonment
2. those convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. to those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
4. to those convicted of piracy
5. those who are habitual delinquents
6. to those who shall have escaped
from confinement or evaded sentence
7. to those who having been granted
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
shall have violated the terms thereof
8. to those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year,
not to those already sentenced by final
judgment at the time of approval of this Act,
except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
QUESTION:
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 arraignment, he entered the
plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper
penalty, should the Indeterminate
Sentence Law be applied? If you were the
judge trying the case, what penalty would
you impose on Andres? (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law should
be applied in this case. By express
provision of said law (section 1) it is
applicable to offenses punished by special
laws. The indeter-minate sentence in such
cases shall consist of a maximum term
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
by the special law and a minimum term
which shall not be less than the minimum
term pescribed by the same.
If I were the judge trying the case, I would
impose a penalty consisting of any duration
not less than 5 years as minimum term and
any duration not more than 10 years as
maximum term. It could be five years and 1
day to 7 years; 7 years, six months and 1
day to 9 years; or any other sentence
where the minimum term is not less than 5
years and the maximum term not more
than 10 years.
The plea of guilty cannot be considered as
a mitigating circumstance in this case. The
imposition of the indeterminate penalty in a
special law rests upon the discretion of the
court. Also, the pleas of guilty as a
mitigating circumstance under the Revised
Penal Code is appre-ciated only in a
divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a
penalty which is not divisible into periods of
Page 130 of 417
fixed duration, like the penalty provided in
special laws.
QUESTION:
Jose is charged with bigamy. The Revised
Penal Code prescribes the penalty of
prision mayor for this offense. The
information filed against Jose alleged one
aggravating cir-cumstance. Upon being
arraigned, he entered the plea of guilty and
invoked the additional mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender which
the trial fiscal admitted. If you were the
judge trying the case, from what range of
the prescribed penalty would you
determine the proper penalty (to constitute
the maximum term of an indeterminate
sentence) to be imposed on Jose? (1989
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would take the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence from the range of
prision mayor in its minimum period. This is
so because while there are two ordinary
mitigating circumstances present, one of
them is offset by an aggravating
circumstance. Consequently, it is as if the
crime is attended by only one ordinary
circumstance and this will result in the
imposition of the minimum period of the
penalty prescribed by law.
The presence of two or more ordinary
mitigating circumstances will give rise to a
privileged mitigating circumstance only if
there is no aggravating circumstance
present and the penalty prescribed by law
is divisible. In this case, while the penalty of
prision mayor is divisible, and while there
are two ordinary mitigating circumstances
present, there is an aggravating
circumstance. This precludes the reduction
of the penalty by one degree lower
inasmuch as the two ordinary mitigating
circumstances cannot be considered as a
privileged mitigating circumstance.
QUESTION:
A was charged with homicide. During the
trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of
medical certificates were presented
showing that the accused had sustained
injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while
engaged in fisticuffs with different persons.
He was also confined at the National
Mental Hospital for mental ailment
diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal
instincts.” During his second confinement
thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the
prosecutor objected to the application of
the Indeterminate Sentence Law
contending that the accused is a habitual
delinquent and an escapee from the
National Mental Hospital.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection.
(1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital
will not disqualify him from the application
of the ISL as Section 2 thereof
contemplates having escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence.
Confinement presupposes imprisonment
by virtue of a final judgment.
QUESTION:
When would the Indeterminate Sentence
Law be inapplicable? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page 131 of 417
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not thereof to persons sentenced to life
applicable to: imprisonment.
1. those persons convicted of offenses
punished with death penalty or QUESTION:
lifeimprisonment or reclusion perpetua;
2. those convicted of treason, Macky, a security guard, arrived home late
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; one night after rendering overtime. He was
3. those convicted of misprision of shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his
treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; best friend, in the act of having sexual
4. those convicted of piracy; intercourse. Macky pulled out his service
5. those who are habitual delinquents; gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky was
6. those who shall have escaped from charged with murder for the death of Ken.
confinement or evaded sentence;
7. those who having been granted The court found that Ken died under
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive exceptional circumstances and exonerated
shall have violated the terms thereof; Macky of murder but sentenced him to
8. those whose maximum term of destierro, conformably with Article 247 of
imprisonment does not exceed one year; the Revised Penal Code. The court also
9. those already sentenced by final ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the
judgment at the time of approval of this Act; heirs of the victim in the amount of
and P50,000.
10. those whose sentence imposes
penalties which do not involve While serving his sentence, Macky entered
imprisonment, like distierro. the prohibited area and had a pot session
with Ivy, (Joy's sister). Is Macky entitled to
an indeterminate sentence in case he is
QUESTION: found guilty of use of prohibited
substances? Explain your answer. (2007
Carlos was charged and convicted of Bar Question)
murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
offended party in the amount of P30.000.
He sought a reconsideration of the penalty No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of
on the ground that he should be entitled to the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103,
the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence as amended) for having evaded the
Law. Decide with reasons. (1990 Bar sentence which banished or placed him on
Question) destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly
provides that the law shall not apply to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: those who shall have "evaded sentence".

Carlos is not entitled to avail of the

Indeterminate Sentence Law because Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law
Section 2 of said law specifically – application on the imposed sentence
disqualifies and disallows application

Page 132 of 417

Itos was convicted of an offense penalized
by a special law. The penalty prescribed is
not less than six years but not more than
twelve years. No modifying circumstance
attended the commission of the crime.
If you were the judge, will you apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law? (1994 Bar
Question)
If so, how will you apply it? (1994 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will apply the
provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, as the last sentence of Section I Act
4103, specifically provides the application
thereof for violations of special laws.
Under the same provision, the minimum
must not be less than the minimum
provided therein (six years and one day)
and the maximum shall not be more than
the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve
years. (People vs. Rosalind Reyes, 186
SCRA 184)
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law
– Application on the imposed sentence
Harold was convicted of a crime defined
and penalized by a special 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:
a. a straight penalty of 10 months;
b. 6 months, as minimum, to 11
months, as maximum;
c. a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%)
(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 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 exceed one
year.
b) A prison term of 6 months as
minimum, to 11 months, as maximum 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.
c) 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 disqualified from the
benefits of the said Law.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law
– Application on the imposed sentence as
defined by special law
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 arraignment, he entered a
plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper
penalty, should the Indeterminate
Sentence Law be applied? If you were the
judge trying the case, what penalty would
Page 133 of 417
you impose on Andres? (4%) (1999 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law
should be applied because the minimum
imprisonment is more than one (I) 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 minimum and
maximum.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law
– Application on the imposed sentence
[a] In a conviction for homicide, the trial
court appreciated two (2) mitigating
circumstances and one (1) aggravating
circumstance. Homicide under Article 249
of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by
reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine
the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum of the sentence shall be
anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1
day to 12 years imprisonment while the
maximum of the sentence shall be
anywhere within the range of Reclusion
Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12
yrs. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and
8 months.
[b] Will your answer be the same if it is a
conviction for illegal possession of drugs
under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous 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?
Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. My answer will not be the same
because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are
mala prohibita in which mitigating and
aggravating circumstances are not
appreciated. Although in People v. Simon
(234 SCRA 555 [1994]), it was held that Art.
64 can be applied if the special law adopted
the nomenclature of penalties provided
under the RPC, such pronouncement
cannot be applied in the instant case
because the penalties for illegal
possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not
follow the technical nomenclature of
penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be
divided into periods. Hence, the existence
of mitigating and aggravating
circumstances cannot be appreciated.
Special law – Penalties – Indeterminate
Sentence Law (RA 4103); Maximum and
the minimum terms of the indeterminate
sentence
How are the maximum and the minimum
terms of the indeterminate sentence for
offenses punishable under the Revised
Penal Code determined? (3%) (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For crimes punished under the Revised
Penal Code, the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence shall be the
penalty properly imposable under the same
Page 134 of 417
Code after considering the attending
mitigating and/or aggravating
circumstances according to Art. 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.
Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law
(R.A. No. 4103, as amended) – Penalty
imposable for the crime of homicide
An agonizing and protracted trial having
come to a close, the judge found A guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and
imposed on him a straight 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 chimed in,
contending that application of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to
the imposition of a straight penalty of SIX
(6) months and ONE (1) day of prision
correccional only. Who of the three is on
the right track? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
None of the contentions is correct because
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103,
as amended) has not been followed.
The imposition of penalty for the crime of
homicide, which is penalized by
imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and
is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate
Sentence 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.
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
assaulted her five (5) times that night.
Roman was charged with, and was
convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the
judge did not impose the penalty of
reclusion perpetua 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? (2013 BAR)
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 it
decision and sentence the accused to not
more than the threefold of the most severe
of the penalties imposable. The
Page 135 of 417
computation under the threefold rule is for the dissenting opinion of Justice I. Cruz in
the prison authorities to make. said case.

ART 78-88 – EXECUTION OF PENALTIES

Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the – Simultaneous service of penalties
civil aspect of the decision.
What are the penalties that may be served
Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of simultaneously? (2007 Bar Question)
serious physical injuries and, taking into
account two (2) mitigating circumstances, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of
four (4) months and twenty (20) days, and The penalties that may be served
to indemnify the victim in the amount of simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro
P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory and:
damages. He applied for probation, which 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
was granted by the court; however, the 2. Perpetual special disqualification;
order of probation directed him to pay in 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
installment, at the rate of P1,000.00 a 4. Temporary special disqualification;
month, the damages awarded to the 5. Suspension from public office, the
offended party. Jose was able to pay only right to vote and be voted for, and the right
three (3) monthly installments. Because of to follow a profession or calling;
such failure, the offended party filed a 6. Fine; and any principal penalty with
motion for the execution of the civil aspect its accessory penalties.
of the decision.
(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended
Is the order directing the payment of the by R.A. No. 10707)
damages in installment valid? Did it not (a) Definition of terms
modify the decision after it had become (b) Purpose
final? (1991 Bar Question) (c) Grant of probation, manner and
conditions
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (d) Criteria of placing an offender on
probation
Yes, the order directing payment in (e) Disqualified offenders
installment is proper. It did not modify the (f) Period of probation
final decision but only in the manner of its (g) Arrest of probationer
execution. (Similarly situated in the case of (h) Termination of probation; exception
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals). see also: The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
Should the motion for execution be 9165)
granted? (1991 Bar Question) PROBATION LAW OF 1976

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under which of the following circumstances

is probation not applicable? (2012
Execution should be granted as the BAR)
decision is final and executory, following

Page 136 of 417

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 convicted 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.
** No correct answer. In 2012 when this
exam was given, the correct answer is “c”
because Indirect Assault is a Crime against
Public Order. Under Section 9 of the
Probation Law, PD 968 as amended,
probation shall not extend to those
offenders convicted of any crime against
the national security and the public order.
However, The Probation Law has been
recently amended by RA 10707, which was
approve last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA
10707, those “offenders convicted of any
crime against th public order” have been
excluded from the list of disqualified
offenders to avail of probation.
The period of probation of the offender
sentenced to a term of one (1) year shall
not exceed: (2012 BAR)
a) two (2) years;
b) six (6) years;
c) one (1) year;
d) three (3) years.
Andres was convicted of frustrated
homicide and was sentenced to 6 years
and 1 day as minimum, to 8 years of prision
mayor as maximum. Andres appealed his
conviction to the Court of Appeals, which
convicted him of attempted homicide, and
sentenced him to 6 months of arresto
mayor as minimum, to 4 years of prision
correccional as maximum. Instead of
appealing his conviction, Andres filed an
application for probation with the Regional
Trial Court. Is Andres
qualified to avail of the benefits of the
probation law? (2013 BAR)
(A) No, because when he filed a notice
of appeal with the Court of Appeals, he
waived his right under the probation law.
(B) Yes, because after his appeal, he
qualified for probation as the sentence
imposed on him was less than 6 years.
(Colinares vs. People, GR 182748,
December 13, 2011)
(C) Yes, because the probation law is
meant to favor the accused.
(D) No, because his previous sentence
of more than 6 years disqualified him so
that he can no longer avail of probation as
an alternative remedy.
(E) None of the above.
Juancho owns a small piggery in Malolos,
Bulacan. One Saturday afternoon, he
discovered that all his pigs had died.
Suspecting that one of his neighbours had
poisoned the pigs, Juancho went home,
took his rifle, went around the
neighbourhood, and fired his rifle in the air
while shouting, "makakatikim sa akin ang
naglason ng mga baboy ko." Barangay
officials requested police assistance and
Juancho was apprehended. Juancho was
charged with and convicted of the crime of
alarms and scandals. Juancho did not
appeal his conviction.
Is Juancho qualified for probation? (2013
BAR)
(A) Yes, because the penalty for alarms
and scandals is less than six (6) years.
(B) Yes, because Juancho did not
appeal his conviction.
(C) No, because the crime of alarms
and scandals carries with it a fine ofP200.
Page 137 of 417
(D) No, because the crime of alarms
and scandals affects public order. (E)
None of the above.
** In 2013 when this exam was given, the
correct answer was “D” because Alarms
and Scandal is a Crime against Public
Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation
Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall
not extend to those offenders convicted of
any crime against the national security and
the public order.
However, The Probation Law has been
recently amended by RA 10707, which was
approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA
10707, those “offenders convicted of any
crime against the public order” have been
excluded from the list of disqualified
offenders to avail of probation.
Special law – Probation law - Legal effect
of application for probation on the judgment
of conviction
Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime
of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of
Manila. He was imposed the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2
months and 1 day as minimum and six
years as maximum, both of prision
correccional and was ordered to imdemnify
the offended party in the amount of
P3.000.00. He filed an application for
probation upon the promulgation of the
judgment.
What is the legal effect of his application for
probation on the judgment of conviction?
Does said application interrupt the running
of the period of appeal? (1992 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The filing of the application for probation is
considered as a waiver of the right of the
accused to appeal; the decision has
become final. In view of the finality of the
decision there is no period of appeal to
speak of.
Special law – Probation law – Purpose of
probation law
“A” was charged with theft and upon
arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge.
He was detained for failure to post bail.
After “two (2) months, a decision was
rendered, sentencing “A” to an
indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1)
year and one (1) month as maximum, and
to pay the offended party the amount of
P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day
the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge
issued a Commitment Order addressed to
the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28,
1985, “A applied for probation but his
application was denied on the ground that
the sentence of conviction became final
and executory on
January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to
serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for
probation? b) What is the purpose of the
probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The purposes of the Probation Law are:
1. to promote the correction and
rehabilitation of an offender by providing
him with individualized treatment;
2. to provide an opportunity for the
reformation of a penitent offender which
might be less probable if he were to serve
a prison sentence; and
3. to prevent the commission of
offenses.
Page 138 of 417

Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant
of probation
The accused was found guilty of grave oral
defamation in sixteen (16) Informations
which were tried jointly and was sentenced
in one decision to suffer in each case a
prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day
to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
prision correccional. Within the period to
appeal, he filed an application for probation
under the Probation Law of 1976, as
amended. Could he possibly qualify for
probation? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243
SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in
case of one decision imposing multiple
prison terms, the totality of the prison terms
should not be taken into account for the
purposes of determining the eligibility of the
accused for the probation. The law uses
the word "maximum term", and not total
term. It is enough that each of the prison
terms does not exceed six years. The
number of offenses is immaterial for as
long as the penalties imposed, when taken
individually and separately, are within the
probationable period.
Special law –Execution and service –
Probation Law (PD 968, as amended);
grant of probation, manner and conditions
May a probationer appeal from the decision
revoking the grant of probation or modifying
the terms and conditions thereof? (2%)
(2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law,
as amended, an order granting or denying
probation is not appealable.
Special law – Probation law – improper
denial thereof
Boyet Mar was charged with consented
abduction by a 17-year old complainant.
The accused made wedding arrangements
with the girl, but her parents insisted on the
prosecution of the case. To avoid further
embarrassment of a court trial for him and
the girl, the accused entered a plea of
guilty. He then filed a petition for probation
before serving sentence, but the court
denied the petition on the ground that “it
would be better for the accused to serve
sentence so that he would reform himself
and avoid the scandal in the community
that would be caused by the grant of the
petition."
The accused served sentence but he
brought the matter to the Supreme
Court in a petition for certiorari.
Did the trial court act correctly in denying
the petition for probation? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta
vs. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719, the Judge
precisely denied the petition for probation
on the same excuse stated in the problem.
The Supreme Court held that an accused
must fall within any one of the
disqualifications stated in Section 9 of P.D.
960 in order to be denied probation.
Special law – Probation law – Criteria of
placing an offender on probation
Page 139 of 417
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? Explain briefly.
(5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tes, PX may apply for probation. His
previous conviction for another crime with
a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not
exceeding 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 (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree
No. 968).
Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for
probation
“A” was charged with theft and upon
arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge.
He was detained for failure to post bail.
After “two (2) months, a decision was
rendered, sentencing “A” to an
indeterminate sentence of six (6) months
and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1)
year and one (1) month as maximum, and
to pay the offended party the amount of
P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day
the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge
issued a Commitment Order addressed to
the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28,
1985, “A applied for probation but his
application was denied on the ground that
the sentence of conviction became final
and executory on January 16, 1985, when
“A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is
“A” eligible for probation? b) What is the
purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A is still eligible for probation since he filed
his application for probation within 15 days
from the promulgation of the judgment.
Under the Probation Law; the accused may
apply for probation WITHIN THE PERIOD
FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL which is
15 days from promulgation or notice
thereof.
The judge committed an error in issuing a
Commitment Order on the same day of
promulgation. A commitment order for the
convict to begin serving his sentence can
be validly issued only if the period for
perfecting an appeal has expired with no
appeal being taken. The fact that in
compliance with such-order, which is void,
the accused commenced to serve his
sentence does not bar him from availing
himself of the benefits of the Probation
Law.
It is true that under the new Rules on
Criminal Procedure it is provided that a
judgment in a criminal case becomes final
after the lapse of the period for perfecting
an appeal, or when the sentence has been
partially or totally satisfied or served, or the
accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7,
Rule 120). But Section 9 of the same Rule
provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be
construed as affecting any existing
provision in the law governing suspension
of sentence, probation or parole.”
The probation law does not speak of filing
an application for probation BEFORE
judgment has become final. It only speaks
of filing the application WITHIN THE
Page 140 of 417
PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
There is nothing in the Probation Law that
bars an accused who has commenced to
serve his sentence from filing an
application for probation provided he does
so WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR
PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
What the Probation Law provides is that no
application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment or
conviction. It does not say that no
application shall be entertained if the
judgment has become final because the
convict has commenced to serve his
sentence.
Special law – Probation law – Eligibility for
probation
Joe was 17 years old when he committed
homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable
by reclusion temporal. After two years in
hiding, he was arrested and appropriately
charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act
9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to
avail of the process of intervention or
diversion.
[e] Suppose Joe was convicted of
attempted murder with a special
aggravating circumstance and was denied
suspension of sentence, would he be
eligible for probation under Presidential
Decree (PD) 968, considering that the
death penalty is imposable for the
consummated felony? Explain. (2%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. He would be eligible for probation
because the penalty imposable on Joe will
not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
Even if it would be considered that the
crime committed was punishable by death,
the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can
only be reclusion perpetua because Rep.
Act 9344 forbids the imposition of the
capital punishment upon offenders
thereunder.
The murder being attempted only, the
prescribed penalty is two degree lower than
reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor.
Because Joe was 17 years old when he
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.
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified
offenders
Carlos was charged and convicted of
murder. He was sentenced to life
imprisonment and to indemnify the
offended party in the amount of P30.000.
And instead of filing a motion for
reconsideration he applies for probation. If
you were the judge, will you grant the
same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will not grant the application for probation
as it is clear in the Probation Law that the
benefits thereof shall not apply to those
sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years.
(P.D. 1990).
Criminal law – Probation law – Disqualified
offenders
Page 141 of 417

Who are the offenders disqualified from
availing themselves of the benefits of the
probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)?
(1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following offenders are disqualified
from availing of the benefits of the
Probation Law:
• those sentenced to serve maximum
term of imprisonment of more than six
years;
• those convicted of subversion or any
crime against the national security of the
public order;
• those 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 two hundred pesos;
• those who have been once on
probation under the provisions of this
decree; and
• those who are already serving
sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this decree applicable
pursuant to Section 33 of P.D. 968.
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified
offenders
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was
convicted of arson through reckless
imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of
P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of in-solvency By the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City. On February 10,
1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Several months later, he filed a motion to
withdraw the appeal on the ground that he
is applying for probation. On May 7, 1987,
the Court of Appeals granted the motion
and considered the appeal withdrawn.
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case
were remanded to the trial court. Roberto
filed a “Motion for Probation" praying that
execution of his sentence be suspended,
and that a probation officer be ordered to
conduct an investigation and to submit a
report on his probation.
The judge denied the motion on the ground
that pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986,
no application for probation shall be
entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.
Is the denial of Roberto’s motion correct?
(1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction
Roberto was qualified for probation but that
at the time of his application for probation,
he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled
to probation. The qualification for probation
must be determined as of the time the
application is filed in Court (Ber-nardo vs.
Judge. etal, GRNo. L86561, Nov. 10, 1992;
Edwtn de la Cruz vs. Judge CaUejo, et al,
SP-19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado
vs. CA, et al., GR No. 84859, June 28.
1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et aL
GR 86561, Nov. 10.1992
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified
offenders
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the
RTC of Manila and sentenced to four (4)
Years, two (2) months and one (1) day of
prision correctional as minimum to eight (o)
Page 142 of 417
years and twenty (20) days of prision
mayor as maximum.
Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals
which found him guilty only of Theft and
sentenced him to a straight penalty of one
(1J Year. The decision of the appellate
court was promulgated in May, 1993.
1. Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of
the Probation Law which became effective
on Jan. 3, 1978? Why?
2. Suppose the prison term imposed
by the RTC in the above example is only
two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years
as maximum and Juanito did not appeal.
When he applied for probation, it was
discovered that in March, 1960, a Municipal
Court has sentenced him to a six-month
imprisonment for less serious physical
injuries which he fully served. May his
application for probation be granted?
Reason out.(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Juanito is not entitled to probation
because the law, as amended, requires the
filing of the application within the period for
perfecting an appeal.
2. He is not entitled to the Probation
Law because Section 9 (c) provides that
probation shall not be extended to those
"who have previously 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."
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified
offenders
In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit
of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise
habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a
penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day and
to pay a fine of P6.000.00 with the
accessory penalties provided by law, plus
costs. Vincent applied for probation. The
probation officer favorably recommended
his application.
If you were the judge, what action will you
take on the application?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a
crime for which he was sentenced to a
maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under
the law, he is not eligible for probation. He
seasonably appealed his conviction. While
affirming the judgment of conviction, the
appellate court reduced the penalty to a
maximum of four (4) years and four (4)
months taking into consideration certain
modifying circumstances. Vincent now
applies for probation.
How will you rule on his application?
Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will deny the
application for probation. The accused is
not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the
Probation Law. PD NO. 968, as amended,
specifically mentions that those who “are
sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years" are
not entitled to the benefits of the law.
The law and jurisprudence are to the effect
that appeal by the accused from a
sentence of conviction forfeits his right to
probation.(Sec. 4. PD No. 968, as
amended by PD 1990; Bernardo vs.
Page 143 of 417
Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs.
CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. CA
case).
N.B to No. 2
This Is the second consecutive year that
this question was asked. It is the sincere
belief of the Committee that there is a need
to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly, much as
the accused wanted to apply for probation
he is proscribed from doing so as the
maximum penalty is NOT
PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the
maximum penalty was reduced to one
which aUows probation it is but fair and j
ust to grant him that right because it is
apparent that the trial judge committed an
error and for which the accused should not
be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in this
jurisdiction are not only courts of law but
also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the
appellate court should be considered a new
decision as the trial court’s decision was
vacated: hence, he could take advantage
of the law when the decision is remanded
to the trial court for execution (Please see
Dissenting opinion in Francisco us. CA).
It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee
answering in this tenor should be credited
with some points.
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified
offenders
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 imprisonment. A appealed the
decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals
but his appeal was dismissed. May A still
apply for probation? Explain. (5%) (2001
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is no longer qualified to apply for
probation after he appealed from the
judgment of conviction by the RTC. The
probation law (PD 968. as amended by
PD1990) now provides that no application
for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the accused has perfected an
appeal from the judgment of conviction
(Sec. 4. PD 968).
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified
offenders
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial
Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum
of eight years. He appealed both his
conviction and the penalty imposed upon
him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate
court ultimately sustained 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? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Juan can no longer avail of the
probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court, and
therefore, cannot apply for probation
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law,
as amended, mandates that no application
for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the accused has perfected an
appeal from the judgment of conviction.
ART.7-Execution and service – Application
for suspended sentence
Page 144 of 417
There are at least 7 instances or situations
in criminal cases wherein the accused,
either as an adult or as a minor, can apply
for and/or be granted a suspended
sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them.
5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Instances when sentence may be
suspended are: (at least 7 instances)
1. where the accused became insane
before sentence could be promulgated (Art.
79, RPC);
2. where the offender, upon conviction
by the trial court, filed an application for
probation which has been granted
(Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA
148119841);
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 Art. 192, PD 603, otherwise
referred to as the Child and Youth Welfare
Code; and
5. where the, crime was committed
when the offender is under 18 years of age
and he is found guilty thereof in accordance
with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise known as
the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006", but the 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. the death sentence shall be
suspended upon a woman while she is
pregnant or within one year after delivery.
(Art. 83, Revised Penal Code)
7. Section 66 of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002)
SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence 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 judgment should have been
promulgated after having been found guilty
of said offense, 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 of 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 xxx"
"SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of
a First-Time Minor Offender. - An accused
8. When the sentence is death, its
execution may be suspended or postponed
by the Supreme Court, through the
issuance of a RO upon the ground of
supervening events (Echegaray v.
Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96
[19991).
Explain the application of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law (ISL). (5%)
Suggested answer
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,
Page 145 of 417
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 prescribed by the same,
(Sec. 1, 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.
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Taylor was convicted of a violation of the
Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment of one year as minimum, to
three years as maximum. The decision of
the trial court was affirmed on appeal and
became final and executory. Taylor failed
to appear when summoned for execution of
judgment, prompting the judge to issue an
order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use
the backdoor and left for the United States.
Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the
Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the
warrant of arrest against him, on the
ground that the penalty imposed against
him had already prescribed. (2015 BAR)
a) If you were the judge, would you
grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain.
Answer:
If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to
quash. Article 93 of the Revised Penal
Code provides when the prescription of
penalties shall commence to run. Under
said provision, it shall commence to run
from the date the felon evades the service
of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of
the same Code, evasion of service of
sentence can be committed only by those
who have been convicted by final judgment
by escaping during the term of his
sentence. Taylor never served a single
minute of his sentence, and thus,
prescription never started to run in his
favor. Clearly, one who has not been
committed to prison cannot be said to have
escaped therefrom ( Del Castillo v.
Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December
18, 2002).
b) Assuming that instead of the United
States, Taylor was able to go to another
country with which the Philippines had no
extradition treaty, will your answer be the
same? Explain.
Answer:
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 extradition
treaty to interrupt the running of
prescription is not applicable nor even
material because the period of prescription
is not applicable nor even material because
the period of prescription had not
commenced to run in the first place; hence,
there is nothing to interrupt.
ART. 89-93 Extinction of criminal liability-
prescription of crimes
B imitated the signature of A, registered
owner of a lot, in special power of attorney
Page 146 of 417
naming him (B) as the attorney- in-fact of A
On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot
to a bank using the special power of
attorney to obtain a loan of P8.500.00. On
the same day, both the special power of
attorney and the mortgage contract were
duly registered in the Registry of Deeds.
Because of B’s failure to pay. The bank
foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was
sold to X in whose name a new title was
issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that
the property was already registered in the
name of X because of an ejectment case
filed against him by X.
If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime
or crimes would you charge B?
Explain.(1993 Bar Question)
If you were the counsel of B. what would be
your defense? Discuss.(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is estafa thru
falsification of public document.
My defense will be prescription because
the crime was committed in 1964 and
almost twenty nine years had already
elapsed since then. Even if we take
Falsification and Estafa individually, they
have already prescribed. It is to be noted
that when it comes to discovery, the fact
that the crime was discovered in 1964 will
be of no moment because the offended
party is considered to have constructive
notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale
where his signature had been falsified was
registered in the office of the Register of
Deeds (Cabral vs. Pu.no, 70 SCRA 606).
Through kickbacks, percentages or
commissions and other fraudulent
schemes/conveyances and taking
advantage of his position, Andy, a former
mayor of a suburban 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 participated in.
May Andy still be held criminally liable?
Why? (1993 Bar Question)
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? Reason out. .(1993 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andy will not be criminally liable because
Section 6 of RA 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.
Can the State still recover? 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.
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 registered in the civil
Page 147 of 417
registry of Davao City three days after its
celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy
who remained in Batanes discovered the
marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976
Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against
Joe.
The crime of bigamy prescribed 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 fifteen years having elapsed from the
celebration of the bigamous marriage up to
the filing of Marcy’s complaint. He
contended that the registration of his
second 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? Discuss fully.
(1995 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of
bigamy is computed from the time the
crime was discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents. The
principle of constructive notice which
ordinarily 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 reglamentary period as it was barely a
few months from the time of discovery on
10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233
SCRA 155)
A was charged in an information with the
crime of grave oral defamation but after
trial, the court found him guilty only of the
offense of simple slander. He filed a motion
for reconsideration contending that, under
the law, the crime of simple slander would
have prescribed in two months from
commission, and since the information
against him was filed more than four
months after the alleged commission of the
crime, the same had already prescribed.
The Solicitor General opposed the motion
on two grounds: first, in determining the
prescriptive period, the nature of the
offense charged in the information should
be considered, not the crime proved;
second, assuming that the offense had
already prescribed, the defense was
waived by the failure of A to raise it in a
motion to quash.
Resolve the motion for reconsideration.
(1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion for reconsideration should be
granted.
The accused cannot be convicted of the
offense of simple slander although it is
necessarily included in the offense of grave
slander charged in the information,
because, the lesser offense had already
prescribed at the time the information was
filed (People vs. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G.
6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538;
Magat vs. People, 201SCRA 21) otherwise
prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule
of prescription in light offenses by the
simple expediment of filing a graver offense
which includes such light offense.
While the general rule is the failure of an
accused to file a motion to quash before he
pleads to the complaint or information, shall
Page 148 of 417
be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a
motion to quash, the exceptions to this are:
(1) no offense was charged in the
complaint or information; (2) lack of
jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or
penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the
ground invoked by the accused in his
motion for reconsideration is extinction of
the offense, then it can be raised even after
plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on
appeal (People vs. Balagtas)
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 angry 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 & 1/2) 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 &
1/2 years? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for
the death of Ara despite 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 authority. It was discovered by the
NBI authorities only when Albert revealed
to them the commission of the crime.
Hence, the period of prescription of
20years for homicide commenced to run
only from the time Albert revealed the same
to the NBI authorities.
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for
concubinage committed in February 1987
was filed against Roberto in the Municipal
Trial Court 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?
Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscals 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 information, not by the result
of proof. (People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA
193)
Page 149 of 417

A. OW is a private person engaged in cattle
ranching. One night, he saw AM stabbed
CV treacherously, then throw the dead
man’s body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs
body was never seen nor found; and OW
told no one what he had witnessed.
Yesterday after consulting 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? Reason briefly. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder
despite the lapse of 25 years, because the
crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its
prescriptive 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, Revised Penal Code). OW,
a private person 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.
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at
midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador
witnessed the entire incident, but he was so
scared to tell the authorities about it.
On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered
by his conscience, reported the matter to
the police. After investigation, the police
finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980.
Charged in court, Baldo claims that the
crime he committed had already
prescribed.
Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain.
(3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Baldo's contention is not correct
because the crime committed has not yet
prescribed. The prescriptive period of the
crime committed commenced to run only
after it was reported to the police on
January 2, 1970, not on the date it was
clandestinely committed on January 2,
1960. Under the discovery rule, which
governs when a crime is not publicly
committed, the prescriptive period of a
crime commences to run only from the day
on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their
agents: in this case, from January 2, 1970
when it was made known to the police
authorities until January 6, 1980, when
Baldo was arrested and charged. The
killing committed, whether it be homicide or
murder, is punishable by an afflictive
penalty which prescribes in twenty (20)
years, whereas only around ten (10) years
had lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the
authorities discovered the commission of
the crime) to January 6, 1920 (when the
accused was charged in court).
A killed his wife and buried her in their
backyard. He immediately went into hiding
in the mountains. 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
Page 150 of 417
years of hiding, A left the country but
returned three years later to take care of his
ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was
charged with parricide but raised the
defense of prescription.
A. Under the Revised Penal Code,
when does the period of prescription of a
crime commence to run? (1%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generally, the period of prescription of a
crime commences to run from the date it
was committed; but if the crime was
committed clandestinely, 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 (Art 91, RPC).
B. When is it interrupted? (1%) (2010
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The running of the prescriptive period of the
crime is interrupted when "any kind of
investigative proceeding is instituted
against the guilty person which may
ultimately lead to his prosecution"
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R.
No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
C. Is A's defense tenable? Explain.
(3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of prescription of the crime
is not tenable. The crime committed is
parricide which prescribes in twenty (20)
years (Art 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
prescriptive 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
(Art. 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 prescription starts running. Adding the
7 years of prescription and the 6 years that
lapsed before the case was filed, only a
total of thirteen (13) years of the
prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence the
crime has not yet prescribed
ART.89/ART. 94--Total and partial
extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to
civil liability
a) How is criminal liability totally
extinguished? (1988 Bar Question)
b) How is criminal liability extinguished
partially? (1988 Bar Question)
c) If an accused is acquitted, does it
necessarily follows that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be
awarded in the same judgment? (1988 Bar
Question)
Page 151 of 417
Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal
Code provides for the following causes of
total extinction of criminal liability:
1. Death of the convict as to personal
penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities,
liability therefore is extinguished only when
death occurs before final judgment.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the offended woman as
provided in Article 344.
b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal
Code provides for the following causes of
partial extinction of criminal liability:
1. Condition pardon
2. Communication of sentence
3. Good conduct allowances during
confinement
4. Parole
5. Probation
If an accused acquitted, it does not
necessarily follow that no civil liability
arising from the acts complained of may be
awarded in the same judgment except: If
there is an express waiver of the liability;
and if there is a reservation of file a
separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs.
CA People vs. Jalandoni).
ART. 89--Extinguishment of criminal
liability; civil liability
For defrauding Loma, Alma was charged
before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was
convicted. While the case was pending
appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the
same province, Loma who was then
suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma
manifested to the court that with Loma's
death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil
liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma’s
contention correct? What if it were Alma
who died, would it affect her criminal and
civil liabilities? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)
a. 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. (2%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) 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 vs. Misola, 87
Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the
civil liability of Alma based on the offense
committed by her is not extinguished. The
estate of Loma 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 (Art. 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 quasidelicts
(People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R.
152007, September 2, 1994).
Page 152 of 417
b. Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from
a criminal case extinguishes 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 reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New
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 forthe filing of a separate civil
action;
6. In cases of independent civil actions
provided for in Arts. 31,32,33 and 34 of the
New Civil Code;
7. When the judgment of acquittal
includes a declaration that the fact from
which the civil liability might arise did not
exist (Saplera vs. CA. 314 SCRA370);
8. Where the civil liability is not derived
or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is acquitted (Saplera vs. CA, 314
SCRA 370).
Note : Only two (2) exceptions are asked.
ART. 89--Effect of death of the accused on
civil liability
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment
by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the
heirs of the victim the total amount of
P250,000.00. While his appeal was
pending before the Supreme
Court, PM died. The defense counsel
manifested that PM’s death extinguished
not only the criminal liability but also the
pecuniary liability because the death
occurred before the final judgment, since
the case was pending appeal. He invoked
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that “criminal liability is totally
extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict,
as to the personal penalties; and as to
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is
extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before the final judgment*’
As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor
General, do you agree with the defense
counsel’s argument? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the
argument of the defense counsel that the
death of PM while his appeal was pending
extinguished not only his criminal liability
but also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code which provides
that the “pecuniary liability of the accused
is extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurred before the final
judgment”, refers to his liability to pay the
fine. (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA
120). The civil liability, however, survives
the death of the offender because death is
not a valid cause of the extinguishment of
civil obligation. (Tonijos vs. Court of
Appeals 67 SCRA 394).
ART. 89/ART. 112--Effect of death of
accused on criminal and civil liability
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his
former sweetheart by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila and he was ordered to
serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to in-
demnify Letty in the amount of P30.000.00
Page 153 of 417
and to support their offspring. Pending
appeal in the Supreme Court. Rico died.
His widow, Bemie, moved for a dismissal of
the case
A. What is the legal effect of Rico’s
death on his criminal liability? Explain your
answer. (1990 Bar Question)
B. How about on his civil liability? State
your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The criminal liability of Rico is
extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of
the Revised Penal Code which provides
that: “ How criminal liability is extinguished
- Criminal liability is totally extiguished: 1.
By the death of the convict, as to the
personal penalties; and as to pecuniary
penalties, liability therefor is extinguished
only when the death of the offender occurs
before final judgement.
B. The civil liability of Rico survives.
(People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20,
1978, 74 O.G. 4371; People v. Tirol G.R.
No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People v.
Naboa, et, al.,132 SCRA 410).
ART. 89--effect death of the accused
pending appeal on his criminal and
pecuniary liabilities
Librado was convicted of malversation for
which he has imposed the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment with the following
accessory penalties provided by law - a fine
of P6.000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of in-solvency;
perpetual special disqualification;
indemnification to the government in the
amount of P6.000.00 and to pay the costs.
If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal
effect of his death on his criminal and
pecuniary liabilities? (1992 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Art. 89. RPC and jurisprudence
(People vs. Jose. 71 SCRA 273, People vs.
Alison. 44 SCRA 523; etc.) death of the
accused pending appeal extinguishes his
criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability
includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine.
Hence, the same, together with the
disqualification and the costs are
extinguished.
ART.89--Criminal and civil liability; when
extinguished
A. 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 children, and a million-
peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his
death on his criminal as well as civil
liability? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 Art. 1157, Civil Code, such
Page 154 of 417
as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and
quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts.
(People v. Bayotas, 236SCRA 239
11994B.
Civil indemnity and damages under the
Revised Penal Code are recoverable only
if the accused had been convicted with
finality before he died.
ART. 89 Criminal law – Modification and
extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and
Amnesty
B. 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 hometown. His
opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY
contended he is not disqualified because
he was already pardoned by the President
unconditionally.
Is TRY’S contention correct? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. No, TRY's contention is not correct.
Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code
expressly provides that when the death
penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon, the accessory
penalties of perpetual absolute
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 expressly remitted in the pardon.
A. Enumerate the differences between
pardon and amnesty. 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
B. Under Presidential Proclamation
No. 724, amending Presidential
Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are
covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at
least 5 of these crimes. 2.5%
C. Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky
Soliman apply for amnesty? How about
columnist Randy David? (You are
supposed to know the crimes or offenses
ascribed to them as published in almost all
newspapers for the past several months.)
2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
D. General Lim and General Querubin
of the Scout Rangers and Philippine
Marines, respectively, were charged with
conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman under the Articles of War. Can
they apply for amnesty?
2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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
executory 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.
Page 155 of 417

In amnesty;
The criminal complexion of the act
constituting the crime is erased, as though
such act was innocent when committed;
hence, the effects of the conviction are
obliterated. Amnesty is granted is 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 the conformity or
concurrence of the Philippine Senate.
r.2. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave)
r.3. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition)
r.4. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or
Sedition)
r.5. Art. 94 (Various Crimes)
r.6. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer
and gentleman)
r.7. Art. 97 (General Article)
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty
are: (at least 5)

B. Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty, a. Illegal assembly;

under Presidential Proclamation No. b. Alarms and scandal;
724: (at least 5) c. Illegal association;
a. Rebellion or insurrection d. Disloyalty by public
b. Coup d'etat officers/employees;
c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit e. Illegal possession of firearms.
rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat
d. Disloyalty' of public officers or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
employs
e. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may
f. Sedition apply for amnesty because the crime
g. Conspiracy to commit sedition respectively imputed to them are crimes
h. Inciting to sedition against public order which are among the
i. Illegal assembly crimes covered by amnesty.
j. Illegal association
k. Direct Assault
l. Indirect Assault
m. Resistance and disobedience to a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
person in authority or agents of such Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of
persons the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines
n. Tumults and other disturbances of can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct
public order unbecoming an officer and a gentleman
o. Unlawful use of means of under Article 96 of the Articles of War is
publication and unlawful utterances explicitly enumerated in Section 1 of
p. Alarms and scandals Presidential Proclamation No 724 as one of
q. Illegal poSsession of firearms, the crimes that are covered by the grant of
ammunitions, and explosives, committed in amnesty.
furtherance of, incident to, or in connection
with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court,
r. Violations of Articles of War: was convicted of malversation and was
r.1. Art. 59 (Desertion) sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of

Page 156 of 417

P5.000.00 and to indemnify the
government in the same amount. Pending
appeal in the Court of Appeals, she was
extended an absolute pardon by the
President. Thus, she applied for
reinstatement, payment of backwages, and
absolution from payment of the One and
indemnify.
Decide the issue with reasons. (1990 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as
there was no effective pardon by the
President. It is basic that pardon can only
be granted after final conviction
(Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642
Criminal law - Modification and extinction of
criminal liability – Pardon by the Chief
Executive
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan
of estafa through falsification of public
document. She was sentenced accordingly
and ordered to pay, among others,
P5,000.00 representing the balance of the
amount defrauded.
The case reached the Supreme Court
which affirmed the judgment of conviction.
During the pendency of Linda’s motion for
reconsideration in the said Court, the
President extended to her an absolute
pardon which she accepted.
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
Department of Finance requesting that she
be restored to her former post as assistant
treasurer, which is still vacant.
The Department ruled that Linda may be
reinstated to her former position without the
necessity of a new appointment and
directed the City Treasurer to see to it that
the sum of P5.000.00 be satisfied.
Claiming that she should not be made to
pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
Office of the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the
appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute
pardon, is the only ground for
reinstatement to one's former position and
that the absolute pardon does not exempt
the culprit from payment of civil liability.
IS Linda entitled to reinstatement? (1994
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to
her former position inasmuch as her right
thereto had been relinquished or forfeited
by reason of her conviction. The absolute
pardon merely extinguished her criminal
liability, removed her disqualification, and
restored her eligibility for appointment to
that office. She has to reapply for such
position and under the usual procedure
required for a new appointment. Moreover,
the pardon does not extinguish the civil
liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto
vs. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art.
36. RPC)
e) Amnesty
Criminal law – Modification and extinction
of criminal liability – Amnesty
Antero Makabayan was convicted of the
crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence,
he escaped from jail. Captured, he was
charged with, and convicted of, Evasion of
Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the
President of the Philippines issued an
Page 157 of 417
amnesty proclamation for the offense of
Rebellion. Antero applied for and was
granted the benefit of the amnesty
proclamation.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas
corpus, praying for his immediate release
from confinement. He claims that the
amnesty extends to the offense of evasion
of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you
grant the petition? Discuss fully. (4%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I will grant the petition because the
sentence that was evaded proceeded from
the crime of Rebellion which has been
obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the
offender (Art. 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 as though 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.
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 of reclusion
perpetua was imposed." He now comes to
you for advice. He wants to know if he could
run for senator in the next election. (2015
BAR)
a) What advice will you give Adamos?
Explain.
Answer:
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
disqualification. 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 terms of the pardon. Under
Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall carry with it perpetual 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
(Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666,
January 21, 2015).
b) Assuming that what Adamos
committed was heading a rebellion for
which he was imposed the same penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and what he received
was amnesty from the government, will
your answer be the same? Explain.
Answer:
If Senator Adamos was convicted of
rebellion and he received amnesty, I will
give him the advice that he can run in the
Page 158 of 417
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 the principal penalty of reclusion
perpetua but also its effects such as the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification. Amnesty looks backward
and abolishes and 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 before the law precisely as
though he had committed no offense
(Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-
1278, January 21, 1949).
CIVIL LIABILITY
ART. 103--Execution of the employer’s
subsidiary liability
Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned
and operated by VICMICO a sugar central,
while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad
to fall from the truck resulting in injuries
which caused his death. Juan Cruz was
convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence and was ordered to pay the
heirs of the deceased Ahad P12,000.00.
The respondent judge issued an order
granting a motion for execution of the civil
service liability of the accused Juan Cruz,
but the return of the Sheriff showed that the
accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of
the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for
execution of the employers subsidiary
liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal
Code. Respondent judge denied the
motion, stating that the employer
VICMICO, not having been notified that his
driver was facmg a criminal charge, a
separate action had to be filed. Hence, a
petition for mandamus was filed.
Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a
separate civil action because the driver
was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All
you need is a motion for execution with a
notice to the employer that states
compliance with the requisites imposed by
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (that
there is employer-employee relationship,
that the employer is engaged in an industry
and that the driver is insolvent).
Art. 103--Civil liability – Subsidiary liability
of the employer
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney
owned and operated by Max, bumped
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street.
Demy sustained injuries, which required
medical attendance for three months. Guy
was charged with reckless imprudence
resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Guy was
sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of
three months of arresto mayor and ordered
to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5.000
and to pay PI,000 as attorney's fees.
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of
execution was served upon Guy, but was
returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency.
Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of
execution against Max. The latter opposed
the motion on the ground that the decision
made no mention of his subsidiary liability
and that he was not impleaded in the case.
How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
(1998 Bar Question)
Page 159 of 417
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The motion is to be granted. Max as an

employer of Guy and engaged in an
industry (transportation business) where
said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily
civilly liable under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code. Even though the
decision made no mention of his subsidiary
liability, the law violated (Revised Penal
Code) itself mandates for such liability and
Max is deemed to know it because
ignorance of the law is never excused. And
since his liability is not primary but only
subsidiary in case his

Page 160 of 417

CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
employee cannot pay, he need not be
impleaded in the in the criminal case. It
suffices that he was duly notified of the
motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of
execution and thus given the opportunity to
be heard.
Art. 104-Civil liability -Restitution;
reparation
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the
Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official
conference. 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 P20.000.00, although the car
was worth P800,000.00. What, if any, are
their respective civil liabilities? Explain.
(5%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 consequential damages.
Criminal law –Civil liability - Indemnity
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late
one night after rendering overtime. He was
shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his
best friend, in the act of having sexual
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service
gun and 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 Revised Penal Code. The court also
ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs
of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
Did the court correctly order Macky to pay
indemnity even though he was exonerated
of murder? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court did not act correctly in
ordering the accused to indemnify the
victim. Since the killing of Ken was
committed under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247, Revised
Penal Code, it is the consensus that no
crime was committed in the light of the
pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79
Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the
protection of the offender rather than 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.
ART. 104--Civil liability - Damages
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution
failed to present any receipt to substantiate
the heirs’ claim for an award of actual
damages, such as expenses for the wake
and burial.
What kind of damages may the trial court
award to them and how much? 5%
(2006 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The damages that the trial court may award
are:
a. civil indemnity for the loss of life of
the victim which jurisprudence has set at
P50,000.00;
b. Moderate/temperate damages for
the expenses incurred for the wake and
burial of the victim as the trial court may
consider reasonable; and
c. Moral damages for the sufferings of
the family of the victim emotionally and
mentally.
ART. 104--Acquittal in a criminal
prosecution; Institution of civil action
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 7:00 p.m. 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 transaction was taking place,
the traffic light changed to green and the
car immediately sped off. As the car
continued to speed towards Qulapo, 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 convinced
with moral certainty that the guilt of C has
been established beyond reasonable doubt
and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of
reasonable doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover civil
damages in view of the acquittal of C?
Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still
recover civil damages despite C's acquittal.
When the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that
his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may
be instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence (Art. 29, CC).
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, about pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely
separate and distinct from civil liability
arising from negligence under the Penal
Code (Arts. 31, 2176. 2177, CC).
CIVIL LIABILITY--Civil action for recovery
of property not subject to confiscation;
jurisdiction
Jose. Pedro and Juan, robbed ABC Bank
of P200,000.00 and using a stolen car,
immediately proceeded to Quezon City.
The police recovered the money and the
car. After the trial, during which the bank
lawyer intervened as private prosecutor,
the court convicted Jose, Pedro and Juan
of robbery and ordered the forfeiture of the
money (P200,000.00) and the car in favor
of the government as proceeds and
instrument of the crime, respectively. The
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
bank lawyer received copy of the judgment,
but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro and
Juan did not appeal the judgment, and
began service of sentence. Two months
later, realizing that the court did not order
the return of the money to the bank, the
bank lawyer filed a motion for modification
of the judgment and prayed that the money
be ordered returned to the bank. Two
months later, Armando, the owner of the
stolen car, learned of the judgment even
much later. He comes to you seeking your
well considered opinion on whether it is still
possible to recover his car.
A. As legal counsel, what will you tell
him? Explain briefly. (1987 Bar Question)
B. Under the facts given, would the
bank be entitled to the return of the money?
Why? (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. As legal counsel, I would advise
Armando to file a civil action for the
recovery of his car against its legal
custodian. The car was stolen and
therefore it belonged to Armando, an
innocent party, who has not participated in
the commission of the robbery by Jose,
Pedro and Juan. The car, is therefore, not
subject to confiscation.
B. The motion of the bank lawyer for
the modification of the judgment with the
prayer that the money be ordered returned
to the bank must be denied. The judgment
is already final and so the court has no
more “jurisdiction” over the case (People
vs. Velez 15 SCRA 26).
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 of
prision mayor as maximum, and ordered
him to pay actual damages in the amount
of P25,000.00. 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. (2015 BAR)
a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to
Dismiss the case? Explain.
Answer:
The RTC may not grant the motion to
dismiss because the Court of Appeals,
having issued an Entry of Judgment, 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 answer?
Answer:
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 its decision causes his
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
ART. 123-Qualified Piracy-The Royal S.S.
Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was
300 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan
when its engines malfunctioned. The
Captain ordered his men to drop anchor
and repair the ship. While the officers and
crew were asleep, armed men boarded the
vessel and took away several crates
containing valuable items and loaded them
in their own motorboat. Before the band
left, they planted an explosive which they
detonated from a safe distance. The
explosion damaged the hull of the ship,
killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen
(15) others.
What crime or crimes, if any, were
committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The crime of Qualified Piracy under
Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code has
been committed, the elements of piracy
being present, namely;
(1) that the vessel is on the high
seas; (2) that the offenders are not
members of its complement or passenger
of the vessel; and (3) that the offenders (a)
attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the
whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers. The latter act
is committed when the offenders took away
several crates containing valuable items
and loaded them in their own motorboat.
The crime of piracy is qualified
because: (1) the offenders have seized the
vessel by boarding; and (2) the crime of
piracy was accompanied by murder and
physical injuries. The facts show that the
offenders planted an explosive in the
vessel which they detonated from a safe
distance and the explosion killed ten (10)
crewmen and injured fifteen (15) others.
The number of persons killed on the
occasion of piracy is not material. The law
considers qualified piracy as a special
complex crime regardless of the number of
victims (People v. Siyoh, GR No. L-57292,
18 February 1986).
ART. 123 Criminal law – Crimes against
national security – Qualified piracy
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I,
while cruising off Batanes, was forced to
seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung,
Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While
anchored in said harbor, 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 apprehension, all four were charged
with qualified piracy before a Philippine
court.
a) Was the charge of qualified piracy
against the three persons (Max, Baldo and
Bogart) who boarded the inter-island
vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy
was committed when the offenders seized
the vessel by firing on or boarding the
same. In the problem, they even went
further by divesting the passengers of their
money and jewelry. The vessel was
anchored in the harbor of Kaoshiung,
Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime
was committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of another country. The
Supreme Court has ruled that the high seas
contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised
Penal Code includes the three-mile limit of
any state (People v. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil.
1911922]). Moreover, piracy is an offense
that can be tried anywhere because it is a
crime against the Law of Nations.
ART. 116 Criminal law – Crimes against
National Security – Misprision of treason
Because peace negotiations on the
Spratlys situation had failed, the People's
Republic of China declared war against the
Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with
her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered
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 had sent an e-
mail to General Tung Kat Su, in which he
agreed to provide vital information on the
military defense of the Philippines to the
Chinese government 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? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Myra committed the crime of
Misprision of Treason under Art. 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 between her Italian boyfriend
and the Chinese General to commit
treason against the Philippine Government
in time of war. She decided to report the
matter to the proper authorities only after
two (2) weeks.
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
(P.D. 532) (i) Definition of terms
(ii) Punishable acts
A postal van containing mail matters,
including checks and treasury 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 occupants of the van, resulting in the
unlawful taking and transportation of the
entire van and its contents. (2012 BAR)
a. If you were the public prosecutor,
would you charge the ten (10) men who
hijacked the postal van with violation of
Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise
known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti -
Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain
your answer.
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 for
the application of P.D. 532. If a motor
vehicle, either stationary or moving on a
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
highway, is forcibly taken at gun point by
the accused who happened to take a fancy
thereto, the location of the vehicle at the
time of the unlawful taking would not
necessarily put the offense within the ambit
of P.D. 532. In this case, the crime
committed is violation of the Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Puno,
G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993).
Moreover, there is no showing that the 10
men were a band of outlaws organized for
the purpose of depredation upon the
persons and properties 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 similar robberies
by them to establish “indiscriminate”
commission thereof (Filoteo Jr. v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October
16, 1993).
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?
Answer:
Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway
robbery is defined as “the seizure of any
person for ransom, 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:
1. intent to gain;
2. unlawful taking of the property of
another;
3. violence against or intimidation of
any person;
4. committed on a Philippine highway
5. indiscrimate victim;
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 particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if
there are at least four armed participants.
(See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461,
February 23, 1996)
ART.122, 123--Crimes against National
Security and Law of Nations – Piracy;
Qualified piracy
1. While SS Nagoya Mani was
negotiating the sea route from Hongkong
towards Manila, and while still 300 miles
from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine
malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the
ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting
for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the
officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship
was anchored, a motorboat manned by
renegade Ybanags from Claveria,
Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of
the situation. They cut the ship's engines
and took away several heavy crates of
electrical equipment and loaded them in
their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly
towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew
found that a robbery took place. They
radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting
in the apprehension of the culprits.
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Supposing that while the robbery
was taking place, the culprits stabbed a
member of the crew while sleeping.
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime committed was piracy
under Art. 122, Revised Penal Code, the
essence of which is robbery directed
against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The
taking of the several heavy crates of
electrical equipment from a vessel at sea,
was effected by force and undoubtedly with
intent to gain. It is of no moment that the
vessel was anchored when depredated so
long as it was at sea.
2. The crime was qualified piracy
under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code
because it was attended by a killing
committed by the same culprits against a
member of the crew of the vessel.
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL
LAW OF THE STATE
ART. 128Criminal law – Crimes against the
fundamental law of the State - Violation of
domicile
Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking
for a person named Virgilio whom Carlos
suspected of stealing his fighting cock.
Alberto and Bernardo were policemen,
while Carlos was a caretaker of fighting
cocks. Carlos requested Alberto and
Bernardo, then in uniform, to accompany
him to Virgilio’s house to look for the
fighting cock. Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos
went to Virgilio’s house.
When the policemen knocked on the door,
Virgilio’s wife, Maria, opened it. The
policemen told Maria that they came to
inquire about a lost fighting cock. Before
Maria could utter a word, the trio barged
inside, the house. Once inside, the
policemen told Maria that Carlos was
suspecting her husband, Virgilio, to have
stolen his fighting cock. Maria protested
and immediately required the three to
leave. The policemen refused. Instead,
they started searching the house for the
fighting cock over the objections of Maria
who said that she would file a complaint
against them after her husband comes
from work. As they did not see any fighting
cock, the three left. What crimes, if any, did
Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos commit?
(1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen,
committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are
three ways by which a public officer or
employee may commit this crime, namely:
a. By entering any dwelling against the
will of the owner. The door having been
opened by Maria, although Alberto,
Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the
house before Maria could utter a word, they
did not enter against Maria’s will, there
being no opposition or prohibition against
entrance whether express or implied.
Without the consent is not against the will
(People vs. Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5, 113).
b. By searching papers or other effects
found therein without the previous consent
of such owner. Maria had objected to the
search for the fighting cock inside her
dwelling, but despite said objection, the
policemen searched the house. This
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
makes them criminally liable for the second
way of committing the crime of VIOLATING
OF DOMICILE.
c. By refusing to leave the premises,
after having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling and after having been required to
leave the same. Although the policemen
were ordered to leave the house, they did
not enter it surreptitiously, meaning
clandestinely or secretly.
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being a
public officer or employee, he cannot
commit the crime of VIOLATION OF
DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to
dwelling, either because he did not enter
the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the
owner, which is the essential element of
Trespass.
What is the difference between violation of
domicile and trespass to dwelling?
(2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation
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 person or public officer
acting in a private capacity.
Violation of domicile is committed in 3
different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling
of another against the will of the latter; (2)
searching papers and other effects inside
the dwelling without the previous consent
of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the
premises which he entered surreptitiously,
after being required to leave the premises.
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.
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement
is false. Explain your answer in not more
than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar
Question)
[e] A policeman who, without a judicial
order, enters a private house over the
owner's opposition is guilty of trespass to
dwelling.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. The crime committed by the
policeman in this case is violation of
domicile because the official duties of a
policeman carry with it an authority to make
searches and seizure upon judicial order.
He is therefore acting under color of his
official authority (Art. 128, RPC).
of ART. 125 Criminal law – Crimes against
fundamental law of the State - Delay on the
Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper
Judicial Authorities; in relation with Slight
disobedience which is a crime against
public order
Amy was apprehended and arrested by
Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was
detained at the police precint, underwent
investigation, and released only after
hours.
1. Patrolman Bart liable for any
offense? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar
Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Suppose Amy resisted the arrest
and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
criminally liable thereby? State your
reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation
of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code -
Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons
to the Proper Judicial Authorities.
2. She is criminally liable for slight
disobedience under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code - Resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority or the
agents of such person.
ART. 124 Criminal law – Crimes against the
Fundamental Law of the State – Arbitrary
detention
What are the 3 ways of committing
arbitrary detention? Explain each. 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
What are the legal grounds for detention?
2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
When is an arrest by a peace officer or by
a private person considered lawful?
Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary
detention are:
a. by detaining or locking up a person
without any legal cause or ground
therefor purposely to restrain his liberty
(RPC, Art. 124);
b. by delaying delivery to the proper
judicial authority of a person lawfully
arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125);
and
c. by delaying release of a prisoner
whose release has been ordered by
competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).
In all the above-stated ways, the principal
offender should be a public officer acting
under color of his authority.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The legal grounds for detention are;
1. commission of a crime;
2. violent insanity or other ailment
requiring compulsory confinement in an
institution established for such purpose.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arrest by a peace officer or by a private
person is lawful –
a. when in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
b. when an offense has just been
committed and he has probable, cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c. when the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving
sentence or is temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to
another (Rules on Criminal Procedure,
Rule 113, Sec. 5).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A.
No. 9372)
(i) Period of detention
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No.
9745) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
ART 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS
QUESTION
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? Explain. (2%) (2000
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 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 lawless 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.
ART. 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS
QUESTION
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday
party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece
of wood commonly known as dos por dos,
Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back,
causing the latter's hospitalization for 30
days. Upon investigation, it appeared that
Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge
Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days.
[a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault?
Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault
because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be
a judge when he was attacked. He has
retired (71 yrs. old) from his position as a
person in authority when he was attacked.
Hence, the attack on him cannot be
regarded as against a person in authority
anymore.
Would your answer be the same if the
reason for the attack was that when Judge
Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten
years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and
succeeded in sending him to jail for one
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
year? Explain your answer. (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault
because the employment of violence was
by reason of an actual performance of a
duty by the offended party acting as a
practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered
persons in authority by virtue of Batas
Pambansa Big. 873, which states that
lawyers in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance shall be deemed
persons in authority. But the crime having
been committed 10 years ago, may have
already prescribed because it is punishable
by a correctional penalty.
ART 152. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND
AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Who are deemed to be persons in authority
and agents of persons in authority? (3%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. 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 (Art.. 152, RPC).
In applying the provisions of Articles 148
and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities,
and lawyers in the actual performance of
their professional duties or on the occasion
on such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and
Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
Service of Sentence; Delivery of Prisoners
from Jail; Falsification of Public Document
Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; Art
157: Evasion of Service of Sentence; 171:
Falsification by public officer, employee, or
notary or ecclesiastical officer; 210: Direct
Bribery; 223: Coniving with or consenting to
evasion
Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; 171:
Falsification by public officer, employee, or
notary or ecclesiastical officer; 172:
Falsification by private individuals and use
of falsified documents; 210: Direct Bribery;
212: Corrution of Public officials
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 Filthy to the detention center.
At the jail, Loko gave the guard
P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas
out.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and
the guard commit? (2014 BAR)
ANSWER:
Filthy is liable of:
(2) Delivery of prisoners from Jail,
Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in
the removal of Takas, a detention prisoner,
from jail.
(3) Corruption of Public Officials, Article
212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00
to the clerk of court, under circumstances
in which said public officer would be liable
of direct bribery.
(4) Falsification of Public Document,
Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by
inducement because he gave the clerk of
court P500,000.00 to induce him to forge
the signature of the judge in the order of
release.
Loko is liable of:
(1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC,
because he accepted P500,000.00 in
consideration of the execution of an act
which constitutes a crime, i.e., forging the
signature of the judge in the order of
release that would enable Takas to get out
of jail, in connection with the performance
of his duty as a clerk of court.
(2) Falsification of Public Document,
Article 171, RPC, because he took
advantage of his position as a clerk of court
in forging the signature of the judge in the
order of relase.
(3) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail,
Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in
the removal of Takas from jail by forging the
signature of the judge in the in the falsified
order of release.
The guard is liable of:
(1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC,
because he agreed to open the gate and let
Takas out in consideration of P10,000.00.
(2) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners,
Article 223, RPC, because he, as the
custodian of Takas, connived or consented
to his escape by opening the gate.
ART. 147 Criminal law – Crimes against
public order – Illegal association
What would have been the legal effect of
the repeal of P.D. No. 1835 (Codifying The
Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and
Increasing the Penalties For Membership
in Subversive Organizations) as amended
by P.D. No. 1975, if RA. No. 1700 (An Act
to Outlaw The Communist Party of the
Philippines and Similar Associations.
Penalizing Membership Therein and For
Other Purposes) were not revived? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by
RA 1735, is absolute, without reviving RA.
1700, the original provision on illegal
associations under Art. 147 of the Revised
Penal Code would be the pertinent
provision to be taken into account. Hence,
it must be proved that the purpose of the
organization is to commit any crime
punishable by the code or for some
purpose contrary to public morals.
ART. 157 Criminal law – Crimes against
public order – Evasion of sentence
Manny killed his wife under exceptional
circumstances and was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to
suffer the penalty of destierro during which
he was not to enter the city.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
While serving sentence, Manny went to
Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he
was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%]
(1998 Bar Question)
2. If so, where should he be
prosecuted? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes, Manny committed the crime of
evasion of service of sentence 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 vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny maybe 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 vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-
28519, 17 Feb. 668)
ART. 156 Criminal law – Crimes against
public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail
A. 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, decided to allow the
prisoner to be taken by his followers. What
crime, if any, was committed by A’s
followers? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A’s followers shall be liable as principals in
the crime of delivery of prisoner from jail
(Art 156, Revised Penal Code).
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.
ART. 148-152 Criminal law – Crimes
against public order - Direct assault upon a
person in authority; direct assault with
serious physical injuries
Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was
punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for
contempt. He waited for the judge to go out
into the street. Upon seeing the judge,
Pablo hurriedly approached him, and
without saying a word struck him with his
fist causing a slight contusion on the face
of the Judge. Rex came to the rescue of the
Judge but because he was taller and bigger
than Pablo, the latter used a knife in
attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault to
the arms of Rex inflicting lesions graves
which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty
five (45) days.
If you were the prosecutor called to institute
a criminal action against Pablo, with what
crime or crimes would you charge him?
Explain. (1993 Bar
Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of direct assault upon a person
in authority with respect to the slight
contusion on the face of the Judge.
Direct assault with serious physical injuries
with respect to the assault on Rex.
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, enabling Dancio to escape.
What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri
commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Answer:
Dancio committed the crime of direct
assault under Article 148 for disarming the
guards with the use of pistol while they are
engaged in the performance of their duties.
Using a pistol to disarm the guards
manifests criminal intention to defy the law
and its representative 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 negligent in relaxing the
inspection of the Brusco’s belongings
during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a
pistol to Dencio, which he subsequently
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, qualified 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.
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught
Mariano, one of her students, cheating
during an examination. Aside from calling
Mariano's attention, she confiscated his
examination booklet and sent him out of the
room, causing Mariano extreme
embarrassment.
In class the following day, Mariano
approached Miss Reyes and without any
warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano
would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss
Reyes had not Dencio, another student,
intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on
Dencio and punched him repeatedly,
causing him injuries. What crime or crimes,
if any, did Mariano commit? (2013, 2002,
1993)
Answer:
Mariano is liable for two counts of direct
assault. First, when he slapped Miss
Reyes, who is a person in authority
expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the
RPC, who was in the performance of her
duties on the day of the commission of the
assault. Second, when he repeatedly
punched Dencio, who became an agent of
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the person in authority when he came to the
aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes
(Celig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28,
2010).
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 student,
B, approached A and, without any warning,
slapped her. B would have inflicted further
injuries on A had not C, another student,
come to A’s rescue and prevented B from
continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C
and ounched the latter. What crime or
crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%)
(2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 Revised Penal
Code, 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 assault and of resistance
and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151
of said Code. And any person who comes
to the aid of persons in authority 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.
Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by
Florencio went ' to serve a warrant of arrest
on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the
latter’s apartment. Upon seeing Edgardo,
Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell
flat on the floor. As Florencio tried to help
Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed
Florencio. The injuries inflicted upon
Edgardo and Florencio required medical
attendance for nine (9) days. What crime or
crimes were committed by Emilio? Give
your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a
police officer who was going serve a
warrant of arrest on him, Emilio would be
guilty only of slight physical injuries on two
counts, one against Edgardo and the
second against Florencio.
If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and
of the latter’s purpose to serve a warrant of
arrest on him, and that is why he boxed
Edgardo, then he will be guilty of either
DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR
DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A
PERSON in authority, depending on the
degree of force employed by him. A person
who attacks, employs force makes a
serious intimidation or makes a serious
resistance against a person in authority or
his agent, if at the time of the assault the
latter is engaged in the actual performance
of his official duties, the offended party
knowing that the person he is assaulting is
a person in authority or his agent, it liable
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A
policeman is an agent of a person in
authority.
As for Florencio, the crime committed by
Emilio against him would be indirect
Assault provided that Emilio has committed
DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This
is so because any person who shall make
use of force or intimidation upon any
person coming to the aid of the authorities
or their agents on occasion of the
commission of the crime of DIRECT
ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime
of INDIRECT ASSAULT. However, if Emilio
is guilty only of RESISTANCE or
disobedience as against Edgardo; then his
crime against Florencio would only be
slight physical injuries.
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 fail 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.
A. What, if any, are the respective
criminal liability of X, Y and Z? (6%) (2001
Bar Question)
B. Would your answer be the same if B
were a barangay tanod only? (4%) (2001
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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 (Art. 152, RPC) and in this
case, was performing his duty of
maintaining peace and order when
attacked.
T is liable for the complex crimes of Direct
Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries
for the fistblow on A, the teacher, which
caused the latter to fall down. For purposes
of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the
Revised Penal Code, 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
that of a coprincipal, since her reactions
were only incited by her relationship to X
and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
B. 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 contempt 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 person in
authority in defiance to the latter is exercise
of authority.
Jose was charged with slight physical
injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge. He
listened attentively as the Judge read the
sentence. When the Judge reached the
dispositive portion and pronounced Jose
guilty, the latter was enraged, got hold of an
ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting
him in the eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro
attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him
and knocked him down. The judge became
blind in one eye as a consequence.
What crime or crimes did Jose commit?
(1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault
with Serious Physical Injuries. The
throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting
him in the eye is laying of hands on the
Judge who is a person in authority while in
the performance of duties. Jose is also
liable for qualified direct assault when he
boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him
down while in the act of restraining him.
Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a
person in authority if assaulted while in the
performance of duties.
A. Who are deemed to be persons in
authority and agents of persons in
authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. 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? Explain. (2%) (2000
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 (Art.. 152, RPC).
In applying the provisions of Articles 148
and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers,
professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities,
and lawyers in the actual performance of
their professional duties or on the occasion
on such performance, shall be deemed
persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and
Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
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 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 lawless 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.
ART. 134 Criminal law – Crimes against
public order - Rebellion
An armed group, avowed to overthrow the
duly constituted authorities, captured five
officers and five members of the armed
forces and held them in their mountain lair
for seventy-five days and then voluntarily
released them in consideration of the
promise of medical treatment to be given to
some of their comrades who were under
detention by the authorities.
What crime or crimes had been
committed? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rebellion was committed because their
purpose was to overthrow the government
and all other acts committed in the further
of this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
The armed group committed the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that “kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.— Any private
individual who shall kidnap another, or in
any other manner deprive him of his liberty,
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death...”
ART.134-Rebellion- Jacinto, who is an
NPA commander, was apprehended with
unlicensed firearms and explosives. He
was accordingly charged with illegal
possession of said firearms and
explosives. He now questions the filing of
the charges on the ground that they are
deemed absorbed in a separate charge of
rebellion filed against him. Decide the
issue. (1990 Bar Question)
Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the
unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his
neighbor in an altercation. May the charge
of murder and illegal possession of
firearms be deemed absorbed in the
separate charge of rebellion filed against
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
him? Resolve the matter with reasons.
(1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of illegal possession of
firearms and explosives is deemed
absorbed in the crime of rebellion, such
possession being a necessary means for
the perpetration of the latter crime. [EUas
v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659).
The charges here could not be absorbed
in the separate charge of rebellion as it is
clear that the act of murder, coupled with
the possession of an unlicensed firearm,
was not in furtherance of the rebellion.
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while
Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board
his car traveling along the National
Highway of Laguna, 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 Tiago. 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? [5%]
(1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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,
politicallymotivated. This was the ruling in
People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568,
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
Peoples Army. The killing is murder
because it was committed with treachery.
ART. 134-A Criminal law – Crimes against
public order - Coup d’etat
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004
Bar Question)
Between rebellion and coup d’etat based
on their constitutive elements as criminal
offenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rebellion is committed when a multitude of
persons rise publicly in arms for the
purpose of overthrowing the duly
constituted government, 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, Philippine National Police, or
public officer, acting as principal offenders,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
launched a swift attack thru strategy,
stealth, threat, violence or intimidation
against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, 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’etat 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 overthrow the
existing government but only to destabilize
the existing government
How is the crime of coup d’etat committed?
[3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Supposing a public school teacher
participated in a coup d’etat using an
unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes
did he commit? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a
swift attack, accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
against the duly constituted authorities of
the Republic of the Philippines, military
camps and installations, communication
networks, public utilities and facilities
needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power, carried out singly or
simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines
by persons belonging to the military or
police or holding public office, with or
without civilian support or participation, for
the purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power. (Art. 134-A, RPC).
The public school teacher committed only
coup d'etat for his participation therein. His
use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in
the coup d'etat under the hew firearms law
(Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for
illegal possession of firearm under the new
law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm
was not used in the commission of another
crime.
A. If 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, what crime or crimes
are they guilty of? (3%) (2002 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging
to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the
crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital
military installations which are essential to
the continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers, and their purpose is
to seize power by taking over such
installations.
If the attack is quelled but the leader is
unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person
who in fact directed the others, spoke for
them, signed receipts and other documents
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
issued in their name, or performed similar
acts, on behalf of the group shall be
deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art
135, R.P.C.)
In the early morning of 25 October 1990,
the troops of the Logistics Command (LOG
COM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio
Aguinaldo headed by their Operations
Officer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew
firearms and bullets and, per prior
agreement, attacked, in separate teams,
the offices of the Chief of Staff, the
Secretary of National Defense, the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Intelligence and other
offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of
LOGCOM and other officers, killed three
(3) pro-Govemment soldiers, inverted the
Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances
and exits to the camp, and announced
complete control of the camp. Because of
the superiority of the proGovemment
forces, Col. Amparo and his troops
surrendered at 7:00 o’clock in the morning
of that day.
a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit
the crime of coup d'etat (Article 134-A,
Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? (1991
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Under the facts stated, the crime
committed would be coup d’etat (Republic
Act No. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A).
However, since the law was not yet
effective as of October 25, 1990, as the
effectivity thereof (Section 8) is upon its
approval (which is October 24, 1990) and
publication in at least two (2) newspapers
of general circulation, the felony committed
would be rebellion.
Comment:
If the answer given is coup d’etat
substantial credit should be given as the
tenor of the question seems to indicate that
coup d’etat as a felony was already
existing.
b) Distinguish rebellion from coup
d'etat (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Rebellion distinguished from coup
d’etat:
AS TO OVERT ACTS:
In rebellion, there is public uprising and
taking up arms against the Government. In
coup d'etat public uprising is not necessary.
The essence of the crime is a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation,
threat, strategy or stealth, directed against
duly constituted authorities of the
Government, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks,
public utilities or facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of
government power;
OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE:
In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from
the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole
or any part or the Philippines or any military
or naval camps, deprive the Chief
Executive or Congress from performing
their functions. In coup d'etat the objective
is to seize or diminish state powers.
PARTICIPATION
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat any
person belonging to the
military or police or holding public office,
with or without civilian participation.
ART. 142 Criminal law – Crimes against
public order – Inciting to sedition
What are the different acts of inciting to
sedition? (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The different acts which constitute the
crime of inciting to sedition are:
1. Inciting others through speeches,
writings, banners and other media of
representation 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
Government; or
5. Knowingly concealing any of the
aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Rev.
Penal Code).
CRIMES COMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and
nonfeasance. (2.5%) (2016)
Suggested answer
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.
Arts. 156, 157, 171, 210,223:
To secure a 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 Chita gave her
P50,000.00, she consented.
She then prepared an Order requiring the
appearance in court 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 P50,000.00
to leave the two inmates unguarded for
three minutes and provide them with an
opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and
Vincent were able to escape.
What crime or crimes, if any, had been
committed by the Branch Clerk of court,
Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your
answer. (5%) (2009 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crimes committed in this case are as
follows:
The Branch Clerk of Court
committed the crimes of:
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 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
(Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art.
156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by
indispensable cooperation for making the
false Order and forging the judge's
signature thereon, to enable the prisoners
to get out of jail;
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art.
157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by
indispensable cooperation for making the
false Order that enabled Vincent to evade
service of his sentence;
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 conniving with or consenting to
Evasion for leaving unguarded the
prisoners escorted by him and provide
them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223,
RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the
P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the
opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);
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.
Art. 210: Direct Bribery; Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and
Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of
PD 1829.
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao
Shih was arrested for selling 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 Evidence Custodian of the
PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the
amount of P500.000.00 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:
Direct bribery;
Indirect bribery;
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act);
Obstruction of Justice under PD
1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.
3019), and Obstruction of Justice under
Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick
when, for a consideration of P500.000.00,
he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by
destroying the drugs which were evidence
entrusted to him in his official capacity.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Indirect bribery is not committed, because
he received the P500,000.00 as a
consideration for destroying the 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 Section 3(e), R.A.
3019 causing undue injury to the
government through evident bad faith,
giving unwarranted benefit to the offender
by destroying evidence of a crime.
Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of
P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying
evidence intended to be used in official
proceedings in criminal case.
a) The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i)
Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or
conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity
from prosecution and punishment (v)
Custody and disposition of confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public
officers – Direct bribery; indirect bribery;
corruption of Public Officials
Arts. 210: Direct Bribery
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the
RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in
the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria
Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment
being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her
lawyer’s office where he was given the
necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs
fees and expenses for execution in the total
amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00
in consideration of prompt enforcement of
the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The
writ was successfully enforced.
a) Art. 210 What crime, if any, did the
sheriff commit? (3%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of
Direct Bribery under the second paragraph
of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since
the P2,000.00 was received by him "in
consideration" of the prompt enforcement
of the writ of execution which is an official
duty of the sheriff to do.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public
officers - direct bribery; Special penal law -
Republic Act No. 3019
Art 210: Direct Bribery
May a public officer charged under Section
3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage or benefit, for
himself of for any other person, in
connection with any contract or transaction
between the government and any other
party, wherein the public officer in his
official capacity has to intervene under the
law”] also be simultaneously or
successively charged with direct bribery
under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3
(b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) may also be charged
simultaneously or successively for the
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the
Revised Penal Code, because two crimes
are essentially different and are penalized
under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas
violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum
prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the
Code is a malum in se.
Art 211-A: Qualified Bribery
Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch,
promised the plaintiff in a case pending
before the court that she would convince
the Presiding Judge to decide the case in
plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor,
the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00.
Charina was charged with violation of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019,
prohibiting any public officer from directly or
indirectly requesting or 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 was being tried, the
Ombudsman filed another information
against Charina for Indirect Bribery under
the Revised Penal Code. Charina
demurred to the second information,
claiming that she can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code having
been charged for the same act under R.A.
3019.
Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Charina is not correct. Although the
charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019
and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art.
211, RPC) arose from the same act, the
elements of the violation charged under
Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the
felony charged for Indirect Bribery under
the Rev. 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 motion to quash, as
there is no jeopardy against the accused.
Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery
What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%)
(2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 of offer, refrains
from arresting or prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/ or death (art. 211-
A, RPC)
Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery
May a judge be charged and prosecuted for
such felony? How about a public
prosecutor? A police officer? Explain (5%)
(2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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
Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should
be 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 offender for the same
consideration above stated, may be
prosecuted for this felony since he is a
public officer entrusted with law
enforcement.
a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
(R.A. No. 3019, as amended) (i) Coverage
(ii) Punishable acts (iii) Exceptions
Art 211-A: Qualified 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. The judge,
not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule
on the evidence and convicted the
accused. (2014 BAR)
a. Art 211-A: Malo was charged with
violation of Section 3(b), Republic 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?
Answer:
No. One may be charged with violation of
R.A. 3019 in addition to a felony under the
RPC for the same delictual act, either
concurrently or subsequent to being
charged with a felony under the RPC. This
is very clear from Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019. Also,
R.A. 3019 is a special law, the elements of
the crime is not the same as those
punished under the RPC.
Art 212: Corruption of Public officials
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from
the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution
in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria
Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment
being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her
lawyer’s office where he was given the
necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs
fees and expenses for execution in the total
amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00
in consideration of prompt enforcement of
the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The
writ was successfully enforced.
b) Art 212 Was there any crime
committed by Estrada and her lawyer and
If so, what crime? (2%) (2001 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) The sheriff committed the crime of
Direct Bribery under the second paragraph
of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the P2,000.00 was received by him "in
consideration" of the prompt enforcement
of the writ of execution which is an official
duty of the sheriff to do.
c) 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, Revised Penal Code.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public
officers – Malversation by abandonment or
negligence
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to
fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name
and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI 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 operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Corruption of public officials under
Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were
deposited in an account which he opened
in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the
public position or office held by the Mayor;
(crime committed by Don Gabito)
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. (crime committed by the
Mayor)
3. Violation of Rep. Act 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. (crime committed
by the Mayor)
Art. 217: Malversation of Public Funds and
Property
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the
Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
return to his office after a day-long official
conference. 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 P20.000.00, although the car
was worth P800,000.00.
A. What is the crime committed by Allan?
Explain. (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan committed the crime of malversation
by abandonment or negligence in leaving
the government car assigned to him for his
official use and for which he was
accountable, with the ignition key in the car
unlocked.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public
officers – Malversation; defenses;
prescription; suspension from office
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and
Property
In 1982, the Philippine National Bank
(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
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC), another government-owned and
controlled corporation. In 1995, after the
PNB management unearthed many
irregularities and violations of the bank's
rules and regulations, dela Renta was
found to have manipulated certain
accounts involving trust funds and time
deposits 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.
Is dela Renta's contention tenable? 2.5%
(2006 Bar Question)
1. After his arraignment, the
prosecution filed a motion for his
suspension pendente lite, to which he filed
an opposition claiming that he can no
longer be suspended as he is no longer an
employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC.
2. Explain whether he may or may not be
suspended. 2.5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. No, dela Renta's contention is not
tenable for these reasons:
1. His contention that he is no longer
an employee of PNB but of PDIC has no
merit since both PNB and FDIC are
government institutions and the funds
thereof belong to the same Government
who suffers from the malversation; (Sec. 4,
PD 1606, as amended).
2. Resignation or separation from
office is not a ground for extinguishing
criminal liability under Art. 89 of the
Revised Penal Code, for any crime
committed while the offender was
connected with the office; and
3. 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 exceeds
P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is
within the range of prision mayor already.
Crimes punishable by prision mayor
prescribes in 15 years. From 1995 to the
present is only around 11 years. Hence the
crime can still be prosecuted.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The accused may be validly
suspended from office in PDIC because
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 pendente lite assumes a
mandatory character and the court may
order the suspension of the accused
regardless of whether the prosecution files
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a motion for the preventive suspension of
the accused, or the motion is filed by the
counsel of the government agency
concerned, with or without the conformity of
the public prosecutor (Robles et al., v.
Layosa et al., 436 SCRA 337 12 Aug 04).
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public
officers - Malversation
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and
Property
Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the
execution sale of the property of Andres to
satisfy the judgment against him in favor of
ABC Corporation, a government-owned or
controlled corporation with an original
charter. However, the representative of the
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 amount to
Myrna, his officemate, who promised to
repay the amount within two months, with
interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged
on her promise. Despite demands of ABC
Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said
amount.
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if
any, committed by Eliseo. (4%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Eliseo is
malversation since he is a public officer
who received the amount in his official
capacity; thus he is accountable for it.
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and
Property
Would your answer to the first question be
the same if ABC Corporation were a private
corporation? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime would still be malversation even
if ABC Corporation, in whose favor the
judgment was rendered, were a private
corporation. This is because the
P100,000.00 came from the sale of
property levied upon or seized upon
execution ordered by the court. The
property was in custodia legis. Although not
strictly public property, it has become
impressed with the character of public
property when Eliseo, in his official
capacity, conducted the execution sale and
received it proceeds. As long as Eliseo has
not accounted for and turned over the
proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his
official accountability.
Art 220. Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of
the inhabitants of X Municipality.
Thereafter, X Municipality operated a
shelter assistance 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
approved the withdrawal 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 program
were separate items on X Municipality's
annual budget. (2015 BAR)
a) Art 220. What crime did Mayor
Maawain commit? Explain.
Answer:
Mayor Maawain committed the crime of
Illegal use of public funds or property
punishable under Article 220 of the RPC.
This offense is also known as Technical
Malversation. The crime has 3 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 were
applied is different from the purpose for
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 Municipality’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
resources for proper nourishment.
b) Art 220. 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
program? Explain.
Answer:
No. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke 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 offense 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
considerations 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, G.R. No.
192330, 14 November 2012).
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public
officers - Malversation of public property
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of
public funds or property
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a
Regional Trial Court, 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 "evidence room" of the Clerk of
Court for Multiple KIC Salas were a
refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a
dining table set of chairs and several
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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/prosecutor, what
would be the nature of the information to be
filed against the accused? Why? (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file
an Information for Malversation against
Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chairs
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 malversation
although said properties belonged to a
private individual (Art. 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 detectives assigned to the
case", that the missing items were found in
the house of Santos, negates his
pretension.
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of
public funds or property
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos,
were former warehousemen of the Rustan
Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG
sequestered the assets, fund and
properties of the owners-incorporators 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
Malversation 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
Revised Penal Code.
What is the proper offense committed?
State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
(2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was
Malversation of public property, not estafa,
considering that Reyes and Santos, upon
their application, were constituted as fiscal
agents" of the sequestered firm and were
"given custody and possession" of the
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
sequestered properties, including the
delivery vans which later they could not
account for. They were thus made the
depositary and administrator of properties
deposited by public authority and hence, by
the duties of their office/position, they are
accountable for such properties. Such
properties, having been sequestered by the
Government through the PCGG, are in
custodia Iegis and therefore impressed
with the character of public property, even
though the properties belong to a private
individual (Art. 222, RPC).
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any
satisfactory explanation why the vans were
missing, is prima facie evidence that they
had put the same to their personal use.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
ART.181-Crimes against public interest –
False testimony; when incurred; when
prescribed
Paolo was charged with homicide before
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew,
a prosecution witness, testified that he saw
Paolo shoot Abby during their heated
argument. While the case is still pending,
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 testified 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.
A. Will the case against Andrew
prosper? (1994 Bar Question)
B. Paolo was acquitted. The decision
became final on January 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? (1994
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. For one to be criminally liable under
Art. 181. RPC, it is not necessary that the
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 statements
(People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of
Art. 169 and Art 315.
Art 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315:
Swindling(estafa)
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money
orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money
orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain
briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mail carrier's act of forging the
signatures of the payees of said money
orders constitutes falsification of
commercial documents. It was made to
appear that the payees signed them when
in fact they did not. When the mail carrier
encashed the money orders, he defrauded
and caused damage to the remitters who
gave the cash. The mail carrier further
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
incurred the crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents.
Criminal law – Crimes against public
interest – Falsification of private document
Art 172: Falsification by private individuals
and use of falsified documents; Art 308:
Who are liable for theft
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 by 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? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED 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 to only to
hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
Criminal law – Crimes against public
interest - Falsification of commercial
documents
Art. 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315:
swindling
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money
orders, the mail carrier forged the
signatures of the payees on the money
orders and encashed them. What crime or
crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain
briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The mail carrier's act of forging the
signatures of the payees of said money
orders constitutes falsification of
commercial documents. It was made to
appear that the payees signed them when
in fact they did not. When the mail carrier
encashed the money orders, he defrauded
and caused damage to the remitters who
gave the cash. The mail carrier further
incurred the crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer,
employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical
officer
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 Mayor Abral was not
there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where
Mayor 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 commit? Explain. (2015
BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Answer:
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
solemnized by 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).
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).
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer,
employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical
officer
Andrea signed her deceased husband’s
name in endorsing his three treasury
warrants which were delivered to her
directly by the district supervisor who knew
that her husband had already died, and she
used the proceeds to pay for the expenses
of her husband’s last illness and his burial.
She knew that her husband had
accumulated vacation and sick leaves the
money value of which exceeded that value
of the three treasury warrants, so that the
government suffered no damage. Andrea’s
appeal is based on her claim of absence of
criminal intent and of good faith.
Should she be found guilty of falsification?
Discuss briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andrea should be held guilty of falsification
of public documents. Her claim of absence
of criminal intent and of good faith cannot
be considered because she is presumed to
know that her husband is dead. The
element of damage required in falsification
does not refer to pecuniary damage but
damage to public interest.
Executive clemency can however be
sought for by Andrea.
Criminal law – Crimes against public
interest – Falsification of a private
document
Art 172. Falsification by private individuals
and use of falsified documents
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for
P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the
rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of
Dennis, prepared a demand 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.
a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain.
(4%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was
either the crime of falsification of a private
document (if damage or at least intent to
cause damage could be proved) or the
crime of swindling only. It could not be both
falsification and swindling or a complex
crime of estafa through falsification since
the document falsified is a private
document. The two crimes cannot go
together.
ART. 172 Criminal law – Crimes against
public interest - forgery of a private
document; falsification of a private
document
In a civil case for recovery of a sum of
money filed against him by A. B interposed
the defense of payment. In support thereof,
he identified and offered in evidence a
receipt which appears to be signed by A On
rebuttal. A denied having been paid by B
and having signed the receipt. He
presented a handwriting expert who
testified that the alleged signature of A on
the receipt is a forgery and that a
comparison thereof with the specimen
signatures of B clearly shows that B himself
forged the signature of A.
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a
falsified document in a judicial proceeding
(last paragraph of Article 172 of the
Revised Penal Code)? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B should not be liable for the crime of
using a falsified document, under the last
paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal
Code. He would be liable for forgery of a
private document under the second mode
of falsification under Art. 172, Revised
Penal Code. Being the possessor and user
of the falsified document he is presumed to
be the forger or falsifier and the offense of
introducing falsified document is already
absorbed in the main offense of forgery or
falsification.
If he is not, what offense or offenses may
he be charged with? (1991 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) B should be charged for the crime of
falsification of a private document, since
the document falsified is a private
document and done with intent to cause
damage. Although there was an attempt on
the part of B to defraud A thru the use of
the false document, such deceit cannot
give rise to estafa because this crime
cannot co-exist or be complexed with the
crime of falsification when the docu-ment
falsified is a private document.
Additional Answer:
If he testified on the genuineness of the
document, he should also be held liable
under Art. 182, which is false testimony in
civil cases.
ART. 166-176 Criminal law – Crimes
against public interest - Forgery and
falsification
A. How are “forging” and “falsification”
committed? (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. Is mere possession of false money
bills punishable under Article 168 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%) (1999
Bar Question)
C. The accused was caught in
possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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. (3%) (1999 Bar
Question)
D. A falsified official or public document
was found in the possession 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 public document mainly on the
proposition that “the only person who could
have made the erasures and the
superimposition mentioned 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 ratiocination?
Explain your answer. (3%) (1999 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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,
counterfeiting, or altering by any means the
figures, letters, words or signs contained
therein.
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.
B. No. Possession of false treasury or
bank note alone without an intent to use it,
is not punishable. But the circumstances of
such possession may indicate intent to
utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of
illegal possession of false notes.
C. 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.
D. 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.
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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days
later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00
from his account. 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. White for P200,000.00,
which amount he later withdrew. Upon
receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was
arrested by agents of the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was
convicted of estafa and attempted estafa,
both through the use of commercial
documents. (2014 BAR)
(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.
(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?
ANSWER:
(B) The first defense of Mr. Gray that
there was no evidence showing that he was
the author of the forgery has no merit. The
law presumes that the possessor and user
of a falsified document is the falsifier or
forger thereof. Likewise, his second
defense that Mr. White did not suffer any
injuries as to the second check (attempted
estafa) has no merit. Damage or intent to
cause damage is not considered in
attempted estafa. It is considered only in
consummated estafa.
(C) Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that
the first check is forged justifies the
entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is
already probable cause that the second
check is also a forgery. Further, granting for
the sake of argument that the entrapment
was illegal, such will not validate the
withdrawal based on the second check
which is also forged. His criminal liability in
forging the second check is not affected by
the alleged illegality of the entrapment
procedure.
Oscar, a former welder and painter at the
Caloocan Motor Works owned by Arturo,
went to the Downtown Hardware Store
where Arturo gets materials on credit, and
presented to its manager a typewritten
order for two (2) cans of “Dietsler” car paint.
The signature of Arturo on the order was
falsified. After receiving the paint, Oscar
sold them and kept the proceeds
therefrom. If you were the investigating
fiscal, what charge or charges will you file
against Oscar? Explain. (1989 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper charge against Oscar is
Falsification of a Private Document. This is
so for the following reasons:
By forging the signature of Arturo on the
typewritten purchase order for two cans of
car paint, Oscar committed the crime of
falsification. The document falsified by him,
how-ever, is a private document. A
typewritten purchase order is neither a
public, official or commercial document. It
is a private document. Falsification of a
private document, however, is not a crime
unless there is' damage or intent to cause
damage. When Oscar used the falsified
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
private document to obtain the two cans of
paint from the hardware store, the element
of damage arose, thus consummating the
crime of FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE
DOCUMENT.
Precisely because damage is an essential
element of the crime of falsification of a
private document, Oscar cannot be
convicted of the complex.crime of ESTAFA
THRU FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE
DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of
FALSIFICATION OF PRIVTE DOCUMENT
is committed here. The damage to another
is caused by the commission of said crime.
The intent to defraud in using falsified
private document is part and parcel of said
crime and cannot give rise to the crime of
estafa, because damage, which is also an
essential element of estafa, is caused by,
and becomes the element of, the crime of
falsification of private document. The crime
of estafa is not committed, as it cannot exist
without its own element of damage.
If the private document in the case was
falsified, not to induce the offended party to
part with something of value but to cover up
or conceal a defraudation previously made,
then the crime committed would be
ESTAFA. The falsification would be
absorbed in said offense, the element of
damage in one being the same as that
required in the other.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
ART.248-Murder-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 ransom 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 asphyxiation barely
minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and
Fely commit? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
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 attice were
only methods employed by the defendant
in committing murder qualified by the
circumstance of treachery (People v. Lora,
GR 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,
GR 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 deprivation
of his liberty. In this case, the victim was not
deprived of liberty since he immediately
died. The demand for ransom did not
covert the offense in to 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).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 accomplice 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 demanding ransom for the
release of the child is not connected to
murder. 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.
ART.247 and 333--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 exceptional 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%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 intercourse 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 of
sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse
generally 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.
b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having
sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. Under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a “man” not her husband,
Thus, Felipa in having homosexual
intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not
committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
ART.267- Angelino, a Filipino, is a
transgender who underwent gender
reassignment 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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%) (2016
BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 Art. 342 of the RPC.
There is no showing, moreover, that at the
time of abduction is committed with lewd
design; hence, his abduction constitutes
illegal detention. Since Angelino was killed
in the course of the detention, the crime
constitutes kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide under Art. 267.
Having sexual intercourse with
Angelino is not rape through sexual
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 penis into the anal orifice or
mouth of Angelino or an instrument or
object into the latter’s anal orifice or genital
orifice, hence this act constitutes acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336. Since the
acts of lasciviousness is committed by
reason or on 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, GR No. 202124, April
05, 2016; People v. Laog, GR 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.
ART. 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION; RELEASE OF
VICTIM, NOT ABSOLUTORY
B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped
CHU, a minor. On the second 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
proceedings for kidnapping were instituted.
Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. 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 victim being a minor, the crime
committed is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal
Code, to which such circumstance does not
apply. The circumstance may be
appreciated only in the crime of Slight
Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San
Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D]
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ART.315- 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 millions 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%) (2016
BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The crime committed in 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 equipment 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.
ART. 308 and 3015-Estafa-
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 former 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%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Tristan is liable for Estafa through
Misappropriation under Art. 315 of the
RPC. He received the cows under
obligation involving the duty to return the
same thing deposited, and acquired legal
or juridical possession in so doing, since
their transaction is a commodatum. Selling
the cows as if he owned it constitutes
misappropriation or conversion within the
contemplation of Art. 315.
[b] What crime or crimes, if any, were
committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Domingo is liable for qualified theft
under Art. 308 of the RPC. Although Tristan
received the horse with the consent 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, GR No. 205144, 26
November 2014). Since the horse is
accessible to him, the theft is qualified by
the circumstance of abuse of confidence
(Yangco v. People, GR No. 209373, 30
July 2014).
Further, Domingo committed the
crime of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law of 1974 (PD 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat
or hide without the consent of the
owner/raiser.
Art. 297 Robbery with homicide
A. An armed band tried to stop a
passenger bus, and the driver who sensed
that the band might commit robbery, did not
stop the bus but drove it faster. The
members of the band then fired at the bus,
killing one passenger who was hit in the
head.
B. As the malefactor were about to
enter the house of A, the latter hid himself
inside the ceiling. Once inside the house,
the malefactor took from A’s wife cash and
pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors
stood on a table and fired his gun at the
ceiling. After they had left A’s wife called for
him and receiving no answer, she went up
the ceiling and found him already dead.
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988
Bar Question)
C. In the course of robbery there was
confusion and in the exchange of shots
between the robbers and the victims, one
of the robbers happened to shoot one of his
own companions.
What crime was committed? Explain. (1988
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. They committed the crime of
attempted robbery with homicide with band
as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “Attempted... robbery
committed under certain circumstances.—
When on the occasion of an attempted
robbery a homicide is committed the
person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal
B. Robbery with homicide was
committed by the malefactors. Article 297
of the Revised Penal Code provides that
“Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances.—
When by reason...of an attempted or
frustrated robbery a homicide is committed
the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal. .
C. The robber committed the crime of
robbery with homicide in violation of Article
297 of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that “ ... when ... on the occasion
of an attempted robbery a homicide is
committed the person guilty of such
offenses shall be punished by reclusion
temporal.
Art 308: Who are liable for theft
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 by 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? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 to only to
hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
Art 315: Swindling
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. The judge,
not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule
on the evidence and convicted the
accused. (2014 BAR)
b. Art 315: Malo was charged with
estafa under Article 315 because he
misrepresented that he had influence,
when he actually had none. Is the charge
correct?
Answer:
Yes, estafa is committed by any person
who shall ask for 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 (Art.
315(2)(c), RPC).
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
ART.336 in rel to RA 7610-
Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old
stepdaughter, inside the master 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 prosecutor 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
Discrimination Act); or for rape under Art.
266-A of the RPC. What is the crime
committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
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,
GR 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 GR
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 constitutes sexual abuse under
Sec. 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 (People v.
Optana, GR No. 133922, 12 February
2001).
Since the requisites for acts of
lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC
are met, in addition to the requisites for
sexual abuse under Sec. 5 of RA No. 7610,
and the victim is under 12 years of age,
Braulio shall be prosecuted for acts of
lasciviousness under the RPC but the
penalty imposable is that prescribed by RA
No. 7610 (Amployo v. People, GR No.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
157718, 26 April 2005). Under Sec. 5 (b) of
RA No. 7610, when the victim (child
subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12
years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted (for acts of lasciviousness)
under Art. 336 of the RPC, provided, that
the penalty for lascivious conduct when the
victim is under 12 years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
ART.247 and 333--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 exceptional 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 intercourse 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 of
sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse
generally 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.
b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having
sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%) (2016
BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. Under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, adultery is committed by any
married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a “man” not her husband,
Thus, Felipa in having homosexual
intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not
committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS
OF PERSONS
Bigamy; Elements
(2012).........................................................
......................................73
Bigamy; First Marriage Null and Void
(2012).........................................................
.........74
Bigamy; Psychological Incapacity
(2012).........................................................
..............74
Bigamy; Perjury; Adultery
(2008).........................................................
..........................75
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
ART.353-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:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
"Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang
logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka
suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya
ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa
bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay
10% lang. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng
RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X
at dapat tanggalin itong bundat na bundat
na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng
kurakot."
A, B and C were charged with libel before
the RTC 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%) (2016 BAR)
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 established by
showing that comment was made with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not
(Guingguing v. the Honorable Court of
Appeals, GR No. 128959, 30 September
2005). Journalists bear the burden of
writing responsibly when practicing 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,
GR 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 Art. 360 of the RPC, the
publisher, and editor of newspaper, shall
be responsible for the defamation
contained therein to the same extent. The
law makes the publisher and editor liable
for libel as if they were the author (Tulfo v.
People, supra).
ART.355-Crimes against honor - libel by
theatrical exhibition
In the course of proceeding during a so-
called “public hearing held before a crowd
in a place open to the public, the leaders of
the meeting “tried” certain public officials
and thereafter “sentenced” them to “death
by assassination or ambuscades.”
Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide
the case. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leaders are criminally liable for the
crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
“libel by means of writing or similar
means.— A libel committed by means of
writing, printing lithography, engraving,
radio, phornographs, painting, theatrical
exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means, shall be punished by
prision correctional
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.358-Crimes against honor - slander or
slight defamation
A. Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the
Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for
libel for the public publication of his picture
with the notice that: “This is to inform the
public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture
appears above has ceased to be
connected with the Sincere Insurance
Company as underwriter as of December
31, 1987. Any transaction entered into by
him after said date will not be honored.”
Is the publication defamatory? Explain
briefly. (1988 Bar Question)
B. For some time, bad blood had
existed beween the two families of Maria
Razon and Judge Gadioma who were
neighbors. First, there w&s 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 Gadiomas of throwing
garbage and animal excrement into the
Razon’s premises. In an explosion of
anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma “land
grabber'*, “shameless”, and “hypocrite."
What crime was committed by Maria, if
any? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The publication is not defamatory
because the element of intent to defame is
absent. This is a mere announcement and
does not carry any implication.
B. 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.
ART. 355, 358-Crimes against honor –
Libel or slander
During a seminar workshop attended by
government employees from the Bureau of
Customs and the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, 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 were
committed. If you were the judge, how
would you resolve the motion? (2003 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 persons 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
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
during a seminar workshop. Malice being
inherently absent in the utterance, the
statement is not actionable as defamatory.
ART.355- Crimes against honor - Libel
In an interview aired on television, Cindee
uttered defamatory statements against
Erika, a successful and reputable
businesswoman.
What crime or crimes did Cindee commit?
Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made
in a television program is penalized as libel
under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code.
Televison falls under “similar means" in the
enumeration as “radio phonograph,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic
exhibition, or any similar means" in said
Article. [People v. Casten, et al.t CJL G.R.
No. 07924 - CR., Dec. 13, 1974)
ART.355-Crimes against honor – Proof of
truth in the crime of libel
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the statement
is false. Explain your answer in not more
than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar
Question)
In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute
defense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that
proof of truth shall be admissible in libel
cases only if the same imputes a crime or
is made against a public officer with respect
to 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.
ART.355-Crimes against honor – Libel by
means of writings or similar means
Angeline maintains a website where
visitors can give their comments on the
posted pictures of the goods she sells in
her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a
comment that the red Birkin bag shown in
Angelina’s website is fake and that
Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items.
Angelina wants to file a case against
Bettina. She seeks your advice. What
advice will you give her? (4%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case
of libel against Bettina because the
imputations made by Bettina is libelous.
Whether the imputation of a defect, status,
or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly
tends to discredit, dishonor or place in
contempt or ridicule a particular person
who is identified, the imputation is
presumed by law to be malicious and thus
penalized as libel under Art 355 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar
line of trade, her statement against the
goods sold by Angelina may constitute a
violation of the law on Unfair Competition
(Rep. Act No. 8291.)
ART.358-Crimes against honor - grave oral
defamation; light slander
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Lando and Marco are candidates in the
local elections. In his speeches Lando
attacked his opponent Marco alleging that
he is the son of Nanding, a robber and a
thief who amassed his wealth through
shady deals. May Marco file a case against
Lando for grave oral defamation? State
your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
Suppose Marco also delivered a speech
stating therein that he had charged Lando
of estafa through falsification in the
Tanodbayan so much so that since his
(Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not
be elected. May Marco also be held liable
for grave oral defamation? State your
reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marco cannot file a case for grave oral
defamation. If at all, he may file a case for
light slander. In the case of People v.
Laroga (40 O.G. 123), it was held that
defamation in a political meeting, when
feelings are running high and people could
not think clearly, only amount to light
slander.
No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave
oral defamation considering that Lando
was merely stating what appears in a public
record, referring to the exercise of a legal
right to file suit. Moreover, his statement
against Marco pertains to a person who is
running for public office wherein a wider
latitude is given.
ART.358-Crimes against honor - Oral
defamation or slander
Because of a pendency of a labor dispute,
two (2) belligerent labor 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 supot, 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?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The President and the Secretary of the
Union are not liable for oral defamation or
slander because there is no identity of the
offended party. The individual defamed or
slandered was not singled out (People vs.
Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).
ART.353-Crimes against honor – Libel;
publication in the newspapers; broadcast
over the radio
A was nominated Secretary of a
Department in the Executive Branch of the
government. His nomination was thereafter
submitted to the Commission on
Appointments for confirmation. While the
Commission was considering the
nomination, a group of concerned 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 Commission on
Appointments. The official sued the
concerned citizens and the newspapers for
libel and damages on account of his non-
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
confirmation. How will you decide the
case? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 denunciation 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? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because libel may be committed by
radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised
Penal Code punishes libel committed by
means, among others, of radio broadcast,
Inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio
is public and may be defamatory.
ART.358-Crimes against honor - Slander
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004
Bar Question) Between oral defamation
and criminal conversation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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,
embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This
is a crime against honor penalized in Art.
358 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal conversation. The term is used in
making a polite reference to sexual
intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape,
seduction and adultery. It has no definite
concept as a crime
ART.359-Crimes against honor - slander
by deed
Maria called Lydia names and slapped her
at the dance floor in the presence of many
people because she suspected that Lydia
was flirting with her boyfriend. The
following day, Lydia filed with the Fiscal’s
Office a complaint for slander by deed
against Maria. After preliminary
investigation, the Fiscal forgot all about the
case until the 179th day, which was a
Saturday, from the commission of the
crime. Since the following day was a
Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in
court on Monday, the 181st day from the
commission of the crime. After trial, the
Judge convicted Maria. She engaged
another lawyer who on appeal asserted
that the crime of slander by deed had
prescribed because it was filed in court one
day after the six-month period of
prescription under Art. 90 of the Revised
Penal Code. The Fiscal argued that since
the 180th day fell on a Sunday, he could file
the information the following Monday. He
also said that, in any event, Maria waived
the defense of prescription because she
did not raise it during the trial of case.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime of slander by deed has already
prescribed as it was tiled one day after the
six month period of prescription. The rule is
if the last day of the period of prescription
of a crime falls on a Sunday, as in the
problem, the information cannot be filed on
the next working day, which is Monday as
that will lengthen the period of prescription,
which will not be favorable to the accused.
(Japdiangco vs. Bartolome 122 SCRA 713)
The contention of the Fiscal that Maria
waived the defense of prescription because
she did not raise it during the trial of die
case is untenable. It has already been
settled that prescription, although not
raised in the trial may be invoked on
appeal. (People vs. Balagtas 105 Phil.
1362; People vs. Castro 95 Phil 462).
QUASI-OFFENSES
ART. 365-Criminal negligence - Simple
Negligence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries; Simple Imprudence
Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries;
Reckless imprudence resulting in less
serious physical injuries
During a concert of Gary V., and in order to
prevent the crowd from rushing to the
stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard)
pointed his gun at the onrush of people.
When the crowd still pushed forward,
Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare
them off. However, 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? Explain
your answer (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 unruly 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 Art. 155 of the Revised
Penal Code nor may such discharge
amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of
Firearms under Art. 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 committed is
Simple Imprudence Resulting In Less
Serious Physical Injuries, since the
physical injuries required only twelve (12)
days of medical attention.
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local
faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He
was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie
thereupon authorized the conduct of a
"treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit"
from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
procedure conducted resulted in the boy's
death.
The faithhealer and three others who were
part of the healing ritual were charged with
murder and convicted by the lower court. If
you were the appellate court Justice, would
you sustain the conviction upon appeal?
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
way of driving the evil spirit which was
believed to have "possessed" him.
Considering that proximate cause of the
victim's death was the healing ritual done
by the accused which is, not recognized in
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.
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a
fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol.
Olimpio went to a drug store with the
prescription, and the pharmacist sold him
three (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
paracetamol but a pill to which he was
allergic. The pharmacist was charged with
murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what
should it be? Explain. (6%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The pharmacist committed a serious
mistake. But the mistake could not
characterize the death as murder because
the specific intent to kill the victim was
absent. The pharmacist could not be liable
for murder.
The pharmacist should be charged instead
with reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide (Art. 365, RPC) because
Olimpio's death was the result of the
pharmacist's serious negligence or
imprudence as there is no specific intent to
kill and no requisite qualifying
circumstance.
MISCELLANEOUS
Chain of Custody
(2009).........................................................
.......................................78
Doctrine of Pro Reo
(2012).........................................................
...................................79
Doctrine of Pro Reo
(2010).........................................................
...................................79
Human Rights Violations
(2008).........................................................
...........................79
Intervention vs. Diversion
(2009).........................................................
.........................80
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016

No Criminal Liability
(2008).........................................................
..................................80 Three-Fold Rule
(2013).........................................................
.........................................81
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
SPECIAL LAW-R.A 9262-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.
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 discovered Romeo's rotting
corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the
children were nowhere to be found. Julia
was charged with parricide. She asserted
"battered woman's syndrome" as her
defense.
[a] Explain the "cycle of violence."
(2.5%)(2016 BAR)
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 behavior. The woman tries to pacify
the batterer through a kind, nurturing
behavior; or by simply staying out of his
way. The acute battering incident 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%)
Yes. Under Sec. 3 (c) of RA No.
9262, “Battered Woman Syndrome” 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 Sec. 3 (b), “Battery” refers to
an act of inflicting physical harm upon the
woman or her child resulting in physical
and psychological or emotional distress
(Sec. 3).
In sum, the defense of Battered
Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the
woman in a 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.
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 of an
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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
Sec. 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
under the RPC such as unlawful
aggression (Sec. 26 of RA No. 9262).
SPECIAL LAW- RA 9165- Dimas was
arrested after a valid buy-bust operation.
Macario, the policeman who acted as
poseur-buyer, inventoried and
photographed 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 contained 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
observe 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 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.
[a] What is the "chain of custody"
requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%)
(2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
To establish the chain of custody,
the prosecution must show the movements
of the dangerous drugs from its
confiscation up to its presentation in court.
The purpose of establishing the chain of
custody is to ensure the integrity of the
corpus delicti (People v. Magat, GR No.
179939, 29 September 2008). The
following links that must be established 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, GR 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 comply with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165,
which requires that the apprehending
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 confiscated, or his
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the DOJ, and any
elected public official who shall be required
to sign the copies of the inventory 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The contention of the State is
meritorious. Macario, the policeman failed
to comply with Sec. 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
submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory
within 24 hours. The rule is settled that
failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1),
Article II of RA No. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused’s arrest
illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized item.
Moreover, the issue of non-compliance
with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal (People
v. Badilla, GR No. 218578, August 31,
2016).
SPECIAL LAW– RA 6805; Instances of
legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
country use an alias legally? Give 3
instances. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, an alias may be legally used -
a. as a pseudonym in cinema and
other entertainment field;
b. as a pen name in literary
composition or work;
c. as a pseudonym in television and
radio broadcasting (Ursua v. CA, 256
SCRA 147 11986); RA 6085, Secs. 1 & 2;
SPECIAL LAW– PD 704 – punishable acts
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish
seized by the police and agents of the
Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably
determined that the fish they were selling
were caught with the use of explosives.
Accordingly, the three vendors were
criminally charged with the violation of
Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it
unlawful for any person to knowingly
possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish
which have been illegally caught. During
the trial, the three vendors claimed that
they bought the fish from a fishing boat
which they duly identified. The prosecution
however claimed that the three vendors
should nevertheless be held liable for the
offense as they were the ones caught in
possession of the fish illegally caught.
On the basis of the above facts, if you were
the judge, would you convict the three fish
vendors? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish
vendors if I were the judge. Mere
possession of such fish without knowledge
of the fact that the same were caught with
the use of explosives does not by itself
render the seller-possessor criminally liable
under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized
in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum,
the law punishes the possession, dealing in
or selling of such fish only when
“knowingly" done that the fish were caught
with the use of explosives; hence criminal
intent is essential. The claim by the fish
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
vendors that they only bought the fish from
fishing boats which they “duly identified",
renders their possession of such fish
innocent unless the prosecution could
prove that they have knowledge that
explosives were used in catching such fish,
and the accused had knowledge thereof.
SPECIAL LAW- Pres. Decree Nos. 704
and 1058 - Fishing with the use of
explosives; punishable acts
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP)
officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat
with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A
and B who were in a banca, for dynamite
fishing. The latter’s banca was towed
towards the municipality. On the way, the
PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third
banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried
to negotiate for the release of A and B and
their banca. The PNP officers refused and
instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are
all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E
simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the
PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed
X. A and B also reacted by throwing
dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its
explosion killed Y and Z.
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E
commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Firstly, A and B committed a violation of
Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing) as
amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and
1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is
punishable under said Decree.
SPECIAL LAW– Act Defining Certain
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) –
Rights which can be violated
Upon complaint of Baby, NBI agent Cesar
invited estafador to the NBI headquarters
where Cesar showed to Estafador the
sworn complaint of Baby for estafa. He
thereafter began questioning Estafador
who told him that he (Estafador) is willing to
submit to an Investigation since he has
nothing to hide. Thereupon, Cesar got a
typewriter and took down the statement of
Estafador without informing the latter that
he has a right to remain silent and to secure
the services of a lawyer. After the
statement was signed by Estafador, his
fiancee, Fadora, came and asked Cesar to
allow her to confer with Estafador but
Cesar refused saying that after all. Fadora
is not a lawyer, and that Estafador
voluntarily gave his statement.
If you were the lawyer of Estafador, with
what crime would you charge the NBI
agent? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Violation of RA 7438, defining rights of
persons arrested.
1. Failure to inform him of his right to
counsel and to remain silent (Sec. 4, par.
1); and
2. Prevent an immediate member of
his family which includes fiancee, to confer
with Estafador (Sec. 4(b)
Special law. RA 9160: Anti-Money
Laundering Act
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the
statement is true, or FALSE if the
statement is false. Explain your answer in
not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
(2009 Bar Question)
[e] For a person who transacts an
instrument representing the proceeds of a
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
covered unlawful activity to be liable under
the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160,
as amended), it must be shown that he has
knowledge of the identities of the culprits
involved in the commission of the predicate
crimes.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. 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 RA 9160, it is
sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful
activity are transacted, making them
appear to have originated from legitimate
sources.
Special Law. under Republic Act (RA) No.
9160, as amended (Anti- Money
Laundering Act)
There being probable cause to believe that
certain deposits and investments in a bank
are related to an unlawful activity of
smuggling by Alessandro as defined under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended
(Anti- Money Laundering Act) an
application for an order to allow inquiry into
his deposit was filed with the Regional Trial
Court.
After hearing the application, the court
granted the application and issued a freeze
order.
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s
order. Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The freeze order issued by the Regional
Trial Court is not correct, because
jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now
vested with the Court of Appeals under Rep
Act 9194, amending the Anti-Money
Laundering Act (Rep. Act No. 9160). The
Regional Trial Court is without jurisdiction
to issue a freeze order of the money
involved.
Define Money laundering. What are the
three (3) stages in money laundering? (3%)
(2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 such a
transaction is to hide the beneficial owner
of said funds and allows criminal
organizations or criminals to enjoy
proceeds of such criminal activities.”
The three (3) stages in money laundering
are:
1. Placement/ infusion or the physical
disposal of criminal proceeds
2. Layering or the separation of the
criminal proceeds from their source by
creating layers of financial transactions to
disguise such proceeds as legitimate and
avoid audit trail; and
3. Integration or the provision of
apparent legitimacy to the criminal
proceeds.
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to
fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name
and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million.
From this account, the Mayor withdrew and
used the money for constructing feeder
roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160
(Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001), as
amended by Rep. Act 9194, since the
money proceeds from an unlawful activity,
i.e., jueteng are transacted as though
coming from a legitimate source; (crime
committed by Don Gabito)
1) Money laundering under the same laws
above- mentioned if after learning that the
money deposited in his account were
proceeds of jueteng, he still continued
using said funds; (crime committed by the
Mayor)
RA3019, PD 1829: During a PNP buy-bust
operation, Cao Shih was arrested for
selling 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 Evidence
Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry
Section, the amount of P500.000.00 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:
Direct bribery;
Indirect bribery;
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act);
Obstruction of Justice under PD
1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Patrick committed the crimes of direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A.
3019), and Obstruction of Justice under
Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick
when, for a consideration of P500.000.00,
he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by
destroying the drugs which were evidence
entrusted to him in his official capacity.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because
he received the P500,000.00 as a
consideration for destroying the 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 Section 3(e), R.A.
3019 causing undue injury to the
government through evident bad faith,
giving unwarranted benefit to the offender
by destroying evidence of a crime.
Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of
P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying
evidence intended to be used in official
proceedings in criminal case.
b) The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i)
Punishable acts
(ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or
conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity
from prosecution and punishment (v)
Custody and disposition of confiscated,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
c) Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
Special penal law - Crimes relative to
opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep.
Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
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? Explain briefly. (5%)
(2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Judge should not allow MNO’s plea
to a lesser offense, because
pleabargaining 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.
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his
possession an unspecified amount of
methamphetamlne hydrochloride or
“shabu". An entrapment operation was
conducted by police officers, resulting in his
arrest following the discovery of 100 grams
of the said dangerous drug in his
possession. He was subjected to a drug
test and was found positive for the use of
marijuana, another dangerous drug. He
was subsequently charged with two crimes:
Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
for the possession of “shabu" and violation
of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the
use of marijuana.
A. Are the charges proper? Explain.
B. So as not to be sentenced to death,
Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser
offense. Can he do so? Why? (5%) (2005
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The charge of possession of shabu
is proper as the mere possession of such
drug is punishable, but the charge of use of
marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of
Rep. Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002) expressly excludes
penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs
when the person tested is also found to
have in possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug" provided for in Section 11
of such Act.
B. No, because Section 23 of R.A.
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 guilty to a
lesser offense.
After receiving a reliable information that
Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler,
was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181,
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 attache case.
Upon inspection inside the Immigration
holding area, the attache case yielded 5
plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams.
Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache
case and boarded him in an unmarked car
driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector
Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes 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 P03
Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team
followed
Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them
were later charged
What are their respective criminal
liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two police officers are criminally liable
for violation of Sec. 27, R.A. 9165 of the
same law for misappropriation and 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, Sec. 4, RA 9165)
After receiving a reliable information that
Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler,
was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181,
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 attache case.
Upon inspection inside the Immigration
holding area, the attache case yielded 5
plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams.
Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache
case and boarded him in an unmarked car
driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to
Camp Crame and upon nearing White
Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector
Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes 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 P03
Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team
followed
Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them
were later charged
What are their respective criminal
liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and P03
Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under
Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., 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.
Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their
group for a "session". Thinking that it was
for a mahjong session Anastacio agreed.
Upon reaching Tiburcio's house, Anastacic
discovered that it was actually a shabu
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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? Explain your answer.
(2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Anastacio may not be charged of any
crime.
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs 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 shall knowingly visit the
same." These requisites are absent in the
facts given.
Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) –
Preventive suspension
A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit
Commissioner of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board, who was charged
with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic
Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act) before the Sandiganbayan, 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 suspension
pendente lite applies only to electiye
officials and not to appointed ones like him.
Rule with reasons. (5%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 (Sec. 13, R.A. 3019). Such
preventive suspension is mandatory to
prevent the accused from hampering the
normal course of the investigation (Rios vs.
Sandiganbayan, 279SCRA 581J1997):
Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332
[19931).
Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that
the provision on suspension pendente lite
applies only to elective officials and not to
appointed ones like him. It applies to all
public officials indicted upon a valid
information 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 vs. Sandiganbayan, 288
SCRA 328 [1998]).
Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or
frustrated stage of the violation charged is
not punishable, but the accused be
nevertheless convicted for an offense
punished by the Revised Penal Code
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr.
Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau
of Customs the necessary Import Entiy and
Internal 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 Declaration which
declared the shipment as children’s toys,
the taxes and duties of which were
computed at P60,000,00. Mr. Ocuarto filed
the aforementioned documents with the
Manila International Container Port
However, before the shipment was
released, a spot check was conducted by
Customs Senior Agent James Bandldo,
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
P600,000.00. 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. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and
Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted
for violation of Section 3(e) of RA. 3019
which makes it unlawful among others, for
public officers to cause any undue injuiy 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.
A. Is the contention of both accused
correct? Explain.(3%) (2000 Bar Question)
B. Art. 315: 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 Revised Penal
Code under the facts of the case? Explain.
(3%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Yes, the contention of the accused
that the crime was not consummated is
correct. R.A. 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.
B. 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.
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and
Employees)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to
fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name
and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI 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 operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
4. Corruption of public officials under
Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were
deposited in an account which he opened
in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the
public position or office held by the Mayor;
(crime committed by Don Gabito)
5. 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. (crime committed by the
Mayor)
6. Violation of Rep. Act 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. (crime committed
by the Mayor)
Criminal law – Crimes committed by
public officers - Indirect bribery; Special
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019-
directly or indirectly requesting or 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
RA 3019: Charina, Clerk of Court of an
RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a
case pending before the court that she
would convince the Presiding Judge to
decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In
consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave
Charina P20,000.00.
Charina was charged with violation of
Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019,
prohibiting any public officer from directly or
indirectly requesting or 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 was being tried, the
Ombudsman filed another information
against Charina for Indirect Bribery under
the Revised Penal Code. Charina
demurred to the second information,
claiming that she can no longer be charged
under the Revised Penal Code having
been charged for the same act under R.A.
3019.
Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Charina is not correct. Although the
charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019
and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art.
211, RPC) arose from the same act, the
elements of the violation charged under
Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the
felony charged for Indirect Bribery under
the Rev. 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 motion to quash, as
there is no jeopardy against the accused.
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and
Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael,
Leyte, caused the disbursement of public
funds allocated for their local development
programs for 2008. Records show that the
amount of P2-million was purportedly used
as financial assistance for a rice production
livelihood project. Upon investigation,
however, it was found that Roger and
Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers
and supporting documents in order to make
it appear that qualified recipients who, in
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
fact, are non-existent individuals, received
the money.
Roger and Jessie are charged with
violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for
causing undue injury to the government.
Discuss the propriety of the charge filed
against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%)
(2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
They should be charged of violation of
Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 for the
breach of public trust and undue injury
caused to the Government. The violation is
a crime malum prohibitum.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by
public officers - direct bribery; Special
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019
RA 3019: May a public officer charged
under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No.
3019 [“directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit, for himself of for any
other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the
government and any other party, wherein
the public officer in his official capacity has
to intervene under the law”] also be
simultaneously or successively charged
with direct bribery under Article 210 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3
(b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
charged simultaneously or successively for
the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of
the Revised Penal Code, because two
crimes are essentially different and are
penalized under distinct legal philosophies.
Whereas violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019
is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art.
210 of the Code is a malum in se.
Criminal law – Crimes committed by
public officer - Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
The Central Bank (Bangko Sentralna
Pilipinas), by a resolution of the monetary
board, hires Thereof Sto. Tomas, a retired
manager of a leading bank as a consultant.
Thereof later receives a valuable gift from
a bank under investigation by the Central
Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a
gift? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Thereof may not be prosecuted under
Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for
violation of Pres. Decree No. 46, under
which such act of receiving a valuable gift
is punished.
Although Thereof is a “public officer” within
the application of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act
of receiving such gift does not appear to be
included among the punishable acts under
Rep. Act 3019), yet his act of receiving
such gift does not appear to be included
among the punishable acts under Rep. Act
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, Thereof is
administratively liable.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes, Thereof may be prosecuted under
Rep. Act 3019 because he is a “public
officer' within the purview of said law, and
Thereof received the valuable gift from a
bank which is under investigation by the
Central Bank where he is employed as a
“public officer.
Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a
public officer from a party who has a
transaction with the Government is wrong,
more so when the gift-giver is under
investigation by the government office to
which the public officer is connected.
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? Explain.
(5%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec.
3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which considers
as corrupt practice, the act of:
“(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein
the public officer in his official capacity has
to intervene under the law. “
Being the assistant public high school
principal, it is her duty to intervene in the
release of salary differentials and per diem
of classroom teachers under her. Her act of
doing so, made a request for a share or
benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt
practice under Sec 3(b) of Rep. Act No.
3019. Considering that the acts prohibited
or punished under this law are mala
prohibita, and thus punishable thereunder,
whether done with criminal intent or not.
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and
Employees)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to
fund several projects of the Mayor. He
opened an account in the Mayor’s name
and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to PI 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 operations.
What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain.
(6%)(2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Corruption of public officials under
Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for
having given the amounts that were
deposited in an account which he opened
in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the
public position or office held by the Mayor;
(crime committed by Don Gabito)
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. (crime committed by the
Mayor)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
3. Violation of Rep. Act 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. (crime committed
by the Mayor)
Special penal law– Violation of Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public
Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting
donations of gifts
Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau
of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation
letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to
certain CEOs of various multinational
corporations 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 envelopes
containing cash money for the employees'
Christmas luncheon.
Has Commissioner Torres committed any
impropriety or irregularity? What laws or
decrees did she violate? 5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an
impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep.
Act 6713 otherwise known as the “Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees”. Sec. 7(d)
mandates that public officials and
employees shall not solicit or accept
directly or indirectly any gift, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the
course of£ her official duties or any
transaction which may be affected by the
functions of their office.
Special Law. PD 1866, as amended by
RA8294 and RA 10591 :
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 belonged to A, his friend, and that
he was not in actual possession thereof at
the time he was arrested. Are the
allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%)
(2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 us. De Grecia,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil, 105;
People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
SPECIAL LAW – PENALTIES – GRAVE
OFFENSE; LIFE IMPRISONMENT
QUESTION
A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD
that she could send them to London to work
there as sales ladies and waitresses. She
collected 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 (Phil.
Overseas Employment Authority). There
they found 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? Explain
briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. 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
Pres. Decree 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, individually 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.
Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002)
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking
while his younger brother Jeff was found
guilty of possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition 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' petitions for
probation? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The brothers' petition for probation should
both be denied.
Matt's petition for probation shall be denied
because he was convicted for
drugtrafficking. Section 24 of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drug 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. 968, as amended).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act - Processes of intervention and
diversion
Joe was 17 years old when he committed
homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable
by reclusion temporal. After two years in
hiding, he was arrested and appropriately
charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act
9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to
avail of the process of intervention or
diversion.
[a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe
entitled to intervention or diversion?
Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
counseling, skills training, education, and
other activities that will enhance his/her
psychological, emotional and psycho-
social wellbeing. This is available to a child
15 years old or less at the time of the
commission of the crime 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 proceedings. 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.
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 RA 9344
[b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or
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? Explain.
(2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The judge should not suspend
sentence anymore because Joe was
already 21 years old. Suspension of
sentence is availing under Rep. Act 9344
only until a child reaches the maximum age
of twenty-one (21) years.
Prescription for violation of special laws
- Petition for forfeiture under Republic
Act No. 1379
Maloling is a public official who resigned
from the service on February 1, 1984. On
February 15, 1990, the Solicitor General
filed a petition in court for the forfeiture of
the property of Maloling which was
allegedly unlawfully acquired.
If you were the counsel of Maloling, what
defense or defenses would you interpose?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Besides property unlawfully acquired
found to be in the name of Maloling, what
are the other properties not in his name
which may nevertheless be considered
unlawfully acquired? Explain your answer.
(1990 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would interpose the defense of
prescription as the right to file a petition for
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379
Section 2 prescribes in four (4) years from
the date of resignation.
Property which may still be considered as
unlawfully acquired, though not in the name
of Maloling at the time of filing of the petition
for forfeiture, shall include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the
respondent but its ownership concealed by
being recorded in the name of, or held by,
the respondent’s spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives or any other person;
and
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the
respondent, but transferred by him to
another person/s. (R-A. 1379 Section 1(b)).
Special law - Highway Robbery under
Presidential Decree No. 532
a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under
Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery
committed on a highway. (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)
b) A, B, C, D and E were in a
beerhouse along MacArthur Highway
having a drinking spree. At about 1 o’clock
in the morning, they decided to leave and
so asked for the bill. They pooled their
money together but they were still short of
P2.Q00.00. 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 P1,000.00 only, they needed
P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they
decided to hail another taxicab and they
again robbed driver Y of his hard-eamed
money amounting to PI,000.00. On their
way back to the beerhouse, they were
apprehended 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
E commit? Explain fully. (3%) (2000 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree
532 differs from ordinary Robbery
committed on a highway in these respects:
In Highway Robbery under PD 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;
It is Highway Robbery under PD 532,
when the offender is a brigand or one who
roams in public highways and carries 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
In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there
is frequency in the commission of the
robbery in public highways and against
persons travelling thereat; whereas
ordinary Robbery In public highways is only
occasional against a predetermined victim,
without frequency in public highways.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2)
counts of robbery under Article 294 of the
Rev. Penal Code; not for highway Robbery
under PD 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.
Special law – Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery (PD 532) punishable
acts
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 different
export processing zones outside Metro
Manila. From time to time, he gave
valuable and detailed information on these
matters 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, Ouezon City and Bangkal, Makati
City, the gang informs Sgt. Chan who then
inspects the pilfered goods, makes his
choice of the valuable items and disposes
of them through his own sources or
“fences”. When the highjackers 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 principal but
only as an accessory after the fact under
P.D. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-
Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Act of
1972.
Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and
tenable? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid
or tenable because by express provision of
P.D. 532, Section 4, a person who
knowingly 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
robbeiy/brigandage, shall be considered as
accomplice of the principal offenders and
punished in accordance with the rules in
the Revised Penal Code.
Special penal law - The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No.
9165) – Chain of custody
Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust
operation, Tommy was convicted of
violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165.
On appeal, Tommy questioned the
admissibility of the evidence because the
police officers who conducted the buybust
operation failed to observe the requisite
"chain of custody" of the evidence
confiscated and/or seized from him.
What is the "chain of custody" requirement
in drug offenses? What is its rationale?
What is the effect of failure to observe the
requirement? (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
"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
confiscation/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 authenticating the
evidence as would support a finding
beyond reasonable doubt that the matter is
what the prosecution claims it 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 acquitted on reasonable doubt.
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) had intelligence reports about the
drug pushing activities of Rado, but could
not arresthim 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 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, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of2002. (2015 BAR)
a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo
invoke to free himself from criminal liability?
Explain.
Answer:
Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA
9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of
2002”. He may have violated Section 11 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 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,
Emililo cannot be prosecuted for violation
of RA 9165.
b) May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's
defense? Explain.
Answer:
No. First, an entrapment operation is a
valid means of arresting violators of RA
9165. It is an effective way of apprehending
law offenders in the act of committing a
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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.
ART.220 in rel to RA 3019
Governor A was given the amount of PIO
million by the Department of Agriculture for
the purpose of buying seedlings to be
distributed to the farmers. Supposedly
intending to modernize the farming industry
in his province, Governor A bought farm
equipment through direct purchase from
XY Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B,
the alleged exclusive distributor of the said
equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman
discovered that B has a pending patent
application for 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%)(2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 elementsL: 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 (Ysidora
v. People. G.R. No. 192330, 14 November
2012).
The amount of P 10M granted by the
Department of Agriculture to Governor A,
an accountable public officer, is specifically
appropriated for the purpose of buying
seedlings to be distributed to the farmers.
Instead, Governor A applied the amount to
acquire modern farm equipment through
direct purchase from XY Enterprise owned
by his kumpare. The law punishes the act
of diverting public funds earmarked by law
or ordinance for a specific public purpose
to another public purpose, hence, the
liability for technical malversation.
Governor A can also be held liable
for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 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
inexcusable 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 element is likewise
present because, “through manifest
partiality” in favoring 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 the government as well as
the farmers who were deprived of the
seedlings. His acts likewise gave his
kumpare, a private party, the unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference, to the
exclusion of other interested suppliers.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The act committed by Governor is
also in violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No.
3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the
government which is manifestly and
grossly disadvantageous to the same.
SPECIAL LAW- P.D 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 jewelry valued at Pl
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 jewelries 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%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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
(Sec. 2 of PD 1612)
[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing
Law? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
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 overturned
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.
SPECIAL LAW- RA 6539-Anti-
carnapping Law
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
qualified theft. B alleged that A took and
used the car with intent to 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? Explain.
(5%)(2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The crime commited by A is
carnapping. The unlawful taking of motor
vehicles is now covered by the Anti-
Carnapping Law (RA 6539 as amended)
and not by the provisions on qualified theft
or robbery (People v. Rustinera, GR No.
148233, 8 June 2004). The concept of
carnapping is the same as that of robbery
and theft. Hence, rules applicable to theft
or robbery are also applicable to
carnapping (People v. Asamudding GR No.
213913, 2 September 2015). In theft,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
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 to deprive
the lawful owner of the thing, whether
permanently or temporarily (People v.
Valenzuela, GR No. 160188, 21 June
2007). In this case A took the car without
the consent of 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 another, 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.
SPECIAL LAW- R.A Child exploitation--
Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a
bench in Luneta Park watching the statue
of Jose Rizal when, without his permission,
Leilani, I 7 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 l 0 of RA 76 I 0 (Special
Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act),
accusing him of having in his company a
minor, who is not related to him, in a public
place. It was established that Arnold was
not in the performance of a social, moral
and legal duty at that time.
Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain.
(5%) (2016 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. Arnold is not liable. Under Sec.
10 of RA No. 7610, any person who shall
keep or have in his company a minor,
twelve (12) year or under or who is 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 Sec. 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.
Morever, Leilani sat beside Arnold
without his permission, hence he is not in
the company of a child in a public place.
Lastly, applying the ejusdem generis
principle, Arnold is not liable for child abuse
because Luneta is not a place similar to
hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque,
cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage
parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort.