CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES AND SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
GENERAL PRINCIPLES imposition of sanction, instead the

underlying reasons would be
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF
inquired into.
THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)
2. We follow the classical school of thought
1) What are the di8erent schools of
although some provisions of eminently
thought or theories in Criminal Law and
positivist in tendencies, like punishment
describe each brie?y.
of impossible crime, Juvenile
2) To what theory does our Revised Penal circumstances, are incorporated in our
Code belong? Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: GENERAL PRINCIPLES;

TERRITORIALITY (1994)
1. There are two schools of thought in
Criminal Law, and these are Abe, married to Liza, contracted another
marriage with Connie in Singapore.
(a) the CLASSICAL THEORY, which Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to
simply means that the basis of the Philippines and lived as husband and
criminal liabilities is human free wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba,
will, and the purpose of the penalty Laguna.
is retribution which must be
proportional to the gravity of the 1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
o8ense; and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which

1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for
considers man as a social being
bigamy since the bigamous marriage was
and his acts are attributable not
contracted or solemnized in Singapore,
just to his will but to other forces of
hence such violation is not one of those
society. As such, punishment is not
where the Revised Penal Code, under Art.
the solution, as he is not entirely to
2 thereof, may be applied
be blamed; law and jurisprudence
extraterritorially. The general rule on
should not be the yardstick in the
territoriality of criminal law governs the
Prepared by: LJC
1
situation. high seas or outside of Philippine territory

and on board a vessel not registered or
GENERAL PRINCIPLES;
licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler,
TERRITORIALITY; JURISDICTION OVER
1 Phil 614)
VESSEL (2000)
It is the registration of the vessel in
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
accordance with the laws of the
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",
Philippines, not the citizenship of her
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to
owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman,
The vessel being registered in Panama,
aboard M/V "Princess of the Paci]c", an
the laws of Panama govern while it is in
overseas vessel which was sailing in the
the high seas.
South China Sea. The vessel, although
Panamanian registered, is owned by USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED
Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. (2006)
When M/V "Princess of the Paci]c"
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City,
country use an alias legally? Give 3
the Captain of the vessel turned over the
instances. (2.5%)
assailant Binoy to the Philippine
authorities. An information for homicide SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was ]led against Binoy in the Regional
1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.
Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to
2. Use of aliases in cinema and
quash the information for lack of
television entertainment.
jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will 3. In athletics and sports activities
you grant the motion? Why? (5%) (RA. 6085).
4. Under the witness protection
SUGGESTED ANSWER: program a person may adopt a
di8erent identity (RA. 6981).
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information 5. When he has been baptized or
should be granted. The Philippine court customarily known by such alias.
has no jurisdiction over the crime 6. When authorized by a competent
committed since it was committed on the court (CA. No. 142, as amended by
RA. 6085).
Prepared by: LJC
2
7. When properly indicated in a ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total

Certi]cate of Candidacy (Omnibus points)
Election Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2013)
I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo
Assume that you are a member of the and permanently abandon his proposed
legal sta8 of Senator Salcedo who wants bill, as it will result in economic inequality
to ]le a bill about imprisonment at the in the ]eld of criminal justice. The bill
National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He runs afoul with the equal protection
wants to make the State prison revenue clause of the 1987 Constitution. The
equal protection clause in the
earner for the country through a law
Constitution does not merely bar the
providing for premium accommodations
creation of inequalities but commands as
for prisoners (other than those under
well the elimination of existing
maximum security status) whose wives
inequalities.
are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and
for those who want long-term premium Additionally, the purpose of imposing
accommodations. penalties, which is to secure justice,
retribution and reformation, will be
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to
defeated and put to naught if the bill‟s
rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities
program/scheme should eventually
at rates equivalent to those charged by
become a law.
4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he
is prepared to o8er room and board with
special meals in air conditioned single-
GENERAL PRINCIPLES;
occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to
TERRITORIALITY (2008)
those charged by 3-star hotels.
No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married
What advice will you give the Senator
in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate
from the point of view of criminal law,
studies in New York and met his former
taking into account the purpose of
girlfriend Eula. They renewed their
imprisonment (7%) and considerations of
Prepared by: LJC
3
friendship and ]nally decided to get LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS

married. The ]rst wife, Eunice, heard TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012)
about the marriage and secures a copy of
What are the constitutional provisions
the marriage contract in New York.
limiting the power of Congress to enact
Eunice ]led a case of Bigamy against
penal laws? (5%)
Hubert in the Philippines.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Will the case prosper? Explain.
The constitutional provision limiting the
(4%)
power of Congress to enact penal laws
SUGGESTED ANSWER: are the following:
No, because the Philippine Courts have 1. The law must not be an ex post
no jurisdiction over a crime committed facto law or it should not be given
outside of the Philippine territory. Under a retroactive e8ect.
the principle of territoriality, penal laws,
speci]cally the RPC, are enforceable only 2. The law must not be a bill of
within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, attainder, meaning it cannot
RPC). provide punishment without judicial
proceedings.
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to
the second marriage, what will 2. The law must not impose cruel,
your answer be? Explain. (3%) unusual or degrading punishment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No person shall be held to answer for a

criminal o8ense without due process of
The answer will be the same. The
law.
consent of Eunice would not confer
jurisdiction on Philippine Courts. FELONIES
CONSPIRACY (1997)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES;
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
Prepared by: LJC
4
F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed held liable for the death of G since the
themselves with knives and proceeded to former was completely unaware of said
the house of F, taking a taxicab for the killing.
purpose. About 20 meters from their
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C.
destination, the group alighted and after
should be held liable therefore. Even if it
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled
was only A who actually stabbed and
on foot to the house of F. B positioned
caused physical injuries to G, B and C are
himself at a distance as the group's
nonetheless liable for conspiring with A
lookout. C and D stood guard outside the
and for contributing positive acts which
house. Before A could enter the house, D
led to the realization of a common
left the scene without the knowledge of
criminal intent. B positioned himself as a
the others. A stealthily entered the house
lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was
however, although part of the
blocked by C, forcing him to ?ee towards
conspiracy, cannot be held liable
another direction. Immediately after A
because he left the scene before A could
had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was
enter the house where the stabbing
visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the
occurred. Although he was earlier part of
house and, together with B and C,
the conspiracy, he did not personally
returned to the waiting taxicab and
participate in the execution of the crime
motored away. G died. F survived.
by acts which directly tended toward the
Who are liable for the death of G and the same end (People vs. Tomoro, et al 44
physical injuries of F? Phil. 38),
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot

be also held liable for the in?iction of
A alone should be held liable for the
physical injuries upon F because there is
death of G. The object of the conspiracy
no showing that he had knowledge of the
of A, B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since
plan to kill F.
B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing
of G by A, they cannot be held criminally CONSPIRACY; AVOIDANCE OF
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also GREATER EVIL (2004)
Prepared by: LJC
5
BB and CC, both armed with knives, the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon
What AA did was to stop a lawful
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was
defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and
prevented from shooting the attackers by
CC achieve their criminal objective of
AA, who grappled with him for possession
stabbing FT.
of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA, BB and CC were charged with CONSPIRACY; CO-CONSPIRATOR
murder. (1998)
In his defense, AA invoked the justifying Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house,
or injury, contending that by preventing Juan will hide behind the big lamppost
ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely and shoot Joel when the latter passes
avoided a greater evil. through on his way to work. Arturo will
come from the other end of the alley and
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason brie?y.
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind.
(5%)
On the appointed day, Arturo was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: apprehended by the authorities before
reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as
No, AA's defense will not prosper
planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
because obviously there was a
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
that the principle that when there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
all, shall govern. The act of ST, the
Arturo, being one of the two who devised
victim's son, appears to be a legitimate
the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes
defense of relatives; hence, justi]ed as a
a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What
defense of his father against the unlawful
is needed only is an overt act and both
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to
will incur criminal liability. Arturo's
defend his father's life, cannot be
liability as a conspirator arose from his
regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in
participation in jointly devising the
Prepared by: LJC
6
criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan rock injuring Dino at the back. Ra8y
killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
not by inference only. The overt act was Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
done pursuant to that conspiracy duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve,
whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting
being a conspiracy, the act of one is the Dino and Ra8y with rocks. As a result.
act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy
liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty and Johnny were charged with homicide.
on him may be that of an accomplice
Is there conspiracy in this case?
only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1;
People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he was not able to actually
Yes, there is conspiracy among the
participate in the shooting of Joel, having
o8enders, as manifested by their
been apprehended before reaching the
concerted actions against the victims,
place where the crime was committed.
demonstrating a common felonious
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: purpose of assaulting the victims. The
existence of the conspiracy can be
Arturo is not liable because he was not
inferred or deduced from the manner the
able to participate in the killing of Joel.
o8enders acted in commonly attacking
Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless
Dino and Ra8y with rocks, thereby
expressly provided by law and this is not
demonstrating a unity of criminal design
true in the case of Murder. A co-
to in?ict harm on their victims.
conspirator must perform an overt act
pursuant to the conspiracy. CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH
RAPE (1996)
CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS
PURPOSE (1994) Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
the morning, robbed a house at a
and Ra8y were walking along Padre Faura
desolate place where Danilo, his wife,
Prepared by: LJC
7
and three daughters were living. While robbery was committed, not in the
the four were in the process of presence of the other conspirators.
ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando, Hence, Fernando alone should answer for
noticing that one of Danilo's daughters the rape, rendering him liable for the
was trying to get away, ran after her and special complex crime. (People vs.
]nally caught up with her in a thicket Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June
somewhat distant from the house. 1995}
Fernando, before bringing back the
b) The crime would be Robbery with
daughter to the house, raped her ]rst.
Homicide (implied: there is still
Thereafter, the four carted away the
conspiracy)
belongings of Danilo and his family.
CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE

a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
APPREHENSION (2003)
and Fernando commit? Explain.
A and B, both store janitors, planned to

b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four
kill their employer C at midnight and take
took turns in raping the three daughters
the money kept in the cash register. A
of Danilo inside the latter's house, but
and B together drew the sketch of the
before they left, they killed the whole
store, where they knew C would be
family to prevent identi]cation, what
sleeping, and planned the sequence of
crime did the four commit? Explain.
their attack. Shortly before midnight, A
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and B were ready to carry out the plan.
When A was about to lift C's mosquito
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo
net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
committed Robbery, while Fernando
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
committed complex crime of Robbery
out of the store and ?ed, while A went on
with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred
to stab C to death, put the money in the
from the manner the o8enders
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
committed the robbery but the rape was
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
committed by Fernando at a place
him, B had already left the place. What
"distant from the house" where the
was the participation and corresponding
Prepared by: LJC
8
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. the act of B because of their expressed
8% conspiracy. Both are liable for the
composite crime of robbery with
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
homicide.
There was an expressed conspiracy

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
between A and B to kill C and take the
latter's money. The planned killing and A shall incur full criminal liability for the
taking of the money appears to be crime of robbery with homicide, but B
intimately related as component crimes, shall not incur criminal liability because
hence a special complex crime of robbery he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance,
with homicide. The conspiracy being made before all acts of execution are
expressed, not just implied, A and B are performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to
bound as co-conspirators after they have rob and kill is not per se punishable.
planned and agreed on the sequence of
The desistance need not be actuated by
their attack even before they committed
remorse or good motive. It is enough that
the crime. Therefore, the principle in law
the discontinuance comes from the
that when there is a conspiracy, the act
person who has begun the commission of
of one is the act of all, already governs
the crime but before all acts of execution
them. In fact, A and B were already in the
are performed. A person who has began
store to carry out their criminal plan.
the commission of a crime but desisted,
That B ran out of the store and ?ed upon is absolved from criminal liability as a
hearing the sirens of the police car, is not reward to one, who having set foot on
spontaneous desistance but ?ight to the verge of crime, heeds the call of his
evade apprehension. It would be di8erent conscience and returns to the path of
if B then tried to stop A from continuing righteousness.
with the commission of the crime; he did
CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE
not. So the act of A in pursuing the
APPREHENSION (2003)
commission of the crime which both he
and B designed, planned, and A and B, both store janitors, planned to
commenced to commit, would also be kill their employer C at midnight and take
Prepared by: LJC
9
the money kept in the cash register. A that when there is a conspiracy, the act
and B together drew the sketch of the of one is the act of all, already governs
store, where they knew C would be them. In fact, A and B were already in the
sleeping, and planned the sequence of store to carry out their criminal plan.
their attack. Shortly before midnight, A
That B ran out of the store and ?ed upon
and B were ready to carry out the plan.
hearing the sirens of the police car, is not
When A was about to lift C's mosquito
spontaneous desistance but ?ight to
net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
evade apprehension. It would be di8erent
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
if B then tried to stop A from continuing
out of the store and ?ed, while A went on
with the commission of the crime; he did
to stab C to death, put the money in the
not. So the act of A in pursuing the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
commission of the crime which both he
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
and B designed, planned, and
him, B had already left the place. What
commenced to commit, would also be
was the participation and corresponding
the act of B because of their expressed
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
conspiracy. Both are liable for the
8%
composite crime of robbery with
SUGGESTED ANSWER: homicide.
There was an expressed conspiracy ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

between A and B to kill C and take the
A shall incur full criminal liability for the
latter's money. The planned killing and
crime of robbery with homicide, but B
taking of the money appears to be
shall not incur criminal liability because
intimately related as component crimes,
he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance,
hence a special complex crime of robbery
made before all acts of execution are
with homicide. The conspiracy being
performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to
expressed, not just implied, A and B are
rob and kill is not per se punishable.
bound as co-conspirators after they have
planned and agreed on the sequence of The desistance need not be actuated by
their attack even before they committed remorse or good motive. It is enough that
the crime. Therefore, the principle in law
Prepared by: LJC
10
the discontinuance comes from the CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY;

person who has begun the commission of EFFECTS (2003)
the crime but before all acts of execution
State the concept of "implied conspiracy"
are performed. A person who has began
and give its legal e8ects. 4%
the commission of a crime but desisted,
is absolved from criminal liability as a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reward to one, who having set foot on
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is
the verge of crime, heeds the call of his
only inferred or deduced from the
conscience and returns to the path of
manner the participants in the
righteousness.
commission of crime carried out its
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY execution. Where the o8enders acted in
(1998) concert in the commission of the crime,
meaning that their acts are coordinated
What is the doctrine of implied
or synchronized in a way indicative that
conspiracy? [3%]
they are pursuing a common criminal
SUGGESTED ANSWER: objective, they shall be deemed to be
acting in conspiracy and their criminal
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds
liability shall be collective, not individual.
two or more persons participating in the
commission of a crime collectively The legal e8ects of an "implied
responsible and liable as co-conspirators conspiracy" are:
although absent any agreement to that
a) Not all those who are present at the
e8ect, when they act in concert,
scene of the crime will be considered
demonstrating unity of criminal intent
conspirators;
and a common purpose or objective. The
existence of a conspiracy shall be b) Only those who participated by
inferred or deduced from their criminal criminal acts in the commission of the
participation in pursuing the crime and crime will be considered as co-
thus the act of one shall be deemed the conspirators; and
act of all.
c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of
Prepared by: LJC
11
the commission of the crime, without any involved are parallel to the case of Intod
act of criminal participation, shall not vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52),
render one criminally liable as co- where it was ruled that the liability of the
conspirator. o8ender was for an impossible crime, no
hand grenade was used in said case,
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: DESTRUCTIVE
which constitutes a more serious crime
ARSON (2000)
though di8erent from what was intended,
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,

CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT
proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
OF SCARING (1996)
neighbor of X, who happened to be
passing by, pointed to the four culprits Alexander, an escaped convict, ran
the room that X occupied. The four amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound
culprits peppered the room with bullets. for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10)
Unsatis]ed, A even threw a hand persons. Terri]ed by the incident, Carol
grenade that totally destroyed X's room. and Benjamin who are passengers of the
However, unknown to the four culprits, X bus, jumped out of the window and while
was not inside the room and nobody was lying unconscious after hitting the
hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, pavement of the road, were ran over and
B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. crushed to death by a fast moving Desert
(3%) Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Can Alexander be held liable for the

death of Carol and Benjamin although he
Yes. A, B. C and D are liable for
was completely unaware that the two
destructive arson because of the
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
destruction of the room of X with the use
of an explosive, the hand grenade. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Liability for an impossible crime is to be
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the
imposed only if the act committed would
death of Carol and Benjamin because of
not constitute any other crime under the
felonious act of running was the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
proximate cause of the victim's death.
Prepared by: LJC
12
The rule is that when a person, by a homicide for the death of Anacleto?
felonious act, generates in the mind of Explain.
another a sense of imminent danger,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prompting the latter to escape from or
avoid such danger and in the process, Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide
sustains injuries or dies, the person for the death of Anacleto, unless the
committing the felonious act is tetanus infection which developed
responsible for such injuries or death. twenty ]ve days later, was brought about
(US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs. by an eocient supervening cause.
Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.) Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-
inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS
still be regarded as the proximate cause
ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)
of the latter's death because without
Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but such wound, no tetanus infection could
the latter was able to parry it with his develop from the victim's right palm, and
hand, causing upon him a two- inch without such tetanus infection the victim
wound on his right palm. Vicente was not would not have died with it.
able to hack Anacleto further because
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE
three policemen arrived and threatened
CRIMES (2000)
to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his
bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by a. What is an impossible crime? (2%)b. Is
the police at the prosecutor's ooce for an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
attempted homicide. Twenty- ]ve days
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
later, while the preliminary investigation
was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to An impossible crime is an act which
the hospital because of symptoms of would be an o8ense against person or
tetanus infection on the two-inch wound property, were if not for the inherent
in?icted by Vicente. Anacleto died the impossibility of its accomplishment or on
following day. account of the employment of
inadequate or ine8ectual means (Art. 4,
Can Vicente be eventually charged with
Prepared by: LJC
13
par. 2, RPC) Homicide for Cesar's death. In his

defense, Felipe claimed that he did not
No, an impossible crime is not really a
know about Cesar's weak heart and that
crime. It is only so-called because the act
he only intended to play a practical joke
gives rise to criminal liability. But
on Cesar.
actually, no felony is committed. The
accused is to be punished for his criminal Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or
tendency or propensity although no will his defense prosper? Why? (5%}
crime was committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar
OF SCARING (2001)
but he shall be given the bene]t of the
Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and mitigating circumstance that he did not
Cesar. She did not openly show her intend to commit so grave a wrong as
preference but on two occasions, that which was committed (Art. 13, par.
accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts 3, RPC).
by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room
student and could only ask Mary to see a
without the latter's consent and took
movie which was declined. Felipe felt
liberty with the letter's backpack where
insulted and made plans to get even with
he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was
Cesar by scaring him o8 somehow. One
already committing a felony. And any act
day, he entered Cesar's room in their
done by him while committing a felony is
boarding house and placed a rubber
no less wrongful, considering that they
snake which appeared to be real in
were part of "plans to get even with
Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
Cesar".
weak heart, he su8ered a heart attack
upon opening his backpack and seeing Felipe's claim that he intended only "to
the snake. Cesar died without regaining play a practical joke on Cesar" does not
consciousness. The police investigation persuade, considering that they are not
resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the friends but in fact rivals in courting
culprit and he was charged with Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case
Prepared by: LJC
14
of People vs. Pugay, et al. because even though Gaston has no

intent to kill Belle rather just to scare
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Belle. "To scare" does not indicate intent
No, Felipe is not liable because the act of to kill. However, under Art. 4 of the
frightening another is not a crime. What Revised Penal Code, provides in part that
he did may be wrong, but not all wrongs criminal liability shall be incurred by any
amount to a crime. Because the act person committing a felony although the
which caused the death of Cesar is not a wrongful act done be di8erent from that
crime, no criminal liability may arise which he intended. In other words, the
therefrom. rule is that when a person, by a felonious

act, generates in the mind of another a
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT sense of imminent danger, prompting the
OF SCARING (2005) latter to escape from or avoid such
danger and in the process, sustains
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock
injuries or dies, the person committing
of a neighbor and reported him to the
the felonious act is responsible for such
police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a
injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil,
car saw Belle crossing the street.
1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
Incensed that Belle had reported him,
Gaston decided to scare her by trying to ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
make it appear that he was about to run
her over. He revved the engine of his car Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death
and drove towards her but he applied the because by his acts of revving the engine
brakes. Since the road was slippery at of his car and driving towards Belle is
that time, the vehicle skidded and hit felonious, and such felonious act was the
Belle causing her death. proximate cause of the vehicle to skid

and hit Belle, resulting in the latter's
Was Gaston criminally liable?What is the death. Stated otherwise, the death of
liability of Gaston? Why? (4%) Belle was the direct, natural and logical
consequence of Gaston's felonious act.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death
Prepared by: LJC
15
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS of hitting her with his ]sts. Such

ACT; IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003) felonious act was the immediate cause of
the heart attack, having materially
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of
contributed to and hastened A's death.
her husband B. Incensed with anger
Even though B may have acted without
almost beyond his control, B could not
intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent
help but in?ict physical injuries on A.
is of no moment when the victim dies.
Moments after B started hitting A with his
However, B may be given the mitigating
]sts, A suddenly complained of severe
circumstance of having acted without
chest pains. B, realizing that A was
intention to commit so grave a wrong as
indeed in serious trouble, immediately
that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised
brought her to the hospital. Despite
Penal Code).
e8orts to alleviate A's pains, she died of
heart attack. It turned out that she had CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS
been su8ering from a lingering heart ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1994)
ailment. What crime, if any, could B be
Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon,
held guilty of? 8%
Bhey's father, Robin, and brother,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon
reaching the house, Rustom inquired
B could be held liable for parricide
from Scott about his sister's
because his act of hitting his wife with
whereabouts, while Robin shouted and
]st blows and therewith in?icting
threatened to kill Scott. The latter then
physical injuries on her, is felonious. A
went downstairs but Rustom held his
person committing a felonious act incurs
(Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the
criminal liability although the wrongful
elder sister of Scott, carrying her two-
consequence is di8erent from what he
month old child, approached Rustom and
intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal
Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to
Code).
remove Rustom's hand from Scott's
Although A died of heart attack, the said waist. But Rustom pulled Olive's hand
attack was generated by B's felonious act causing her to fall over her baby. The
baby then died moments later.
Prepared by: LJC
16
Is Rustom criminally liable for the death they could work best if they were not
of the child? insulted. A took B's attitude as a display
of insubordination and, rising in a rage,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
moved towards B wielding a big knife and
Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the threatening to stab B. At the instant
death of the child because his felonious when A was only a few feet from B, the
act was the proximate cause of such latter, apparently believing himself to be
death. It was Rustom's act of pulling in great and immediate peril, threw
Olive's hand which caused the latter to himself into the water, disappeared
fall on her baby. Had It not been for said beneath the surface, and drowned.
act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly
May A be held criminally liable for the
felonious (at least slight coercion) there
death of B?
was no cause for Olive to fall over her
baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the cause of the evil caused. Any person
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the
performing a felonious act is criminally
death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal
liable for the direct, natural and logical
Code provides in part that criminal
consequence thereof although di8erent
liability shall be incurred by any person
from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1,
committing a felony although the
RFC; People vs, Pugay, et al, GR No.
wrongful act done be di8erent from that
74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS Phil. 497. where the victim who was
ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1997) threatened by the accused with a knife,
jumped into the river but because of the
While the crew of a steamer prepared to
strong current or because he did not
raise anchor at the Pasig River, A,
know how to swim, he drowned, the
evidently impatient with the progress of
Supreme Court aormed the conviction
work, began to use abusive language
for homicide of the accused because, if a
against the men. B, one of the members
person against whom a criminal assault
of the crew, remonstrated saying that
is directed believes himself to be in
Prepared by: LJC
17
danger of death or great bodily harm and composite crime of robbery with
in order to escape jumps into the water, homicide, whether the killing was
impelled by the instinct of self- intentional or accidental, as long as the
preservation, the assailant is responsible killing was on occasion of the robbery.
for the homicide in case death results by
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS
drowning.
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his o8er
of love was rejected by his girlfriend
During the robbery in a dwelling house, Marivella one afternoon when he visited
one of the culprits happened to ]re his her. When he left her house, he walked
gun upward in the ceiling without as if he was sleepwalking so much so
meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the that a teenage snatcher was able to grab
house who was hiding thereat was hit his cell phone and ?ee without being
and killed as a result. chased by Luis. At the next LRT station,
he boarded one of the coaches bound for
The defense theorized that the killing
Baclaran. While seated, he happened to
was a mere accident and was not
read a newspaper left on the seat and
perpetrated in connection with, or for
noticed that the headlines were about
purposes of, the robbery.Will you sustain
the sinking of the Super Ferry while on its
the defense? Why? (4%)
way to Cebu. He went over the list of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: missing passengers who were presumed
dead and came across the name of his
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act grandfather who had raised him from
being felonious and the proximate cause childhood after he was orphaned. He was
of the victim's death, the o8ender is shocked and his mind went blank for a
liable therefore although it may not be few minutes, after which he ran amuck
intended or di8erent from what he and, using his balisong, started stabbing
intended. at the passengers who then scampered
away, with three of them Jumping out of
The o8ender shall be prosecuted for the
the train and landing on the road below.
Prepared by: LJC
18
All the three passengers died later of On his way home from ooce, ZZ rode in
their injuries at the hospital. a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the
same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded
Is Luis liable for the death of the three
spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from
passengers who jumped out of the
his bag and announced a hold-up. He told
moving train? State your reasons. (5%)
ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped

out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head
Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because hit the pavement, causing his instant
he was committing a felony when he death . Is XX liable for ZZ's death?
started stabbing at the passengers and Explain brie?y. (5%)
such wrongful act was the proximate
cause of said passengers' jumping out of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the train; hence their deaths.

Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any his acts of pulling out a grenade and
person committing a felony shall incur announcing a hold-up, coupled with a
criminal liability although the wrongful demand for the watch, wallet and
act done be di8erent from that which he cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such
intended. In this case, the death of the felonious act was the proximate cause of
three passengers was the direct, natural ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney,
and logical consequence of Luis' resulting in the latter's death. Stated
felonious act which created an otherwise, the death of ZZ was the
immediate sense of danger in the minds direct, natural and logical consequence
of said passengers who tried to avoid or of XX's felonious act which created an
escape from it by jumping out of the immediate sense of danger in the mind
train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1O37; of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by
U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497} jumping out of the jeepney (People v.
Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).
ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (2004) CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME (2004)
Prepared by: LJC
19
OZ and YO were both courting their co- crime was committed.

employee, SUE. Because of their bitter
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE
rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by
CRIMES (1994)
poisoning him. OZ poured a substance
into YO's co8ee thinking it was arsenic. It JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa,
turned out that the substance was white a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel,
sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing Batangas. They asked the assistance of
happened to YO after he drank the Ella, who is familiar with the place.
co8ee. What criminal liability did OZ
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the
incur, if any? Explain brie?y. (5%)
evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with automatic weapons, went to
Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide,
OZ incurred criminal liability for an
directed her companions to the room in
impossible crime of murder. Criminal
the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries
liability shall be incurred by any person
and Randal ]red their guns at her room.
performing an act which would be an
Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she
o8ense against persons or property, were
attended a prayer meeting that evening
it not for the inherent impossibility of its
in another barangay in Laurel.
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ine8ectual JP, et al, were charged and convicted of
means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC). attempted murder by the Regional Trial
Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
In the problem given, the impossibility of
accomplishing the crime of murder, a On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the
crime against persons, was due to the accused ascribed to the trial court the
employment of ine8ectual means which sole error of ]nding them guilty of
OZ thought was poison. The law imputes attempted murder.If you were the
criminal liability to the o8ender although ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
no crime resulted, only to suppress his
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal propensity because subjectively,
he is a criminal though objectively, no If I were the ponente, I will set aside the
Prepared by: LJC
20
judgment convicting the accused of Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun
attempted murder and instead ]nd them did not die because, unknown to both
guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually
par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. powdered milk.
Liability for impossible crime arises not
1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry
only when the impossibility is legal, but
and Buddy commit? [3%]2. Suppose that,
likewise when it is factual or physical
because of his severe allergy to
impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's
powdered milk, Jun had to be
absence from the house is a physical
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.
impossibility which renders the crime
Would your answer to the ]rst question
intended Inherently incapable of
be the same? [2%]
accomplishment. To convict the accused
of attempted murder would make Art. 4, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
par. 2 practically useless as all
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-
circumstances which prevented the
called "impossible crime" because, with
consummation of the o8ense will be
intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and
treated as an incident independent of the
thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against
actor's will which is an element of
persons. Jun was not poisoned only
attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs.
because the would-be killers were
CA, 215 SCRA 52).
unaware that what they mixed with the
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: IMPOSSIBLE food of Jun was powdered milk, not
CRIMES (1998) poison. In short, the act done with
criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would
Buddy always resented his classmate,
have constituted a crime against persons
Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
were it not for the inherent ineocacy of
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
the means employed. Criminal liability is
where he can get poison, he approached
incurred by them although no crime
another classmate, Jerry to whom he
resulted, because their act of trying to
disclosed his evil plan. Because he
poison Jun is criminal.
himself harbored resentment towards
Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which
Prepared by: LJC
21
2. No, the answer would not be the same SUGGESTED ANSWER:

as above. Jerry and Buddy would be
No, the prosecutor is not correct in ]ling
liable instead for less serious physical
a case for "impossible crime to commit
injuries for causing the hospitalization
kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible
and medical attendance for 10 days to
crimes are limited only to acts which
Jun. Their act of mixing with the food
when performed would be a crime
eaten by Jun the matter which required
against persons or property. As
such medical attendance, committed
kidnapping is a crime against personal
with criminal intent, renders them liable
security and not against persons or
for the resulting injury.
property, Enrique could not have incurred
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; IMPOSSIBLE an "impossible crime" to commit
CRIMES; KIDNAPPING (2000) kidnapping. There is thus no impossible
crime of kidnapping.
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by
Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
parents to bring and fetch her to and (1997)
from school. Enrique wrote a ransom
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in
note demanding P500,000.00 from
se and crimes mala prohibita.
Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's 2. May an act be malum in se and be,
freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note at the same time, malum
by mail. However, before the ransom prohibitum?
note was received by Carla's parents,
Enrique's hideout was discovered by the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts
was arrested and incarcerated.
committed by dolo or culpa as de]ned in
Considering that the ransom note was
the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal
not received by Carla's parents, the
intent is a valid defense, except when the
investigating prosecutor merely ]led a
crime results from criminal negligence.
case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita
Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the
are those considered wrong only because
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
Prepared by: LJC
22
they are prohibited by statute. They the acts constituting the crimes are not
constitute violations of mere rules of inherently bad, evil or wrong but
convenience designed to secure a more prohibited and made punishable only for
orderly regulation of the a8airs of society. public good. And because the moral trait
of the o8ender is Involved in "mala in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
se". Modifying circumstances, the
Yes, an act may be malum in se and o8ender's extent of participation in the
malum prohibitum at the same time. In crime, and the degree of accomplishment
People v. Sunico, et aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) of the crime are taken into account in
it was held that the omission or failure of imposing the penalty: these are not so in
election inspectors and poll clerks to "mala prohibita" where criminal liability
include a voter's name in the registry list arises only when the acts are
of voters is wrong per se because it consummated.
disenfranchises a voter of his right to

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA
vote. In this regard it is considered as
(2001)
malum in se. Since it is punished under a
special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Brie?y state what essentially
Election Code) it is considered malum distinguishes a crime mala prohibita from
prohibitum. a crime mala in se. (2%)
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(1999)
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not
Distinguish " mala in se" from " mala by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are
prohibita"(3%) punished only because there is a law
prohibiting them for public good, and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
In "mala in se", the acts constituting the in doing the prohibited act is not a
crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong, defense.
and hence involves the moral traits of

In crimes mala in se, the acts are by
the o8ender; while in "mala prohibita",
nature wrong, evil or bad, and so
Prepared by: LJC
23
generally condemned. The moral trait of mala prohibita, good faith or lack of
the o8ender is involved; thus, good faith criminal intent or malice is not a defense;
or lack of criminal Intent on the part of it is enough that the prohibition was
the o8ender is a defense, unless the voluntarily violated.
crime is the result of criminal negligence.
Mala in se is incurred when the crime is
Correspondingly, modifying
only attempted or frustrated, while in
circumstances are considered in
crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is
punishing the o8ender.
generally incurred only when the crime is
MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA consummated.
(2003)
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
Distinguish, in their respective concepts aggravating circumstances are
and legal implications, between crimes appreciated in imposing the penalties,
mala in se and crimes mala prohibits. 4% while in crimes mala prohibita, such
circumstances are not appreciated unless
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the special law has adopted the scheme
In concept: Crimes mala in se are those or scale of penalties under the Revised
where the acts or omissions penalized Penal Code.
are inherently bad, evil, or wrong that

MALA PROHIBITA; ACTUAL INJURY
they are almost universally condemned.
REQUIRED (2000)
Crimes mala prohibita are those where
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and
the acts penalized are not inherently bad,
Mr. Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to
evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for
the ooce of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a
public good, public welfare or interest
customs broker, and represented
and whoever violates the prohibition are
themselves as agents of Moonglow
penalized.
Commercial Trading, an Importer of
In legal implications: In crimes mala in children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi
se, good faith or lack of criminal intent/ and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to
negligence is a defense, while in crimes prepare and ]le with the Bureau of
Prepared by: LJC

24
Customs the necessary Import Entry and functions through manifest partiality,
Internal Revenue Declaration covering evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. negligence. In their motion for
Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing reconsideration, the accused alleged that
list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading the decision was erroneous because the
and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration crime was not consummated but was
which declared the shipment as only at an attempted stage, and that in
children's toys, the taxes and duties of fact the Government did not su8er any
which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr. undue injury.
Ocuarto ]led the aforementioned
a) Is the contention of both accused
documents with the Manila International
correct? Explain. (3%)b) Assuming that
Container Port. However, before the
the attempted or frustrated stage of the
shipment was released, a spot check was
violation charged is not punishable, may
conducted by Customs Senior Agent
the accused be nevertheless convicted
James Bandido, who discovered that the
for an o8ense punished by the Revised
contents of the van (shipment) were not
Penal Code under the facts of the case?
children's toys as declared in the
Explain. (3%)
shipping documents but 1,000 units of
video cassette recorders with taxes and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold
Yes, the contention of the accused that
order and warrant of seizure and
the crime was not consummated is
detention were then issued by the
correct, RA. 3019 is a special law
District Collector of Customs. Further
punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule,
investigation showed that Moonglow is
attempted violation of a special law is not
non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi
punished. Actual injury is required.Yes,
and Mr. Yto were charged with and
both are liable for attempted estafa thru
convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of
falsi]cation of commercial documents, a
R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among
complex crime.
others, for public oocers to cause any
undue Injury to any party, including the MALUM IN SE VS. MALUM
Government. In the discharge of oocial
Prepared by: LJC
25
PROHIBITUM (2005) Motive is the moving power which impels

one to action for a de]nite result;
Distinguish malum in se from malum
whereas intent is the purpose to use a
prohibitum. (2%)
particular means to e8ect such results.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Motive is not an essential element of a

felony and need not be proved for
In crimes malum in se, an act is by purpose of conviction, while intent is an
nature wrong, evil or bad, and so essential element of felonies by dolo.
generally condemned. The moral trait of
the o8ender is involved; thus, good faith Yes, a crime may be committed without
or lack of criminal Intent on the part of criminal intent if such is a culpable
the o8ender is a defense, unless the felony, wherein Intent is substituted by
crime is the result of criminal negligence. negligence or imprudence, and also in a
Correspondingly, modifying malum prohibitum or if an act is
circumstances are considered in punishable by special law.
punishing the o8ender.
In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not

MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1999)
by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is
punished because there is a law 1. Distinguish "motive" from
prohibiting them for public good, and "intent".
thus good faith or lack of criminal intent 2. When is motive relevant to
in doing the prohibited act is not a prove a case? When is it not
defense. necessary to be established?

Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Distinguish intent from motive in
Criminal Law. 2. May crime be1. "Motive " is the moving power which
committed without criminal intent? impels a person to do an act for a
de]nite result; while "intent" is the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
purpose for using a particular means to
Prepared by: LJC

26
bring about a desired result. Motive is not an element of a crime but only
an element of a crime but intent is an considered when the identity of the
element of intentional crimes. Motive, if o8ender is in doubt.
attending a crime, always precede the
MOTIVE; PROOF THEREOF; NOT
intent.
ESSENTIAL; CONVICTION (2006)
2. Motive is relevant to prove a case when
Motive is essential in the determination
there is doubt as to the identity of the
of the commission of a crime and the
o8ender or when the act committed
liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
gives rise to variant crimes and there is
the instances where proof of motive is
the need to determine the proper crime
not essential or required to justify
to be imputed to the o8ender.
conviction of an accused? Give at least 3
It is not necessary to prove motive instances. (5%)
when the o8ender is positively
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
identi]ed or the criminal act did
not give rise to variant crimes. 1. When there is an eyewitness or
positive identi]cation of the
accused.
2. When the accused admitted or
Distinguish clearly but brie?y between
confessed to the commission of the
intent and motive in the commission of
crime.
an o8ense. 3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
who is a person in authority or
Intent is the purpose for using a agent of a person in authority was
particular means to achieve the desired attacked in the actual performance
result; while motive is the moving power of his duty (Art. 148, Revised Penal
which impels a person to act for a Code).

5. In crimes committed through
de]nite result. Intent is an ingredient of
reckless imprudence.
dolo or malice and thus an element of
deliberate felonies; while motive is not CONSPIRACY (2012)
Prepared by: LJC
27
De]ne conspiracy. (5%) killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of

innocence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CONSPIRACY VS. CONSPIRACY TO
When two or more persons come to an
COMMIT REBELLION VS.
agreement concerning the commission of
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER
a felony and decide to commit it, there is
(2012)
conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY (2008)
Distinguish by way of illustration
conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam
a manner of incurring liability in relation
when the commander of a vigilante
to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
group came to him and showed him a list
(5%)
of ]ve policemen to be liquidated by
them for graft and corruption. He was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
further asked if any of them is innocent.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A”
After going over the list, Ricky pointed to
and “B” conspired to overthrow the
two of the policemen as honest. Later,
government, conspiracy is punishable.
the vigilante group liquidated the three
Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a
other policemen in the list. The
felony. Rebellion – if they committed
commander of the vigilante group
rebellion, they are equally liable for the
reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky
crime of rebellion. However, they will not
criminally liable? Explain. (7%)
be additionally charged with conspiracy
to commit rebellion. Since they
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
committed what they conspired,
conspiracy will not be considered as an
No, there was no conspiracy between
independent felony but as a manner of
Ricky and the Commander of the
incurring criminal responsibility.
vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not
of the two (2) policemen in the list
punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the
Prepared by: LJC
28
“X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The powder with Brad‟s food, done with
law provides no penalty for conspiracy to intent to kill, would have constituted
commit homicide. Homicide – if pursuant murder which is a crime against persons,
to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” had it not been for the employment of a
embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and means which, unknown to him, is
killed “X”, the conspirators are equally ine8ectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
liable for homicide. Conspirators are
JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING
equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in
CIRCUMSTANCES
this case will be considered as a manner
of incurring liability. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES;
COVERAGE (2000)
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME OF MURDER
(2009) A, brother of B, with the intention of
having a night out with his friends, took
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad,
the coconut shell which is being used by
because the latter was assiduously
B as a bank for coins from inside their
courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie
locked cabinet using their common key.
went to a veterinarian and asked for
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell
some poison on the pretext that it would
outside of their home in the presence of
be used to kill a very sick, old dog.
his friends.
Actually, Charlie intended to use the
poison on Brad. The veterinarian a. What is the criminal liability of A, if
mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic any? Explain. (3%)
powder which, when mixed with Brad’s
food, did not kill Brad. b. Is A exempted from criminal liability
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what Code for being a brother of B? Explain.
and why? If not, why not? (3%) (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charlie committed an impossible crime of a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with

murder. His act of mixing the non- toxic force upon things
Prepared by: LJC
29
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal While they were standing in line awaiting
liability under Art. 332 because said their vaccination at the school clinic,
Article applies only to theft, swindling or Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail
malicious mischief. Here, the crime of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and
committed is robbery. 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the
Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,
**EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES;
Katreena turned around and swung at
MINORITY (1998)
Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the
John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of ball pen hit the right eye of Pomping
watching the television program "Zeo which bled profusely. Realizing what she
Rangers." One evening while he was had caused, Katreena immediately
engrossed watching his favorite helped Pomping. When investigated, she
television show, Petra, a maid changed freely admitted to the school principal
the channel to enable her to watch that she was responsible for the injury to
"Home Along the Riles." This enraged Pomping's eye. After the incident, she
John who got his father's revolver, and executed a statement admitting her
without warning, shot Petra at the back culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping
of her head causing her instantaneous lost his right eye.
death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]

a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (3%)
No, John is not criminally liable for killing b) Discuss the attendant circumstances
Petra because he is only 8 years old and e8ects thereof. (2%)
when he committed the killing. A minor

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
below nine (9) years old is absolutely
exempt from criminal liability although a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable
not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, although she is civilly liable. Being a
RPC). minor less than ]fteen (15) years old
although over nine (9) years of age, she
EXEMPTING; MINORITY; 11 YRS OLD;
is generally exempt from criminal liability.
ABSENCE OF DISCERNMENT (2000)
Prepared by: LJC
30
The exception is where the prosecution shall be imposed in accordance with

proved that the act was committed with Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code.
discernment. The burden is upon the The sentence, however, should
prosecution to prove that the accused automatically be suspended in
acted with discernment. accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act
No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family
The presumption is that such minor acted
Courts Act of 1997";
without discernment, and this is
strengthened by the fact that Katreena Also if found criminally liable, the
only reacted with a ballpen which she ordinary mitigating circumstance of not
must be using in class at the time, and Intending to commit so grave a wrong as
only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of that committed, under Article 13,
repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
words, the injury was accidental.
The ordinary mitigating circumstance of
b) The attendant circumstances which suocient provocation on the part of the
may be considered are: o8ended party immediately preceded the
act.
1. Minority of the accused as an
exempting circumstance under JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING
Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal CIRCUMSTANCES (2004)
Code, where she shall be exempt
Distinguish clearly but brie?y: Between
from criminal liability, unless it was
justifying and exempting circumstances
proved that she acted with
in criminal law.
discernment. She is however
civilly liable; SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If found criminally liable, the minority of Justifying circumstance a8ects the act,
the accused as a privileged mitigating not the actor; while exempting
circumstance. A discretionary penalty circumstance a8ects the actor, not the
lower by at least two (2) degrees than act. In justifying circumstance, no
that prescribed for the crime committed criminal and, generally, no civil liability is
Prepared by: LJC
31
incurred; while in exempting is no criminal because the actor

circumstance, civil liability is generally is regarded only as an
incurred although there is no criminal instrument of the crime;
d. There being a wrong done but
liability.
no criminal.
JUSTIFYING VS. EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES (1998) JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR;
REQUISITES (2002)
Distinguish between justifying and
exempting circumstances. [3%] When A arrived home, he found B raping
his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A took his gun and shot B, killing him.
Charged with homicide, A claimed he
1. In Justifying Circumstances:
acted in defense of his daughter's honor.
a. The circumstance a8ects the Is A correct? If not, can A claim the
act, not the actor; bene]t of any mitigating circumstance or
b. The act is done within legal
circumstances? (3%)
bounds, hence considered as
not a crime; SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c. Since the act is not a crime,
there is no criminal; No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his
d. There being no crime nor daughter's honor in having killed B since
criminal, there is no criminal nor the rape was already consummated;
civil liability. moreover, B already ran away, hence,
there was no aggression to defend
Whereas, in an Exempting
against and no defense to speak of.
Circumstances:
A may, however, invoke the bene]t of
a. The circumstance a8ects the
the mitigating circumstance of having
actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a acted in immediate vindication of a grave
crime but the actor acted o8ense to a descendant, his daughter,
without voluntariness; under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised

c. Although there is a crime, there Penal Code, as amended.
Prepared by: LJC
32
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had

(2002) an unsavory reputation, came to her
store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia
A chanced upon three men who were
noticed her bracelet wound around the
attacking B with ]st blows. C, one of the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter
men, was about to stab B with a knife.
left, Lucresia went to a nearby police
Not knowing that B was actually the
station and sought the help of a
aggressor because he had earlier
policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He
challenged the three men to a ]ght, A
went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-
shot C as the latter was about to stab B.
Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
May A invoke the defense of a stranger introduced himself as a policeman and
as a justifying circumstance in his favor? tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted
Why? (2%) and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and
]red two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun
SUGGESTED ANSWER: continued to run and when he was about
7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in
Yes. A may invoke the justifying
the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell
circumstance of defense of stranger
down but he crawled towards a fence,
since he was not involved in the ]ght and
intending to pass through an opening
he shot C when the latter was about to
underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about
stab B. There being no indication that A
was induced by revenge, resentment or 5 meters away, he ]red another shot at
Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip.
any other evil motive in shooting C, his
Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the
act is justi]ed under par 3, Article 11 of
hospital, but because of profuse
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes
JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; was subsequently charged with
REQUISITES (2000) homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes
raised the defense, by way of
Lucresia, a storeowner, was robbed of
exoneration, that he acted in the
her bracelet in her home. The following
ful]llment of a duty.
day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,
Prepared by: LJC

33
Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%) dawned upon Lina that the man was not
Tito, her husband. Furious, Una took out
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not with homicide Una denies culpability on
tenable. The defense of having acted in the ground of defense of honor. Is her
the ful]llment of a duty requires as a claim tenable? [5%]
condition, inter alia, that the injury or

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o8ense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary consequence of the due No, Una's claim that she acted in defense
performance of the duty (People vs. of honor, is not tenable because the
Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not unlawful aggression on her honor had
enough that the accused acted in already ceased. Defense of honor as
ful]llment of a duty. included in self- defense, must have been
done to prevent or repel an unlawful
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and
aggression. There is no defense to speak
was already crawling, there was no need
of where the unlawful aggression no
for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further.
longer exists.
Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call
of duty which brought about the cause of JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF HONOR;
death of the victim. ELEMENTS (2000)
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF Osang, a married woman in her early

HONOR; REQUISITES (1998) twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the
?oor of their nipa hut beside the
One night, Una, a young married woman,
seashore when she was awakened by the
was sound asleep in her bedroom when
act of a man mounting her. Thinking that
she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
it was her husband, Gardo,who had
was her husband Tito, who came home a
returned from ]shing in the sea, Osang
day early from his business trip, Una let
continued her sleep but allowed the man,
him have sex with her. After the act, the
who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much
have sexual intercourse with her. After
as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it
Prepared by: LJC
34
Julio satis]ed himself, he said "Salamat Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to
Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then death after the sexual intercourse was
did Osang realize that the man was not ]nished, is not defense of honor but an
her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a immediate vindication of a grave o8ense
balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio committed against her, which is only
to death. When tried for homicide, Osang mitigating.
claimed defense of honor. Should the
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF
claim be sustained? Why? (5%)
PROPERTY; REQUISITES (1996)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A security guard, upon seeing a man
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor scale the wall of a factory compound
should not be sustained because the which he was guarding, shot and killed
aggression on her honor had ceased the latter. Upon investigation by the
when she stabbed the aggressor. In police who thereafter arrived at the
defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. scene of the shooting, it was discovered
11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that that the victim was unarmed. When
there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) prosecuted for homicide, the security
reasonable necessity of the means guard claimed that he merely acted in
employed to prevent or repel it. The self-defense of property and in the
unlawful aggression must be continuing performance of his duty as a security
when the aggressor was injured or guard.If you were the judge, would you
disabled by the person making a convict him of homicide? Explain.
defense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
But if the aggression that was begun by
Yes. I would convict the security guard for
the injured or disabled party already
Homicide if I were the Judge, because his
ceased to exist when the accused
claim of having acted in defense of
attacked him, as in the case at bar, the
property and in performance of a duty
attack made is a retaliation, and not a
cannot fully be justi]ed. Even assuming
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the
that the victim was scaling the wall of the
Code does not govern.
Prepared by: LJC
35
factory compound to commit a crime for serious physical injuries. Should the
inside the same, shooting him is never accused, given the circumstances, be
justi]able, even admitting that such act convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%
is considered unlawful aggression on
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
property rights. In People vs. Narvaes,
121 SCRA 329, a person is justi]ed to The accused should be convicted
defend his property rights, but all the because, even assuming the facts to be
elements of self-defense under Art. 11, true in his belief, his act of shooting a
must be present. In the instant case, just burglar when there is no unlawful
like in Narvaes, the second element aggression on his person is not justi]ed.
(reasonable necessity of the means Defense of property or property right
employed) is absent. Hence, he should does not justify the act of ]ring a gun at
be convicted of homicide but entitled to a burglar unless the life and limb of the
incomplete self-defense. accused is already in imminent and
immediate danger. Although the accused
JUSTIFYING; SD; DEFENSE OF
acted out of a misapprehension of the
PROPERTY; REQUISITES (2003)
facts, he is not absolved from criminal
The accused lived with his family in a liability.
neighborhood that often was the scene of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs Considering the given circumstances,
with a loaded gun to investigate what he namely; the frequent robberies in the
thought were footsteps of an uninvited neighborhood, the time was past
guest. After seeing what appeared to him midnight, and the victim appeared to be
an armed stranger looking around and an armed burglar in the dark and inside
out to rob the house, he ]red his gun his house, the accused could have
seriously injuring the man. When the entertained an honest belief that his life
lights were turned on, the unfortunate and limb or those of his family are
victim turned out to be a brother-in-law already in immediate and imminent
on his way to the kitchen to get some danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to
light snacks. The accused was indicted
Prepared by: LJC
36
accept that he acted out of an honest stated by law as included in the de]nition
mistake of fact and therefore without of a crime, like treachery in the crime of
criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact murder.
negatives criminal intent and thus
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (2007)
absolves the accused from criminal
liability. Macky, a security guard, arrived home
late one night after rendering overtime.
QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME
He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
(2003)
Ken, his best friend, in the act of having
When would qualifying circumstances be sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? service gun and shot and killed Ken.
4%
The court found that Ken died under
SUGGESTED ANSWER: exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but
A qualifying circumstance would be
sentenced him to destierro, conformably
deemed an element of a crime when -
with Article 247 of the Revised Penal
a. it changes the nature of the Code. The court also ordered Macky to
crime, bringing about a more pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim
serious crime and a heavier in the amount of P50,000.
penalty;
b. it is essential to the crime Did the court correctly order Macky to
involved, otherwise some other pay indemnity even though he was
crime is committed; and exonerated of murder? Explain your

c. it is speci]cally alleged in the answer. (10%)
Information and proven during
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the trial.
No, the court did not act correctly in

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ordering the accused to indemnify the
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an victim. Since the killing of ken was
element of a crime when it is speci]cally committed under the exceptional
Prepared by: LJC

37
circumstances in Article 247, revised made criminally liable as accessories to

Penal Code, it is the consensus that no the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)
crime was committed in the light of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79
Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment Obviously, Jake‟s mother was aware of
(destierro) is intended more for the her son‟s having committed a felony,
protection of the o8ender rather than as such that her act of harboring and
a penalty. Since the civil liability under concealing him renders her liable as an
the Revised Penal Code is the accessory. But being an ascendant to
consequence of criminal liability, there Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability
would be no legal basis for the award of by express provision of Article 20 of the
indemnity when there is no criminal Revised Penal Code.
liability.
On the other hand, the criminal liability
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of Jake‟s aunt depends on her knowledge
of his commission of the felony, her act
Yes, because the crime punishable by
of harboring and concealing Jake would
destierro was committed, which is death
render her criminally liable as accessory
under exceptional circumstances under
to the crime of murder; otherwise
Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
without knowledge of Jake‟s commission
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; of the felony, she would not be liable.
ACCESSORIES; ASCENDANTS (2010)
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES;
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake INSANITY (2010)
went to his mother to seek refuge. His
While his wife was on a 2-year
mother told him to hide in the maid’s
scholarship abroad, Romeo was having
quarters until she ]nds a better place for
an a8air with his maid Dulcinea.
him to hide. After two days, Jake
Realizing that the a8air was going
transferred to his aunt’s house. A week
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she
later, Jake was apprehended by the
was going back to the province to marry
police. Can Jake’s mother and aunt be
her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
Prepared by: LJC
38
anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled an a8air with his maid Dulcinea.
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping Realizing that the a8air was going
in the maid’s quarters. nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she
was going back to the province to marry
The following day, Romeo was found
her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
was brought to the National Center for
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
in the maid’s quarters.
diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded The following day, Romeo was found
insanity as a defense. catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for
Will Romeo’s defense prosper?
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
Explain. (2%)
diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded
No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not insanity as a defense.
prosper because, even assuming that

What is the e;ect of the diagnosis
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed
of the NCMH on the case? (2%)
after he committed the crime, insanity as
a defense to the commission of crime SUGGESTED ANSWER:
must have existed and proven to be so
The e8ect of the diagnosis made by
existing at the precise moment when the
NCMH is possibly a suspension of the
crime was being committed. The fact of
proceedings against Romeo and his
the case indicate that Romeo committed
commitment to appropriate institution for
the crime with discernment.
treatment until he could already
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES; understand the proceedings.
INSANITY; EFFECT (2010)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES;
While his wife was on a 2-year BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
scholarship abroad, Romeo was having (2010)
Prepared by: LJC

39
Jack and Jill have been married for seven found by the courts to be su8ering from
years. One night, Jack came home drunk. battered woman syndrome do not incur
Finding no food on the table, Jack started any criminal and civil liability
hitting Jill only to apologize the following notwithstanding the absence of any of
day. the elements for justifying circumstances
of self-defense under the Revised Penal
A week later, the same episode occurred
Code.
– Jack came home drunk and started
hitting Jill. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed MITIGATING; NON-INTOXICATION
with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent (2000)
her ?oral arrangements of spotted lilies
Despite the massive advertising
and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill
campaign in media against ]recrackers
returned home and decided to give Jack
and gun-]ring during the New Year's
another chance. After several days,
celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
however, Jack again came home drunk.
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
The following day, he was found dead.
Bulacan. Before midnight of December
Jill was charged with parricide but raised 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
the defense of "battered woman celebration by having a drinking spree at
syndrome." Jona's place by exploding their high-
powered ]recrackers in their
Would the defense prosper despite the
neighborhood. In the course of their
absence of any of the elements for
conversation, Jonas con]ded to Jaja that
justifying circumstances of self-defense
he has been keeping a long-time grudge
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
(2%)
latter's refusal to lend him some money.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: While under the in?uence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262
inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and
provides that victim-survivors who are
the same exploded inside the latter's
Prepared by: LJC
40
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of c. If you were the Judge, how would
the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy you decide the case? Explain. (1%)
became furious and sternly warned Jonas
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to stop his malicious act or he would get
what he wanted. A heated argument a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja the complex crime of ATTEMPTED
tried to calm down his friend. At MURDER WITH HOMICIDE because a
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend single act caused a less grave and a
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could grave felony (Art. 48. RPC)....
use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his
b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will
arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,
use the following defenses:
explosions were everywhere and nobody
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja That the accused had no intention to
lent his ]rearm to Jonas, the latter again commit so grave a wrong as that
started throwing lighted super lolos and committed as they merely intended to
pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to frighten Jepoy;
provoke him so that he would come out
of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas That Jonas committed the crime in a
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 state of intoxication thereby impairing
caliber gun but missed his target. his will power or capacity to
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's ]ve year understand the wrongfulness of his
old son who was following behind him, act. Non-intentional intoxication is a
killing the boy instantaneously, mitigating circumstance (People us.
Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art. 15,
a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and
RPC.).
Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999)
b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer,
what possible defenses would you An accused charged with the crime of
set up in favor of your clients? homicide pleaded "not guilty" during the
Explain. (2%) preliminary investigation before the
Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of
Prepared by: LJC
41
the case to the Regional Trial Court the SPONTANEOUSLY PLEADED guilty to
Court of competent jurisdiction, he the crime charged;
pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon
2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE
arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before
THE COURT COMPETENT to try the
the RTC be considered spontaneous and
case and render judgment; and
thus entitle him to the mitigating
circumstance of spontaneous plea of 3. That such plea was made PRIOR TO
guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%) THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
for the prosecution.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY;
Trial Court can be considered VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1997)
spontaneous, for which he is entitled to

After killing the victim, the accused
the mitigating circumstance of plea of
absconded. He succeeded in eluding the
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the
police until he surfaced and surrendered
Municipal Court is immaterial as it was
to the authorities about two years later.
made during preliminary investigation
Charged with murder, he pleaded not
only and before a court not competent to
guilty but, after the prosecution had
render judgment.
presented two witnesses implicating him
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY; to the crime, he changed his plea to that
REQUISITES (1999) of guilty.
In order that the plea of guilty may be Should the mitigating circumstances of
mitigating, what requisites must be voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be
complied with? (2%) considered in favor of the accused?
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the Voluntary surrender should be considered
requisites are: as a mitigating circumstance. After two

years, the police were still unaware of
1. That the ACCUSED the whereabouts of the accused and the
Prepared by: LJC
42
latter could have continued to elude latter. After the stabbing, he brought his
arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the son home. The Chief of Police of the
accused should be considered mitigating town, accompanied by several
because it was done spontaneously, policemen, went to Hilario's house.
indicative of the remorse or repentance Hilario, upon seeing the approaching
on the part of said accused and policemen, came down from his house to
therefore, by his surrender, the accused meet them and voluntarily went with
saved the Government expenses, e8orts, them to the Police Station to be
and time. investigated in connection with the
killing. When eventually charged with
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on
Voluntary surrender may not be appeal, faulted the trial court for not
appreciated in favor of the accused. Two appreciating in his favor the mitigating
years is too long a time to consider the circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is
surrender as spontaneous (People us. he entitled to such a mitigating
Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the circumstance? Explain.
government had already incurred

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
considerable e8orts and expenses in
looking for the accused. Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The
Plea of guilty can no longer be
crux of the issue is whether the fact that
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance
Hilario went home after the incident, but
because the prosecution had already
came down and met the police oocers
started with the presentation of its
and went with them is considered
evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal
"Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness
Code).
of surrender is tested if the same is
MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY spontaneous showing the intent of the
SURRENDER (1996) accused to submit himself

unconditionally to the authorities. This
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a must be either (a) because he
scuwe with Rene, stabbed and killed the acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he
Prepared by: LJC
43
wishes to save them the trouble and expenses, time and e8ort in tracking
expenses necessarily incurred in his down the o8ender's whereabouts; and
search and capture. (Reyes'
c. made to a person in authority or the
Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of
latter's agents.
the accused in hiding after commission of
the crime, but voluntarily went with the
policemen who had gone to his hiding MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY
place to investigate, was held to be SURRENDER (2009)
mitigating circumstance.(People vs.
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating
Dayrit, cited in Reyes' Commentaries, p.
circumstance in all acts and omissions
299)
punishable under the Revised Penal
MITIGATING; VOLUNTARY Code.
SURRENDER; ELEMENTS (1999)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When is surrender by an accused
False, Voluntary surrender may be
considered voluntary, and constitutive of
appreciated in cases of criminal
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
negligence under Art. 365 since in such
surrender? (3%)
cases, the courts are authorized to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: imposed a penalty without considering
Art. 62 regarding mitigating and
A surrender by an o8ender is considered
aggravating circumstances.
voluntary when it is spontaneous,
indicative of an intent to submit PRIVILEGE MITIGATING
unconditionally to the authorities. CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)
To be mitigating, the surrender must be: What is a privileged mitigating

circumstance? (5%)
a. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of
acknowledgment of guilt and not for Privileged mitigating circumstances are
convenience nor conditional; those that mitigate criminal liability of
the crime being modi]ed to one or two
b. made before the government incurs
Prepared by: LJC
44
degrees lower. These circumstances circumstance has the e8ect of reducing

cannot be o8- set by aggravating the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b)
circumstance. The circumstance of Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be
incomplete justi]cation or exemption o8-set by the aggravating circumstances.
(when majority of the conditions are Privileged mitigating circumstances are
present), and the circumstance of not subject to the o8- set rule.
minority (if the child above 15 years of
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
age acted with discernment) are
privileged mitigating circumstances. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
(1996)
PRIVILEGE MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE VS. ORDINARY Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012) armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the morning, robbed a house at a
Distinguish a privileged mitigating
desolate place where Danilo, his wife,
circumstance from an ordinary mitigating
and three daughters were living. While
circumstance as to reduction of penalty
the four were in the process of
and o8setting against aggravating
ransacking Danilo's house, Fernando,
circumstance/s. (5%)
noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
SUGGESTED ANSWER: was trying to get away, ran after her and
]nally caught up with her in a thicket
The distinction between ordinary and
somewhat distant from the house.
privilege mitigating circumstances are:
Fernando, before bringing back the
(a) Under the rules for application of
daughter to the house, raped her ]rst.
divisible penalties (Article 64 of the
Thereafter, the four carted away the
Revised Penal Code), the presence of a
belongings of Danilo and his family.
mitigating circumstance, has the e8ect of
applying the divisible penalty in its a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
minimum period. Under the rules on and Fernando commit? Explain.
graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four
69), the presence of privileged mitigating
took turns in raping the three daughters
Prepared by: LJC
45
of Danilo inside the latter's house, but o8enders took advantage of

before they left, they killed the whole nighttime;
3. dwelling; and
family to prevent identi]cation, what
4. Uninhabited place because the
crime did the four commit? Explain.
house where the crimes were
c. Under the facts of the case, what committed was "at a desolate
aggravating circumstances may be place" and obviously the o8enders
appreciated against the four? Explain. took advantage of this

circumstance in committing the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: crime.
a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES;

Robbery, while Fernando committed GENERIS VS. QUALIFYING (1999)
complex crime of Robbery with Rape...
Distinguish generic aggravating
b) The crime would be Robbery with circumstance from qualifying aggravating
Homicide because the killings were by circumstance.
reason (to prevent identi]cation) and on
the occasion of the robbery. The multiple SUGGESTED ANSWER:
rapes committed and the fact that

Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
several persons were killed [homicide),
would be considered as aggravating a. a8ects only the imposition of the
circumstances. The rapes are penalty prescribed, but not the
synonymous with Ignominy and the nature of the crime committed;
b. can be o8set by ordinary mitigating
additional killing synonymous with
circumstances;
cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; c. need not be alleged in the
People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531) Information as long as proven
during the trial, the same shall be
c) The aggravating circumstances which
considered in imposing the
may be considered in the premises are:
sentence.
1. Band because all the four o8enders
are armed; Qualifying Aggravating
2. Noctumity because evidently the Circumstances:
Prepared by: LJC
46
a. must be alleged in the cannot be o8set by mitigating

Information and proven during circumstances:
trial;
3) QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or
b. cannot be o8set by mitigating those that change the nature of the
circumstances; crime to a graver one, or brings about a
penalty next higher in degree, and
c. a8ects the nature of the crime
cannot be o8set by mitigating
or brings about a penalty higher
circumstances;
in degree than that ordinarily
prescribed. 4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those
that essentially accompany the
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES;
commission of the crime and does not
KINDS & PENALTIES (1999)
a8ect the penalty whatsoever.
Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating

AGGRAVATING; CRUELTY;
circumstances and state their e8ect on
RELATIONSHIP (1994)
the penalty of crimes and nature thereof.
(3%) Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire,
poked a gun on his daughter Zeny,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
forcibly undressed her and tied her legs
The four(4) kinds of aggravating to the bed. He also burned her face with
circumstances are: a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he

laughed while raping her. What
1) GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those aggravating circumstances are present in
that can generally apply to all crimes, this case?
and can be o8set by mitigating
circumstances, but if not o8set, would SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a8ect only the maximum of the penalty

a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face
prescribed by law;
with a lighted cigarette, thereby
2) SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those deliberately augmenting the victim's
that apply only to particular crimes and su8ering by acts clearly unnecessary to
Prepared by: LJC

47
the rape, while the o8ender delighted The circumstances of using poison, in
and enjoyed seeing the victim su8er in consideration of a promise or reward, and
pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316). cruelty which attended the killing of Rico
could only be appreciated as generic
b) Relationship, because the o8ended
aggravating circumstances since none of
party is a descendant (daughter) of the
them have been alleged in the
o8ender and considering that the crime
information to qualify the killing to
is one against chastity.
murder. A qualifying circumstance must
AGGRAVATING; MUST BE ALLEGED IN be alleged in the Information and proven
THE INFORMATION (2000) beyond reasonable doubt during the trial

to be appreciated as such.
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho
fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a AGGRAVATING; NIGHTTIME; BAND
member of the rival group, Sigma Phi (1994)
Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for

At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
homicide before the Regional Trial Court
and Ra8y were walking along Padre Faura
in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the
Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
prosecution was able to prove that the
rock injuring Dino at the back. Ra8y
killing was committed by means of
approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
poison in consideration of a promise or
Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
reward and with cruelty. If you were the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve,
Judge, with what crime will you convict
Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting
Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
Dino and Ra8y with rocks. As a result.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy

and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime
of homicide only because the Can the court appreciate the aggravating
aggravating circumstances which should circumstances of nighttime and band?
qualify the crime to murder were not

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
alleged in the Information.
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as
Prepared by: LJC
48
an aggravating circumstance because No, the appeal is not meritorious.

there is no indication that the o8enders Recidivism and habitual delinquency are
deliberately sought the cover of darkness correctly considered in this case because
to facilitate the commission of the crime the basis of recidivism is di8erent from
or that they took advantage of nighttime that of habitual delinquency.
(People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).
Juan is a recidivist because he had been
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of
previously convicted by ]nal judgment
the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-
for theft and again found guilty for
lighted.
Robbery with Homicide, which are both
However, band should be considered as crimes against property, embraced under
the crime was committed by more than the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the
three armed malefactors; in a recent Revised Penal Code. The implication is
Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks that he is specializing in the commission
are considered deadly weapons. of crimes against property, hence
aggravating in the conviction for Robbery
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)
with Homicide.
Juan de Castro already had three (3)

Habitual delinquency, which brings about
previous convictions by ]nal judgment
an additional penalty when an o8ender is
for theft when he was found guilty of
convicted a third time or more for
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,
speci]ed crimes, is correctly
the trial Judge considered against the
considered ...
accused both recidivism and habitual
delinquency. The accused appealed and AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM VS.
contended that in his last conviction, the QUASI-RECIDIVISM (1998)
trial court cannot consider against him a
Distinguish between recidivism and
]nding of recidivism and, again, of
quasi-recidivism. [2%]
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal
meritorious? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In recidivism -
Prepared by: LJC

49
1. The convictions of the o8ender are afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife
for crimes embraced in the same together on board a vehicle. In the
Title of the Revised Penal Code; evening of that day, the accused went to
and bed early and tried to sleep, but being so
annoyed over the suspected relation
2. This circumstance is generic
between his wife and the victim, he could
aggravating and therefore can be
not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved
e8ect by an ordinary mitigating
to kill victim. He rose from bed and took
circumstance.
hold of a knife. He entered the apartment
Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm - of the victim through an unlocked
window. Inside, he saw the victim
1. The convictions are not for crimes
soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed
embraced in the same Title of the
the victim, in?icting several wounds,
Revised Penal Code, provided that
which caused his death within a few
it is a felony that was committed
hours.
by the o8ender before serving
sentence by ]nal judgment for Would you say that the killing was
another crime or while serving attended by the qualifying or aggravating
sentence for another crime; and circumstances of evident premeditation,
2. This circumstance is a special
treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
aggravating circumstance which
cannot be o8set by any mitigating SUGGESTED ANSWER:
circumstance.
1. Evident premeditation cannot be
AGGRAVATING; TREACHERY & considered against the accused because
UNLAWFUL ENTRY (1997) he resolved to kill the victim "later in the

night" and there was no suocient lapse
The accused and the victim occupied of time between the determination and
adjacent apartments, each being a execution, to allow his conscience to
separate dwelling unit of one big house. overcome the resolution of his will.
The accused suspected his wife of having
an illicit relation with the victim. One 2. TREACHERY may be present because
Prepared by: LJC

50
the accused stabbed the victim while the A was invited to a drinking spree by
latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he friends. After having had a drink too
employed means and methods which many, A and B had a heated argument,
directly and specially insured the during which A stabbed B. As a result, B
execution of the act without risk himself su8ered serious physical injuries. May
arising from the defense which the victim the intoxication of A be considered
might have made (People vs. Dequina. aggravating or mitigating? (5%)
60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Phil. 91).
The intoxication of A may be prima facie

3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated
considered mitigating since it was merely
because there is no showing that the
incidental to the commission of the
accused deliberately sought or availed of
crime. It may not be considered
nighttime to insure the success of his act.
aggravating as there is no clear
The Intention to commit the crime was
indication from the facts of the case that
conceived shortly before its commission
it was habitual or intentional on the part
(People vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover,
of A. Aggravating circumstances are not
nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
to be presumed; they should be proved
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated beyond reasonable doubt
as an aggravating circumstance,
PERSONS Criminally Liable for
inasmuch as the accused entered the
FELONIES
room of the victim through the window,
which is not the proper place for ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (1996)
entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18.
Revised Penal Code, People vs. Baruga Flora, who was engaged in the purchase
61 Phil. 318). and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for

the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for
having been found to be in possession of
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES;
recently stolen Jewelry valued at
INTOXICATION (2002)
P100,000.00 at her jewelry shop at
Prepared by: LJC
51
Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. ought to know that it is the proceed from
She testi]ed during the trial that she robbery or theft. Besides, she should
merely bought the same from one named have followed the administrative
Cecilino and even produced a receipt procedure under the decree that of
covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, getting a clearance from the authorities
used to deliver to her jewelries for sale in case the dealer is unlicensed in order
but is presently nowhere to be found. to escape liability.
Convicted by the trial court for violation
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING VS.
of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or
THEFT OR ROBBERY (1995)
her acquittal on appeal, contending that
the prosecution failed to prove that she What is the di8erence between a fence
knew or should have known that the and an accessory to theft or robbery?
Jewelries recovered from her were the Explain.Is there any similarity between
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. them?
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken One di8erence between a fence and an
because mere possession of any article accessory to theft or robbery is the
of value which has been the subject of penalty involved; a fence is punished as
theft or robbery shall be prima facie a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the
evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The penalty is higher, whereas an accessory
burden is upon the accused to prove that to robbery or theft under the Revised
she acquired the jewelry legitimately. Her Penal Code is punished two degrees
defense of having bought the Jewelry lower than the principal, unless he
from someone whose whereabouts is bought or pro]ted from the proceeds of
unknown, does not overcome the theft or robbery arising from robbery in
presumption of fencing against her Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532
(Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 where he is punished as an accomplice,
July 1994). Buying personal property puts hence the penalty is one degree lower.
the buyer on caveat because of the
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and
phrases that he should have known or
Prepared by: LJC
52
therefore there is no need to prove been derived from the proceeds of

criminal intent of the accused; this is not said crime;
iii. the accused knows or should have
so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
known that said article, item,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: object or anything of value has
been derived from the from the
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that
proceeds of the crime of robbery
all the acts of one who is an accessory to
or theft; and
the crimes of robbery or theft are iv. there is on the part of the
included in the acts de]ned as fencing. In accused, intent to gain for himself
fact, the accessory in the crimes of or for another.
robbery or theft could be prosecuted as
such under the Revised Penal Code or as CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES &
a fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon- FENCE (1998)
Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]

King went to the house of Laura who was
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING; alone. Laura o8ered him a drink and after
ELEMENTS (1995) consuming three bottles of beer. King

made advances to her and with force and
What are the elements of fencing? violence, ravished her. Then King killed
Laura and took her jewelry.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned

The elements of fencing are:
about the incident. He went to Laura's
i. a crime of robbery or theft has house, hid her body, cleaned everything
been committed; and washed the bloodstains inside the
ii. accused, who is not a principal or
room.
accomplice in the crime, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate
acquires, conceals, or disposes, or brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to
buys and sells, or in any manner Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was
deals in any article, item , object taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold
or anything of value, which has it for P2,000.
Prepared by: LJC
53
What crime or crimes did King, Doming Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since
and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and
liabilities. [10%] with intent to gain, he received it from
King and sold it.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; NON-
King committed the composite crime of
EXEMPTION AS ACCESSORY (2004)
Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
o8ense, not a complex crime, and DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the
Theft. ... earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned
the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a
Doming's acts, having been done with
pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
knowledge of the commission of the
MCB raised the defense that being the
crime and obviously to conceal the body
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable
of the crime to prevent its discovery,
as an accessory. Will MCB's defense
makes him an accessory to the crime of
prosper? Reason brie?y. (5%)
rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2
of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt SUGGESTED ANSWER:
from criminal liability therefor under
No, MCB's defense will not prosper
Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted
because the exemption from criminal
brother of the principal.
liability of an accessory by virtue of
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an relationship with the principal does not
accessory to the crime of theft cover accessories who themselves
committed by King, or as fence. Although pro]ted from or assisted the o8ender to
he is a legitimate brother of King, the pro]t by the e8ects or proceeds of the
exemption under Article 20 does not crime. This non-exemption of an
include the participation he did, because accessory, though related to the principal
he pro]ted from the e8ects of such theft of the crime, is expressly provided in Art.
by selling the jewelry knowing that the 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY
be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-
DIRECT PARTICIPATION; CO-
Prepared by: LJC
54
PRINCIPAL BY INDISPENSABLE use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his

COOPERATION (2000) arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,
Despite the massive advertising
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
campaign in media against ]recrackers
lent his ]rearm 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,
31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .
celebration by having a drinking spree at
45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Jona's place by exploding their high-
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's ]ve year
old son who was following behind him,
killing the boy instantaneously,
he has been keeping a long-time grudge If you were the Judge, how would you
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the decide the case? Explain. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
While under the in?uence of liquor, Jonas
started throwing lighted super lolos I would convict Jonas as principal by
inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and direct participation and Jaja as co-
the same exploded inside the latter's principal by Indispensable cooperation
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of for the complex crime of murder with
the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy homicide. Jaja should be held liable as
became furious and sternly warned Jonas co-principal and not only as an
to stop his malicious act or he would get accomplice because he knew of Jonas'
what he wanted. A heated argument criminal design even before he lent his
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja ]rearm to Jonas and still he concurred in
tried to calm down his friend. At that criminal design by providing the
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend ]rearm.
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could
Prepared by: LJC
55
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY (1994)

INDUCEMENT (2002)
Tata owns a three-storey building located
A asked B to kill C because of a grave at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She
injustice done to A by C. A promised B a wanted to construct a new building but
reward. B was willing to kill C, not so had no money to ]nance the
much because of the reward promised to construction. So, she insured the building
him but because he also had his own for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy
long-standing grudge against C, who had and Yongsi, for monetary consideration,
wronged him in the past. If C is killed by to burn her building so she could collect
B, would A be liable as a principal by the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
inducement? (5%) burned the said building resulting to its
total loss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What is their respective criminal liability?
No. A would not be liable as a principal
by inducement because the reward he SUGGESTED ANSWER:
promised B is not the sole impelling
Tata is a principal by inducement
reason which made B to kill C. To bring
because she directly induced Yoboy and
about criminal liability of a co-principal,
Yongsi, for a price or monetary
the inducement made by the inducer
consideration, to commit arson which the
must be the sole consideration which
latter would not have committed were it
caused the person induced to commit the
not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are
crime and without which the crime would
principals by direct participation (Art. 17,
not have been committed. The facts of
pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (1994)
reason to kill C out of a long standing
Tata owns a three-storey building located
grudge.
at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL; wanted to construct a new building but
INDUCEMENT & PARTICIPATION had no money to ]nance the
Prepared by: LJC

56
construction. So, she insured the building No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun,
for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy saying that he would use it to kill Freddie.
and Yongsi, for monetary consideration, Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he
to burn her building so she could collect readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano:
the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
burned the said building resulting to its kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed
total loss. Freddie, but used a knife because he did
not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the
What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi
gunshot.
commit?
What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Explain. (3%)
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the SUGGESTED ANSWER:

crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of Ruben‟s liability is that of an accomplice
property by means of ]re under the only because he merely cooperated in
circumstances which exposed to danger Ponciano‟s determination to kill Freddie.

the life or property of others (Art, 320, Such cooperation is not indispensable to
par. 5, RPC. as amended by RA No. the killing, as in fact the killing was
7659). carried out without the use of Ruben‟s
gun. Neither way Ruben may be regarded
ACCOMPLICE (2012)
as a co-conspirator since he was not a
Who is an accomplice? (5%) participant in the decision-making of

Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely
SUGGESTED ANSWER: cooperated in carrying out the plan which
was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).
Accomplices are those persons who, not
being a principal, cooperate in the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
execution of the o8ense by previous or
simultaneous acts (Article 18) Ruben cannot be held liable as an
accomplice in the killing of Freddie
ACCOMPLICE (2009) because his act of lending his gun to
Prepared by: LJC
57
Ponciano did not have the relation other killing. Ponciano‟s using Ruben‟s
between the acts done by the latter to gun in killing a person other then Freddie
that attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben is beyond Ruben‟s criminal intent and
did not lend his gun, Ponciano would willing involvement. Only Ponciano will
have consummated the act of killing answer for the crime against Manuel.
Freddie. In other words, Ruben‟s act in
It has been ruled that when the owner of
lending his gun was not a necessary act
the gun knew it would be used to kill a
to enable Ponciano to consummate the
particular person, but the o8ender used
crime.
it to kill another person, the owner of the
ACCOMPLICE (2009) gun is not an accomplice as to the killing
of the other person. While there was
Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying
community of design to kill Freddie
that he would use it to kill Freddie.
between Ponciano and Ruben, there was
Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he
none with respect to the killing of
readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano:
Manuel.
"O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed
Freddie, but used a knife because he did ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the
Yes, the answer would be the same
gunshot.
because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano
Would your answer be the same if, with knowledge that it would be used in
instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a killing a person, thus with knowledge that
relative of Ruben, who was killed by the gun would be use to commit a crime.
Ponciano using Ruben’s gun? Explain. It is of no moment who was killed so long
(3%) as Ruben is aware when he lent the gun
that it would be used to commit a crime.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR
No, the answer would not be the same
(2012)
because Ruben lent his gun purposely for
the killing of Freddie only, not for any No. V. b. Distinguish an accomplice from
Prepared by: LJC
58
a conspirator as to their knowledge of execution of the crime; while a

the criminal design of the principal, their conspirator incurs criminal liability
participation, the penalty to be imposed not only for his individual acts in
in relation to the penalty for the principal, the execution of the crime but also
and the requisites/elements to be for the acts of the other
established by the prosecution in order to participants in the commission of
hold them criminally responsible for their the crime collectively. The acts of
respective roles in the commission of the the other participants in the
crime. (5%) execution of the crime are
considered also as acts of a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conspirator for purposes of
The di8erences between accomplice and collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the
conspirator are as follows:
execution of a crime when the
ACCOMPLICE VS. CONSPIRATOR criminal design or plan is already in
(2007) place; whereas a conspirator
participates in the adoption or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
making of the criminal design.
The distinction between an accomplice

4. An accomplice is subjected to a
and a conspirator are:
penalty one degree lower than that
1. An accomplice incurs criminal of a principal; whereas a
liability by merely cooperating in conspirator incurs the penalty of a
the execution of the crime without principal.
participating as a principal, by prior
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING (2013)
simultaneous acts; whereas a
conspirator participates in the Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from
commission of a crime as a co- Ixigo for P500,000. While driving his
principal. newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor
2. An accomplice incurs criminal
accident that made the examination of
liability in an individual capacity by
his vehicle's Registration Certi]cate
his act alone of cooperating in the
Prepared by: LJC
59
necessary. When the policeman checked took no part in the robbery or theft,
the plate, chassis and motor numbers of “buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
the vehicle against those re?ected in the acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
Registration Certi]cate, he found the buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
chassis and motor numbers to be any article or object taken” during that
di8erent from what the Registration robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or
Certi]cate stated. The Deed of Sale should have known of that the thing was
covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed derived form that crime; and 4) by the
by Ixigo, also bore the same chassis and deal he makes he intends to gain for
motor numbers as Roberto's Registration himself or for another. Here, someone
Certi]cate. The chassis and motor carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto
numbers on the Fortuner were found, who did not take part in the crime.
upon veri]cation with the Land Roberto should have known also that the
Transportation Ooce, to correspond to a car was stolen because it was not
vehicle previously reported as properly documented as the deed of sale
carnapped. and registration certi]cate did not re?ect
the correct numbers of the vehicle‟s
Roberto claimed that he was in good
engine and chassis. Apparently, he made
faith; Ixigo sold him a carnapped vehicle
no e8ort to check the papers covering his
and he did not know that he was buying
purchase. Lastly, Roberto‟s defense of
a carnapped vehicle.
good faith is ?awed because Presidential
If you were the prosecutor, would you or Decree 1612 is a special law and,
would you not charge Roberto with a therefore, its violation in regarded as
crime? (7%) malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of

criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 181184, January 25, 2012).
I will charge Roberto with violation of ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of
The facts given show that Roberto
“fencing” are: 1) a robbery or theft has
“bought” the car form Inigo; that a “deed
been committed; 2) the accused, who
of sale” covering the subject vehicle was
Prepared by: LJC
60
executed by Inigo; that there is also a Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will
copy of the “Registration Certi]cate”; the charge prosper? Why or why not?
that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer (5%)
in good faith and lacking of any
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
knowledge that the subject car is a
carnapped vehicle. No, the charge of “fencing” will not
prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a
As against the foregoing, there is only a
person, with intent to gain foe himself or
certi]cate from the Land Transportation
for another, deals in any manner with an
Ooce showing that the vehicle had been
article of value which he knows or should
previously reported as carnapped.
be known to him to have been derived
Consequently, in light of the satisfactory from the proceeds of theft or robbery
explanation of Roberto of his possession (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of
of the vehicle, the presumption of fencing to prosper, it must ]rst be
authorship of the theft upon a person established that a theft or robbery of the
found in possession of the stolen article subject of the alleged fencing has
personal property ]nds no application in been committed --- fact which is wanting
the instant case. in this case.
There is, thus, no probable cause or It should be noted that the suspect is
evidence to warrant the prosecution of engaged in the buy and sell of used
Riberto for any wrongdoing. garments, which are in the nature of
movable property carries with it a prima
facie presumption of ownership. The
No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and presumption of “fencing” arises only
sell of used garments, more popularly when the article or item involved is the
known as"ukay-ukay." Among the items subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5,
found by the police in a raid of her store PD 1612).
in Baguio City were brand-new Louie

Feraud blazers.
No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing
Prepared by: LJC
61
under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense included Modesto had been engaged in
for the accused to prove that he had no bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what
knowledge that the goods or articles to do under the circumstances, kept
found in his possession had been the quiet about the two bags in his vault.
subject of robbery. Soon after, the police captured, and
secured a confession from, Modesto who
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
admitted that their loot had been
False, fencing is committed if the deposited with Abelardo.
accused “should have known” that the

What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)
goods or articles had been the subject of
theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere SUGGESTED ANSWER:
possession of the stolen goods gives rise
Abelardo is not criminally liable.
to the prima facie presumption of
fencing. To be criminally liable as an accessory
under Article 19 of the Code, such person
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; ACCESSORIES
must have knowledge of the commission
(2013)
of the crime. The term “knowledge “
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. under the law is not synonymous with
Sometime in August, 1998 while suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime
Abelardo was in his ooce, Modesto, has been committed is not suocient.
together with two other men in police
Moreover, the facts as given in the
uniform, came with two heavy bags.
problem would show lack or absent of
Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two
intent to conceal the e8ects of the crime
bags in his vault until he comes back to
as Abelardo is described as being
get them. When Abelardo
“unsure of what to do under the
later examined the two bags, he saw circumstances.”
bundles of money that, in his rough
Even if he can be considered as an
count, could not be less than P5 Million.
accessory under paragraph 2 of Article
He kept the money inside the vault and
19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the
soon he heard the news that a gang that
Prepared by: LJC
62
brother of Modesto under Article 20, RPC. Distinguish the following from each
other:
PENALTIES
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPLEX CRIME VS. COMPOUND
CRIME (2004) An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made
up of two or more crimes being punished
Distinguish clearly but brie?y: Between in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal
compound and complex crimes as Code but alleged in one information
concepts in the Penal Code. either because they were brought about
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by a single felonious act or because one

o8ense is a necessary means for
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the committing the other o8ense or o8enses.
o8ender committed only a single They are alleged in one information so
felonious act from which two or more that only one penalty shall be imposed.
crimes resulted. This is provided for in As to penalties, ordinary complex crime,
modi]ed form in the ]rst part of Article the penalty for the most serious crime
48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the shall be imposed and in its maximum
resulting crimes to only grave and/or less period
grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other
excluded even though resulting from the
hand, is made up of two or more crimes
same single act.
which are considered only as
COMPLEX CRIMES result when the components of a single indivisible
o8ender has to commit an o8ense as a o8ense being punished in one provision
necessary means for committing another of the Revised Penal Code. As to
o8ense. Only one information shall be penalties, special complex crime, only
]led and if proven, the penalty for the one penalty is speci]cally prescribed for
more serious crime shall be imposed. all the component crimes which are
regarded as one indivisible o8ense. The
COMPLEX CRIME VS. SPECIAL
component crimes are not regarded as
COMPLEX CRIME VS. DELITO
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the
CONTINUADO (2005)
Prepared by: LJC
63
most serious crime is not the penalty to occurs when a felonious act missed the
be imposed nor in its maximum period. It person against whom it was directed and
is the penalty speci]cally provided for hit instead somebody who was not the
the special complex crime that shall be intended victim. Error in personae, or
applied according to the rules on mistake in identity occurs when the
imposition of the penalty. felonious act was directed at the person
intended, but who turned out to be
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS
somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings
CRIME, is a term used to denote as only
about at least two (2) felonious
one crime a series of felonious acts
consequence, ie. the attempted felony on
arising from a single criminal resolution,
the intended victim who was not hit and
not susceptible of division, which are
the felony on the unintended victim who
carried out in the same place and at
was hit. A complex crime of the ]rst form
about the same time, and violating one
under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In
and the same penal provision. The acts
error in personae only one crime is
done must be impelled by one criminal
committed
intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS,
a particular crime, violating one and the ERROR IN PERSONAE & PRAETER
same penal provision. It involves a INTENTIONEM (1999)
concurrence of felonious acts violating a
What do you understand by aberratio
common right, a common penal
ictus: error in personae; and praeter
provision, and Impelled by a single cri
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
VS. ERROR IN PERSONAE (1994)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow
personae.
occurs when the o8ender delivered the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: blow at his intended victim but missed,
and instead such blow landed on an
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
Prepared by: LJC
64
unintended victim. The situation or expected. This is a mitigating

generally brings about complex crimes circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when
where from a single act, two or more there is a notorious disparity between the
grave or less grave felonies resulted, act or means employed by the o8ender
namely the attempt against the intended and the resulting felony, i,e., the
victim and the consequence on the resulting felony could not be reasonably
unintended victim. As complex crimes, anticipated or foreseen by the of fender
the penalty for the more serious crime from the act or means employed by him.
shall be the one imposed and in the
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS;
maximum period. It is only when the
ATTEMPTED MURDER WITH
resulting felonies are only light that
HOMICIDE (2000)
complex crimes do not result and the
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for Despite the massive advertising
each resulting crime. campaign in media against ]recrackers
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in
identity occurs when the o8ender
actually hit the person to whom the blow
was directed but turned out to be
31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
di8erent from and not the victim
celebration by having a drinking spree at
intended. The criminal liability of the
Jona's place by exploding their high-
o8ender is not a8ected, unless the
mistake in identity resulted to a crime
di8erent from what the o8ender intended
to commit, in which case the lesser
he has been keeping a long-time grudge
penalty between the crime intended and
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
the crime committed shall be imposed
but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
While under the in?uence of liquor, Jonas
RFC).
started throwing lighted super lolos
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and
consequence went beyond that intended the same exploded inside the latter's
Prepared by: LJC
65
yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of homicide because a single act caused a
the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48.
became furious and sternly warned Jonas RPC).
to stop his malicious act or he would get
Attempted murder is a less grave felony,
what he wanted. A heated argument
while consummated homicide is a grave
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja
felony: both are punishable by awictive
tried to calm down his friend. At
penalties.
midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend
him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could COMPLEX CRIME; DOCTRINE OF
use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his ABERRATIO ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE
arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, (1996)
At the height of an altercation, Pedrito
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio
lent his ]rearm to Jonas, the latter again
instead, resulting in the death of the
started throwing lighted super lolos and
latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of
pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to
aberratio ictus, claims exemption from
provoke him so that he would come out
criminal liability.If you were the judge,
of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas
how would you decide the case?
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45
caliber gun but missed his target. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's ]ve year
old son who was following behind him, If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito
killing the boy instantaneously, and ]nd him guilty of the complex crime
of Homicide with Attempted Homicide.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas The single act of ]ring at Paulo resulted
and Jaja be charged with? Explain. in the commission of two felonies, one
(2%) grave (homicide) and the other less
grave (attempted homicide) thus falling
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the penalty would be for the more serious
complex crime of attempted murder with crime (homicide} in its maximum period
Prepared by: LJC
66
(17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 whereas rebellion does not so

years). require. Moreover, the crime of
coup d'etat may be committed
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow)
singly, whereas rebellion requires a
could not be used as a defense as it is
public uprising and taking up arms
not an exempting circumstance. Pedrito
to overthrow the duly constituted
is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC,
government. Since the two crimes
which makes a person criminally liable
are essentially di8erent and
for all the natural and logical
punished with distinct penalties,
consequences of his felonious act
there is no legal impediment to the
COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP D’ETAT & application of Art. 48 of the Revised
REBELLION & SEDITION (2003) Penal Code.

a. Yes, coup d'etat can be
1) Can there be a complex crime of coup complexed with sedition
d'etat with rebellion? 2% because the two crimes are
essentially di8erent and
2) Can there be a complex crime of coup
distinctly punished under the
d'etat with sedition? 2%
Revised Penal Code. Sedition
SUGGESTED ANSWER: may not be directed against

the Government or non-
1.) Yes, if there was conspiracy political in objective, whereas
between the o8ender/ o8enders coup d'etat is always political
committing the coup d'etat and the in objective as it is directed
o8enders committing the rebellion. against the Government and
By conspiracy, the crime of one led by persons or public
would be the crime of the other oocer holding public ooce
and vice versa. This is possible belonging to the military or
because the o8ender in coup d'etat national police. Art. 48 of the
may be any person or persons Code may apply under the
belonging to the military or the conditions therein provided.
national police or a public oocer,
Prepared by: LJC

67
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A to just one penalty of reclusion

perpetua.
The crime of coup d'etat cannot be
complexed with the crime of rebellion Was the decision of the trial judge
because both crimes are directed against correct? Explain. (4%)
the Government or for political purposes,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
although the principal o8enders are
di8erent. The essence may be the same The decision of the trial judge is not
and thus constitute only one crime. In correct. When the o8ender made use of
this situation, the two crimes are not an automatic ]rearm, the acts committed
distinct and therefore, may not be proper are determined by the number of bullets
to apply Article 48 of the Code. discharged inasmuch as the ]rearm
being automatic, the o8ender need only
COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION
press the trigger once and it would ]re
OF THE CRIME (1999)
continually. For each death caused by a
A, actuated by malice and with the use of distinct and separate bullet, the accused
a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it
shot a group of persons who were seated is not the act of pressing the trigger
in a cockpit with one burst of successive, which should be considered as producing
continuous, automatic ]re. Four (4) the several felonies, but the number of
persons were killed thereby, each having bullets which actually produced them.
hit by di8erent bullets coming from the
COMPLEX CRIMES; NATURE &
sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of
PENALTY INVOLVED (1999)
murder were ]led against A.
What constitutes a complex crime? How

The trial court ruled that there was only
many crimes maybe involved in a
one crime committed by A for the reason
complex crime? What is the penalty
that, since A performed only one act, he
therefor? (4%)
having pressed the trigger of his gun only
once, the crime committed was murder. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Consequently, the trial judge sentenced
A complex crime is constituted when a
Prepared by: LJC
68
single act caused two or more grave or committing the other o8ense or o8enses.
less grave felonies or when an o8ense is They are alleged in one Information so
committed as a necessary means to that only one penalty shall be imposed.
commit another o8ense (Art. 48, RPC). At
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other
least two (2) crimes are involved in a
hand, is made up of two or more crimes
complex crime; either two or more grave
which are considered only as
or less grave felonies resulted from a
components of a single indivisible
single act, or an o8ense is committed as
o8ense being punished in one provision
a necessary means for committing
of the Revised Penal Code.
another. The penalty for the more serious
crime shall be imposed and in its AS TO PENALTIES -In ORDINARY
maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC) COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the
most serious crime shall be imposed and
COMPLEX CRIMES; ORDINARY
in its maximum period.
COMPLEX CRIME VS. SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIME (2003) In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one
penalty is speci]cally prescribed for all
Distinguish between an ordinary complex
the component crimes which are
crime and a special complex crime as to
regarded as one indivisible o8ense. The
their concepts and as to the imposition of
component crimes are not regarded as
penalties. 2%
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: most serious crime is not the penalty to
be imposed nor in its maximum period. It
IN CONCEPT -
is the penalty speci]cally provided for
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made the special complex crime that shall be
up of two or more crimes being punished applied according to the rules on
in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal imposition of the penalty.
Code but alleged in one Information

CONTINUING OFFENSE VS. DELITO
either because they were brought about
CONTINUADO (1994)
by a single felonious act or because one
o8ense is a necessary means for Di8erentiate delito continuado from a
Prepared by: LJC
69
continuing o8ense. continuado mandates that only one

information should be ]led against the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
o8ender although a series of felonious
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS acts were performed; the term
CRIME, is a term used to denote as only "continuing crime" is more pertinently
one crime a series of felonious acts used with reference to the venue where
arising from a single criminal resolution, the criminal action may be instituted.
not susceptible of division, which are

DEATH PENALTY (2004)
carried out in the same place and at
about the same time, and violating one The death penalty cannot be in?icted
and the same penal provision. The acts under which the following circumstances:
done must be impelled by one criminal
1. When the guilty person is at least
intent or purpose, such that each act
18 years of age at the time of the
merely constitutes a partial execution of
commission of the crime.
a particular crime, violating one and the 2. When the guilty person is more
same penal provision. It involves a than 70 years of age.
concurrence of felonious acts violating a 3. When, upon appeal to or automatic
common right, a common penal review by the Supreme Court, the
provision, and impelled by a single required majority for the imposition
criminal impulse (People vs. Le- desma, of the death penalty is not
73 SCRA 77). obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a
On the other hand, a CONTINUING capital crime but before execution
OFFENSE is one whose essential becomes insane.
5. When the accused is a woman
ingredients took place in more than one
while she is pregnant or within one
municipality or city, so much so that the
year after delivery.
criminal prosecution may be instituted
and the case tried in the competent court Explain your answer or choice brie?y.
of any one of such municipality or city. (5%)
The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC

70
A. Understanding the word "in?icted" to executed and while he is insane.

mean the imposition of the death
Likewise, the death penalty can be
penalty, not its execution, the
imposed upon a woman but its execution
circumstance in which the death penalty
shall be suspended during her pregnancy
cannot be in?icted is no. 2: "when the
and for one year after her delivery.
guilty person is more than 70 years of
age" (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted
The word "INFLICTED" is found only in
to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
Art. 83 to the e8ect that the death
penalties provided in Article 40, RFC.
penalty may not be "INFLICTED" upon a
In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty pregnant woman, such penalty is to be
person is at least 18 years of age at the suspended. If "INFLICTED" is to be
time of the commission of the crime, the construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is
death penalty can be imposed since the the choice.
o8ender is already of legal age when he
DEATH PENALTY; QUALIFIED RAPE;
committed the crime.
REQUISITES (2004)
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece,
considering the decision of the Supreme
and he was sentenced to death. It was
Court in People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R.
alleged in the information that the victim
147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an
was a minor below seven years old, and
intermediate review for such cases where
her mother testi]ed that she was only six
the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
years and ten months old, which her aunt
perpetua or life imprisonment before
corroborated on the witness stand. The
they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
information also alleged that the accused
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death was the victim's uncle, a fact proved by
penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the prosecution.
the law violated although its execution
On automatic review before the Supreme
shall be suspended when the convict
Court, accused-appellant contends that
becomes insane before it could be
Prepared by: LJC
71
capital punishment could not be imposed unavailable, the testimony, if

on him because of the inadequacy of the clear and credible of the
charges and the insuociency of the victim's mother or any
evidence to prove all the elements of the member of the family, by
heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable consanguinity or aonity, who
doubt. Is appellant's contention correct? is quali]ed to testify on
Reason brie?y. (5%) matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of birth of the o8ended party
Yes, appellant's contention is correct pursuant to Section 40, Rule

insofar as the age of the victim is 130 of the Rules on Evidence
concerned. The age of the victim raped shall be suocient but only
has not been proved beyond reasonable under the following
doubt to constitute the crime as quali]ed circumstances: (a) If the
rape and deserving of the death penalty. victim is alleged to be below
The guidelines in appreciating age as a 3 years of age and what is
qualifying circumstance in rape cases sought to be proved is that
have not been met, to wit: she is less than 7 years old;
(b) If the victim is alleged to
1) The primary evidence of the be below 7 years of age and
age of the victim is her birth what is sought to be proved
certi]cate; is that she is less than 12
2) In the absence of the birth
years old; (c) If the victim is
certi]cate, age of the victim
alleged to be below 12 years
maybe proven by authentic
of age and what is sought to
document, such as baptismal
be proved is that she is less
certi]cate and school
than 18 years old.
records; 4) In the absence of a certi]cate
3) If the aforesaid documents
of live birth, authentic
are shown to have been lost
document, or the testimony
or destroyed or otherwise
of the victim's mother or
Prepared by: LJC
72
relatives concerning the that of habitual delinquency.

victim's age under the
Juan is a recidivist ...Habitual
circumstances above-stated,
delinquency, which brings about an
complainant's sole testimony
additional penalty when an o8ender is
can suoce, provided that it is
convicted a third time or more for
expressly and clearly
speci]ed crimes, is correctly considered
admitted by the accused
because Juan had already three (3)
(People us. Pruna, 390 SCRA
previous convictions by ]nal judgment
577 [2002]).
for theft and again convicted for Robbery
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY & With Homicide. And the crimes speci]ed
RECIDIVISM (2001) as basis for habitual delinquency
includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
Juan de Castro already had three (3)
previous convictions by ]nal judgment INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
for theft when he was found guilty of (1994)
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,
Itos was convicted of an o8ense
the trial Judge considered against the
penalized by a special law. The penalty
accused both recidivism and habitual
prescribed is not less than six years but
delinquency. The accused appealed and
not more than twelve years. No
contended that in his last conviction, the
modifying circumstance attended the
trial court cannot consider against him a
commission of the crime.
]nding of recidivism and, again, of
habitual delinquency. Is the appeal If you were the judge, will you apply the
meritorious? Explain. (5%) Indeterminate Sentence Law?If so, how
will you apply it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious.
Recidivism and habitual delinquency are If I were the judge, I will apply the
correctly considered in this case because provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence
the basis of recidivism is di8erent from Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 Act
Prepared by: LJC

73
4103, speci]cally provides the If I were the Judge, I will impose an

application thereof for violations of indeterminate sentence, the maximum of
special laws. which shall not exceed the maximum
]xed by law and the minimum shall not
Under the same provision, the minimum
be less than the minimum penalty
must not be less than the minimum
prescribed by the same. I have the
provided therein (six years and one day)
discretion to impose the penalty within
and the maximum shall not be more than
the said minimum and maximum.
the maximum provided therein, i.e.
twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
186 SCRA 184) (1999)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW A was convicted of illegal possession of

(1999) grease guns and two Thompson sub-
machine guns punishable under the old
Andres is charged with an o8ense
law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of from
de]ned by a special law. The penalty
]ve (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court
prescribed for the o8ense is
sentenced the accused to su8er
imprisonment of not less than ]ve (5)
imprisonment of ]ve (5) years and one
years but not more than ten [10) years.
(1) day.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of
guilty. In the imposition of the proper Is the penalty thus imposed correct?
penalty, should the Indeterminate Explain. (3%)
Sentence Law be applied? If you were the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Judge trying the case, what penalty
would you impose on Andres? (4%) Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply to: The penalty imposed, being
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
only a straight penalty, is not correct
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law because it does not comply with the
should be applied because the minimum Indeterminate Sentence Law which
imprisonment is more than one (1) year. applies to this case. Said law requires
that if the o8ense is punished by any law
Prepared by: LJC
74
other than the Revised Penal Code, the for fxing the maximum and the
court shall sentence the accused to an minimum terms of the indeterminate
indeterminate sentence, the maximum sentence? (2%)
term of which shall not exceed the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
maximum penalty ]xed by the law and
the minimum shall not be less than the The purpose of the law in ]xing the
minimum penalty prescribed by the minimum term of the sentence is to set
same. the grace period at which the convict
may be released on parole from
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
imprisonment, unless by his conduct he
(2002)
is not deserving of parole and thus he
How are the maximum and the minimum shall continue serving his prison term in
terms of the indeterminate sentence for Jail but in no case to go beyond the
o8enses punishable under the Revised maximum term ]xed in the sentence.
Penal Code determined? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2005)
For crimes punished under the Revised Harold was convicted of a crime de]ned
Penal Code, the maximum term of the and penalized by a special penal law
Indeterminate sentence shall be the where the imposable penalty is from 6
penalty properly imposable under the months, as minimum, to 3 years, as
same Code after considering the maximum.
attending mitigating and/or aggravating
State with reasons whether the court
circumstances according to Art, 64 of
may correctly impose the following
said Code. The minimum term of the
penalties:
same sentence shall be ]xed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
to that prescribed for the crime under the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
said Code.
Yes, because the penalty is less than one

Under the law, what is the purpose
Prepared by: LJC
75
year, a straight penalty may be imposed. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;

(People v. Arellano, G.R. No, 46501, EXCEPTIONS (1999)
October 5, 1939)
Under what circumstances is the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Indeterminate Sentence Law not
applicable? (2%)
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
the minimum imposable penalty shall be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
imposed but the maximum shall not
1) Persons convicted of o8enses
exceed the maximum imposable by law.
punished with death penalty or life
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 imprisonment;
months, as maximum; 2) Those convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit
SUGGESTED ANSWER: treason;
3) Those convicted of misprision of
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law
treason, rebellion, sedition or
does not apply when the penalty
espionage;
imposed is less than one year (Sec. 2, 4) Those convicted of piracy;
Art. 4103, as amended). 5) Those who are habitual
delinquents;
c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%) 6) Those who shall have escaped from
con]nement or evaded sentence;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 7) Those who violated the terms of
conditional pardon granted to them
No, because the Indeterminate Sentence
by the Chief Executive;
Law will apply when the minimum of the 8) Those whose maximum term of
penalty exceeds one year. imprisonment does not exceed one
year;
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
9) Those who, upon the approval of
If the imposition of straight penalty which the law (December 5, 1933). had
consists of the minimum period of the been sentenced by ]nal Judgment;

10) Those sentenced to the
penalty prescribed by law, then it may be
penalty of destierro or suspension.
allowed because it favors the accused.
Prepared by: LJC
76
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; this Act; and

EXCEPTIONS (2003)
10) those whose sentence
imposes penalties which do not
When would the Indeterminate Sentence involve imprisonment, like
Law be inapplicable? 4% destierro.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT

VS. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not
(2005)
applicable to:
E and M are convicted of a penal law that

1) those persons convicted of
imposes a penalty of ]ne or
o8enses punished with death
imprisonment or both ]ne and
penalty or life-imprisonment or
imprisonment. The judge sentenced
reclusion perpetua;
2) those convicted of treason, them to pay the ]ne, jointly and
conspiracy or proposal to commit severally, with subsidiary imprisonment
treason; in case of insolvency.Is the penalty

3) those convicted of misprision of proper? Explain.
treason, rebellion, sedition or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
espionage;
4) those convicted of piracy;
5) those who are habitual The penalty is not proper. The two
delinquents; accused must separately pay the ]ne,

6) those who shall have escaped from which is their penalty. Solidary liability
con]nement or evaded sentence; applies only to civil liabilities.
7) those who having been granted
conditional pardon by the Chief ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Executive shall have violated the
NO, because in penal law when there are
terms thereof;
8) those whose maximum term of several o8enders, the court in the
imprisonment does not exceed one exercise of its discretion shall determine
year; what shall be the share of each o8ender

9) those already sentenced by ]nal depending upon the degree of
judgment at the time of approval of participation – as principal, accomplice or
Prepared by: LJC
77
accessory. If within each class of Pecuniary liabilities do not include

o8ender, there are more of them, such as restitution, but include reparation of
more than one principal or more than damages caused, the indemni]cation for
one accomplice or accessory, the liability consequential damages, as well as ]nes
in each class of o8ender shall be and cost of the proceedings.
subsidiary. Anyone of the may be
Pecuniary penalties include ]nes and
required to pay the civil liability
cost of the proceedings.
pertaining to such o8ender without
prejudice to recovery from those whose PENALTIES; COMPLEX CRIME OF
share have been paid by another. ESTAFA (1997)
May the judge impose an alternative A was convicted of the complex crime of
penalty of fne or imprisonment? estafa through falsi]cation of public
Explain. (4%) document. Since the amount Involved did
not exceed P200.00, the penalty
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prescribed by law for estafa is arresto
No. A ]ne, whether imposed as a single mayor in its medium and maximum
or as an alternative penalty, should not periods. The penalty prescribed by law
and cannot be reduced or converted into for falsi]cation of public document is
a prison term. There is no rule for prision mayor plus ]ne not to exceed
transmutation of the amount of a ]ne P5,000.00.
into a term of imprisonment. (People v.
Impose the proper prison penalty.
Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127 May 5,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1989)
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN

PENALTIES: PECUNIARY PENALTIES
prision correccional (six (6) months and
VS. PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (2005)
one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM,
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from to ANY RANGE within prision mayor
pecuniary liabilities. (2%) maximum (ten (10) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC
78
This is in accordance with People us, of participation;

3. Determine the penalty;
Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549, where It was
4. Consider the modifying
ruled that for the purpose of determining
circumstances;
the penalty next lower in degree, the 5. Determine whether
penalty that should be considered as a Indeterminate Sentence Law is
starting point is the whole of prision applicable or not.
mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by
PENALTIES; HOMICIDE W/
law, and not prision mayor in its
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE (1995)
maximum period, which is only the
penalty actually applied because of Homer was convicted of homicide. The
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court appreciated the following
penalty next lower in degree therefor is modifying circumstances: the
prision correccional and it is within the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity,
range of this penalty that the minimum and the mitigating circumstances of
should be taken. passion and obfuscation, no intent to
commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and
PENALTIES; FACTORS TO CONSIDER
voluntary surrender. The imposable
(1991)
penalty for homicide is reclusion
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a temporal the range of which is twelve
case, and based on the evidence (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
presented and the applicable law, you years.
have decided on the guilt of two (2)
Taking into account the attendant
accused. Indicate the ]ve (5) steps you
aggravating and mitigating
would follow to determine the exact
circumstances, and applying the
penalty to be imposed. Stated di8erently,
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine
what are the factors you must consider
the proper penalty to be imposed on the
to arrive at the correct penalty?
accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree It appears that there is one aggravating
Prepared by: LJC
79
circumstance (nocturnity), and four as maximum. I believe that because of

mitigating circumstances (passion and the remaining mitigating circumstances
obfuscation, no intent to commit so after the o8-setting it would be very
grave a wrong as that committed and logical to impose the minimum of the
voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the
should be applied. Hence there will be minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
o8-setting of modifying circumstances,
PENALTIES; MITIGATING
which will now result in the excess of
CIRCUMSTANCES W/OUT
three mitigating circumstances. This will
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
therefore justify in reducing the penalty
(1997)
to the minimum period.
Assume in the preceding problem that

The existence of an aggravating
there were two mitigating circumstances
circumstance, albeit there are four
and no aggravating circumstance.
aggravating, will not justify the lowering
Impose the proper prison penalty.
of the penalty to the next lower degree
under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is applicable only if THERE IS NO
There being two (2) mitigating
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.
circumstances without any aggravating
Since the crime committed is Homicide circumstance, the proper prison penalty
and the penalty therefor is reclusion is arresto mayor (in any of its periods, ie.
temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under ranging from one (1) month and one (1)
the Indeterminate Sentence Law should day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to
be the minimum of the penalty, which is prision correccional in its maximum
12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 period four (4) years, two (2) months,
months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus and one (1) day to six (6) years as
be the penalty next lower in degree, MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the
which is prision mayor in its full extent (6 Revised Penal Code, when a penalty
years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the contains three periods, each one of which
proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 forms a period in accordance with Article
day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day,
Prepared by: LJC
80
76 and 77 of the same Code, and there SUGGESTED ANSWER:

are two or more mitigating circumstances
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
and no aggravating circumstances, the
Even if there are two or more mitigating
penalty next lower in degree should be
circumstances, a court cannot lower the
imposed. For purposes of the
penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3,
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty
Revised Penal Code; People vs.
next lower in degree should be
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs.
determined without regard as to whether
Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime
the basic penalty provided by the
committed was parricide with the two (2)
Revised Penal Code should be applied in
mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and
its maximum or minimum period as
lack of intention to commit so grave a
circumstances modifying liability may
wrong, and with no aggravating
require. The penalty next lower in degree
circumstance, the Supreme Court held
to prision correccional. Therefore, as
that the proper, penalty to be imposed is
previously stated, the minimum should
reclusion perpetua.
be within the range of arresto mayor and
the maximum is within the range of PENALTIES; PREVENTIVE
prision correctional in its maximum IMPRISONMENT (1994)
period.
1) When is there preventive
PeNALTIES; PARRICIDE W/ imprisonment?2) When is the accused
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (1997) credited with the full time of his
preventive imprisonment, and when is he
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of
credited with 4/5 thereof?
parricide. The court found three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of
1) There is preventive imprisonment
intent to commit so grave a wrong as
when [a) an o8ender is detained while
that committed. The prescribed penalty
the criminal case against him is being
for parricide is reclusion perpetua to
heard, either because the crime
death. Impose the proper principal
committed is a capital o8ense and not
penalty.
Prepared by: LJC
81
bailable, or even if the crime committed No. 7959, reclusion perpetua shall be
was bailable, the o8ender could not post from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
the required bail for his provisional Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is
liberty. now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
2) An accused is credited with the full SUGGESTED ANSWER:

time of his preventive imprisonment if he
No, because the Supreme Court has
voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by
repeatedly called the attention of the
the rules of the institution imposed upon
Bench and the Bar to the fact that the
its prisoners, provided that:
penalties of reclusion perpetua and life
a) the penalty imposed on him for the imprisonment are not synonymous and
crime committed consists of a should be applied correctly and as may
deprivation of liberty; be speci]ed by the applicable law.
Reclusion perpetua has a speci]c
b) he is not disquali]ed from such credit
duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40
for being a recidivist, or for having been
years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties
previously convicted for two or more
(Art. 41), while life imprisonment has no
times of any crime, or for having failed to
de]nite term or accessory penalties.
surrender voluntarily for the execution of
Also, life imprisonment is imposable on
the sentence upon being so summoned
crimes punished by special laws, and not
(Art. 29, RPC).
on felonies in the Code (People vs. De
Where the accused however did not Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385-86, Jan. 22,
agree he would only be credited with 4/5 1993; People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos.
of the time he had undergone preventive 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People vs.
imprisonment. Alvero, G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993;

People vs. Lapiroso, G.R. No. 122507,
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA Feb. 25, 1999).[see Criminal Law
(RA) NO. 7959 (2005) Conspectus, page 156]
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA

Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (1994)
Prepared by: LJC
82
Di8erentiate reclusion perpetua from life several bullet wounds in his body so that
imprisonment. he died despite medical assistance given
in the Ospital ng Manila. Because the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
weapon used by Benjamin was
RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty unlicensed and the qualifying
provided for in the Revised Penal Code circumstance of treachery was found to
for crimes de]ned in and penalized be present. Judge Laya rendered his
therein except for some crimes de]ned decision convicting Benjamin and
by special laws which impose reclusion sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or
perpetua, such as violations of Republic life imprisonment".

Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act
Are "reclusion perpetua" and life
7659 or of PD 1860; while LIFE
imprisonment the same and can be
IMPRISONMENT is a penalty usually
imposed interchangeably as in the
provided for in special laws. Reclusion
foregoing sentence? Or are they totally
perpetua has a duration of twenty (20)
di8erent? State your reasons. (3%)
years and one (1) day to forty [40] years
under Republic Act 7659, while life The penalty of reclusion perpetua and
imprisonment has no duration; reclusion the penalty of life Imprisonment are
perpetua may be reduced by one or two totally di8erent from each other and
degrees; reclusion perpetuates accessory therefore, should not be used
penalties while life imprisonment does interchangeably.
not have any accessory penalties (People
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty
vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People vs.
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code,
Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
with a ]xed duration of imprisonment
PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and
VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (2001) carries it with accessory penalties.
After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is
RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of a penalty prescribed by special laws, with
Murder, the victim having sustained no ]xed duration of imprisonment and
Prepared by: LJC

83
without any accessory penalty. special laws shall not exceed 6 months at
the rate of one day of imprisonment for
PROBATION LAW: PROPER PERIOD
every F2.50. Hence, the proper period of
(2005)
probation should not be less than (6
Maganda was charged with violation of months nor more than 12 months. Since
the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) P50,000.00 ]ne is more than the
punishable by imprisonment of not less maximum subsidiary imprisonment of 6
than 30 days but not more than 1 year or months at P2.50 a day.
a ]ne of not less than but not more than

b) Supposing before the Order of
double the amount of the check, which
Discharge was issued by the court but
]ne shall not exceed P200,000.00, or
after the lapse of the period of probation,
both. The court convicted her of the
Maganda transferred residence without
crime and sentenced her to pay a ]ne of
prior approval of the court. May the court
P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
revoke the Order of Probation and order
in case of insolvency, and to pay the
her to serve the subsidiary
private complainant the amount of the
imprisonment? Explain.
check. Maganda was unable to pay the
]ne but ]led a petition for probation. The SUGGESTED ANSWER:
court granted the petition subject to the
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
condition, among others, that she should
Probation is not coterminous with its
not change her residence without the
period. There must ]rst be issued by the
court’s prior approval.
court an order of ]nal discharge based on
a) What is the proper period of the report and recommendation of the
probation? probation oocer. Only then can the case
of the probationer be terminated. (Bala v.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Martinez, G.R. No. 67301, January 29,
The period shall not be less than twice 1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)
the total number of days of subsidiary

PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY
imprisonment. Under Act No. 1732,
APPEAL (1994)
subsidiary imprisonment for violations of
Prepared by: LJC
84
On February 3, 1986, Roberto was SUGGESTED ANSWER:

convicted of arson through reckless
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction
imprudence and sentenced to pay a ]ne
Roberto was quali]ed for probation but
of P15,000.00, with subsidiary
that at the time of his application for
imprisonment in case of insolvency by
probation, he is no longer quali]ed, he is
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
not entitled to probation. The
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to quali]cation for probation must be
the Court of Appeals. Several months determined as of the time the application
later, he ]led a motion to withdraw the is ]led in Court (Bernardo vs. Judge, etal.
appeal on the ground that he is applying GRNo. L86561,Nov, 10. 1992; Edwin de
for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. et al, SP-19655,
of Appeals granted the motion and April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et
considered the appeal withdrawn. al, GR No. 84859, June 28, 1989;
Bernardo us. Judge Balagot, etal, GR
On June 10, 1987, the records of the case
86561, Nov. 10, 1992).
were remanded to the trial court. Roberto
]led a "Motion for Probation" praying that PROBATION LAW; BARRED BY
execution of his sentence be suspended, APPEAL (2001)
and that a probation oocer be ordered to
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted
conduct an Investigation and to submit a
by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue
report on his probation.
the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite
The judge denied the motion on the full payment of the lot, and sentenced to
ground that pursuant to Presidential su8er one year Imprisonment. A
Decree No. 1990, which took e8ect on appealed the decision of the RTC to the
July 16,1986, no application for probation Court of Appeals but his appeal was
shall be entertained or granted if the dismissed. May A still apply for
defendant has perfected an appeal from probation? Explain. (5%)
the judgment of conviction.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
No, A is no longer quali]ed to apply for
Prepared by: LJC
85
probation after he appealed from the the eligibility of the accused for the
judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation. The law uses the word
probation law (PD 968, as amended by "maximum term", and not total term. It is
PD1990) now provides that no enough that each of the prison terms
application for probation shall be does not exceed six years. The number
entertained or granted if the accused has of o8enses is immaterial for as long as
perfected an appeal from the judgment the penalties imposed, when taken
of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968). individually and separately, are within
the probationable period.
PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM
VS. TOTAL TERM (1997) PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
PROBATION; NOT APPEALABLE
The accused was found guilty of grave
(2002)
oral defamation in sixteen (16)
informations which were tried jointly and A was charged with homicide. After trial,
was sentenced in one decision to su8er he was found guilty and sentenced to six
in each case a prison term of one (1) (6) years and one (1) day in prision
year and one (1) day to one (1) year and mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years
eight (8) months of prision correccional. and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
Within the period to appeal, he ]led an maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had
application for probation under the been found guilty of vagrancy and
Probation Law of 1976, as amended. imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto
Could he possibly qualify for probation? manor and ]ned ]fty pesos (P50.00). Is
he eligible for probation? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:No, he is not
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals,
entitled to the bene]ts of the Probation
243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held
Law (PD 968, as amended) does not
that in case of one decision imposing
extend to those sentenced to serve a
multiple prison terms, the totality of the
maximum term of imprisonment of more
prison terms should not be taken into
than six years (Sec. 9a).
account for the purposes of determining
Prepared by: LJC

86
It is of no moment that in his previous applying for probation; the penalty for his
conviction A was given a penalty of only present conviction does not disqualify
ten (10) days of arresto mayor and a ]ne him either from applying for probation,
of P50.00. since the imprisonment does not exceed
six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No.
B. May a probationer appeal from the
968).
decision revoking the grant of probation
or modifying the terms and conditions PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY
thereof? (2%) APPEAL (1995)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425,

otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law,
Act, accused Vincent was given the
as amended, an order granting or
bene]t of the mitigating circumstances
denying probation is not appealable.
of voluntary plea of guilt and
PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He
(2004) was sentenced to su8er a penalty of six

(6) years and one (1) day and to pay a
PX was convicted and sentenced to ]ne of P6,000.00 with the accessory
imprisonment of thirty days and a ]ne of penalties provided by law, plus costs.
one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was Vincent applied for probation. The
convicted of another crime for which the probation oocer favorably recommended
penalty imposed on him was thirty days his application.
only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain
brie?y. (5%) 1. If you were the Judge, what action
will you take on the application?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Discuss fully.
2. Suppose that Vincent was
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His
convicted of a crime for which he
previous conviction for another crime
was sentenced to a maximum
with a penalty of thirty days
penalty of ten (10) years. Under
imprisonment or not exceeding one (1)
the law, he is not eligible for
month does not disqualify him from
Prepared by: LJC
87
probation. He seasonably appealed This is the second consecutive year that

his conviction. While aorming the this question was asked. It is the sincere
judgment of conviction, the belief of the Committee that there is a
appellate court reduced the need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly,
penalty to a maximum of four (4) much as the accused wanted to apply for
years and four (4) months taking probation he is proscribed from doing so
into consideration certain as the maximum penalty is NOT
modifying circumstances. Vincent PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the
now applies for probation. How will maximum penalty was reduced to one
you rule on his application? Discuss which allows probation it is but fair and
fully. just to grant him that right because it is
apparent that the trial judge committed
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
an error and for which the accused
1. If I were the judge, I will deny the should not be made to suder. Judicial
application for probation. The accused is tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only
not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly,
Probation Law, PD NO. 968, as amended, the judgment of the appellate court
speci]cally mentions that those who "are should be considered a new decision as
sentenced to serve a maximum term of the trial court's decision was vacated;
imprisonment of more than six years" are hence, he could take advantage of the
not entitled to the bene]ts of the law. law when the decision is remanded to
the trial court for execution (Please see
2. The law and jurisprudence are to the Dissenting opinion in Francisco vs. CA).
e8ect that appeal by the accused from a
sentence of conviction forfeits his right to It is suggested, therefore, that an
probation.(Sec. 4, PD No. 968. as examinee answering in this tenor should
amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us. be credited with some points.
Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs.

PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY
CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, CA
APPEAL (2003)
case).
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial
Prepared by: LJC
88
Court of a crime and sentenced to su8er suspended sentence. Enumerate at least

the penalty of imprisonment for a 5 of them. (5%)
minimum of eight years. He appealed
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
both his conviction and the penalty
imposed upon him to the Court of 1. Suspension of sentence of
Appeals. The appellate court ultimately minor under P.D. 603 as
sustained Juan's conviction but reduced amended by R.A. 9344.
his sentence to a maximum of four years 2. Suspension of sentence of
and eight months imprisonment. Could minor above 15 but below 18
Juan forthwith ]le an application for years of age at the time of
probation? Explain. 8% trial under R.A. 9344.

3. Suspension of sentence of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: minor above 15 but below 18
years of age at the
No, Juan can no longer avail of the
commission of the o8ense,
probation because he appealed from the
while acting with
judgment of conviction of the trial court,
discernment.
and therefore, cannot apply for probation 4. Suspension of sentence by
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, reason of insanity (Art. 79,
as amended, mandates that no Revised Penal Code).
5. Suspension of sentence for
application for probation shall be
]rst o8ense of a minor
entertained or granted if the accused has
violating RJV . 9165. (Sec. 32)
perfected an
6. Suspension of sentence
appeal from the judgment of conviction. under the probation law. (P.D.
968)
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; 7. Suspension of death
ADULTS/MINORS (2006) sentence of a pregnant

woman. (Art. 83, Revised
There are at least 7 instances or Penal Code)(NOTA BENE: R.A.
situations in criminal cases wherein the 9344 is outside the coverage
accused, either as an adult or as a minor, of the examination)
can apply for and/or be granted a
Prepared by: LJC
89
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; MINORS Explain.4%

(2003)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A was 2 months below 18 years of age
Yes, so long as the o8ender is still a
when he committed the crime. He was
minor at the time of the promulgation of
charged with the crime 3 months later.
the sentence. The law establishing Family
He was 23 when he was ]nally convicted
Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this
and sentenced. Instead of preparing to
e8ect: that if the minor is found guilty,
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension
the court should promulgate the
of the sentence on the ground that he
sentence and ascertain any civil liability
was a juvenile o8ender Should he be
which the accused may have incurred.
entitled to a suspension of sentence?
However, the sentence shall be
Reasons. 4%
suspended without the need of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: application pursuant to PD 603,
otherwise known as the "Child and Youth
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of
Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is
the sentence because he is no longer a
under PD 603 that an application for
minor at the time of promulgation of the
suspension of the sentence is required
sentence. For purposes of suspension of
and thereunder it is one of the conditions
sentence, the o8ender's age at the time
for suspension of sentence that the
of promulgation of the sentence is the
o8ender be a ]rst time convict: this has
one considered, not his age when he
been displaced by RA 8369.
committed the crime. So although A was
below 18 years old when he committed SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE;
the crime, but he was already 23 years YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (1995)
old when sentenced, he is no longer
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the
eligible for suspension of the sentence.
store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
Can juvenile okenders, who are entered the store while Rod and Ronnie
recidivists, validly posted themselves at the door. After
askforsuspensionofsentence? ordering beer Ricky complained that he
Prepared by: LJC

90
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy an o8ense punishable by life

vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky imprisonment or death, pursuant to P.D.
whipped out a knife as he announced No. 603, Art. 192, The complex crime of
"Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy robbery with homicide is punishable by
to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl reclusion perpetua to death under Art.
Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang 294 (1), RFC [People vs. Galit. 230 SCRA
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to 486).
seek help from people next door she was
DELITO CONTINUADO (2009)
chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had
stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up No. XIII. a. Angelo devised a Ponzi
the money from the cash box. Then Scheme in which 500 persons were
Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and deceived into investing their money upon
shouted, "Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 a promise of a capital return of 25%,
and Ronnie was 17. The money and other computed monthly, and guaranteed by
articles looted from the store of Mang post-dated checks. During the ]rst two
Pandoy were later found in the houses of months following the investment, the
Victor and Ricky. investors received their pro]ts, but
thereafter, Angelo vanished.
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie. Angelo was charged with 500 counts of
estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to
to suspended sentence under The Child
quash, Angelo contends that he
and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
committed a continued crime, or delito
SUGGESTED ANSWER: continuado, hence, he committed only
one count of estafa and one count of
1 . All are liable for the special complex
violation of BP 22.
crime of robbery with homicide....
What is delito continuado? (1%)
2. No, because the bene]ts of suspension
of sentence is not available where the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
youthful o8ender has been convicted of
Prepared by: LJC
91
Delito continuado refers to a crime crimes committed and their e8ects in

constituted by several overt acts relation to the penalty to be imposed on
committed by the o8ender in one place, a convict. (5%)
at about the same time, and all such
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
overt acts violate one and the same
provision of penal law, thus Di8erence between recidivism and
demonstrating that all such acts are the habitual delinquency:
product of a single indivisible criminal
(a) Nature of crime – in recidivism, the
relation. Hence, all said acts are
]rst crime, and the aggravated second
considered as one crime only.
crime are embraced in the same Title of
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY (2012) the Revised Penal Code. In habitual
delinquency, the ]rst, second and third
Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%)
crimes must be a habitual- delinquency
SUGGESTED ANSWER: crime, and that is, serious or less serious
physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or
A person shall be deemed to be habitual
falsi]cation of document.
delinquent, if within a period of ten year
from his release or last conviction of the Time element – in recidivism, the
crimes of serious or less serious physical accused was convicted of the ]rst crime
injuries, robo, hurto estafa or by ]nal judgment at the time of trial of
falsi]cation, he is found guilty of any of the second crime. In habitual
said crimes a third time or oftener delinquency, the accused was convicted
(Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code). of the ]rst
HABITUAL DELINQUENCY VS. habitual-delinquency crime; within 10

RECIDIVISM (2012) years after conviction or release, he was
found guilty of habitual-delinquency
No. VIII. b. Distinguish habitual
crime for the second time; within 10
delinquency from recidivism as to the
years after conviction or release he was
crimes committed, the period of time the
found guilty of habitual- delinquency
crimes are committed, the number of
crime for the third
Prepared by: LJC
92
time or oftener. Human Rights (CHR) investigating team

recommended to the panel of public
(c) Number of crimes – in recidivism,
prosecutors that all respondents be
there must be at least two crimes
charged with violation of the "Heinous
committed; while in habitual
Crimes Law." The prosecution panel
delinquency, there must be at least three
agreed with the CHR. As the Chief
crimes committed.
Prosecutor tasked with approving the
Nature of the aggravating circumstance ]ling of the Information, how will you
– recidivism is ordinary aggravating pass upon the recommendation? Explain.
circumstance, the presence of any which (5%)

will trigger the application of the penalty
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for the second crime committed in its
maximum period unless it is o8-set by a The CHR is correct in describing the
mitigating or special aggravating crime committed as “heinous crimes”, as
circumstance, the presence of which will de]ned in the preamble of the “Henious
trigger the imposition of additional Crimes Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite
penalty for the third or subsequent the passage of Rep. Act No. 9346
crime. This is not subject to the o8-set prohibiting the imposition of the death
rule. penalty.
HEINOUS CRIMES LAW (2010) However, the “Henious Crimes Law” does
not de]ne crimes; it is only an
No. IV. Because of the barbarity and
amendatory law increasing the penalty
hideousness of the acts committed by
for the crime speci]ed therein as
the suspects/respondents in cutting o8
heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,
their victims’ appendages, stuong their
the heinous crime committed shall be
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums
prosecuted under the penal law they are
and bullet- riddled vehicles and later on
respectively de]ned and penalized, such
burying these oil drums, vehicles with
as the Revised Penal Code as the case
the use of backhoes and other earth-
may be. The circumstances making the
moving machinery, the Commission on
crimes heinous may be alleged as
Prepared by: LJC
93
qualifying or generic aggravating, if minimum shall not be less than the

proper. The crime shall be designated as minimum term prescribed by the same
de]ned and punished under the penal (Section 1 of Act 4103).
law violated and the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua without the bene]t of
(2007)
parole, as the case may be in lieu of the
death penalty. Macky, a security guard, arrived home
late one night after rendering overtime.
He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
(2012)
Ken, his best friend, in the act of having
How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his
applied in imposing a sentence? (5%) service gun and shot and killed Ken.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The court found that Ken died under

exceptional circumtances and exonerated
If crime is punishable under the Revised
Macky of murder but sentenced him to
Penal Code, the court shall sentenced the
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of
accused to an indeterminate sentence
the Revised Penal Code. The court also
maximum term of which shall be that
ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the
which, in view of the attending
heirs of the victim in the amount of
circumstances, could be properly
P50,000.
imposed under the rules of the said
Code, and the minimum which shall be While serving his sentenced, Macky
within the range of the penalty next entered the prohibited area and had a
lower to that prescribed by the Code for pot session with Ivy (Joy’s sister). Is
the o8ense. If the o8ense is punishable Macky entitled to an indeterminate
under a special law, the court shall sentence in case he is found guilty of the
sentence the accused to an use of prohibited substances? Explain
indeterminate sentence, the maximum your answer.
term of which shall not exceed the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
maximum ]xed by said law and the
Prepared by: LJC

94
No, Macky s not entitled to the bene]t of YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act temporal.
4103, as amended) for having evaded
The defense counsel chimed in,
the sentence which banished or placed
contending that application of the
him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the said law
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead
expressly provides that the law shall not
to the imposition of a straight penalty of
apply to those who shall have “evaded
SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
sentence”.
prision correccional only. Who of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: three is on the right track? Explain. (3%)
No, because the penalty for use of any SUGGESTED ANSWER:

dangerous drug by a ]rst o8ender is not
None of the contention is correct because
imprisonment but rehabilitation in a
the Indeterminate Sentence Law for the
government center for a minimum period
crime of homicide, which is penalized by
of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165).
mprisonment exceeding one (1) year and
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does
is divisible, is covered by the
not apply when the penalty is
indeterminate Sentence Law. The said
imprisonment not exceeding one year.
law requires that the sentence in this
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW; case should re?ect a minimum term for
HOMICIDE (2010) purposes of parole, and a minimum term
]xing the limit of the imprisonment.
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial
Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
having come to a close, the judge found
A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;
homicide and imposed on him a straight HOMICIDE (2009)
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
No. XII. a. In a conviction for homicide,
of prision mayor.
the trial court appreciated two (2)
The public prosecutor objected to the mitigating circumstances and one (1)
sentence on the ground that the proper aggravating circumstance. Homicide
penalty should have been TWELVE (12) under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Prepared by: LJC
95
Code is punishable by reclusion No, my answer will not be the same

temporal, an imprisonment term of because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to mala prohibita in which mitigating and
twenty (20) years. Applying the aggravating circumstances are not
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine appreciated. Although in People v. Simon
the appropriate penalty to be imposed. (234 SCRA 555[1994]), it was held that
Explain. (3%) Art. 64 can be applied if the special law
adopted the nomenclature of penalties
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
provided under the RPC, such
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, pronouncement cannot be applied in the

the minimum of the sentence shall be instant case because the for illegal
anywhere within the range of 6 years and possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 do
1 day to 12 years imprisonment within not follow the technical nomenclature of
the maximum of the sentence shall be penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be
anywhere within the range of Reclusion divided into periods. Hence, the
Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12 existence of mitigating and aggravating
years and 1 day to not more than 14 circumstances cannot be appreciated.
years and 8 months.

PENALTIES; CIVIL LIABILITY (2010)
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW;

On her way home, Eva Marie saw an
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS
injured chow chow puppy behind a bush.
(2009)
Since the puppy did not have a collar,
Will your answer be the same if it is a she brought it home so she could have it
conviction for illegal possession of drugs as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva
under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of Marie to keep the puppy. The following
2002), the prescribed penalty of which is day, Eva Marie bought a collar for the
also imprisonment for a term of twelve puppy and brought it to a veterinarian for
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) treatment.
years? Why or why not? (3%)

Did she incur civil liability? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC
96
SUGGESTED ANSWER: provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he

prevailed because he managed to draw
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the
his knife with which he stabbed the
owner of the puppy would incur a loss
victim. The penalty for homicide is
due to non-restitution or return thereof to
reclusion temporal.
the owner. Finding any property of value,
legally regarded as lost property, would Assuming a judgment of conviction and
constitute theft if the ]nder failed to after considering the attendant
deliver the same to the local authorities circumstances, what penalty should the
or to its owner (Art. 308 par. 1). Once Eva judge impose? (7%)
Marie is found guilty of theft, she will
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
incur civil liability, which consists of
restitution or reparation for damage Bruno should be sentenced to an
caused and indemni]cation for indeterminate sentence penalty of
consequential damages (Art. 100 RPC). arresto mayor in any of its period to
The general rule is: a person who is precion correccional in its medium period
criminally liable is also civilly liable. as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two
priviledged mitigating circumstances of
PENALTIES; HOMICIDE (2013)
incomplete self-defense and the
Bruno was charged with homicide for presence of at least two ordinary
killing the 75-year old owner of his mitigating circumstances without any
rooming house. The prosecution proved aggravating circumstance under Articles
that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his 69 and 64(5) of the Revised Penal Code,
death; and that the killing happened at respectively, which lower the prescribed
10 in the evening in the house where the penalty for homicide which is reclusion
victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the temporal to prision correccional.
other hand, successfully proved that he
There is incomplete self-defense because
voluntarily surrendered to the
Bruno proved that it was the victim who
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the
]rst attacked him and did so without
crime charged; that it was the victim who
provocation of his part. There is,
]rst attacked and did so without any
Prepared by: LJC
97
however, no reasonable necessity of the Probation Law; Period Covered (2009)

means employed to defend himself, after
1. Perpetual absolute disquali]cation;
Bruno used a knife to stab the 2. Perpetual special disquali]cation;
weaponless victim. There are also no 3. Temporary absolute
aggravating circumstances present, disquali]cation;
4. Temporary special disquali]cation;
because it was not shown that Bruno 5. Suspension from public ooce, the
disregarded the age of the victim or that right to vote and be voted for, and
nighttime facilitated the commission of the right to follow a profession or
the crime; moreover, dwelling cannot be calling;
appreciated because the crime happened Fine; and any principal penalty with
in the house where both Bruno and the its accessory penalties.
victim lived. In contrast, there are two
mitigating circumstances, namely, PENALTIES; RECLUSION PERPETUA
voluntary surrender and plea of guilt. VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (2009)
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Life imprisonment is a penalty more
Law, the maximum term of the medium
favorable to the convict than reclusion
period and the minimum term should be
perpetua.
within the range of the penalty next
lower in degree or arresto mayor in any SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of its period.
False, Life Imprisonment is unfavorable to
PENALTIES; PERPETUAL ABSOLUTE a convict because the penalty is without
DISQUALIFICATION (2007) a ]xed duration, unlike the penalty of
reclusion perpetua which has a ]xed
What are the penalties that may be
duration of 40 years and the convict may
served simultaneously? (10%)
be eligible for pardon after 30 years of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205
SCRA 546 [1992])
The penalties that may be served
simultaneously are PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED
imprisonment/destierro and: (2009)
Prepared by: LJC

98
Joe was 17 years old when he committed upon o8enders thereunder.

homicide in 2005. The crime is
The brother‟s petition for prohibition. The
punishable by reclusion temporal. After
murder being attempted only, the
two years in hiding, he was arrested and
prescribed penalty is two degree lower
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in
when he committed the crime, the
e8ect,
penalty of prision mayor should be
Joe moved to avail of the process of lowered further by one degree because
intervention or diversion. his minority is a privilege mitigating
circumstance; hence, prision correccional
Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted
or imprisonment within the range of ix
murder with a special aggravating
months and 1 day to 6 years is the
circumstance and was denied suspension
imposable.
of sentence, would he be eligible for
probation under Presidential Decree (PD) PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
968, considering that the death penalty PROBATION (2010)
is imposable for the consummated
Matt was found guilty of drug traocking
felony? Explain. (2%)
while his younger brother Je8 was found
SUGGESTED ANSWER: guilty of possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other
Yes, he would be eligible for probation
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under
because the penalty imposable on Joe
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
will not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
Matt ]led a petition for probation. Je8
Even if it would be considered that the
appealed his conviction during the
crime committed was punishable by
pendency of which he also ]led a petition
death, the penalty as far as Joe I
for probation.
concerned can only be reclusion
perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the The brothers’ counsel argued that they
imposition of the capital punishment being ]rst time o8enders, their petitions
Prepared by: LJC
99
for probation should be granted. How years and four(4) months of reclusion
would you resolve the brothers’ petitions temporal, as maximum, and a ]ne of
for probation? Explain. (3%) P500,000.Michael applied for probation
but his application was denied because
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the probation law does not apply to drug
The brother’s petition for prohibition o8enders under R.A. 9165. Michael then
should be denied. sought the suspension of his sentence

under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice
Matt‟s petition for probation shall be and Youth Welfare Code.
denied because he was convicted for
drug-traocking. Section 24 of R.A. 9165 Can Michael avail of the suspension of his
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of sentence provided under this law? (7%)
2002) expressly provides, “Any person

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
convicted for drug traocking or pushing
under this Act, regardless of the penalty The bene]ts of a suspended sentence
imposed by the court, cannot avail of the can no longer apply to Machel. The
privilege granted by the Probation Law or suspension of sentence lasts only until
Presidential Decree No. 968, as the law reaches the maximum age and
amended.” thus, could no longer be considered a
child for purposes of applying Rep. Act
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE;
No. 9344. However, he shall be entitled
ADULTS/MINORS (2013)
to the right of restoration, rehabilitation
Michael was 17 years old when he was and reintegration in accordance with the
charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. law to give him the chance to live a
9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By normal life and become a productive
the time he was convicted and member of the community. Accordingly,
sentenced, he was already 21 years old. Michael may be con]ned in an
The court sentenced him to su8er an agricultural camp and other training
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of facility in accordance with Section 51 of
six (6) years and one (1) day of prision Rep. Act No. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, GR
mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) No. 182239, March 16, 2011; People v.
Prepared by: LJC
100
Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011; EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23,
AMNESTY VS. PD 1160 (2006)
2008 and People v. Sarcia, GR No.
169641, September 10, 2009). Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky
Soliman apply for amnesty? How about
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE;
columnist Randy David? (You are
ADULTS/MINORS (2009)
supposed to know the crimes or o8enses
Joe was 17 years old when he committed ascribed to them as published in almost
homicide in 2005. The crime is all newspapers for the past several
punishable by reclusion temporal. After months.) (2.5%)
two years in hiding, he was arrested and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Proclamation 1160, which amended
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in Proclamation 724, applies only to
e8ect, Joe moved to avail of the process o8enses committed prior to 1999. Thus,
of intervention or diversion. their applications shall be ine8ectual and
useless.
Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or
diversion was denied, and he was General Lim and General Querubin of the
convicted two (2) years later when Joe Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines,
was already 21 years old, should the respectively, were changed with conduct
judge apply the suspension of sentence? unbecoming an oocer and a gentleman
Explain. (2%) under the Articles of War. Can they apply
for amnesty? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the judge should not suspend
sentence anymore because Joe was Proclamation 1160, which amended
already 21 years old. Suspension of Proclamation 724, applies only to
sentence is availing under RA 9344 only o8enses committed prior to 1999. Thus,
until a child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years. their applications shall be ine8ectual and
Prepared by: LJC
101
useless. OF PUBLICAITONS AND UNLAWFUL

UTTERANCES;
AMNESTY; CRIMES COVERED (2006) 17. ALARM AND SCANDAL
18. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, FIREARMS.
amending Presidential Proclamation No.
347, certain crimes are covered by the EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL
grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of LIABILITIES; EFFECTS; DEATH OF
these crimes. (2.5%) ACCUSED PENDING APPEAL (2004)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: AX was convicted of reckless imprudence

resulting in homicide. The trial court
Crimes covered under Presidential sentenced him to a prison term as well as
Proclamation No. 724: to pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and
damages. While his appeal was pending,
1. COUP D’ETAT
2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION; AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
3. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS widow, 2 children, and a million-peso
OR EMPLOYEES; estate. What is the e8ect, if any, of his
4. INCITING TO REBELLION OR
death on his criminal as well as civil
INSURRECTION;
5. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT liability? Explain brie?y. (5%)
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
6. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OR INSURRECTION;
7. SEDITION; The death of AX while his appeal from
8. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION; the judgment of the trial court is
9. INCITING TO SEDITION;
10. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY; pending, extinguishes his criminal
11. ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION; liability. The civil liability insofar as it
12. DIRECT ASSAULT;
13. INDIRECT ASSAULT; arises from the crime and recoverable
14. RESISTANCE AND under the Revised Penal Code is also
DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN extinguished; but indemnity and
AUTHORITY; damages may be recovered in a civil
15. TUMULTS AND OTHER
action if predicated on a source of
DISTURBANCES;
16. UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code,
Prepared by: LJC
102
such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts o8ender, because the o8ense is

and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of committed against the State [People vs.
delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236 SCRA Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it
239 ). follows that the civil liability of Alma
based on the o8ense committed by her is
Civil indemnity and damages under the
not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can
Revised Penal Code are recoverable only
continue the case.
if the accused had been convicted with
]nality before he died. On the other hand, if it were Alma who
died pending appeal of her conviction,
EXTINCTION; CRIMINAL & CIVIL
her criminal liability shall be extinguished
LIABILITIES; EFFECTS; DEATH OF
and therewith the civil liability under the
OFFENDED PARTY (2000)
Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC).
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged However, the claim for civil indemnity
before the Municipal Trial Court of may be instituted under the Civil Code
Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of
Alma was convicted. While the case was obligation other than delict, such as law,
pending appeal in the Regional Trial contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-
Court of the same province, Lorna who delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA
was then su8ering from breast cancer, 239, G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)
died. Alma manifested to the court that

PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)
with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) criminal
and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Enumerate the di8erences between
Is Alma's contention correct? What if it pardon and amnesty. (2.5%)
were Alma who died, would it a8ect her
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%)
a) PARDON includes any crime and is

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
exercised individually by the
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The President, while AMNESTY applies to
death of the o8ended party does not classes of persons or communities
extinguish the criminal liability of the who may be guilty of political
Prepared by: LJC
103
o8enses. concurrence of Congress is a public

act of which the courts should take
b) PARDON is exercised when the
judicial notice.
person is already convicted, while
AMNESTY may be exercised even PARDON; EFFECT; CIVIL
before trial or investigation. INTERDICTION (2004)
c) PARDON looks forward and relieves TRY was sentenced to death by ]nal
the o8ender of the penalty of the judgment. But subsequently he was
o8ense for which he has been granted pardon by the President. The
convicted; it does not work for the pardon was silent on the perpetual
restoration of the rights to hold public disquali]cation of TRY to hold any public
ooce, or the right of su8rage, unless ooce. After his pardon, TRY ran for ooce
such rights are expressly restored by as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His
means of pardon, while AMNESTY opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY
looks backward and abolishes the contended he is not disquali]ed because
o8ense and its e8ects, as if the he was already pardoned by the
person had committed no o8ense. President unconditionally. Is TRY'S
contention correct? Reason brie?y. (5%)
d) PARDON does not alter the fact
that the accused is criminally liable as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
it produces only the extinction of the
No, TRY's contention is not correct.
penalty, while AMNESTY removes the
Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code
criminal liability of the o8ender
expressly provides that when the death
because it obliterates every vestige of
penalty is not executed by reason of
the crime.
commutation or pardon, the accessory
e) PARDON being a private act by the penalties of perpetual absolute
President, must be pleaded and disquali]cation and civil interdiction
proved by the person pardoned, while during thirty (30) years from the date of
AMNESTY which is a Proclamation of the sentence shall remain as e8ects
the Chief Executive with the thereof, unless such accessory penalties
Prepared by: LJC

104
have been expressly remitted in the directed the City Treasurer to see to it
pardon. This is because pardon only that the sum of P5,000.00 be satis]ed.
excuses the convict from serving the
Claiming that she should not be made to
sentence but does not relieve him of the
pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
e8ects of the conviction unless expressly
Ooce of the President.
remitted in the pardon.
The Ooce of the President dismissed the

PARDON; EFFECT; REINSTATEMENT
appeal and held that acquittal, not
(1994)
absolute pardon. Is the only ground for
Linda was convicted by the reinstatement to one's former position
Sandiganbayan of estafa, through and that the absolute pardon does not
falsi]cation of public document. She was exempt the culprit from payment of civil
sentenced accordingly and ordered to liability.
pay, among others, P5,000.00
Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
representing the balance of the amount
defrauded. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case reached the Supreme Court No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement
which aormed the judgment of to her former position inasmuch as her
conviction. During the pendency of right thereto had been relinquished or
Linda's motion for reconsideration in the forfeited by reason of her conviction. The
said Court, the President extended to her absolute pardon merely extinguished her
an absolute pardon which she accepted. criminal liability, removed her
disquali]cation, and restored her
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
eligibility for appointment to that ooce.
Department of Finance requesting that
She has to re-apply for such position and
she be restored to her former post as
under the usual procedure required for a
assistant treasurer, which is still vacant.
new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
The Department ruled that Linda may be
does not extinguish the civil liability
reinstated to her former position without
arising from the crime. (Monsanto
the necessity of a new appointment and
vs.Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art.
Prepared by: LJC
105
36, RPC) Has the crime of bigamy charged against

Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY
(1995) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in No. The prescriptive period for the crime
1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and of bigamy is computed from the time the
settled in Mindanao where he later met crime was discovered by the o8ended
and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The party, the authorities or their agents. The
second marriage was registered in the principle of constructive notice which
civil registry of Davao City three days ordinarily applies to land or property
after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 disputes should not be applied to the
Marcy who remained in Batanes crime of bigamy, as marriage is not
discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. property. Thus when Marcy ]led a
On 1 March 1976 Marcy ]led a complaint complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it
for bigamy against Joe. was well within the reglamentary period
as it was barely a few months from the
The crime of bigamy prescribed in ]fteen
time of discovery on 10 October 1975.
years computed from the day the crime
(Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)
is discovered by the o8ended party, the
authorities or their agents. Joe raised the PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES;
defense of prescription of the crime, COMMENCEMENT (2000)
more than ]fteen years having elapsed
One fateful night in January 1990, while
from the celebration of the bigamous
5-year old Albert was urinating at the
marriage up to the ]ling of Marcy's
back of their house, he heard a strange
complaint. He contended that the
noise coming from the kitchen of their
registration of his second marriage in the
neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he
civil registry of Davao City was
peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara's
constructive notice to the whole world of
stepmother, very angry and strangling
the celebration thereof thus binding upon
the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw
Marcy.
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it
Prepared by: LJC

106
inside the trunk of her car and drive crime. Hence, the period of prescription
away. The dead body of Ara was never of 20 years for homicide commenced to
found. Mina spread the news in the run only from the time Albert revealed
neighborhood that Ara went to live with the same to the NBI authorities.
her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES;
of his life, Albert did not tell anyone,
COMMENCEMENT (2004)
even his parents and relatives, about
what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 OW is a private person engaged in cattle
& 1/2) years after the incident, and right ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV
after his graduation in Criminology, treacherously, then throw the dead
Albert reported the crime to NBI man's body into a ravine. For 25 years,
authorities. The crime of homicide CVs body was never seen nor found; and
prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still OW told no one what he had witnessed.
prosecute Mina for the death of Ara Yesterday after consulting the parish
despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? priest, OW decided to tell the authorities
Explain, (5%) what he witnessed, and revealed that AM
had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prosecuted for murder despite the lapse
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for of 25 years? Reason brie?y. (5%)
the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
& 1/2 years. Under Article 91, RPC, the
period of prescription commences to run Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder
from the day on which the crime is despite the lapse of 25 years, because
discovered by the o8ended party, the the crime has not yet prescribed and
authorities or their agents. In the case at legally, its prescriptive period has not
bar, the commission of the crime was even commenced to run.
known only to Albert, who was not the
The period of prescription of a crime shall
o8ended party nor an authority or an
commence to run only from the day on
agent of an authority. It was discovered
which the crime has been discovered by
by the NBI authorities only when Albert
the o8ended party, the authorities or
revealed to them the commission of the
Prepared by: LJC
107
their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal ]ling of the complaint with the Municipal
Code). OW, a private person who saw the Trial Court, although only for preliminary
killing but never disclosed it, is not the investigation, interrupted and suspended
o8ended party nor has the crime been the period of prescription in as much as
discovered by the authorities or their the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal
agents. case is determined by the allegations in
the complaint or information, not by the
result of proof. (People vs. Galano. 75
CONCUBINAGE (2001)
SCRA 193)
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for

PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; FALSE
concubinage committed in February 1987
TESTIMONY (1994)
was ]led against Roberto in the Municipal
Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes Paolo was charged with homicide before
of preliminary investigation. For various the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when Andrew, a prosecution witness, testi]ed
the Judge of said court decided the case that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during
by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction their heated argument. While the case is
since the crime was committed in Manila. still pending, the City Hall of Manila
The case was subsequently ]led with the burned down and the entire records of
City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed the case were destroyed. Later, the
on the ground that the crime had already records were reconstituted. Andrew was
prescribed. The law provides that the again called to the witness stand. This
crime of concubinage prescribes in ten time he testi]ed that his ]rst testimony
(10) years. was false and the truth was he was
abroad when the crime took place.
Was the dismissal by the ]scal correct?
Explain, (5%) The judge immediately ordered the
prosecution of Andrew for giving a false
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
testimony favorable to the defendant in a
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on criminal case.
alleged prescription is not correct. The

Prepared by: LJC
108
1. Will the case against Andrew PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE

prosper? SLANDER (1997)
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision
became ]nal on January 10, 1987. A was charged in an information with the
On June 18, 1994 a case of giving crime of grave oral defamation but after
false testimony was ]led against trial, the court found him guilty only of
Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal the o8ense of simple slander. He ]led a
step will you take? motion for reconsideration contending
that, under the law, the crime of simple
SUGGESTED ANSWER: slander would have prescribed in two
months from commission, and since the
1) Yes. ...
information against him was ]led more
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will ]le a than four months after the alleged
motion to quash the Information on the commission of the crime, the same had
ground of prescription. The crime of false already prescribed.
testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed
The Solicitor General opposed the motion
because Paolo, the accused in the
on two grounds: ]rst, in determining the
principal case, was acquitted on January
prescriptive period, the nature of the
10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
o8ense charged in the Information
prescribed for such crime is arresto
should be considered, not the crime
mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.
proved; second, assuming that the
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor o8ense had already prescribed, the
prescribes in ]ve (5) years (Art. 90, par. defense was waived by the failure of A to
3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was raise it in a motion to quash.
]led only on June 18, 1994, whereas the
Resolve the motion for reconsideration.
principal criminal case was decided with
]nality on January 10, 1987 and, thence SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the prescriptive period of the crime
commenced to run. From January 10, The motion for reconsideration should be
1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than ]ve granted.-
(5) years.
Prepared by: LJC
109
a) The accused cannot be convicted of CIVIL LIABILITY

the o8ense of simple slander although it
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF
is necessarily included in the o8ense of
ACQUITTAL (2000)
grave slander charged in the information,
because, the lesser o8ense had already Name at least two exceptions to the
prescribed at the time the information general rule that in case of acquittal of
was ]led (People us. Rarang, (CA) 62 the accused in a criminal case, his civil
O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA liability is likewise extinguished. (2%)
538; Magat vs. People. 201 SCRA 21) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
otherwise prosecutors can easily
circumvent the rule of prescription in Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from
light o8enses by the simple expediment a criminal case extinguishes civil liability,
of ]ling a graver o8ense which includes are:
such light o8ense.

a. When the civil action is based
b) While the general rule is the failure of on obligations not arising
an accused to ]le a motion to quash from the act complained of
before he pleads to the complaint or as a felony;

b. When acquittal is based on
information, shall be deemed a waiver of
reasonable doubt or acquittal
the grounds of a motion to quash, the
is on the ground that guilt
exceptions to this are: (1) no o8ense was
has not been proven beyond
charged in the complaint or information;
reasonable doubt (Art. 29,
(2) lack of Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of
New Civil Code);
the o8ense or penalty; and (4) double c. Acquittal due to an
jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by exempting circumstance, like
the accused in his motion for Insanity;
reconsideration is extinction of the d. Where the court states in its
o8ense, then it can be raised even after Judgment that the case
plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on merely involves a civil
appeal (People vs. Balagtas) obligation;

e. Where there was a proper
reservation for the ]ling of a
Prepared by: LJC
110
separate civil action; continued to speed towards Quiapo, A

f. In cases of independent civil
clung to the window of the car but lost
actions provided for in Arts.
his grip and fell down on the pavement.
31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New
The car did not stop. A su8ered serious
Civil Code;
injuries which eventually caused his
g. When the judgment of
death. C was charged with ROBBERY with
acquittal includes a
HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not
declaration that the fact from
convinced with moral certainty that the
which the civil liability might
guilt of C has been established beyond
arise did not exist (Sapiera
reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted
vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
h. Where the civil liability is not him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
derived or based on the
Can the family of the victim still recover
criminal act of which the
civil damages in view of the acquittal of
accused is acquitted (Sapiera
C? Explain. (5%)
vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CIVIL LIABILITY; EFFECT OF
ACQUITTAL (2000) Yes, as against C, A's family can still
recover civil damages despite C's
A was a 17-year old working student who
acquittal. When the accused in a criminal
was earning his keep as a cigarette
prosecution is acquitted on the ground
vendor. B was driving a car along busy
that his guilt has not been proved
Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action
B was C. The car stopped at an
for damages for the same act or omission
intersection because of the red signal of
may be instituted. Such action requires
the traoc light. While waiting for the
only a preponderance of evidence {Art.
green signal, C beckoned A to buy some
29, CC).
cigarettes. A approached the car and
handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. If A's family can prove the negligence of
While the transaction was taking place, B by preponderance of evidence, the civil
the traoc light changed to green and the action for damages against B will prosper
car immediately sped o8. As the car
Prepared by: LJC
111
based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary

omission causes damage to another, writ of execution against Max. The latter
there being fault or negligence, is obliged opposed the motion on-the ground that
to pay for the damage done. Such fault the decision made no mention of his
or negligence, about pre-existing subsidiary liability and that he was not
contractual relation between the parties, impleaded in the case.
is called a quasi- delict [Art. 2176, CC).
How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
This is entirely separate and distinct from
civil liability arising from negligence SUGGESTED ANSWER:
under the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176,
The motion is to be granted. Max as an
2177, CC}.
employer of Guy and engaged in an
CIVIL LIABILITY; SUBSIDIARY; industry (transportation business) where
EMPLOYERS (1998) said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily
civilly liable under Article 103 of the
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney
Revised Penal Code. Even though the
owned and operated by Max, bumped
decision made no mention of his
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street.
subsidiary liability, the law violated
Demy sustained injuries which required
(Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for
medical attendance for three months.
such liability and Max is deemed to know
Guy was charged with reckless
it because ignorance of the law is never
imprudence resulting to physical injuries.
excused. And since his liability is not
Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
primary but only subsidiary in case his
Guy was sentenced to su8er a straight
employee cannot pay; he need not be
penalty of three months of arresto mayor
impleaded in the in the criminal case. It
and ordered to indemnify Demy in the
suoces that he was duly noti]ed of the
sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as
motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ
attorney's fees.
of execution
Upon ]nality of the decision, a writ of
and thus given the opportunity to be
execution was served upon Guy, but was
heard.
returned unsatis]ed due to his
Prepared by: LJC
112
CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY; Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)

CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005)
DAMAGES; HOMICIDE; TEMPERATE
The accused was found guilty of 10 DAMAGES (2006)
counts of rape for having carnal
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution
knowledge with the same woman. In
failed to present any receipt to
addition to the penalty of imprisonment,
substantiate the heirs' claim for an award
he was ordered to pay indemnity in the
of actual damages, such as expenses for
amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On
the wake and burial. What kind of
appeal, the accused questions the award
damages may the trial court award to
of civil indemnity for each count,
them and how much? (5%)
considering that the victim is the same
woman. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
How would you rule on the contention of The court may award temperate
the accused? Explain. (3%) damages in the amount of twenty-]ve
(P25,000.00) thousand pesos. Under
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisprudence, temperate damages is
The contention is unmeritorious. Under awarded in homicide when no suocient
the law, every person criminally liable is proof of actual damages is o8ered or if
civilly liable. (Art. 100, Revised Penal the actual damages proven is less than
Code) Since each count charges di8erent twenty-]ve thousand (P25,000) (People
felonious acts and ought to be punished v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19,
di8erently, the concomitant civil 2004).
indemnity ex delicto for every criminal
AMNESTY (2009)
act should be adjudged. Said civil
indemnity is mandatory upon a ]nding of No. II. Antero Makabayan was convicted
the fact of rape; it is distinct from and of the crime of Rebellion. While serving
should not be denominated as moral sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured,
damages which are based on di8erent he was charged with, and convicted of,
jural foundations. (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Evasion of Service of Sentence.
Prepared by: LJC

113
Thereafter, the President of the conviction, bur also all the legal e8ect
Philippines issued an amnesty thereof.
proclamation for the o8ense of Rebellion.
PARDON; EFFECT (2009)
Antero applied for and was granted the
bene]t of the amnesty proclamation. No. I. a. Amado, convicted of rape but
granted an absolute pardon by the
Antero then ]led a petition for habeas
President, and one year thereafter,
corpus, praying for his immediate release
convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.
from con]nement. He claims that the
amnesty extends to the o8ense of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge,
True, rape is now a crime against persons
will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.
and, like the crime of homicide, is
(4%)
embraced in the same Title of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER; Revised penal Code under which Amado
had been previously convicted by ]nal
Yes, I will grant the petition because the
judgment. The absolute pardon granted
sentence evaded proceeded from the
him for rape, only excuse him from
o8ender as a crime of Rebellion which
serving the sentence for rape but did not
has been obliterated by the grant of
erase the e8ect of the conviction
amnesty to the o8ender (Art. 89[3],
therefore unless expressly remitted by
RPC).
the pardon.
Since the amnesty erased the criminal
complexion of the act committed by the
COMMENCE TO RUN (2010)
o8ender as a crime of rebellion and
rendered such act a though innocent, the A killed his wife and buried her in their
sentence lost its legal basis. The backyard. He immediately went into
purported evasion thereof therefore hiding in the mountains.
cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife
SCRA 464[200]).
were discovered by X, the gardener.
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
Prepared by: LJC
114
he hid the bones in an old clay jar and so scared to tell the authorities about it.
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, On January 2, 1970, Dominador,
the caretaker, found the bones and bothered by his conscience, reported the
reported the matter to the police. matter to the police. After investigation,
the police ]nally arrested Baldo on
After 15 years of hiding, A left the
January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo
country but returned three years later to
claims that the crime he committed had
take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
already prescribed. Is Baldo’s contention
thereafter, he was charged with parricide
correct? Explain. (3%)
but raised the defense of prescription.
SUGGESTED ANWER:
Under the Revised Penal Code, when
does the period of prescription of a crime No, Baldo‟s contention is not correct
commence to run? (1%) because the crime committed has not yet
prescribed. The prescriptive period of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
crime committed commenced to run only
Generally, the period of prescription of a after it was report to the police on
crime commences to run from the date it January 2, 1970, not on the date it was
was committed; but if the crime was clandestinely committed on January 2,
committed clandestinely, the period of 1960. Under the discovery rule, which
prescription of the crimes under the govern when the crime is not publicly
Revised Penal Code commence to run committed, the prescriptive period of a
from the day on which the crime was crime commences to run only from the
discovered by the o8ended party, the day on which the crime is discovered by
authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC). the o8ended party, the authorities or
their agents: in this case, from January 2,
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; 1970 when it made known to the police
DISCOVERY RULE (2009) authorities until January 2, 1980, when
Balo was arrested and charged. The
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at
killing committed, whether homicide or
midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador
murder, is punishable by an awictive
witnessed the entire incident, but he was
penalty which prescribes within twenty
Prepared by: LJC
115
(20) year, whereas only around ten (10)

years ha lapsed from January 2, 1970 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(when the authorities discovered the
The running of the prescriptive period of
commission of the crime) to January 2,
the crime is interrupted when “any kind
1980 (when the accused was charged in
of investigative proceeding is instituted
court).
against the guilty person which may
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; ultimately lead to his prosecution”
INTERRUPTED (2010) (Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R.
No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
A killed his wife and buried her in their
backyard. He immediately went into PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES;
hiding in the mountains. PARRICIDE (2010)
a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the A killed his wife and buried her in their
bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet backyard. He immediately went into
about it. After two years, Z, the hiding in the mountains.
caretaker, found the bones and reported
Three years later, the bones of A’s wife
the matter to the police. After 15 years of
were discovered by X, the gardener.
hiding, A left the country but returned
Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
three years later to take care of his ailing
he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z,
charged with parricide but raised the
the caretaker, found the bones and
defense of prescription. Three years
reported the matter to the police.
later, the bones of A’s wife were
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X After 15 years of hiding, A left the
had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid country but returned three years later to
the bones in an old clay jar and kept take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
quiet about it. After two years, Z, the thereafter, he was charged with parricide
caretaker, found the bones and reported but raised the defense of prescription.
the matter to the police. When is it
Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
interrupted? (1%)
Prepared by: LJC
116
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Since A had been in hiding for 15 years

after the commission of the crime and
No, the defense of prescription of the
the prescriptive period started running
crime is not tenable. The crime
only after 5 years from such commission
committed is parricide which prescribes
when the crime was discovered, only 10
in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was
years lapsed and 3 years thereof should
only when the care-taker, Z found the
be deducted when the prescriptive period
victim‟s bones and reported the matter
was interrupted and suspended. Hence,
to the police that the crime is deemed
the 3 years.
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) year, the running of
the prescriptive period of the crime is
interrupted and suspended because
prescription shall not run when the
o8ender is absent from the Philippine
Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC

117

CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES AND SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CRIMINAL LAW PRINCIPLES AND SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Source: UP Suggested Answers

GENERAL PRINCIPLES imposition of sanction, instead the

Code belong? Code.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: GENERAL PRINCIPLES;

(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which

situation. high seas or outside of Philippine territory

7. When properly indicated in a ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total

friendship and ]nally decided to get LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No person shall be held to answer for a

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot

CONSPIRACY; FLIGHT TO EVADE

A and B, both store janitors, planned to

There was an expressed conspiracy

There was an expressed conspiracy ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

the discontinuance comes from the CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY;

A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Can Alexander be held liable for the

par. 2, RPC) Homicide for Cesar's death. In his

of People vs. Pugay, et al. because even though Gaston has no

therefrom. rule is that when a person, by a felonious

Belle causing her death. proximate cause of the vehicle to skid

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS of hitting her with his ]sts. Such

SUGGESTED ANSWER: cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped

the train; hence their deaths.

person committing a felony shall incur announcing a hold-up, coupled with a

OZ and YO were both courting their co- crime was committed.

2. No, the answer would not be the same SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, an act may be malum in se and o8ender's extent of participation in the

of voters is wrong per se because it consummated.

disenfranchises a voter of his right to

MALA IN SE VS. MALA PROHIBITA SUGGESTED ANSWER:

crimes are inherently evil, bad or wrong, defense.

and hence involves the moral traits of

where the acts or omissions penalized Penal Code.

are inherently bad, evil, or wrong that

Prepared by: LJC

PROHIBITUM (2005) Motive is the moving power which impels

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Motive is not an essential element of a

In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not

in doing the prohibited act is not a prove a case? When is it not

defense. necessary to be established?

Prepared by: LJC

Intent is the purpose for using a agent of a person in authority was

particular means to achieve the desired attacked in the actual performance

which impels a person to act for a Code).

De]ne conspiracy. (5%) killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Charlie committed an impossible crime of a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with

engrossed watching his favorite helped Pomping. When investigated, she

of her head causing her instantaneous lost his right eye.

death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (3%)

Petra because he is only 8 years old and e8ects thereof. (2%)

when he committed the killing. A minor

The exception is where the prosecution shall be imposed in accordance with

incurred; while in exempting is no criminal because the actor

crime but the actor acted o8ense to a descendant, his daughter,

without voluntariness; under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised

JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE OF STRANGER a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had

Prepared by: LJC

the ful]llment of a duty requires as a claim tenable? [5%]