Bar Qs 1990-2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)
Source: UP Suggested Answers
imposition of sanction, instead the
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
underlying
GENERAL PRINCIPLES; SCHOOLS OF
reasons
would
be
inquired into.
THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)

1) What are the different schools of
thought or theories in Criminal Law and
describe each briefly.
2.
We follow the classical school of thought

although some provisions of eminently
positivist in tendencies, like punishment
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

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another
Criminal Law, and these are
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

offense; and
(b) the POSITIVIST THEORY, which
considers man as a social being
and his acts are attributable not
just to his will but to other forces of
society. As such, punishment is not
the solution, as he is not entirely to
be blamed; law and jurisprudence
should not be the yardstick in the
1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for
bigamy since the bigamous marriage was
contracted or solemnized in Singapore,
hence such violation is not one of those
where the Revised Penal Code, under Art.
2
thereof,
may
be
applied
extraterritorially. The general rule on

territoriality of criminal law governs the
Prepared by: LJC

situation.
high seas or outside of Philippine territory
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES;
TERRITORIALITY; JURISDICTION OVER

VESSEL (2000)
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to
death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman,
aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the
South China Sea. The vessel, although
Panamanian
registered,
is
owned
by
Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman.

When
M/V
"Princess
of
the
Pacific"
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City,

the Captain of the vessel turned over the
assailant
Binoy
to
the
Philippine
authorities. An information for homicide
and on board a vessel not registered or

licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler,
1 Phil 614)
It is the registration of the vessel in
accordance
with
the
laws
of
the
Philippines, not the citizenship of her

owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
The vessel being registered in Panama,
the laws of Panama govern while it is in
the high seas.
USE OF ALIASES; WHEN ALLOWED
(2006)
When can a Filipino citizen residing in this
country use an alias legally? Give 3
instances. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was filed against Binoy in the Regional

Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to
quash
the
information
for
lack
of
jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will

you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.

2. Use of aliases in cinema and
television entertainment.
3. In athletics and sports activities
(RA. 6085).
4. Under the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
witness
protection
program a person may adopt a
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information

should be granted. The Philippine court
different identity (RA. 6981).

5. When he has been baptized or
crime
customarily known by such alias.

6. When authorized by a competent
committed since it was committed on the
court (CA. No. 142, as amended by
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
RA. 6085).
Prepared by: LJC

7. When
properly
indicated
in
Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus

Election Code).
ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total

points)
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 staff of Senator Salcedo who wants
bill, as it will result in economic inequality
to file a bill about imprisonment at the
in the field 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
earner for the country through a law

providing for premium accommodations
for prisoners (other than those under
maximum security status) whose wives
are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and
equal
protection
clause
in
the
Constitution does not merely bar the

creation of inequalities but commands as
well
the
elimination
of
existing
inequalities.
for those who want long-term premium
Additionally, the purpose of imposing
accommodations.
penalties, which is to secure justice,
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to

rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities
at rates equivalent to those charged by
4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he
retribution
and
reformation,
will
be
defeated and put to naught if the bills

program/scheme
should
eventually
become a law.
is prepared to offer room and board with

special meals in air conditioned singleoccupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to
those charged by 3-star hotels.
What advice will you give the Senator
from the point of view of criminal law,
taking
into
account
the
purpose
of
imprisonment (7%) and considerations of
GENERAL
PRINCIPLES;
TERRITORIALITY (2008)
No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married
in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate
studies in New York and met his former
girlfriend
Eula.
They
renewed
Prepared by: LJC
their
3

friendship and finally decided to get
LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard
TO ENACT PENAL LAWS (2012)
about the marriage and secures a copy of

the
marriage
contract
in
New
York.
Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against

Hubert in the Philippines.
What are the constitutional provisions

limiting the power of Congress to enact
penal laws? (5%)
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 effect.
the principle of territoriality, penal laws,

specifically the RPC, are enforceable only
2. The law must not be a bill of
within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2,
attainder,
RPC).
provide punishment without judicial
unusual or degrading punishment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
answer
will
be
cannot
2. The law must not impose cruel,
your answer be? Explain. (3%)
The
it
proceedings.
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to

the second marriage, what will
meaning
No person shall be held to answer for a

the
same.
The
consent of Eunice would not confer

jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.
criminal offense without due process of

law.
FELONIES
CONSPIRACY (1997)
GENERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES;
A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill
PROVISION
Prepared by: LJC

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

destination, the group alighted and after
instructing E, the driver, to wait, traveled
on foot to the house of F. B positioned
himself at a distance as the group's
lookout. C and D stood guard outside the
house. Before A could enter the house, D
left the scene without the knowledge of
the others. A stealthily entered the house
and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was
blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
another direction. Immediately after A
had stabbed F, A also stabbed G who was
visiting F. Thereafter, A exiled from the
house and, together with B and C,
returned to the waiting taxicab and
motored away. G died. F survived.
For the physical injuries of F, A, B and C.

should be held liable therefore. Even if it
was only A who actually stabbed and
caused physical injuries to G, B and C are
nonetheless liable for conspiring with A
and for contributing positive acts which
led to the realization of a common
criminal intent. B positioned himself as a
lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D,
however,
conspiracy,
although
cannot
part
be
of
held
the
liable
because he left the scene before A could

enter the house where the stabbing
occurred. Although he was earlier part of
the conspiracy, he did not personally
participate in the execution of the crime
by acts which directly tended toward the
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
A alone should be held liable for the

death of G. The object of the conspiracy
of A, B, C, and D was to kill F only. Since
B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing
be also held liable for the infliction of

physical injuries upon F because there is
no showing that he had knowledge of the
plan to kill F.
of G by A, they cannot be held criminally
CONSPIRACY;
AVOIDANCE
therefor. E, the driver, cannot be also
GREATER EVIL (2004)

Prepared by: LJC
OF

BB and CC, both armed with knives,

attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon
seeing the attack, drew his gun but was
prevented from shooting the attackers by
AA, who grappled with him for possession
of the gun. FT died from knife wounds.
AA,
BB
and CC
were charged with
the eyes of the law, a lawful act.

What AA did was to stop a lawful
defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and
CC achieve their criminal objective of
stabbing FT.
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
Will AA's defense prosper? Reason briefly.

(5%)
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind.

On
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,
come from the other end of the alley and
AA's
because
defense
obviously
will
not
there
prosper
was
that the principle that when there is a

conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all, shall govern. The act of ST, the
victim's son, appears to be a legitimate
defense of relatives; hence, justified as a
defense of his father against the unlawful
aggression by BB and CC. ST's act to
his
father's
life,
appointed
day,
Arturo
was
apprehended by the authorities before
conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such
defend
the
cannot
be
regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in
reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as

planned, he was unaware that Arturo was
arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal
liability of Arturo, if any. [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arturo, being one of the two who devised
the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes
a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What
is needed only is an overt act and both
will
incur
criminal
liability.
Arturo's
liability as a conspirator arose from his

participation
in
jointly
devising
Prepared by: LJC
the
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. Raffy
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
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 Raffy 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.
pursuant
to
that
on him may be that of an accomplice

only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA 1;
People us. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335)
Is there conspiracy in this case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because he was not able to actually

participate in the shooting of Joel, having
Yes,
there
is
been apprehended before reaching the
offenders,
place where the crime was committed.
concerted actions against the victims,
as
demonstrating
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
able to participate in the killing of Joel.

Conspiracy itself is not punishable unless
expressly provided by law and this is not
in
the
case
of
Murder.
among
manifested
a
by
common
the
their
felonious
purpose of assaulting the victims. The
Arturo is not liable because he was not
true
conspiracy
co-
conspirator must perform an overt act

pursuant to the conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY; COMMON FELONIOUS
PURPOSE (1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura
existence
of
the
conspiracy
can
be
inferred or deduced from the manner the

offenders acted in commonly attacking
Dino
and
Raffy
with
rocks,
thereby
demonstrating a unity of criminal design

to inflict harm on their victims.
CONSPIRACY; COMPLEX CRIME WITH
RAPE (1996)
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
the
morning,
robbed
house
at
desolate place where Danilo, his wife,

Prepared by: LJC

and three daughters were living. While
robbery
the
presence
four
ransacking
were
in
the
Danilo's
process
house,
of
was
of
committed,
not
the
conspirators.
other
in
the
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
finally caught up with her in a thicket
Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June
somewhat
distant
1995}
Fernando,
before
from
the
bringing
house.
back
the
daughter to the house, raped her first.

Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.
b) Suppose, after the robbery, the four
took turns in raping the three daughters
of Danilo inside the latter's house, but
before they left, they killed the whole
family to prevent identification, what
crime did the four commit? Explain.
Jose,
committed
and
while
Manolo
Fernando
committed complex crime of Robbery

with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred
from
the
manner
the
offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was

committed
by
(People
vs.
b) The crime would be Robbery with

Homicide
(implied:
there
is
still
conspiracy)
CONSPIRACY;
FLIGHT
TO
EVADE
APPREHENSION (2003)
A and B, both store janitors, planned to
kill their employer C at midnight and take
the money kept in the cash register. A
and B together drew the sketch of the
store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of
and B were ready to carry out the plan.
Domingo,
Robbery,
crime.
their attack. Shortly before midnight, A
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a)
complex
Fernando
at
place
"distant from the house" where the
When A was about to lift C's mosquito

net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on
to stab C to death, put the money in the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
him, B had already left the place. What
was the participation and corresponding
Prepared by: LJC

criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
the act of B because of their expressed
8%
conspiracy.
Both
composite
crime
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There
was
an
are
liable
of
for
robbery
the
with
homicide.
expressed
conspiracy
between A and B to kill C and take the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
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

their attack even before they committed
the crime. Therefore, the principle in law
that when there is a conspiracy, the act
of one is the act of all, already governs
them. In fact, A and B were already in the
store to carry out their criminal plan.
The desistance need not be actuated by

remorse or good motive. It is enough that
the
discontinuance
comes
from
the
person who has begun the commission of

the crime but before all acts of execution
are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted,
That B ran out of the store and fled 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 flight to
the verge of crime, heeds the call of his
evade apprehension. It would be different
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

not. So the act of A in pursuing the
commission of the crime which both he
and
designed,
planned,
CONSPIRACY;
FLIGHT
TO
EVADE
APPREHENSION (2003)
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

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

and B were ready to carry out the plan.
When A was about to lift C's mosquito
net to thrust his dagger, a police car with
sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran
out of the store and fled, while A went on
to stab C to death, put the money in the
bag, and ran outside to look for B. The
latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to
him, B had already left the place. What
was the participation and corresponding
criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There
was
an
expressed
That B ran out of the store and fled upon

hearing the sirens of the police car, is not
spontaneous desistance but flight to
evade apprehension. It would be different
if B then tried to stop A from continuing
with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the
commission of the crime which both he
and
designed,
planned,
and
commenced to commit, would also be

the act of B because of their expressed
conspiracy.
Both
composite
crime
are
liable
of
for
robbery
the
with
homicide.
conspiracy
between A and B to kill C and take the

latter's money. The planned killing and
taking of the money appears to be
intimately related as component crimes,
hence a special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. The conspiracy being
expressed, not just implied, A and B are
bound as co-conspirators after they have
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A shall incur full criminal liability for the
crime of robbery with homicide, but B
shall not incur criminal liability because
he desisted. B's spontaneous desistance,
made before all acts of execution are
performed, is exculpatory. Conspiracy to
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

Prepared by: LJC
10

the
discontinuance
comes
from
the
person who has begun the commission of

the crime but before all acts of execution
are performed. A person who has began
the commission of a crime but desisted,
is absolved from criminal liability as a
CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY;

EFFECTS (2003)
State the concept of "implied conspiracy"
and give its legal effects. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
reward to one, who having set foot on

the verge of crime, heeds the call of his
An "IMPLIED CONSPIRACY" is one which is
conscience and returns to the path of
only
righteousness.
manner
inferred
or
the
deduced
participants
from
the
in
the
commission of crime carried out its

CONSPIRACY; IMPLIED CONSPIRACY
execution. Where the offenders acted in
(1998)
concert in the commission of the crime,
What
is
the
doctrine
of
implied
conspiracy? [3%]
objective, they shall be deemed to be
The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds

two or more persons participating in the
of
crime
collectively
responsible and liable as co-conspirators

although absent any agreement to that
effect,
when
they
act
in
concert,
demonstrating unity of criminal intent

and a common purpose or objective. The
existence
of
or synchronized in a way indicative that

they are pursuing a common criminal
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
commission
meaning that their acts are coordinated
conspiracy
shall
be
acting in conspiracy and their criminal

liability shall be collective, not individual.
The
legal
effects
of
an
"implied
conspiracy" are:
a) Not all those who are present at the
scene of the crime will be considered
conspirators;
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
thus the act of one shall be deemed the
conspirators; and
will
be
considered
as
co-
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
where it was ruled that the liability of the
one
criminally
liable
as
co-
conspirator.
CRIMINAL
offender was for an impossible crime, no

LIABILITY:
DESTRUCTIVE
ARSON (2000)
hand grenade was used in said case,

which constitutes a more serious crime
though different from what was intended,
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,

proceeded to the house of X. Y, a
neighbor of X, who happened to be
CRIMINAL LIABILITY: FELONIOUS ACT

OF SCARING (1996)
passing by, pointed to the four culprits
Alexander,
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)
Unsatisfied,
hand
persons. Terrified 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
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
Yes. A,
B. C
destructive
even
and D
arson
threw
are liable
because
of
for
the
destruction of the room of X with the use

of
an
explosive,
the
hand
grenade.
Liability for an impossible crime is to be

imposed only if the act committed would
not constitute any other crime under the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
an
escaped
unconscious
convict,
after
hitting
ran
the
death of Carol and Benjamin although he

was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the
death of Carol and Benjamin because of
felonious
act
of
running
was
the
proximate cause of the victim's death.

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,

prompting the latter to escape from or
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
tetanus
the
felonious
act
is
infection
which
developed
responsible for such injuries or death.
twenty five days later, was brought about
(US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil, 1497; People vs.
by
Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
Vicente's felonious act of causing a two-
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
FELONIOUS
ACT; PROXIMATE CAUSE (1996)
an
efficient
supervening
cause.
inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may

still be regarded as the proximate cause
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

three policemen arrived and threatened
to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIMES (2000)
bolo. Vicente was accordingly charged by
a. What is an impossible crime? (2%)b. Is
the police at the prosecutor's office for
an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
attempted homicide. Twenty- five days

later, while the preliminary investigation
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to
An impossible crime is an act which
the hospital because of symptoms of
would be an offense against person or
tetanus infection on the two-inch wound
property, were if not for the inherent
inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the
impossibility of its accomplishment or on
following day.
account
Can Vicente be eventually charged with
inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4,
of
the
employment
Prepared by: LJC
of
13

par. 2, RPC)
Homicide
No, an impossible crime is not really a

crime. It is only so-called because the act
gives
rise
to
criminal
liability.
But
actually, no felony is committed. The
for
Cesar's
death.
In
his
defense, Felipe claimed that he did not

know about Cesar's weak heart and that
he only intended to play a practical joke
on Cesar.
accused is to be punished for his criminal
Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or
tendency
will his defense prosper? Why? (5%}
or
propensity
although
no
crime was committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; FELONIOUS ACT

OF SCARING (2001)
Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar

but he shall be given the benefit 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
that which was committed (Art. 13, par.
but
on
two
occasions,
accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts

by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working
student and could only ask Mary to see a
movie which was declined. Felipe felt
insulted and made plans to get even with
Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
day, he entered Cesar's room in their
boarding house and placed a rubber
snake which appeared to be real in
Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
weak heart, he suffered a heart attack
3, RPC).
When Felipe intruded into Cesar's room
without the latter's consent and took
liberty with the letter's backpack where
he placed the rubber snake. Felipe was
already committing a felony. And any act
done by him while committing a felony is
no less wrongful, considering that they
were part of "plans to get even with
Cesar".
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
Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case
and
he
was
charged
with
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 different 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
Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock
danger and in the process, sustains
of a neighbor and reported him to the
injuries or dies, the person committing
police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a
the felonious act is responsible for such
car
injuries or death. (US vs. Valdez, 41 Phil,
saw
Belle
crossing
the
street.
Incensed that Belle had reported him,
1497; People vs. Apra, 27 SCRA 1037.)
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
consequence of Gaston's felonious act.

(People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).
Yes, Gaston is liable for Belle's death

Prepared by: LJC
15

CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
FELONIOUS
ACT; IMMEDIATE CAUSE (2003)

The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of
her husband B. Incensed with anger
almost beyond his control, B could not
help but inflict physical injuries on A.
Moments after B started hitting A with his
fists, A suddenly complained of severe
chest pains. B, realizing that A was
indeed in serious trouble, immediately
brought her to the hospital. Despite
efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of
of
hitting
her
with
his
fists.
Such
felonious act was the immediate cause of

the
heart
attack,
having
materially
contributed to and hastened A's death.

Even though B may have acted without
intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent
is of no moment when the victim dies.
However, B may be given the mitigating
circumstance of having acted without
intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised
Penal Code).
heart attack. It turned out that she had
CRIMINAL
been suffering from a lingering heart
ailment. What crime, if any, could B be

held guilty of? 8%
Bhey's
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because his act of hitting his wife with

blows
and
therewith
FELONIOUS
with Scott.
father,
Robin,
Whereupon,
and
brother,
Rustom, went to Scott's house. Upon
B could be held liable for parricide

fist
Bhey eloped
LIABILITY;
inflicting
physical injuries on her, is felonious. A

person committing a felonious act incurs
criminal liability although the wrongful
consequence is different from what he
intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal
Code).
reaching the house, Rustom inquired

from
Scott
about
his
sister's
whereabouts, while Robin shouted and

threatened to kill Scott. The latter then
went downstairs but Rustom held his
(Scott's)
waist.
Meanwhile
Olive,
the
elder sister of Scott, carrying her twomonth old child, approached Rustom and
Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to
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
fall on her baby. Had It not been for said
beneath the surface, and drowned.
act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly

felonious (at least slight coercion) there
was no cause for Olive to fall over her
baby. In short, Rustom's felonious act is
the cause of the evil caused. Any person
performing a felonious act is criminally
liable for the direct, natural and logical
consequence thereof although different
from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1,
RFC; People vs, Pugay, et al, GR No.
74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
into
the
water,
disappeared
May A be held criminally liable for the

death of B?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the
death of B, Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code
provides
in
part
that
criminal
liability shall be incurred by any person

committing
felony
although
the
wrongful act done be different from that

which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez 41
FELONIOUS

While the crew of a steamer prepared to
raise anchor at the Pasig River, A,
evidently impatient with the progress of
work, began to use abusive language
against the men. B, one of the members
of the crew, remonstrated saying that
Phil. 497. where the victim who was

threatened by the accused with a knife,
jumped into the river but because of the
strong current or because he did not
know how to swim, he drowned, the
Supreme Court affirmed the conviction
for homicide of the accused because, if a
person against whom a criminal assault
is directed believes himself to be in
Prepared by: LJC
17

danger of death or great bodily harm and
composite
crime
in order to escape jumps into the water,
homicide,
whether
impelled
intentional or accidental, as long as the
by
the
instinct
of
self-
preservation, the assailant is responsible

for the homicide in case death results by
drowning.
of
the
robbery
killing
with
was
killing was on occasion of the robbery.

CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
FELONIOUS
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
FELONIOUS
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer

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 fire his
her. When he left her house, he walked
gun
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 flee without being
and killed as a result.
chased by Luis. At the next LRT station,
upward
in
the
ceiling
The defense theorized that the killing

was
mere
accident
and
was
not
perpetrated in connection with, or for

purposes of, the robbery.Will you sustain
the defense? Why? (4%)
he boarded one of the coaches bound for

Baclaran. While seated, he happened to
read a newspaper left on the seat and
noticed that the headlines were about
the sinking of the Super Ferry while on its
way to Cebu. He went over the list of
missing passengers who were presumed
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 offender is
shocked and his mind went blank for a
liable therefore although it may not be
few minutes, after which he ran amuck
intended
and, using his balisong, started stabbing
or
different
from
what
he
intended.
at the passengers who then scampered
The offender shall be prosecuted for the
away, with three of them Jumping out of

the train and landing on the road below.
Prepared by: LJC
18

All the three passengers died later of
On his way home from office, ZZ rode in
their injuries at the hospital.
a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the
Is Luis liable for the death of the three

passengers
who
jumped
out
of
the
moving train? State your reasons. (5%)
same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded

spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from
his bag and announced a hold-up. He told
ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and
cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 briefly. (5%)
such wrongful act was the proximate

cause of said passengers' jumping out of
the train; hence their deaths.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
act done be different 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
and
Luis'
resulting in the latter's death. Stated
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.
logical
felonious
consequence
act
which
of
created
for
the
jumping
watch,
out
of
wallet
the
and
jeepney,
Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037).

CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
FELONIOUS
CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIME (2004)
Prepared by: LJC
19

OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter
rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by
poisoning him. OZ poured a substance
crime was committed.

CRIMINAL
LIABILITY;
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIMES (1994)
into YO's coffee 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.
coffee. What criminal liability did OZ

On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the
incur, if any? Explain briefly. (5%)
evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
OZ
incurred
criminal
with
liability
for
an
impossible crime of murder. Criminal

liability shall be incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were
it not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
automatic
weapons,
went
to
Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide,

directed her companions to the room in
the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries
and Randal fired their guns at her room.
Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she
attended a prayer meeting that evening
in another barangay in Laurel.
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
JP, et al, were charged and convicted of
means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC).
attempted murder by the Regional Trial
In the problem given, the impossibility of
Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
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 ineffectual means which
sole error of finding them guilty of
OZ thought was poison. The law imputes
attempted
criminal liability to the offender although
ponente, how will you decide the appeal?
murder.If
you
were
the
no crime resulted, only to suppress his

criminal propensity because subjectively,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 find 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

only when the impossibility is legal, but
likewise when it is factual or physical
impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa's
absence from the house is a physical
impossibility which renders the crime
intended
Inherently
incapable
of
accomplishment. To convict the accused

of attempted murder would make Art. 4,
par.
practically
useless
as
1, What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry

and Buddy commit? [3%]2. Suppose that,
because
powdered
of
his
milk,
severe
Jun
allergy
had
to
to
be
hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it.

Would your answer to the first question
be the same? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
all
the
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-
consummation of the offense will be
called "impossible crime" because, with
treated as an incident independent of the
intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and
actor's will which is an element of
thus perpetrate Murder, a crime against
attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs.
persons. Jun was not poisoned only
CA, 215 SCRA 52).
because
circumstances
which
prevented
the
would-be
killers
were
unaware that what they mixed with the

CRIMINAL
LIABILITY:
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIMES (1998)
poison. In short, the act done with
Buddy always resented his classmate,

Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by
mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
where he can get poison, he approached
another classmate, Jerry to whom he
disclosed
himself
his
evil
harbored
food of Jun was powdered milk, not
plan.
Because
resentment
he
towards
criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would

have constituted a crime against persons
were it not for the inherent inefficacy of
the means employed. Criminal liability is
incurred by them although no crime
resulted, because their act of trying to
poison Jun is criminal.
Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which

Prepared by: LJC
21

2. No, the answer would not be the same

as above. Jerry and Buddy would be
liable instead for less serious physical
injuries for causing the hospitalization
and medical attendance for 10 days to
Jun. Their act of mixing with the food
eaten by Jun the matter which required
such
medical
attendance,
committed
with criminal intent, renders them liable

for the resulting injury.
CRIMINAL
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing
a case for "impossible crime to commit
kidnapping" against Enrique. Impossible
crimes are limited only to acts which
when
performed
against
would
persons
or
be
crime
property.
As
kidnapping is a crime against personal

security and not against persons or
property, Enrique could not have incurred
LIABILITY;
IMPOSSIBLE
CRIMES; KIDNAPPING (2000)
an
"impossible
crime"
to
commit
kidnapping. There is thus no impossible
Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by
crime of kidnapping.
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

note
demanding
P500,000.00
from
Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's
1. Distinguish between crimes mala in

se and crimes mala prohibita.
2. May an act be malum in se and be,
freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note
at
by mail. However, before the ransom
prohibitum?
the
same
time,
malum
note was received by Carla's parents,

Enrique's hideout was discovered by the
police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
was
arrested
and
incarcerated.
Considering that the ransom note was

not received by Carla's parents, the
investigating prosecutor merely filed a
case of "Impossible Crime to Commit
Kidnapping"
against
Enrique.
prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
Is
the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Crimes mala in se are felonious acts
committed by dolo or culpa as defined in
the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense, except when the
crime results from criminal negligence.
On the other hand, crimes mala prohibita
are those considered wrong only because
Prepared by: LJC
22

they are prohibited by statute. They
the acts constituting the crimes are not
constitute violations of mere rules of
inherently
convenience designed to secure a more
prohibited and made punishable only for
orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
public good. And because the moral trait
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
bad,
evil
or
wrong
but
of the offender is Involved in "mala in

se".
Modifying
circumstances,
the
Yes, an act may be malum in se and
offender'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
of voters is wrong per se because it
consummated.
disenfranchises a voter of his right to

vote. In this regard it is considered as
malum in se. Since it is punished under a
only
when
the
acts
are

(2001)
special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised
Briefly
Election Code) it is considered malum
distinguishes a crime mala prohibita from
prohibitum.
a crime mala in se. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1999)
state
what
essentially
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
prohibiting them for public good, and

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

the offender; while in "mala prohibita",
In crimes mala in se, the acts are by

nature
wrong,
evil
or
bad,
and
Prepared by: LJC
so
23

generally condemned. The moral trait of
mala prohibita, good faith or lack of
the offender 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 offender is a defense, unless the
voluntarily violated.
crime is the result of criminal negligence.

Correspondingly,
circumstances
modifying
are
considered
in
punishing the offender.

(2003)
Mala in se is incurred when the crime is

only attempted or frustrated, while in
crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is
generally incurred only when the crime is
consummated.
Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
Distinguish, in their respective concepts
aggravating
and legal implications, between crimes
appreciated in imposing the penalties,
mala in se and crimes mala prohibits. 4%
while in crimes mala prohibita, such
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
circumstances
are
circumstances are not appreciated unless

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

they are almost universally condemned.
Crimes mala prohibita are those where
the acts penalized are not inherently bad,
evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for
public good, public welfare or interest
and whoever violates the prohibition are
penalized.
MALA
PROHIBITA;
ACTUAL
INJURY
REQUIRED (2000)
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and
Mr. Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to
the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a
customs
broker,
themselves
as
Commercial
Trading,
and
represented
agents
of
an
Moonglow
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 file with the Bureau of

Prepared by: LJC
24

Customs the necessary Import Entry and
functions
Internal Revenue Declaration covering
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr.
negligence.
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
as
only at an attempted stage, and that in
children's toys, the taxes and duties of
fact the Government did not suffer any
which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr.
undue injury.
declared
Ocuarto
filed
the
shipment
the
aforementioned
documents with the Manila International

Container
Port.
However,
before
the
shipment was released, a spot check was

conducted
by
Customs
Senior
Agent
James Bandido, who discovered that the

contents of the van (shipment) were not
children's
toys
as
declared
in
the
shipping documents but 1,000 units of

video cassette recorders with taxes and
through
In
manifest
their
partiality,
motion
for
a) Is the contention of both accused

correct? Explain. (3%)b) Assuming that
the attempted or frustrated stage of the
violation charged is not punishable, may
the accused be nevertheless convicted
for an offense punished by the Revised
Penal Code under the facts of the case?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold

order
and
detention
warrant
were
then
of
seizure
issued
by
and
Yes, the contention of the accused that
the
the crime was

RA.
not consummated is
District Collector of Customs. Further
correct,
investigation showed that Moonglow is
punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule,
non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi
attempted violation of a special law is not
and Mr. Yto were charged with and
punished. Actual injury is required.Yes,
convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of
both are liable for attempted estafa thru
R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among
falsification of commercial documents, a
others, for public officers to cause any
complex crime.
undue Injury to any party, including the
MALUM
IN
3019
SE
is
special
VS.
law
MALUM
Government. In the discharge of official

Prepared by: LJC
25

PROHIBITUM (2005)
Motive is the moving power which impels
Distinguish malum in se from malum

prohibitum. (2%)
one
to
action
for
definite
result;
whereas intent is the purpose to use a

particular means to effect such results.
Motive is not an essential element of a
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
felony and need not be proved for

In crimes malum in se, an act is by
purpose of conviction, while intent is an
nature
essential element of felonies by dolo.
wrong,
evil
or
bad,
and
so
generally condemned. The moral trait of

the offender 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 offender 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,
malum
circumstances
modifying
are
considered
in
prohibitum
or
if
an
act
is
punishable by special law.
punishing the offender.

In crimes mala prohibitum, an act is not
by nature wrong, evil or bad. Yet, it is
punished
because
there
is
law
prohibiting them for public good, and

thus good faith or lack of criminal intent
MOTIVE VS. INTENT (1999)

1. Distinguish
"intent".
2. When is
"motive"
motive
from
relevant
to
in doing the prohibited act is not a
prove a case? When is it not
defense.
necessary to be established?
Explain. (3%)

1. Distinguish intent from motive in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
definite
result;
while
"intent"
is
the
purpose for using a particular means to

Prepared by: LJC
26

bring about a desired result. Motive is not
an
an element of a crime but intent is an
considered when the identity of the
element of intentional crimes. Motive, if
offender is in doubt.
attending a crime, always precede the

intent.
2.
element
MOTIVE;
of
PROOF
crime
but
only
THEREOF;
NOT
ESSENTIAL; CONVICTION (2006)
Motive is relevant to prove a case when

there is doubt as to the identity of the
offender or when the act committed
gives rise to variant crimes and there is
the need to determine the proper crime
to be imputed to the offender.
Motive is essential in the determination

of the commission of a crime and the
liabilities of the perpetrators. What are
the instances where proof of motive is
not
essential
or
required
to
justify
conviction of an accused? Give at least 3
It is not necessary to prove motive

when the offender is positively
identified or the criminal act did
not give rise to variant crimes.
instances. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. When there is an eyewitness or
positive

Distinguish clearly but briefly between
intent and motive in the commission of
an offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
identification
of
the
accused.
2. When the accused admitted or
confessed to the commission of the
crime.
3. In crimes mala prohibita.
4. In direct assault, when the victim,
who is a person in authority or
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
Intent
is
the
purpose
for
using
which impels a person to act for a

definite result. Intent is an ingredient of
dolo or malice and thus an element of
deliberate felonies; while motive is not
Code).
5. In crimes
committed
through
reckless imprudence.
CONSPIRACY (2012)
Prepared by: LJC
27

Define conspiracy. (5%)
killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of

innocence.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it, there is
conspiracy.
CONSPIRACY (2008)
when the commander of a vigilante

group came to him and showed him a list
of five policemen to be liquidated by
them for graft and corruption. He was
further asked if any of them is innocent.
After going over the list, Ricky pointed to
two of the policemen as honest. Later,
the vigilante group liquidated the three
policemen
commander
of
in
the
the
list.
vigilante
The
group
reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky

criminally liable? Explain. (7%)
the
Commander
REBELLION
TO
VS.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER

(2012)
by
way
of
illustration
conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as

a manner of incurring liability in relation
to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy to commit rebellion if A
and B conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a
felony. Rebellion if they committed
rebellion, they are equally liable for the
crime of rebellion. However, they will not
to
commit
committed
No, there was no conspiracy between

and
CONSPIRACY
be additionally charged with conspiracy
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricky
VS.
COMMIT
Distinguish
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam
other
CONSPIRACY
of
the
vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty

of the two (2) policemen in the list
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the
rebellion.
what
Since
they
they
conspired,
conspiracy will not be considered as an

independent felony but as a manner of
incurring
Conspiracy
criminal
to
commit
responsibility.
homicide,
not
punishable if A and B conspire to kill

Prepared by: LJC
28

X, conspiracy is not punishable. The
powder with Brads 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
killed X, the conspirators are equally
ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
liable
for
homicide.
Conspirators
are
which,
EXEMPTING
CRIME
OF
MURDER
(2009)
Charlie
because
is
CIRCUMSTANCES;
COVERAGE (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of
hated
his
the
latter
classmate,
was
Brad,
assiduously
courting Lily, Charlies girlfriend. Charlie

went to a veterinarian and asked for
some poison on the pretext that it would
be used to kill a very sick, old dog.
Actually, Charlie intended to use the
poison
him,
CIRCUMSTANCES
this case will be considered as a manner
IMPOSSIBLE
to
JUSTIFYING & EXEMPTING
equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in

of incurring liability.
unknown
on
mistakenly
Brad.
gave
The
Charlie
having a night out with his friends, took

the coconut shell which is being used by
B as a bank for coins from inside their
locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell
outside of their home in the presence of
his friends.
veterinarian
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if
any? Explain. (3%)
non-toxic
powder which, when mixed with Brads

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
of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and
mischief.
Here,
the
crime
committed is robbery.
**EXEMPTING
13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the

CIRCUMSTANCES;
MINORITY (1998)
Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated,

Katreena turned around and swung at
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
engrossed
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
without warning, shot Petra at the back
culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping
of her head causing her instantaneous
lost his right eye.
watching
his
death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]
caused,
Katreena
statement
immediately
admitting
her
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 effects thereof. (2%)
when he committed the killing. A minor

below nine (9) years old is absolutely
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 fifteen (15) years old
EXEMPTING; MINORITY; 11 YRS OLD;

ABSENCE OF DISCERNMENT (2000)
although over nine (9) years of age, she

is generally exempt from criminal liability.
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
prosecution to prove that the accused
automatically
acted with discernment.
accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep. Act
The presumption is that such minor acted

without
discernment,
and
this
is
sentence,
however,
be
should
suspended
in
No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family

Courts Act of 1997";
strengthened by the fact that Katreena
Also
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
repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other
paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
words, the injury was accidental.
if
found
criminally
committed,
under
liable,
Article
the
13,
The ordinary mitigating circumstance of
b) The attendant circumstances which
sufficient provocation on the part of the
may be considered are:
offended party immediately preceded the
1. Minority of the accused as an

exempting
circumstance
under
Article 12. paragraph 3, Rev. Penal
act.
JUSTIFYING
VS.
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES (2004)
Code, where she shall be exempt

from criminal liability, unless it was
proved
that
discernment.
she
She
acted
is
with
however
civilly liable;
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between

justifying and exempting circumstances
in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If found criminally liable, the minority of
Justifying circumstance affects the act,
the accused as a privileged mitigating
not
circumstance.
circumstance affects the actor, not the
discretionary
penalty
the
actor;
while
exempting
lower by at least two (2) degrees than
act.
that prescribed for the crime committed
criminal and, generally, no civil liability is
In
justifying
circumstance,
Prepared by: LJC
no
31

incurred;
while
in
exempting
is no criminal because the actor
circumstance, civil liability is generally
is
incurred although there is no criminal
regarded
only
as
an
instrument of the crime;

d. There being a wrong done but
liability.
no criminal.
JUSTIFYING
VS.
EXEMPTING
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE
CIRCUMSTANCES (1998)
OF HONOR;
REQUISITES (2002)
Distinguish
between
justifying
and
When A arrived home, he found B raping
exempting circumstances. [3%]
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 affects the
Is A correct? If not, can A claim the
act, not the actor;

b. The act is done within legal
benefit of any mitigating circumstance or
bounds, hence considered as
circumstances? (3%)
not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his

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,
Whereas,
in
an
Exempting
Circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the
actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a
there
was
no
aggression
to
defend
against and no defense to speak of.

A may, however, invoke the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance of having
acted in immediate vindication of a grave
acted
offense to a descendant, his daughter,
without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there
under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised
crime
but
the
actor
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
A chanced upon three men who were

attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the
men, was about to stab B with a knife.
Not knowing that B was actually the
aggressor
because
he
had
earlier
challenged the three men to a fight, A

shot C as the latter was about to stab B.
store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia

noticed her bracelet wound around the
right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter
left, Lucresia went to a nearby police
station
and
sought
the
help
of
policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He

went with Lucresia to the house of JunJun 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

fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
continued to run and when he was about

justifying
7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in
stranger
the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell
since he was not involved in the fight and
down but he crawled towards a fence,
he shot C when the latter was about to
intending to pass through an opening
stab B. There being no indication that A
underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about
Yes.
may
circumstance
invoke
of
the
defense
of
was induced by revenge, resentment or
5 meters away, he fired another shot at
any other evil motive in shooting C, his
Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip.
act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of
Pat.
the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
hospital,
Reyes
brought
but
Jun-Jun
because
to
of
the
profuse
bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes

JUSTIFYING; FULFILLMENT OF DUTY;
was
REQUISITES (2000)
homicide. During the trial, Pat Reyes
Lucresia, a storeowner, was robbed of

her bracelet in her home. The following
day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon,
raised
subsequently
the
exoneration,
charged
defense,
that
he
by
acted
with
way
in
of
the
fulfillment of a duty.
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 fulfillment of a duty requires as a
claim tenable? [5%]
condition, inter alia, that the injury or

offense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary
consequence
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
already ceased. Defense of honor as
that
the
of
accused
the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acted
in
fulfillment of a duty.
included in self- defense, must have been
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and

was already crawling, there was no need
for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further.
Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call
done to prevent or repel an unlawful

aggression. There is no defense to speak
of where the unlawful aggression no
longer exists.
of duty which brought about the cause of
JUSTIFYING; DEFENSE
death of the victim.
ELEMENTS (2000)
JUSTIFYING;
SD;
DEFENSE
OF
HONOR; REQUISITES (1998)

One night, Una, a young married woman,
was sound asleep in her bedroom when
she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
was her husband Tito, who came home a
day early from his business trip, Una let
him have sex with her. After the act, the
man said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much
as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it
OF HONOR;
Osang, a married woman in her early

twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the
floor
of
their
nipa
hut
beside
the
seashore when she was awakened by the

act of a man mounting her. Thinking that
it was her husband, Gardo,who had
returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man,
who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to
have sexual intercourse with her. After
Prepared by: LJC
34

Julio satisfied 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
finished, is not defense of honor but an
her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a
immediate vindication of a grave offense
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

claim be sustained? Why? (5%)
JUSTIFYING;
SD;
DEFENSE
OF
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
guard claimed that he merely acted in
necessity
of
the
means
employed to prevent or repel it. The
self-defense
unlawful aggression must be continuing
performance of his duty as a security
when
guard.If you were the judge, would you
the
disabled
aggressor
by
the
was
injured
or
person
making
defense.
property
and
in
the
convict him of homicide? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
But if the aggression that was begun by

the injured or disabled party already
ceased
of
to
exist
when
the
accused
attacked him, as in the case at bar, the

attack made is a retaliation, and not a
defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the
Code does not govern.
Yes. I would convict the security guard for

Homicide if I were the Judge, because his
claim of having acted in defense of
property and in performance of a duty
cannot fully be justified. Even assuming
that the victim was scaling the wall of the
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
justifiable, even admitting that such act
convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%
is considered unlawful aggression on

property rights. In People vs. Narvaes,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to
The
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
like in Narvaes, the second element
aggression on his person is not justified.
(reasonable
means
Defense of property or property right
employed) is absent. Hence, he should
does not justify the act of firing 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
JUSTIFYING;
necessity
SD;
of
the
DEFENSE
OF
PROPERTY; REQUISITES (2003)

The accused lived with his family in a
neighborhood that often was the scene of
frequent robberies. At one time, past
accused
when
should
there
be
is
convicted
no
unlawful
immediate danger. Although the accused

acted out of a misapprehension of the
facts, he is not absolved from criminal
liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
midnight, the accused went downstairs
Considering
with a loaded gun to investigate what he
namely; the frequent robberies in the
thought were footsteps of an uninvited
neighborhood,
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 fired his gun
his
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
on his way to the kitchen to get some
danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to
house,
in
the
the
given
the
circumstances,
time
accused
immediate
was
could
and
past
have
imminent
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 definition
mistake of fact and therefore without
of a crime, like treachery in the crime of
criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact
murder.
negatives
absolves
criminal
the
intent
accused
and
from
thus
criminal
liability.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (2007)

Macky, a security guard, arrived home
QUALIFYING; ELEMENTS OF A CRIME

(2003)
late one night after rendering overtime.

He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
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:
A
qualifying
exceptional
circumstance
would
be
deemed an element of a crime when -
circumstances
exonerated
Macky
of
murder
and
but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably

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
crime
Did the court correctly order Macky to
involved, otherwise some other
pay indemnity even though he was
to
the
crime is committed; and

c. it is specifically alleged in the
exonerated
of
murder?
Explain
your
answer. (10%)
Information and proven during

the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the court did not act correctly in
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 specifically
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

pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79
Phil.
672
[1947])
banishment
Obviously, Jakes mother was aware of
(destierro) is intended more for the
her sons having committed a felony,
protection of the offender 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
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.
Revised
that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Penal
Code
is
liability.
On the other hand, the criminal liability
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
of Jakes aunt depends on her knowledge
Yes, because the crime punishable by

destierro was committed, which is death
under exceptional circumstances under
Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES;
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake

went to his mother to seek refuge. His
mother told him to hide in the maids
quarters until she finds a better place for
to
hide.
After
two
days,
of harboring and concealing Jake would

render her criminally liable as accessory
to
the
crime
of
murder;
otherwise
without knowledge of Jakes commission
ACCESSORIES; ASCENDANTS (2010)
him
of his commission of the felony, her act
Jake
transferred to his aunts house. A week

later, Jake was apprehended by the
police. Can Jakes mother and aunt be
of the felony, she would not be liable.

EXEMPTING
CIRCUMSTANCES;
INSANITY (2010)
While
his
wife
was
on
2-year
scholarship abroad, Romeo was having

an
affair
Realizing
with
that
his
the
maid
affair
Dulcinea.
was
going
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she

was going back to the province to marry
her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
Prepared by: LJC
38

anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
an
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping
Realizing
in the maids quarters.
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she
The following day, Romeo was found

catatonic inside the maids quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed
to
be
mentally
unstable.
affair
with
that
his
the
maid
affair
Dulcinea.
was
going
was going back to the province to marry

her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by
anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled
Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping
in the maids quarters.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded
The following day, Romeo was found
insanity as a defense.
catatonic inside the maids quarters. He
Will
Romeos
defense
prosper?
Explain. (2%)
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded
No, Romeos defense of insanity will not

prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was insane when diagnosed
after he committed the crime, insanity as
a defense to the commission of crime
must have existed and proven to be so
existing at the precise moment when the
crime was being committed. The fact of
the case indicate that Romeo committed
the crime with discernment.
his
CIRCUMSTANCES;
wife
was
on
insanity as a defense.
What is the effect of the diagnosis
of the NCMH on the case? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The effect of the diagnosis made by
NCMH is possibly a suspension of the
proceedings
2-year
scholarship abroad, Romeo was having
Romeo
and
his
until
he
could
already
understand the proceedings.

JUSTIFYING
against
commitment to appropriate institution for

treatment
INSANITY; EFFECT (2010)

While
Mental Health (NCMH) where he was

diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
EXEMPTING
was brought to the National Center for
BATTERED
CIRCUMSTANCES;
WOMAN
SYNDROME
(2010)
Prepared by: LJC
39

Jack and Jill have been married for seven
found by the courts to be suffering from
years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
battered woman syndrome do not incur
Finding no food on the table, Jack started
any
hitting Jill only to apologize the following
notwithstanding the absence of any of
day.
the elements for justifying circumstances
A week later, the same episode occurred

Jack came home drunk and started
hitting Jill.
criminal
and
civil
liability
of self-defense under the Revised Penal

Code.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed
MITIGATING;
with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent
(2000)
NON-INTOXICATION
her floral arrangements of spotted lilies

and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill
Despite
returned home and decided to give Jack
campaign in media against firecrackers
another
days,
and gun-firing during the New Year's
however, Jack again came home drunk.
celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten
The following day, he was found dead.
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue,
chance.
After
several
the
massive
advertising
Bulacan. Before midnight of December

Jill was charged with parricide but raised
31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their
the
celebration by having a drinking spree at
defense
of
"battered
woman
syndrome."
Would the defense prosper despite the
absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain.
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262
provides that victim-survivors who are
Jona's place by exploding their highpowered
firecrackers
in
their
neighborhood. In the course of their

conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that
he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the
latter's refusal to lend him some money.
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas
started
throwing
lighted
super
lolos
inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and

the same exploded inside the 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

to stop his malicious act or he would get
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
what he wanted. A heated argument
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja
the
tried
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)....
to
calm
down
his
friend.
complex
crime
of
ATTEMPTED
use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his

arrogance. Jonas thought that after all,
b) If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will
explosions were everywhere and nobody
use the following defenses:
would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja
That the accused had no intention to
lent his firearm 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
his
gun
but
missed
his
target.
will
power
or
capacity
to
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five 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.
a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and

Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)
b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer,
Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art. 15,

RPC.).
MITIGATING; PLEA OF GUILTY (1999)
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
the crime charged;
of
competent
jurisdiction,
he
pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon

arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before
the RTC be considered spontaneous and
thus
entitle
him
to
the
mitigating
circumstance of spontaneous plea of

guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
2. That such plea was MADE BEFORE

THE COURT COMPETENT to try the
case and render judgment; and
3. That such plea was made PRIOR TO
THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE
for the prosecution.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional
MITIGATING;
Trial
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER (1997)
Court
can
be
considered
spontaneous, for which he is entitled to

the mitigating circumstance of plea of
guilty. His plea of not guilty before the
Municipal Court is immaterial as it was
made during preliminary investigation
only and before a court not competent to
render judgment.
MITIGATING;
PLEA
OF
GUILTY;
After killing the victim, the accused

absconded. He succeeded in eluding the
police until he surfaced and surrendered
to the authorities about two years later.
Charged with murder, he pleaded not
guilty but, after the prosecution had
presented two witnesses implicating him
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,
voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be
what
requisites
must
be
complied with? (2%)
considered in favor of the accused?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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,
because
policemen,
it
was
done
spontaneously,
accompanied
went
to
by
several
Hilario's
house.
indicative of the remorse or repentance
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching
on
and
policemen, came down from his house to
therefore, by his surrender, the accused
meet them and voluntarily went with
saved the Government expenses, efforts,
them
and time.
investigated
the
part
of
said
accused
to
the
Police
in
Station
connection
to
with
be
the
killing. When eventually charged with
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on

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
Ablao, 183 SCRA 658). For sure the
circumstance? Explain.
Voluntary
surrender
government
had
may
not
already
incurred
considerable efforts and expenses in

looking for the accused.
Plea
of
guilty
can
no
longer
be
because the prosecution had already

with
the
presentation
of
its
evidence (Art. 13, par. 7. Revised Penal

Code).
MITIGATING;
to
such
mitigating
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance

started
entitled
circumstance of voluntary surrender. The

crux of the issue is whether the fact that
Hilario went home after the incident, but
came down and met the police officers
and
went
with
them
is
considered
"Voluntary surrender," The voluntariness

of surrender is tested if the same is
VOLUNTARY
SURRENDER (1996)
spontaneous showing the intent of the

accused
to
submit
himself
unconditionally to the authorities. This

Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a
must
scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the
acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he

Prepared by: LJC
43
be
either
(a)
because
he

wishes to save them the trouble and
expenses, time and effort in tracking
expenses
necessarily
down the offender's whereabouts; and
search
and
incurred
in
capture.
his
(Reyes'
Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of

the accused in hiding after commission of
c. made to a person in authority or the

latter's agents.
the crime, but voluntarily went with the

policemen who had gone to his hiding
MITIGATING;
place to investigate, was held to be
SURRENDER (2009)
mitigating
circumstance.(People
VOLUNTARY
vs.
Dayrit, cited in Reyes' Commentaries, p.
Voluntary
299)
circumstance in all acts and omissions

punishable
MITIGATING;
VOLUNTARY
surrender
under
is
the
mitigating
Revised
Penal
Code.
SURRENDER; ELEMENTS (1999)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When
is
surrender
by
an
accused
considered voluntary, and constitutive of
False,
the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
appreciated
surrender? (3%)
negligence under Art. 365 since in such

cases,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
when
indicative
of
an
it
the
surrender
in
cases
courts
are
is
spontaneous,
intent
to
submit
Art.
62
regarding
PRIVILEGE
to
What
indicative
of
and
MITIGATING
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:

i.e.,
authorized
aggravating circumstances.
CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)
spontaneous,
be
criminal
mitigating
unconditionally to the authorities.
a.
of
may
imposed a penalty without considering
A surrender by an offender is considered

voluntary
Voluntary
is
privileged
mitigating
circumstance? (5%)
acknowledgment of guilt and not for
Privileged mitigating circumstances are
convenience nor conditional;
those that mitigate criminal liability of
b. made before the government incurs
the crime being modified to one or two

Prepared by: LJC
44

degrees
cannot
lower.
be
These
off-
circumstance.
set
circumstance has the effect of reducing
aggravating
the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b)
by
of
Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be
exemption
off-set by the aggravating circumstances.
(when majority of the conditions are
Privileged mitigating circumstances are
present),
not subject to the offset rule.
incomplete
The
circumstances
circumstance
justification
and
the
or
circumstance
of
minority (if the child above 15 years of

age
acted
with
discernment)
are
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
privileged mitigating circumstances.
AGGRAVATING
PRIVILEGE
(1996)
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE
VS.
ORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando,
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (2012)
armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in
Distinguish
the
privileged
mitigating
morning,
robbed
house
at
circumstance from an ordinary mitigating
desolate place where Danilo, his wife,
circumstance as to reduction of penalty
and three daughters were living. While
and
the
offsetting
against
aggravating
four
ransacking
circumstance/s. (5%)
were
in
Danilo's
the
process
house,
of
Fernando,
noticing that one of Danilo's daughters

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was trying to get away, ran after her and
The distinction between ordinary and

privilege mitigating circumstances are:
(a) Under the rules for application of
divisible penalties (Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code), the presence of a
mitigating circumstance, has the effect of
applying
the
divisible
penalty
in
its
minimum period. Under the rules on
finally caught up with her in a thicket

somewhat
distant
Fernando,
before
from
the
bringing
house.
back
the
daughter to the house, raped her first.

Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family.
a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo
and Fernando commit? Explain.
graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and

69), the presence of privileged mitigating
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four

took turns in raping the three daughters
Prepared by: LJC
45

of Danilo inside the latter's house, but

before they left, they killed the whole
family to prevent identification, what
crime did the four commit? Explain.
offenders
took
advantage
of
because
the
nighttime;
3. dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place
house
where
the
committed
aggravating
place" and obviously the offenders
may
be
took
appreciated against the four? Explain.
advantage
circumstance
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"at
were
c. Under the facts of the case, what

circumstances
was
crimes
in
desolate
of
this
committing
crime.
a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed
AGGRAVATING
Robbery,
GENERIS VS. QUALIFYING (1999)
while
the
Fernando
committed
CIRCUMSTANCES;
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 identification) and on

the occasion of the robbery. The multiple
rapes
committed
and
the
fact
that
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
several persons were killed [homicide),

would
be
considered
circumstances.
synonymous
additional
with
killing
The
as
aggravating
rapes
Ignominy
and
synonymous
a. affects only the imposition of the
are
penalty prescribed, but not the
the
nature of the crime committed;

b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating
with
cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA;

People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
c) The aggravating circumstances which
may be considered in the premises are:
circumstances;
c. need not be
Information
as
alleged
long
as
in
the
proven
during the trial, the same shall be

considered
in
imposing
the
sentence.
1. Band because all the four offenders
are armed;
2. Noctumity because evidently the
Qualifying
Aggravating
Circumstances:
Prepared by: LJC
46

a. must
be
alleged
in
the
Information and proven during

trial;
cannot
circumstances;
by
mitigating
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or
those that change the nature of the

crime to a graver one, or brings about a
c. affects the nature of the crime

or brings about a penalty higher
in degree than that ordinarily
penalty
next
higher
cannot
be
offset
in
degree,
by
and
mitigating
circumstances;
4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those
prescribed.
that
AGGRAVATING
offset
circumstances:
3)
b. cannot be offset by mitigating
be
CIRCUMSTANCES;
KINDS & PENALTIES (1999)
essentially
accompany
the
commission of the crime and does not

affect the penalty whatsoever.
Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating

circumstances and state their effect on
AGGRAVATING;
CRUELTY;
RELATIONSHIP (1994)
the penalty of crimes and nature thereof.

Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire,
(3%)
poked a gun on his daughter Zeny,

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
four(4)
kinds
forcibly undressed her and tied her legs

of
aggravating
to the bed. He also burned her face with

a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he
circumstances are:
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
offset
by
mitigating
circumstances, but if not offset, would

affect only the maximum of the penalty
prescribed by law;
2)
SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those
that apply only to particular crimes and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face
with
lighted
deliberately
cigarette,
augmenting
the
thereby
victim's
suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to

Prepared by: LJC
47

the rape, while the offender delighted
The circumstances of using poison, in
and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in
consideration of a promise or reward, and
pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).
cruelty which attended the killing of Rico
b) Relationship, because the offended

party is a descendant (daughter) of the
offender and considering that the crime
is one against chastity.
could only be appreciated as generic

aggravating circumstances since none of
them
have
information
been
to
alleged
qualify
the
in
killing
the
to
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,
member
fraternity,
was
of
killed
the
by
Alpha
Rho
Pocholo,
member of the rival group, Sigma Phi

Omega.
Pocholo
was
prosecuted
for
homicide before the Regional Trial Court

in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the
prosecution was able to prove that the
killing
was
committed
by
means
of
poison in consideration of a promise or

reward and with cruelty. If you were the
Judge, with what crime will you convict
Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
AGGRAVATING;
NIGHTTIME;
BAND
(1994)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino
and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura
Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a
rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy
approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve,
Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting
Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.
Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and Johnny were charged with homicide.

Pocholo should be convicted of the crime
of
homicide
only
because
the
aggravating circumstances which should

qualify the crime to murder were not
alleged in the Information.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating

circumstances of nighttime and band?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as
Prepared by: LJC
48

an aggravating circumstance because
No,
there is no indication that the offenders
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 different from
or that they took advantage of nighttime
that of habitual delinquency.
(People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).

Besides, judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that Padre Faura Street is welllighted.
the
appeal
is
not
meritorious.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been

previously convicted by final judgment
for theft and again found guilty for
Robbery with Homicide, which are both
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,
aggravating in the conviction for Robbery
AGGRAVATING; RECIDIVISM (2001)
with Homicide.
Juan de Castro already had three (3)

previous convictions by final judgment
for theft when he was found guilty of
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,
the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual
Habitual delinquency, which brings about

an additional penalty when an offender is
convicted a third time or more for
specified
crimes,
is
AGGRAVATING;
contended that in his last conviction, the
QUASI-RECIDIVISM (1998)
trial court cannot consider against him a

habitual
of
recidivism
delinquency.
and,
Is
again,
the
of
appeal
correctly
considered ...
delinquency. The accused appealed and
finding
hence
Distinguish
RECIDIVISM
between
recidivism
VS.
and
quasi-recidivism. [2%]
meritorious? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism Prepared by: LJC
49

1. The convictions of the offender 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
2. This
circumstance
is
generic
aggravating and therefore can be

effect by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved

to kill victim. He rose from bed and took
of
1. The convictions are not for crimes

embraced in the same Title of the
Revised Penal Code, provided that
it is a felony that was committed
the
between his wife and the victim, he could
hold of a knife. He entered the apartment
Whereas in quasi-recidivlsm -
by
annoyed over the suspected relation
offender
before
serving
the
window.
victim
Inside,
through
he
an
saw
unlocked
the
victim
soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed

the victim, inflicting several wounds,
which caused his death within a few
hours.
sentence by final 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

2. This circumstance is a special
circumstances of evident premeditation,
aggravating
circumstance
cannot be offset by any mitigating

circumstance.
AGGRAVATING;
treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
which
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.
TREACHERY
&
Evident
premeditation
cannot
be
considered against the accused because

he resolved to kill the victim "later in the
UNLAWFUL ENTRY (1997)
night" and there was no sufficient lapse

The accused and the victim occupied
of time between the determination and
adjacent
execution, to allow his conscience to
apartments,
each
being
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
the
during which A stabbed B. As a result, B
execution of the act without risk himself
suffered serious physical injuries. May
arising from the defense which the victim
the
might have made (People vs. Dequina.
aggravating or mitigating? (5%)
and
specially
insured
60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et at. 90

Phil. 91).
3.
Nighttime
cannot
be
appreciated
because there is no showing that the

accused deliberately sought or availed of
nighttime to insure the success of his act.
The Intention to commit the crime was
conceived shortly before its commission
(People vs Pardo. 79 Phil, 568). Moreover,
nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
an
aggravating
circumstance,
inasmuch as the accused entered the

is
not
the
proper
place
be
considered
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie
considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the
crime.
It
may
aggravating
as
not
be
there
considered
is
no
clear
indication from the facts of the case that

it was habitual or intentional on the part
of A. Aggravating circumstances are not
beyond reasonable doubt
PERSONS Criminally Liable for
FELONIES
room of the victim through the window,

which
of
to be presumed; they should be proved
4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated

as
intoxication
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
ALTERNATIVE
CIRCUMSTANCES;
INTOXICATION (2002)
known
as
the
Anti-Fencing
Law,
for
having been found to be in possession of

recently
stolen
Jewelry
valued
at
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 testified during the trial that she
robbery or theft. Besides, she should
merely bought the same from one named
have
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

of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or
her acquittal on appeal, contending that
followed
ANTI-FENCING
the
LAW;
administrative
FENCING
VS.
THEFT OR ROBBERY (1995)
the prosecution failed to prove that she
What is the difference 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken
One difference 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
from someone whose whereabouts is
bought or profited from the proceeds of
unknown,
the
theft or robbery arising from robbery in
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.
does
presumption
of
not
overcome
fencing
against
than
the
principal,
unless
he
the buyer on caveat because of the

phrases that he should have known or
Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and

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
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
all the acts of one who is an accessory to

crimes
of
robbery
said
article,
item,
object or anything of value has

been derived from the from the
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that

the
that
or
theft
are
proceeds of the crime of robbery

or theft; and
iv. there is on
the
part
of
the
included in the acts defined 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]

ANTI-FENCING
LAW;
FENCING;
King went to the house of Laura who was

alone. Laura offered him a drink and after
consuming three bottles of beer. King
ELEMENTS (1995)
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;
ii. accused, who is not a principal or
and washed the bloodstains inside the
accomplice in the crime, buys,
room.
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.
receives,
possesses,
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:
King committed the composite crime of
Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense,
not
complex
crime,
and
Theft. ...
LIABILITY;
NON-
EXEMPTION AS ACCESSORY (2004)

DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the
earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned
Doming's acts, having been done with

knowledge of the commission of the
crime and obviously to conceal the body
of the crime to prevent its discovery,
makes him an accessory to the crime of
rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2
of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt
from
CRIMINAL
criminal
liability
therefor
under
Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted

brother of the principal.
the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a

pledge for P500 loan. During the trial,
MCB raised the defense that being the
mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable
as an accessory. Will MCB's defense
prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,
MCB's
defense
will
not
prosper
because the exemption from criminal

liability of an accessory by virtue of
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an
relationship with the principal does not
accessory
cover
to
the
crime
of
theft
accessories
who
themselves
committed by King, or as fence. Although
profited from or assisted the offender to
he is a legitimate brother of King, the
profit by the effects or proceeds of the
exemption under Article 20 does not
crime.
include the participation he did, because
accessory, though related to the principal
he profited from the effects 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

be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-
This
non-exemption
of
an
CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY

DIRECT
PARTICIPATION;
Prepared by: LJC
CO54

PRINCIPAL
BY
INDISPENSABLE
COOPERATION (2000)
Despite
the
massive
advertising

firecrackers
in
their


started started throwing lighted super
lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order
to provoke him so that he would come
out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .
45 caliber gun but missed his target.
If you were the Judge, how would you
decide the case? Explain. (1%)

started
throwing
lighted
super
lolos
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would convict Jonas as principal by
direct
principal by Indispensable cooperation
for the complex crime of murder with
homicide. Jaja should be held liable as
co-principal
accomplice because he knew of Jonas'
criminal design even before he lent his
firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in
tried
that criminal design by providing the
to
calm
down
his
friend.
At
participation
and
and
not
Jaja
only
as
as
co-
an
firearm.

Prepared by: LJC
55

CRIMINAL LIABILITY; PRINCIPAL BY

INDUCEMENT (2002)
(1994)
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
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
no
money
to
finance
the
total loss.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal
by inducement because the reward he
promised B is not the sole impelling
reason which made B to kill C. To bring
about criminal liability of a co-principal,
the inducement made by the inducer
must be the sole consideration which
caused the person induced to commit the
crime and without which the crime would
not have been committed. The facts of
the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own
What is their respective criminal liability?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata
is
principal
by
inducement
because she directly induced Yoboy and

Yongsi,
for
price
or
monetary
consideration, to commit arson which the

latter would not have committed were it
not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are
principals by direct participation (Art. 17,
pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
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;
INDUCEMENT
&
PRINCIPAL;
PARTICIPATION
wanted to construct a new building but

had
no
money
to
finance
Prepared by: LJC
the
56

construction. So, she insured the building
No. V. a. Ponciano borrowed Rubens 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,
total loss.
Freddie, but used a knife because he did
What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi

commit?
ha."
Later,
Ponciano
killed
not want Freddies neighbors to hear the

gunshot.
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
Rubens liability is that of an accomplice
property by means of fire under the
only because he merely cooperated in
circumstances which exposed to danger
Poncianos 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 Rubens

gun. Neither way Ruben may be regarded
ACCOMPLICE (2012)
as a co-conspirator since he was not a

participant in the decision-making of
Who is an accomplice? (5%)
Ponciono
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
principal,
cooperate
kill
Freddie;
he
merely
cooperated in carrying out the plan which
Accomplices are those persons who, not

being
to
in
the
was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
execution of the offense by previous or

simultaneous acts (Article 18)
Ruben cannot be held liable as an

accomplice
ACCOMPLICE (2009)
in
the
killing
of
Freddie
because his act of lending his gun to

Prepared by: LJC
57

Ponciano
did
not
have
the
relation
other killing. Poncianos using Rubens
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 Rubens 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, Rubens act in

lending his gun was not a necessary act
to enable Ponciano to consummate the
crime.
the gun knew it would be used to kill a

particular person, but the offender used
it to kill another person, the owner of the
ACCOMPLICE (2009)
gun is not an accomplice as to the killing
Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying

that he would use it to kill Freddie.
Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he
readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano:
"O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad,
It has been ruled that when the owner of
ha."
Later,
Ponciano
of the other person. While there was

community of design to kill Freddie
between Ponciano and Ruben, there was
none
with
respect
to
the
killing
of
Manuel.
killed
Freddie, but used a knife because he did

not want Freddies neighbors to hear the
gunshot.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the answer would be the same
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 Rubens gun? Explain.
It is of no moment who was killed so long
(3%)
as Ruben is aware when he lent the gun
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same
because Ruben lent his gun purposely for
the killing of Freddie only, not for any
that it would be used to commit a crime.

ACCOMPLICE
VS.
CONSPIRATOR
(2012)
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
for
the
requisites/elements
to
be
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
crime. (5%)
execution
of
considered
also
conspirator
for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conspirator are as follows:

VS.
as
the
crime
are
acts
of
purposes
a
of
criminal design or plan is already in
CONSPIRATOR
place;
whereas
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:

accomplice
the
in
execution of a crime when the
(2007)
1. An
participants
collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the
The differences between accomplice and
ACCOMPLICE
other
penalty one degree lower than that

incurs
of
criminal
principal;
whereas
liability by merely cooperating in
conspirator incurs the penalty of a
the execution of the crime without
principal.
participating as a principal, by prior

simultaneous
conspirator
acts;
whereas
participates
the
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from
commission of a crime as a co-
Inigo for P500,000. While driving his
principal.
2. An accomplice
incurs
in
criminal
liability in an individual capacity by

his act alone of cooperating in the
newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor

accident that made the examination of
his
vehicle's
Registration
Certificate
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,
the vehicle against those reflected in the
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or
Registration Certificate, he found the
buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
chassis
be
any article or object taken during that
Registration
robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or
Certificate 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 Inigo, 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
Certificate.
motor
carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto
numbers on the Fortuner were found,
who did not take part in the crime.
upon
Roberto should have known also that the
and
different
motor
from
numbers
what
The
the
chassis
verification
with
and
the
to
Land
receives,
keeps,
Transportation Office, to correspond to a
car was
vehicle
properly documented as the deed of sale
previously
reported
as
carnapped.
stolen
possesses,
because it was
not
and registration certificate did not reflect
Roberto claimed that he was in good

faith; Inigo sold him a carnapped vehicle
and he did not know that he was buying
a carnapped vehicle.
the correct numbers of the vehicles

engine and chassis. Apparently, he made
no effort to check the papers covering his
purchase. Lastly, Robertos defense of
good faith is flawed because Presidential
If you were the prosecutor, would you or
Decree
1612
is
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
fencing are: 1) a robbery or theft has

been committed; 2) the accused, who
The
facts
given
show
that
Roberto
bought the car form Inigo; that a deed

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 Certificate;
the charge prosper? Why or why not?
that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer
(5%)
in
good
faith
and
lacking
of
any
knowledge that the subject car is a

carnapped vehicle.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the charge of fencing will not
As against the foregoing, there is only a

certificate from the Land Transportation
Office showing that the vehicle had been
previously reported as carnapped.
prosper. Fencing is committed when a

person, with intent to gain foe himself or
for another, deals in any manner with an
article of value which he knows or should
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
of
fencing to prosper, it must first be
authorship of the theft upon a person
established that a theft or robbery of the
found
stolen
article subject of the alleged fencing has
personal property finds 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
the
vehicle,
in
the
possession
presumption
of
the
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:
False,
fencing
is
admitted
committed
if
the
accused should have known that the

goods or articles had been the subject of
theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere
possession of the stolen goods gives rise
to
the
prima
facie
presumption
of
fencing.
LIABILITY;
ACCESSORIES
(2013)
Sometime
their
loot
had
been
deposited with Abelardo.

What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Abelardo is not criminally liable.
To be criminally liable as an accessory
CRIMINAL
Modesto
that
under Article 19 of the Code, such person

must have knowledge of the commission
of the crime. The term knowledge
and
in
Abelardo
August,
are
brothers.
1998
while
Abelardo was in his office, Modesto,

together with two other men in police
uniform, came with two heavy bags.
Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two
bags in his vault until he comes back to
get them. When Abelardo
later examined the two bags, he saw
bundles of money that, in his rough
count, could not be less than P5 Million.
He kept the money inside the vault and
soon he heard the news that a gang that
under the law is not synonymous with

suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime
has been committed is not sufficient.
Moreover, the facts as given in the
problem would show lack or absent of
intent to conceal the effects of the crime
as
Abelardo
unsure
of
is
what
described
to
do
as
being
under
the
circumstances.
Even if he can be considered as an
accessory under paragraph 2 of Article
19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the
Prepared by: LJC
62

brother of Modesto under Article 20, RPC.
Distinguish
the
following
from
each
other:
PENALTIES
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPLEX
CRIME
VS.
COMPOUND
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made
CRIME (2004)
up of two or more crimes being punished

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between
in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal
compound
Code but alleged in one information
and
complex
crimes
as
concepts in the Penal Code.
either because they were brought about
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
by a single felonious act or because one

offense
COMPOUND
result
committed
only
when
necessary
means
for
the
committing the other offense or offenses.
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,
modified form in the first 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
offender
CRIMES
is
grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are

excluded even though resulting from the
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other
same single act.
hand, is made up of two or more crimes

which
COMPLEX
CRIMES
result
when
the
are
components
considered
of
single
only
as
indivisible
offender has to commit an offense as a
offense being punished in one provision
necessary means for committing another
of
offense. Only one information shall be
penalties, special complex crime, only
filed and if proven, the penalty for the
one penalty is specifically prescribed for
more serious crime shall be imposed.
all the component crimes which are
COMPLEX
CRIME
COMPLEX
CRIME
CONTINUADO (2005)
VS.
VS.
SPECIAL
DELITO
the
Revised
Penal
Code.
As
to
regarded as one indivisible offense. The

component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the
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 specifically provided for
hit instead somebody who was not the
the special complex crime that shall be
intended victim. Error in personae, or
applied
mistake in identity occurs when the
according
to
the
rules
on
imposition of the penalty.
felonious act was directed at the person
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS

CRIME, is a term used to denote as only
one crime a series of felonious acts
arising from a single criminal resolution,
not susceptible of division, which are
carried out in the same place and at
about the same time, and violating one
and the same penal provision. The acts
done must be impelled by one criminal
intent or purpose, such that each act
intended, but who turned out to be

somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings
about
at
least
two
(2)
felonious
consequence, ie. the attempted felony on

the intended victim who was not hit and
the felony on the unintended victim who
was hit. A complex crime of the first form
under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In
error in personae only one crime is
committed
merely constitutes a partial execution of
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS,
a particular crime, violating one and the
ERROR IN PERSONAE & PRAETER
same
INTENTIONEM (1999)
penal
provision.
It
involves
concurrence of felonious acts violating a

common
right,
common
penal
provision, and Impelled by a single cri

COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS
VS. ERROR IN PERSONAE (1994)
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in
personae.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow
What do you understand by aberratio

ictus: error in personae; and praeter
intentionem? Do they alter the criminal
liability of an accused? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow
occurs when the offender delivered the
blow at his intended victim but missed,
and instead such blow landed on an
Prepared by: LJC
64

unintended
victim.
The
situation
or
expected.
This
is
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 offender
namely the attempt against the intended
and
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

maximum period. It is only when the
resulting felonies are only light that
complex crimes do not result and the
the
resulting
felony,
i,e.,
the
COMPLEX CRIME; ABERRATIO ICTUS;

ATTEMPTED
MURDER
WITH
HOMICIDE (2000)
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for
Despite
each resulting crime.
ERROR
identity
IN
PERSONAE
occurs
or
when
mistake
the
in
offender
actually hit the person to whom the blow

was
directed
different
but
from
turned
and
not
out
to
be
the
victim
intended. The criminal liability of the

offender
is
not
affected,
unless
the
mistake in identity resulted to a crime

different from what the offender intended
to commit, in which case the lesser
penalty between the crime intended and
the crime committed shall be imposed
but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
RFC).
the
massive
advertising

firecrackers
in
their

started
throwing
lighted
super
lolos
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the
consequence went beyond that intended

Prepared by: LJC
65

homicide because a single act caused a
less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48.
RPC).

tried
to
calm
down
his
friend.
At
Attempted murder is a less grave felony,

while consummated homicide is a grave
felony: both are punishable by afflictive
penalties.
COMPLEX
ABERRATIO ICTUS; NOT APPLICABLE
(1996)
CRIME;
DOCTRINE
OF

At the height of an altercation, Pedrito
shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio
started throwing lighted super lolos and
instead, resulting in the death of the
pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to
latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of
provoke him so that he would come out
aberratio ictus, claims exemption from
of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas
criminal liability.If you were the judge,
immediately shot him with Jaja's .45
how would you decide the case?
caliber
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
gun
but
missed
his
target.

If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito
and find him guilty of the complex crime

of Homicide with Attempted Homicide.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas
The single act of firing at Paulo resulted
and Jaja be charged with? Explain.
in the commission of two felonies, one
(2%)
grave (homicide) and the other less
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
grave (attempted homicide) thus falling

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
years).
require. Moreover, the crime of
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow)

could not be used as a defense as it is
not an exempting circumstance. Pedrito
is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC,
which makes a person criminally liable
for
all
the
natural
and
logical
consequences of his felonious act
rebellion
does
not
so
coup d'etat may be committed

singly, whereas rebellion requires a
public uprising and taking up arms
to overthrow the duly constituted
government. Since the two crimes
are
essentially
different
and
punished with distinct penalties,

there is no legal impediment to the
COMPLEX CRIMES; COUP DETAT &
application of Art. 48 of the Revised
REBELLION & SEDITION (2003)
Penal Code.
a. Yes, coup
d'etat
can
1) Can there be a complex crime of coup
complexed
d'etat with rebellion? 2%
because the two crimes are
2) Can there be a complex crime of coup

d'etat with sedition? 2%
essentially
there
different
and
distinctly punished under the

may not be directed against
the
if
sedition
Revised Penal Code. Sedition
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1.) Yes,
with
be
was
Government
or
non-
conspiracy
political in objective, whereas
between the offender/ offenders
coup d'etat is always political
committing the coup d'etat and the
in objective as it is directed
offenders committing the rebellion.
against the Government and
By conspiracy, the crime of one
led
would be the crime of the other
officer holding public office
and vice versa. This is possible
belonging to the military or
because the offender 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.
by
persons
or
public
national police or a public officer,

Prepared by: LJC
67

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of coup d'etat cannot be
to
just
one
penalty
of
reclusion
perpetua.
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,

although
the
principal
offenders
are
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
different. The essence may be the same
The decision of the trial judge is not
and thus constitute only one crime. In
correct. When the offender made use of
this situation, the two crimes are not
an automatic firearm, 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
COMPLEX CRIMES; DETERMINATION

OF THE CRIME (1999)
inasmuch
as
the
firearm
being automatic, the offender need only

press the trigger once and it would fire
continually. For each death caused by a
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,
the several felonies, but the number of
automatic
fire.
Four
(4)
persons were killed thereby, each having

hit by different bullets coming from the
sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of
murder were filed against A.
The trial court ruled that there was only
one crime committed by A for the reason
that, since A performed only one act, he
having pressed the trigger of his gun only
once, the crime committed was murder.
bullets which actually produced them.

COMPLEX
CRIMES;
NATURE
&
PENALTY INVOLVED (1999)

What constitutes a complex crime? How
many
crimes
maybe
involved
in
complex crime? What is the penalty

therefor? (4%)
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 offense or offenses.
less grave felonies or when an offense is
They are alleged in one Information so
committed as a necessary means to
that only one penalty shall be imposed.
commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At

least two (2) crimes are involved in a
complex crime; either two or more grave
or less grave felonies resulted from a
single act, or an offense is committed as
a
necessary
means
for
committing
another. The penalty for the more serious

crime
shall
be
imposed
and
in
its
maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)

COMPLEX
COMPLEX
CRIMES;
CRIME
hand, is made up of two or more crimes

which
are
components
considered
of
single
only
as
indivisible
offense being punished in one provision

of the Revised Penal Code.
AS
TO
PENALTIES
-In
ORDINARY
COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the
ORDINARY
VS.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other
SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIME (2003)
most serious crime shall be imposed and

in its maximum period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one
Distinguish between an ordinary complex

crime and a special complex crime as to
their concepts and as to the imposition of
penalties. 2%
penalty is specifically prescribed for all

the
component
crimes
which
are
regarded as one indivisible offense. The

component crimes are not regarded as
distinct crimes and so the penalty for the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
most serious crime is not the penalty to

be imposed nor in its maximum period. It
IN CONCEPT -
is the penalty specifically provided for
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made
the special complex crime that shall be
up of two or more crimes being punished
applied
in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal
imposition of the penalty.
Code but alleged in one Information

either because they were brought about
by a single felonious act or because one
offense
is
necessary
means
for
according
to
the
rules
on
CONTINUING OFFENSE VS. DELITO

CONTINUADO (1994)
Differentiate delito continuado from a
Prepared by: LJC
69

continuing offense.
continuado
mandates
that
only
one
information should be filed against the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
offender although a series of felonious
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS
acts
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

carried out in the same place and at
were
performed;
the
term
DEATH PENALTY (2004)
about the same time, and violating one
The death penalty cannot be inflicted
and the same penal provision. The acts
under which the following circumstances:
done must be impelled by one criminal

intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of
a particular crime, violating one and the
same
penal
provision.
It
involves
concurrence of felonious acts violating a

common
right,
provision,
and
common
impelled
by
1. When the guilty person is at least

18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime.
2. When the guilty person is more
than 70 years of age.
3. When, upon appeal to or automatic
penal
review by the Supreme Court, the
single
required majority for the imposition

of
criminal impulse (People vs. Le- desma,
the
OFFENSE
other
is
death
penalty
is
not
obtained.
4. When the person is convicted of a
73 SCRA 77).
On
the
hand,
one
CONTINUING
whose
essential
ingredients took place in more than one
capital crime but before execution

becomes insane.
5. When the accused is a woman
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 briefly.
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 "inflicted" to

mean
the
penalty,
imposition
not
its
of
the
death
execution,
the
circumstance in which the death penalty

cannot be inflicted is no. 2: "when the
guilty person is more than 70 years of
age" (Art.
47,
Revised
Penal
Code).
executed and while he is insane.

Likewise,
the
death
penalty
can
be
imposed upon a woman but its execution

shall be suspended during her pregnancy
and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted

to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
The word "INFLICTED" is found only in
penalties provided in Article 40, RFC.
Art. 83 to the effect that the death

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.
time of the commission of the crime, the
construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is
death penalty can be imposed since the
the choice.
If
"INFLICTED"
is
to
be
offender is already of legal age when he

DEATH PENALTY; QUALIFIED RAPE;
committed the crime.
REQUISITES (2004)
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
considering the decision of the Supreme
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece,
Court in People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R.
and he was sentenced to death. It was
147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an
alleged in the information that the victim
intermediate review for such cases where
was a minor below seven years old, and
the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
her mother testified that she was only six
perpetua or life imprisonment before
years and ten months old, which her aunt
they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
corroborated on the witness stand. The

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

shall be suspended when the convict
On automatic review before the Supreme
becomes
Court, accused-appellant contends that
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
charges and the insufficiency of the
victim's
evidence to prove all the elements of the
member of the family, by
heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable
consanguinity or affinity, who
doubt. Is appellant's contention correct?
is
Reason briefly. (5%)
matters respecting pedigree
and
credible
mother
qualified
to
of
or
testify
the
any
on
such as the exact age or date
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of birth of the offended 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 sufficient but only
has not been proved beyond reasonable
under
doubt to constitute the crime as qualified
circumstances:
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;
the
following
(a)
If
the
(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
certificate;
2) In the absence of the birth
is that she is less than 12
certificate, age of the victim

maybe proven by authentic
document, such as baptismal
certificate
and
school
records;
3) If the aforesaid documents
are shown to have been lost
or
destroyed
or
otherwise
years old; (c) If the victim is

alleged to be below 12 years
of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less
than 18 years old.
4) In the absence of a certificate

of
live
birth,
authentic
document, or the testimony

of the victim's mother or
Prepared by: LJC
72

relatives
victim's
concerning
age
the
under
the
circumstances above-stated,
complainant's sole testimony
can suffice, provided that it is
expressly
admitted
and
by
clearly
the
accused
(People us. Pruna, 390 SCRA

577 [2002]).
HABITUAL
that of habitual delinquency.

Juan
is
delinquency,
recidivist
which
DELINQUENCY
&
convicted a third time or more for

specified crimes, is correctly considered
because Juan had already three (3)
With Homicide. And the crimes specified
basis
for
INDETERMINATE
for theft when he was found guilty of
(1994)
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case,

the trial Judge considered against the
accused both recidivism and habitual
delinquency. The accused appealed and
contended that in his last conviction, the
trial court cannot consider against him a
habitual
and,
delinquency.
Is
again,
the
of
appeal
meritorious? Explain. (5%)
the
appeal
is
not
delinquency
Itos
was
SENTENCE
convicted
of
an
LAW
offense
penalized by a special law. The penalty

prescribed is not less than six years but
not
more
modifying
than
twelve
circumstance
years.
No
attended
the
commission of the crime.

If you were the judge, will you apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law?If so, how
will you apply it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,
habitual
includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
recidivism
an
additional penalty when an offender is
as
Juan de Castro already had three (3)
of
about
for theft and again convicted for Robbery
RECIDIVISM (2001)
finding
brings
...Habitual
meritorious.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 different from
Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 Act

Prepared by: LJC
73

4103,
specifically
application
thereof
provides
for
violations
the
If I were the Judge, I will impose an
of
indeterminate sentence, the maximum of
special laws.
which shall not exceed the maximum
Under the same provision, the minimum

must not be less than the minimum
provided therein (six years and one day)
and the maximum shall not be more than
the
maximum
provided
therein,
i.e.
fixed by law and the minimum shall not

be
less
than
the
discretion to impose the penalty within

the said minimum and maximum.
INDETERMINATE
186 SCRA 184)
(1999)
SENTENCE
LAW
(1999)
Andres
penalty
prescribed by the same. I have the
twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes,
INDETERMINATE
minimum
SENTENCE
LAW
A was convicted of illegal possession of

grease guns and two Thompson sub-
is
charged
with
an
offense
defined by a special law. The penalty

prescribed
for
the
offense
is
imprisonment of not less than five (5)

years but not more than ten [10) years.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of
machine guns punishable under the old

law [RA No,4] with imprisonment of from
five (5) to ten (10) years. The trial court
sentenced
the
accused
to
suffer
imprisonment of five (5) years and one

(1) day.
guilty. In the imposition of the proper
Is the penalty thus imposed correct?
penalty,
Explain. (3%)
should
the
Indeterminate
Sentence Law be applied? If you were the

Judge trying the case, what penalty
would you impose on Andres? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
apply to: The penalty imposed, being
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
imprisonment is more than one (1) year.
applies to this case. Said law requires
Sentence
Law
which
that if the offense is punished by any law

Prepared by: LJC
74

other than the Revised Penal Code, the
for fixing 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

maximum penalty fixed by the law and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the minimum shall not be less than the
The purpose of the law in fixing the
minimum
minimum term of the sentence is to set
penalty
prescribed
by
the
same.
the grace period at which the convict
INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE
LAW
(2002)
may
be
released
on
parole
from
imprisonment, unless by his conduct he

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
offenses punishable under the Revised
maximum term fixed in the sentence.
Penal Code determined? (3%)
INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE
LAW
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(2005)
For crimes punished under the Revised
Harold was convicted of a crime defined
Penal Code, the maximum term of the
and penalized by a special penal law
Indeterminate
the
where the imposable penalty is from 6
penalty properly imposable under the
months, as minimum, to 3 years, as
same
maximum.
Code
sentence
after
shall
be
considering
the
attending mitigating and/or aggravating

circumstances according to Art, 64 of
said Code. The minimum term of the
same sentence shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree
State with reasons whether the court

may
correctly
impose
the
following
penalties:
a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
to that prescribed for the crime under the

said Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the law, what is the purpose
Yes, because the penalty is less than one

Prepared by: LJC
75

year, a straight penalty may be imposed.
INDETERMINATE
(People v. Arellano, G.R. No, 46501,
EXCEPTIONS (1999)
October 5, 1939)
Under
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
what
circumstances
Indeterminate
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law,

the minimum imposable penalty shall be
imposed but the maximum shall not
exceed the maximum imposable by law.
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11
months, as maximum;
SENTENCE
Sentence
LAW;
is
Law
the
not
applicable? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Persons
convicted
of
offenses
punished with death penalty or life

imprisonment;
2) Those
convicted
of
treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
treason;
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law

does
not
apply
when
the
penalty
3) Those convicted of misprision of

treason,
rebellion,
sedition
or
Art. 4103, as amended).
espionage;
4) Those convicted of piracy;
5) Those
who
are
habitual
c) a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%)
6) Those who shall have escaped from
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
confinement or evaded sentence;

7) Those who violated the terms of
imposed is less than one year (Sec. 2,
delinquents;
No, because the Indeterminate Sentence

Law will apply when the minimum of the
conditional pardon granted to them

by the Chief Executive;
8) Those whose maximum term of
penalty exceeds one year.
imprisonment does not exceed one
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
year;
9) Those who, upon the approval of
If the imposition of straight penalty which

consists of the minimum period of the
penalty prescribed by law, then it may be
allowed because it favors the accused.
the law (December 5, 1933). had

been sentenced by final Judgment;
Those sentenced to the
10)
penalty of destierro or suspension.

Prepared by: LJC
76

INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE
LAW;
this Act; and

10)
those
EXCEPTIONS (2003)
whose
sentence
imposes penalties which do not

When would the Indeterminate Sentence
involve
Law be inapplicable? 4%
destierro.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
applicable to:
offenses
penalty
persons
punished
or
convicted
with
of
of
death
life-imprisonment
reclusion perpetua;
2) those
convicted
or
treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit

treason;
3) those convicted of misprision of
treason,
rebellion,
like
PENALTIES: FINE OR IMPRISONMENT
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not
1) those
imprisonment,
sedition
or
espionage;
4) those convicted of piracy;
5) those
who
are
habitual
VS.
SUBSIDIARY
IMPRISONMENT
(2005)
E and M are convicted of a penal law that
imposes
penalty
of
fine
or
imprisonment
or
both
fine
imprisonment.
The
judge
sentenced
them
the
fine,
to
pay
jointly
and
and
severally, with subsidiary imprisonment

in
case
of
insolvency.Is
the
penalty
proper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty is not proper. The two
delinquents;
6) those who shall have escaped from
accused must separately pay the fine,
confinement or evaded sentence;

7) those who having been granted
applies only to civil liabilities.
conditional pardon by the Chief

Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof;
8) those whose maximum term of
which is their penalty. Solidary liability
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
NO, because in penal law when there are
several
offenders,
the
court
in
the
imprisonment does not exceed one
exercise of its discretion shall determine
year;
9) those already sentenced by final
what shall be the share of each offender
judgment at the time of approval of
participation as principal, accomplice or

Prepared by: LJC
77
depending
upon
the
degree
of

accessory.
If
within
each
class
of
Pecuniary
liabilities
include
restitution,
more than one principal or more than
damages caused, the indemnification for
one accomplice or accessory, the liability
consequential damages, as well as fines
in
and cost of the proceedings.
class
subsidiary.
required
of
Anyone
to
pertaining
pay
to
offender
of
the
the
such
shall
be
may
be
civil
liability
offender
without
include
not
offender, there are more of them, such as
each
but
do
reparation
of
Pecuniary penalties include fines and

cost of the proceedings.
prejudice to recovery from those whose
PENALTIES;
share have been paid by another.
ESTAFA (1997)
May the judge impose an alternative
A was convicted of the complex crime of
penalty of fine or imprisonment?
estafa
Explain. (4%)
document. Since the amount Involved did

not
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPLEX
through
exceed
CRIME
falsification
P200.00,
of
the
OF
public
penalty
prescribed by law for estafa is arresto
No. A fine, 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 falsification of public document is
a prison term. There is no rule for
prision mayor plus fine not to exceed
transmutation of the amount of a fine
P5,000.00.
into a term of imprisonment. (People v.

Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127 May 5,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1989)
PENALTIES:
PECUNIARY
PENALTIES
VS. PECUNIARY LIABILITIES (2005)

Distinguish
Impose the proper prison penalty.
pecuniary
pecuniary liabilities. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
penalties
from
The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN

prision correccional (six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM,
to ANY RANGE within prision mayor
maximum (ten (10) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM.
Prepared by: LJC
78

This is in accordance with People us,
of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider
the
modifying
Gonzales, 73 Phil, 549, where It was

ruled that for the purpose of determining
circumstances;
5. Determine
the penalty next lower in degree, the
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

law,
and
not
prision
mayor
maximum period, which is

penalty
actually
applied
in
its
only the
because
of
PENALTIES;
HOMICIDE
W/
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE (1995)

Homer was convicted of homicide. The
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The
trial
penalty next lower in degree therefor is
modifying
prision correccional and it is within the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnity,
range of this penalty that the minimum
and
should be taken.
passion and obfuscation, no intent to
PENALTIES; FACTORS TO CONSIDER

(1991)
court
the
appreciated
the
following
circumstances:
mitigating
the
circumstances
of
commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and

voluntary
penalty
surrender.
for
The
homicide
is
imposable
reclusion
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a
temporal the range of which is twelve
case,
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
and
based
on
the
evidence
presented and the applicable law, you

have decided on the guilt of two (2)
accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you
would follow to determine the exact
penalty to be imposed. Stated differently,
what are the factors you must consider
to arrive at the correct penalty?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree
years.
Taking
into
aggravating
circumstances,
account
and
and
the
attendant
mitigating
applying
the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine

the proper penalty to be imposed on the
accused.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 off-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.
off-setting of modifying circumstances,

which will now result in the excess of
three mitigating circumstances. This will
therefore justify in reducing the penalty
to the minimum period.
The
existence
circumstance,
of
an
albeit
there
aggravating
are
four
aggravating, will not justify the lowering

of the penalty to the next lower degree
under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this
is
applicable
only
if
THERE
IS
PENALTIES;
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
AGGRAVATING
W/OUT
CIRCUMSTANCE
(1997)
Assume in the preceding problem that
there were two mitigating circumstances
and
no
aggravating
circumstance.
Impose the proper prison penalty.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
NO
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.
There
being
two
(2)
mitigating
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
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
correccional
in
its
maximum
day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day,

Prepared by: LJC
80

76 and 77 of the same Code, and there

are two or more mitigating circumstances
and no aggravating circumstances, the
penalty next lower in degree should be
imposed.
For
purposes
of
the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty

next
lower
in
degree
should
be
determined without regard as to whether

the
basic
penalty
provided
by
the
Revised Penal Code should be applied in

its maximum or minimum period as
circumstances
modifying
liability may
require. The penalty next lower in degree

to prision correccional. Therefore, as
previously stated, the minimum should
be within the range of arresto mayor and
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Even if there are two or more mitigating
circumstances, a court cannot lower the
penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3,
Revised
Penal
Code;
Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime

committed was parricide with the two (2)
mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and
lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong,
and
with
no
that the proper, penalty to be imposed is

reclusion perpetua.
prision
IMPRISONMENT (1994)
its
maximum
aggravating
circumstance, the Supreme Court held
PENALTIES;
in
vs.
Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs.
the maximum is within the range of

correctional
People
PREVENTIVE
period.
1)
PeNALTIES;
PARRICIDE
W/
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE (1997)

A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of
parricide.
The
court
found
three
mitigating circumstances, namely, plea
When
is
there
preventive
imprisonment?2) When is the accused

credited
with
the
full
time
of
his
preventive imprisonment, and when is he

credited with 4/5 thereof?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of guilty, lack of Instruction and lack of

intent to commit so grave a wrong as
1) There is
that committed. The prescribed penalty
when [a) an offender is detained while
for parricide is reclusion perpetua to
the criminal case against him is being
death.
heard,
penalty.
Impose
the
proper
principal
preventive imprisonment
either
because
the
crime
committed is a capital offense and not

Prepared by: LJC
81

bailable, or even if the crime committed
No. 7959, reclusion perpetua shall be
was bailable, the offender could not post
from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years.
the
Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is
required
bail
for
his
provisional
liberty.
now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
2) An accused is credited with the full
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
time of his preventive imprisonment if he

voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by
the rules of the institution imposed upon
its prisoners, provided that:
No, because the Supreme Court has

repeatedly called the attention of the
Bench and the Bar to the fact that the
penalties of reclusion perpetua and life
a) the penalty imposed on him for the
imprisonment are not synonymous and
crime
should be applied correctly and as may
committed
consists
of
deprivation of liberty;
be
b) he is not disqualified from such credit

for being a recidivist, or for having been
previously convicted for two or more
times of any crime, or for having failed to
surrender voluntarily for the execution of
the sentence upon being so summoned
(Art. 29, RPC).
specified
Reclusion
by
the
perpetua
applicable
has
law.
specific
duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40

years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties
(Art. 41), while life imprisonment has no
definite term or accessory penalties.
Also, life imprisonment is imposable on
crimes punished by special laws, and not
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
(RA) NO. 7959 (2005)
Conspectus, page 156]
Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal
PENALTIES;
Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)
VS. LIFE IMPRISONMENT (1994)
RECLUSION
Law
PERPETUA
Prepared by: LJC
82

Differentiate 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
unlicensed
provided for in the Revised Penal Code
circumstance of treachery was found to
for crimes defined in and penalized
be present. Judge Laya rendered his
therein except for some crimes defined
decision
by special laws which impose reclusion
sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or
perpetua, such as violations of Republic
life imprisonment".
7659
or
of
PD
IMPRISONMENT
is
1860;
a
while
penalty
LIFE
usually
provided for in special laws. Reclusion

perpetua has a duration of twenty (20)
years and one (1) day to forty [40] years
under
Republic
Act
7659,
while
Are
convicting
"reclusion
the
was
RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty
Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act
and
Benjamin
qualifying
Benjamin
perpetua"
and
and
life
imprisonment the same and can be

imposed
interchangeably
as
in
the
foregoing sentence? Or are they totally

different? State your reasons. (3%)
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 different from each other and
degrees; reclusion perpetuates accessory
therefore,
penalties while life imprisonment does
interchangeably.
not have any accessory penalties (People

vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459, People vs.
Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
PENALTIES;
RECLUSION
Reclusion
should
perpetua
not
is
be
used
penalty
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code,

with a fixed duration of imprisonment
PERPETUA
from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and
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,
no fixed duration of imprisonment and
the
victim
having
sustained
Prepared by: LJC
83

without any accessory penalty.
special laws shall not exceed 6 months at
PROBATION LAW: PROPER PERIOD

(2005)
the rate of one day of imprisonment for

every F2.50. Hence, the proper period of
probation should not be less than (6
Maganda was charged with violation of
months nor more than 12 months. Since
the
P50,000.00
Bouncing
Checks
Law
(BP
22)
fine
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 fine of not less than but not more than

double the amount of the check, which
fine shall not exceed P200,000.00, or
both. The court convicted her of the
crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of
P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the
private complainant the amount of the
check. Maganda was unable to pay the
fine but filed a petition for probation. The
court granted the petition subject to the
condition, among others, that she should
not change her residence without the
courts prior approval.
a)
What
is
the
Supposing
before
the
Order
of
Discharge was issued by the court but

after the lapse of the period of probation,
Maganda transferred residence without
prior approval of the court. May the court
revoke the Order of Probation and order
her
to
serve
the
subsidiary
imprisonment? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The Court may revoke her probation.
Probation is not coterminous with its
period. There must first be issued by the
court an order of final discharge based on
proper
period
of
probation?
the report and recommendation of the

probation officer. 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

the total number of days of subsidiary
imprisonment.
b)
Under
Act
No.
1732,
subsidiary imprisonment for violations of
1990, citing Sec. 16 of P.D. No. 968)

PROBATION
LAW;
BARRED
BY
APPEAL (1994)
Prepared by: LJC
84

On
February
convicted
of
3,
1986,
arson
Roberto
through
was
reckless
imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine

of
P15,000.00,
with
subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency by

the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction
Roberto was qualified for probation but
that at the time of his application for
probation, he is no longer qualified, he is
not
entitled
to
qualification
the Court of Appeals. Several months
determined as of the time the application
later, he filed a motion to withdraw the
is filed 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
April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et
granted
the
motion
and
considered the appeal withdrawn.

On June 10, 1987, the records of the case
were remanded to the trial court. Roberto
al,
GR
No.
84859,
execution of his sentence be suspended,
APPEAL (2001)
report on his probation.
28,
be
1989;
86561, Nov. 10, 1992).

PROBATION
conduct an Investigation and to submit a
June
must
Bernardo us. Judge Balagot, etal, GR
filed a "Motion for Probation" praying that

and that a probation officer be ordered to
probation
The
On February 10, 1986, he appealed to
Appeals
for
probation.
LAW;
BARRED
BY
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted

by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue
the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite
The judge denied the motion on the
full payment of the lot, and sentenced to
ground
suffer
that
pursuant
to
Presidential
one
year
Imprisonment.
Decree No. 1990, which took effect 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.
defendant has perfected an appeal from
probation? Explain. (5%)
the judgment of conviction.

Is the denial of Roberto's motion correct?
May
still
apply
for
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A is no longer qualified 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.
probation law (PD 968, as amended by
"maximum term", and not total term. It is
PD1990)
law
uses
the
word
provides
that
no
enough that each of the prison terms
probation
shall
be
does not exceed six years. The number
entertained or granted if the accused has
of offenses is immaterial for as long as
perfected an appeal from the judgment
the
of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).
individually and separately, are within
application
now
The
for
PROBATION LAW; MAXIMUM TERM

VS. TOTAL TERM (1997)
defamation
in
imposed,
when
taken
the probationable period.

PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
The accused was found guilty of grave

oral
penalties
sixteen
(16)
PROBATION;
NOT
APPEALABLE
(2002)
informations which were tried jointly and
A was charged with homicide. After trial,
was sentenced in one decision to suffer
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 filed an
maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had
application
been
for
probation
under
the
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 fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals,
243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held
that in case of one decision imposing
multiple prison terms, the totality of the
prison terms should not be taken into
account for the purposes of determining
he eligible for probation? Why? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:No, he is not
entitled to the benefits of the Probation
Law (PD 968, as amended) does not
extend to those sentenced to serve a
maximum term of imprisonment of more
than six years (Sec. 9a).
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 fine
him either from applying for probation,
of P50.00.
since the imprisonment does not exceed
B. May a probationer appeal from the

decision revoking the grant of probation
six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No.

968).
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,
No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law,

as
amended,
an
order
granting
or
denying probation is not appealable.
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs

Act, accused Vincent was given the
benefit of the mitigating circumstances
of
voluntary
plea
of
guilt
and
PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED
drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He
(2004)
was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six

(6) years and one (1) day and to pay a
PX was convicted and sentenced to
fine of P6,000.00 with the accessory
imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of
penalties provided by law, plus costs.
one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was
Vincent
convicted of another crime for which the
probation officer favorably recommended
penalty imposed on him was thirty days
his application.
applied
for
probation.
The
only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain
1. If you were the Judge, what action
briefly. (5%)
will you take on the application?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, PX may apply for probation. His
previous conviction for another crime
with
penalty
of
thirty
days
imprisonment or not exceeding one (1)

month does not disqualify him from
Discuss fully.
2. Suppose
that
Vincent
was
convicted of a crime for which he

was
sentenced
to
maximum
penalty of ten (10) years. Under

the law, he is not eligible for
Prepared by: LJC
87

probation. He seasonably appealed
This is the second consecutive year that
his conviction. While affirming the
this question was asked. It is the sincere
judgment
of
appellate
court
conviction,
the
belief of the Committee that there is a
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
as
consideration
certain
the
maximum
penalty
Secondly,
is
NOT
when
the
modifying circumstances. Vincent
PROBATIONABLE.
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 suffer. 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
specifically 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 benefits 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).
effect that appeal by the accused from a

sentence of conviction forfeits his right to
It
probation.(Sec.
examinee answering in this tenor should
4,
PD
No.
968.
as
amended by PD 1990; Bernardo us.

Balagot; Francisco vs. CA: Llamado vs.
CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo, CA
case).
is
suggested,
therefore,
that
an
be credited with some points.

PROBATION LAW; RIGHT; BARRED BY
APPEAL (2003)
Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial
Prepared by: LJC
88

Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer
suspended sentence. Enumerate at least
the
5 of them. (5%)
penalty
of
imprisonment
for
minimum of eight years. He appealed

both his conviction and the penalty
imposed upon him to the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court ultimately
sustained Juan's conviction but reduced
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Suspension of sentence of
minor
under
P.D.
603
as
his sentence to a maximum of four years
amended by R.A. 9344.

and eight months imprisonment. Could
minor above 15 but below 18
Juan forthwith file an application for
years of age at the time of

trial under R.A. 9344.
probation? Explain. 8%
minor above 15 but below 18
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
years
No, Juan can no longer avail of the
probation because he appealed from the
judgment of conviction of the trial court,
of
age
at
the
commission of the offense,

while
acting
with
and therefore, cannot apply for probation
discernment.
4. Suspension of sentence by
anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law,
reason of insanity (Art. 79,
as
amended,
application
for
mandates
that
no
probation
shall
be
entertained or granted if the accused has
Revised Penal Code).

5. Suspension of sentence for
first
offense
minor
under the probation law. (P.D.
appeal from the judgment of conviction.

SUSPENSION
OF
SENTENCE;
968)
7. Suspension
sentence
ADULTS/MINORS (2006)
woman.
instances
83,
pregnant
Revised
9344 is outside the coverage
accused, either as an adult or as a minor,
of the examination)
and/or
(Art.
Penal Code)(NOTA BENE: R.A.
for
least
of
death
situations in criminal cases wherein the

apply
at
of
or
can
are
violating RJV . 9165. (Sec. 32)

6. Suspension
of
sentence
perfected an
There
of
be granted
a
Prepared by: LJC
89

SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE; MINORS

(2003)
Explain.4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A was 2 months below 18 years of age

when he committed the crime. He was
charged with the crime 3 months later.
He was 23 when he was finally convicted
and sentenced. Instead of preparing to
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension
of the sentence on the ground that he
was a juvenile offender Should he be
entitled to a suspension of sentence?
Reasons. 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of
the sentence because he is no longer a
minor at the time of promulgation of the
sentence. For purposes of suspension of
sentence, the offender's age at the time
of promulgation of the sentence is the
one considered, not his age when he
committed the crime. So although A was
Yes, so long as the offender is still a

minor at the time of the promulgation of
the sentence. The law establishing Family
Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this
effect: that if the minor is found guilty,
the
court
should
promulgate
sentence and ascertain any civil liability

which the accused may have incurred.
However,
the
sentence
suspended
without
application
pursuant
the
to
shall
be
need
of
PD
Welfare Code" (RA 8369, Sec. 5a), It is

under PD 603 that an application for
suspension of the sentence is required
and thereunder it is one of the conditions
for suspension of sentence that the
offender be a first time convict: this has
been displaced by RA 8369.
SUSPENSION
the crime, but he was already 23 years
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER (1995)
eligible for suspension of the sentence.

Can
juvenile
offenders,
who
recidivists,
askforsuspensionofsentence?
603,
otherwise known as the "Child and Youth
below 18 years old when he committed

old when sentenced, he is no longer
the
OF
SENTENCE;
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the

store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
are
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie
validly
posted themselves at the door. After

ordering beer Ricky complained that he
Prepared by: LJC
90

was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy
an
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

chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had
offense
punishable
by
life
DELITO CONTINUADO (2009)
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 first two
Pandoy were later found in the houses of
months following the investment, the
Victor and Ricky.
investors
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of

Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled
to suspended sentence under The Child
and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 . All are liable for the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide....
2. No, because the benefits of suspension
of sentence is not available where the
received
their
profits,
but
thereafter, Angelo vanished.

Angelo was charged with 500 counts of
estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of
Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to
quash,
Angelo
contends
that
he
committed a continued crime, or delito

continuado, hence, he committed only
one count of estafa and one count of
violation of BP 22.
What is delito continuado? (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
youthful offender has been convicted of

Prepared by: LJC
91

Delito
continuado
constituted
by
refers
to
several
overt
crime
crimes committed and their effects in
acts
relation to the penalty to be imposed on
committed by the offender in one place,

at about the same time, and all such
overt acts violate one and the same
provision
of
penal
law,
thus
demonstrating that all such acts are the
a convict. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Difference
between
recidivism
and
habitual delinquency:
product of a single indivisible criminal

relation.
Hence,
all
said
acts
are
(a) Nature of crime in recidivism, the

first 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 first, 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
A person shall be deemed to be habitual

delinquent, if within a period of ten year
physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or

falsification of document.
from his release or last conviction of the
Time
crimes of serious or less serious physical
accused was convicted of the first crime
injuries,
by final judgment at the time of trial of
robo,
hurto
estafa
or
element
in
said crimes a third time or oftener
delinquency, the accused was convicted
(Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code).
of the first
HABITUAL
habitual-delinquency crime; within
RECIDIVISM (2012)
No.
VIII.
b.
Distinguish
In
the
the
VS.
crime.
recidivism,
falsification, he is found guilty of any of
DELINQUENCY
second
habitual
10
years after conviction or release, he was

habitual
delinquency from recidivism as to the

crimes committed, the period of time the
crimes are committed, the number of
found
guilty
of
habitual-delinquency
crime for the second time; within 10

years after conviction or release he was
found guilty of habitual- delinquency
crime for the third
Prepared by: LJC
92

time or oftener.
Human Rights (CHR) investigating team
(c) Number of crimes in recidivism,

there must be at least two crimes
committed;
while
in
habitual
delinquency, there must be at least three

crimes committed.
recidivism
is
prosecutors
that
all
respondents
be
charged with violation of the "Heinous

Crimes
Law."
The
prosecution
panel
agreed with the CHR. As the Chief

Prosecutor tasked with approving the
Nature of the aggravating circumstance
recommended to the panel of public
ordinary
aggravating
circumstance, the presence of any which

will trigger the application of the penalty
for the second crime committed in its
filing of the Information, how will you

pass upon the recommendation? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
maximum period unless it is off-set by a
The CHR is correct in describing the
mitigating
aggravating
crime committed as heinous crimes, as
circumstance, the presence of which will
defined in the preamble of the Henious
trigger
the
imposition
Crimes Law (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite
penalty
for
the third
or
special
of
or
additional
subsequent
the
passage
of
Rep.
Act
No.
9346
crime. This is not subject to the off-set
prohibiting the imposition of the death
rule.
penalty.
HEINOUS CRIMES LAW (2010)
However, the Henious Crimes Law does
No. IV. Because of the barbarity and

hideousness of the acts committed by
the suspects/respondents in cutting off
their victims appendages, stuffing their
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums
and bullet- riddled vehicles and later on
burying these oil drums, vehicles with
the use of backhoes and other earthmoving machinery, the Commission on
not
define
crimes;
it
is
only
an
amendatory law increasing the penalty

for
the
crime
specified
therein
as
heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus,

the heinous crime committed shall be
prosecuted under the penal law they are
respectively defined and penalized, such
as the Revised Penal Code as the case
may be. The circumstances making the
crimes
heinous
may
be
alleged
Prepared by: LJC
as
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
defined and punished under the penal
(Section 1 of Act 4103).
law violated and the penalty shall be

reclusion perpetua without the benefit of
parole, as the case may be in lieu of the
death penalty.
INDETERMINATE
INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE
LAW
(2007)
Macky, a security guard, arrived home
SENTENCE
LAW
(2012)
late one night after rendering overtime.

He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and
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
If crime is punishable under the Revised

Penal Code, the court shall sentenced the
accused to an indeterminate sentence
maximum term of which shall be that
which,
in
view
circumstances,
of
could
the
be
attending
properly
imposed under the rules of the said
exceptional circumtances and exonerated

Macky of murder but sentenced him to
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. The court also
ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the
heirs of the victim in the amount of
P50,000.
Code, and the minimum which shall be
While
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 (Joys sister). Is
the offense. If the offense is punishable
Macky
under a special law, the court shall
sentence in case he is found guilty of the
sentence
use of prohibited substances? Explain
the
accused
to
an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum

term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the
serving
entitled
his
to
sentenced,
an
Macky
indeterminate
your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC
94

No, Macky s not entitled to the benefit of
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion
the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act
temporal.
4103, as amended) for having evaded

the sentence which banished or placed
him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the said law
expressly provides that the law shall not
apply to those who shall have evaded
sentence.
The
defense
contending
counsel
that
chimed
application
in,
of
the
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead

to the imposition of a straight penalty of
SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of
prision correccional only. Who of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
three is on the right track? Explain. (3%)
No, because the penalty for use of any
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
dangerous drug by a first offender is not

imprisonment
but
rehabilitation
in
government center for a minimum period

of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165).
The Indeterminate Sentence Law does
not
apply
when
the
penalty
is
imprisonment not exceeding one year.

INDETERMINATE
SENTENCE
LAW;
HOMICIDE (2010)
No. I. An agonizing and protracted trial
having come to a close, the judge found
None of the contention is correct because

the Indeterminate Sentence Law for the
crime of homicide, which is penalized by
mprisonment exceeding one (1) year and
is
divisible,
is
covered
law requires that the sentence in this

case should reflect a minimum term for
purposes of parole, and a minimum term
fixing the limit of the imprisonment.
Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
INDETERMINATE
homicide and imposed on him a straight
HOMICIDE (2009)
of prision mayor.
the
indeterminate Sentence Law. The said
A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
by
SENTENCE
LAW;
No. XII. a. In a conviction for homicide,

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
penalty should have been TWELVE (12)
under Article 249 of the Revised Penal
circumstance.
Homicide
Prepared by: LJC
95

Code
is
reclusion
No, my answer will not be the same
term
of
because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
mala prohibita in which mitigating and
twenty
aggravating
temporal,
punishable
an
(20)
by
imprisonment
years.
Applying
the
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
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
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.

INDETERMINATE
ILLEGAL
case
into
because
periods.
the
for
illegal
Hence,
the
PENALTIES; CIVIL LIABILITY (2010)

SENTENCE
POSSESSION
OF
LAW;
DRUGS
(2009)
On her way home, Eva Marie saw an

injured chow chow puppy behind a bush.
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
Eva Marie may incur civil liability if the

owner of the puppy would incur a loss
due to non-restitution or return thereof to
the owner. Finding any property of value,
prevailed because he managed to draw

his knife with which he stabbed the
victim.
The
penalty
for
homicide
is
reclusion temporal.
legally regarded as lost property, would
Assuming a judgment of conviction and
constitute theft if the finder failed to
after
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

incur civil liability, which consists of
restitution
caused
or
and
reparation
for
damage
indemnification
for
considering
the
attendant
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bruno
should
be
indeterminate
sentenced
sentence
to
an
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
presence
killing the 75-year old owner of his
mitigating
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.
voluntarily
surrendered
to
the
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the

crime charged; that it was the victim who
first attacked and did so without any
at
least
two
the
Bruno was charged with homicide for
other hand, successfully proved that he
of
and
circumstances
ordinary
without
any
There is incomplete self-defense because

Bruno proved that it was the victim who
first attacked him and did so without
provocation
of
his
part.
There
Prepared by: LJC
is,
97

however, no reasonable necessity of the

means employed to defend himself, after
Bruno
used
knife
to
stab
the
weaponless victim. There are also no
Probation Law; Period Covered (2009)

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary
absolute
because it was not shown that Bruno
disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, 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

appreciated because the crime happened
calling;
Fine; and any principal penalty with
in the house where both Bruno and the
its accessory penalties.
aggravating
circumstances
present,
victim lived. In contrast, there are two

mitigating
circumstances,
namely,
voluntary surrender and plea of guilt.

Applying
the
Indeterminate
PENALTIES;
RECLUSION
PERPETUA
Sentence
Law, the maximum term of the medium
Life imprisonment is a penalty more
period and the minimum term should be
favorable to the convict than reclusion
within the range of the penalty next
perpetua.
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 fixed duration, unlike the penalty of
What are the penalties that may be
reclusion perpetua which has a fixed
served simultaneously? (10%)
duration of 40 years and the convict may

be eligible for pardon after 30 years of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
penalties
that
may
simultaneously
imprisonment/destierro and:
imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205

be
served
are
SCRA 546 [1992])

PROBATION LAW; PERIOD COVERED
(2009)
Prepared by: LJC
98

Joe was 17 years old when he committed

homicide
in
2005.
The
crime
is
punishable by reclusion temporal. After

two years in hiding, he was arrested and
appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in
effect,
upon offenders thereunder.

The brothers petition for prohibition. The
murder
being
attempted
only,
the
prescribed penalty is two degree lower

than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision
mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old
when
he
penalty
of
committed
prision
the
mayor
crime,
the
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
Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted

murder
with
special
aggravating
circumstance and was denied suspension

of sentence, would he be eligible for
circumstance; hence, prision correccional

or imprisonment within the range of ix
months and 1 day to 6 years is the
imposable.
probation under Presidential Decree (PD)
PROBATION LAW; ORDER DENYING
968, considering that the death penalty
PROBATION (2010)
is
imposable
for
the
consummated
felony? Explain. (2%)
while his younger brother Jeff was found
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
guilty
Yes, he would be eligible for probation

because the penalty imposable on Joe
will not exceed 6 years imprisonment.
Even if it would be considered that the
crime
committed
was
punishable
by
death, the penalty as far as Joe I

concerned
can
only
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking
be
reclusion
of
possession
instrument,
of
apparatus
equipment,
and
other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under

Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff
appealed
his
conviction
during
the
pendency of which he also filed a petition

for probation.
perpetua because RA 9344 forbids the
The brothers counsel argued that they
imposition of the capital punishment
being first time offenders, 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 fine of
for probation? Explain. (3%)
P500,000.Michael applied for probation

but his application was denied because
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The
brothers
petition
the probation law does not apply to drug

for
prohibition
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then

sought the suspension of his sentence
should be denied.
under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice

Matts petition for probation shall be
and Youth Welfare Code.
denied because he was convicted for

drug-trafficking. 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

convicted for drug trafficking or pushing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
under this Act, regardless of the penalty
The benefits 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
the law reaches the maximum age and
Decree
No.
968,
as
amended.
thus, could no longer be considered a
SUSPENSION
OF
SENTENCE;
child for purposes of applying Rep. Act

No. 9344. However, he shall be entitled
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
member of the community. Accordingly,
time
he
was
convicted
and
sentenced, he was already 21 years old.
Michael
may
be
The court sentenced him to suffer an
agricultural
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.
camp
confined
and
other
in
an
training
Prepared by: LJC
100

Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011;
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23,

2008 and People v. Sarcia, GR No.
AMNESTY VS. PD 1160 (2006)
169641, September 10, 2009).
Can
SUSPENSION
Soliman apply for amnesty? How about
OF
SENTENCE;
former
columnist
DSWD
Randy
Secretary
David?
Dinky
(You
are
supposed to know the crimes or offenses

Joe was 17 years old when he committed
ascribed to them as published in almost
homicide
is
all newspapers
punishable by reclusion temporal. After
months.) (2.5%)
in
2005.
The
crime
for
the past several
two years in hiding, he was arrested and

appropriately charged in May 2007. Since
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
Proclamation
1160,
which
Welfare Act of 2006) was already in
Proclamation
724,
applies
effect, Joe moved to avail of the process
offenses committed prior to 1999. Thus,
of intervention or diversion.
their applications shall be ineffectual and
Suppose Joes motion for intervention or
useless.
diversion
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 officer and a gentleman
Explain. (2%)
under the Articles of War. Can they apply
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for amnesty? (2.5%)
No,
the
sentence
was
judge
denied,
should
anymore
and
not
because
he
suspend
Joe
amended
only
to
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was
Proclamation
1160,
which
already 21 years old. Suspension of
Proclamation
724,
applies
sentence is availing under RA 9344 only
offenses committed prior to 1999. Thus,
amended
only
to
until a child reaches the maximum age of

twenty-one (21) years.
their applications shall be ineffectual and

Prepared by: LJC
101

useless.
OF PUBLICAITONS AND UNLAWFUL
AMNESTY; CRIMES COVERED (2006)
UTTERANCES;
17.
ALARM AND SCANDAL
18.
ILLEGAL
POSSESSION
Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724,
OF
FIREARMS.
amending Presidential Proclamation No.

347, certain crimes are covered by the
EXTINCTION;
CRIMINAL
grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of
LIABILITIES;
these crimes. (2.5%)
ACCUSED PENDING APPEAL (2004)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence
EFFECTS;
&
CIVIL
DEATH
OF
resulting in homicide. The trial court

Crimes
covered
under
Presidential
Proclamation No. 724:
to pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and
1. COUP DETAT
2. REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
3. DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
OR EMPLOYEES;
4. INCITING
TO
REBELLION
INSURRECTION;
5. CONSPIRACY
TO
OR
COMMIT
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION;
6. PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION
OR INSURRECTION;
7. SEDITION;
8. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION;
9. INCITING TO SEDITION;
10.
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY;
11.
ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION;
12.
DIRECT ASSAULT;
13.
INDIRECT ASSAULT;
14.
RESISTANCE
AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN
AUTHORITY;
15.
TUMULTS
sentenced him to a prison term as well as
AND
OTHER
DISTURBANCES;
16.
UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS
damages. While his appeal was pending,

AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso
estate. What is the effect, if any, of his
death on his criminal as well as civil
liability? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of AX while his appeal from
the
judgment
pending,
of
the
trial
extinguishes
his
court
is
criminal
liability. The civil liability insofar as it

arises from the crime and recoverable
under the Revised Penal Code is also
extinguished;
but
indemnity
and
damages may be recovered in a civil

action if predicated on a source of
obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code,
Prepared by: LJC
102

such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts
offender,
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
Civil indemnity and damages under the

Revised Penal Code are recoverable only
if the accused had been convicted with
finality before he died.
EXTINCTION;
LIABILITIES;
because
the
offense
is
based on the offense committed by her is

not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can
continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who
CRIMINAL
EFFECTS;
&
CIVIL
DEATH
OF
OFFENDED PARTY (2000)
died pending appeal of her conviction,

her criminal liability shall be extinguished
and therewith the civil liability under the
Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC).
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged
However, the claim for civil indemnity
before
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,
Court of the same province, Lorna who
delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA
was then suffering from breast cancer,
239, G.R. 152007, September 2. 1994)
the
Municipal
Trial
Court
died. Alma manifested to the court that

with Lorna's death, her (Alma's) criminal
quasi-contracts
Enumerate
Is Alma's contention correct? What if it
pardon and amnesty. (2.5%)
criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
quasi-
PARDON VS. AMNESTY (2006)
and civil liabilities are now extinguished.

were Alma who died, would it affect her
and
the
differences
between
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) PARDON includes any crime and is
exercised
individually
by
the
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The
President, while AMNESTY applies to
death of the offended party does not
classes of persons or communities
extinguish the criminal liability of the
who
may
be
guilty
of
political
Prepared by: LJC
103

offenses.
b)
concurrence of Congress is a public

act of which the courts should take
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 final
the offender of the penalty of the
judgment.
offense
granted pardon by the President. The
for
which
he
has
been
But
restoration of the rights to hold public
disqualification of TRY to hold any public
office, or the right of suffrage, unless
office. After his pardon, TRY ran for office
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 disqualified because
offense and its effects, as if the
he
person had committed no offense.
President
that the accused is criminally liable as

it produces only the extinction of the
penalty, while AMNESTY removes the
criminal
liability
of
the
offender
because it obliterates every vestige of

the crime.
already
on
the
was
pardon
was
silent
he
convicted; it does not work for the
d) PARDON does not alter the fact
was
subsequently
perpetual
pardoned
unconditionally.
by
Is
the
TRY'S
contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No,
TRY's
contention
is
not
correct.
Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code

expressly provides that when the death
penalty is not executed by reason of
commutation or pardon, the accessory
e) PARDON being a private act by the
penalties
President,
disqualification
must
be
pleaded
and
of
perpetual
and
civil
absolute
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 effects
the
thereof, unless such accessory penalties
Chief
Executive
with
the
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 satisfied.
excuses the convict from serving the

sentence but does not relieve him of the
effects of the conviction unless expressly
remitted in the pardon.
PARDON;
EFFECT;
REINSTATEMENT
(1994)
Linda
Claiming that she should not be made to

pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
Office of the President.
The Office of the President dismissed the
appeal
and
held
that
acquittal,
not
absolute pardon. Is the only ground for

was
the
reinstatement to one's former position
through
and that the absolute pardon does not
falsification of public document. She was
exempt the culprit from payment of civil
sentenced accordingly and ordered to
liability.
Sandiganbayan
pay,
convicted
of
among
by
estafa,
others,
P5,000.00
representing the balance of the amount
Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
defrauded.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case reached the Supreme Court
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement
which
of
to her former position inasmuch as her
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
affirmed
conviction.
During
the
the
judgment
pendency
By reason of such pardon, she wrote the

Department of Finance requesting that
she be restored to her former post as
assistant treasurer, which is still vacant.
The Department ruled that Linda may be
reinstated to her former position without
the necessity of a new appointment and
liability,
disqualification,
removed
and
restored
her
her
eligibility for appointment to that office.

She has to re-apply for such position and
under the usual procedure required for a
new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
does not extinguish the civil liability
arising
from
the
crime.
(Monsanto
vs.Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art.

Prepared by: LJC
105

36, RPC)
Has the crime of bigamy charged against
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; BIGAMY
Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.
(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 offended
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
crime of bigamy, as marriage is not
who
remained
in
Batanes
discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda.
property.
On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint
complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it
for bigamy against Joe.
was well within the reglamentary period
The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen

years computed from the day the crime
is discovered by the offended party, the
Thus
when
Marcy
time of discovery on 10 October 1975.

(Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155)
PRESCRIPTION
defense of prescription of the crime,
COMMENCEMENT (2000)
from the celebration of the bigamous

marriage up to the filing of Marcy's
complaint.
He
contended
that
the
registration of his second marriage in the

civil
registry
of
Davao
City
was
constructive notice to the whole world of

the celebration thereof thus binding upon
Marcy.
as it was barely a few months from the
authorities or their agents. Joe raised the

more than fifteen years having elapsed
filed
OF
CRIMES;
One fateful night in January 1990, while

5-year old Albert was urinating at the
back of their house, he heard a strange
noise coming from the kitchen of their
neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he
peeped
inside,
he
saw
Mina,
Ara's
stepmother, very angry and strangling

the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw
Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it
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

of his life, Albert did not tell anyone,
even his parents and relatives, about
PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
COMMENCEMENT (2004)
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
treacherously,
Albert
his
graduation
reported
Criminology,
the
dead
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
crime
of
to
throw
man's body into a ravine. For 25 years,
The
crime
then
NBI
authorities.
the
in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for
the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20
& 1/2 years. Under Article 91, RPC, the
had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be

prosecuted for murder despite the lapse
of 25 years? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 offended 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

offended party nor an authority or an
The period of prescription of a crime shall
agent of an authority. It was discovered
commence to run only from the day on
by the NBI authorities only when Albert
which the crime has been discovered by
revealed to them the commission of the
the offended party, the authorities or

Prepared by: LJC
107

their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal
filing 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
offended 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
PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
CONCUBINAGE (2001)
On
June
1,
1988,
the complaint or information, not by the

result of proof. (People vs. Galano. 75
SCRA 193)
complaint
for
concubinage committed in February 1987

was filed against Roberto in the Municipal
PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
FALSE
TESTIMONY (1994)
Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes
Paolo was charged with homicide before
of preliminary investigation. For various
the
reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when
Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified
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 filed 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 testified that his first testimony
(10) years.
was false and the truth was he was
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct?

Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Manila.
abroad when the crime took place.

The
judge
immediately
ordered
the
prosecution of Andrew for giving a false

testimony favorable to the defendant in a
criminal case.
alleged prescription is not correct. The

Prepared by: LJC
108

1. Will
the
case
against
Andrew
prosper?
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIMES; SIMPLE

SLANDER (1997)
became final 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 filed against
trial, the court found him guilty only of
Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
the offense of simple slander. He filed 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 filed more

2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a
than
motion to quash the Information on the
commission of the crime, the same had
ground of prescription. The crime of false
already prescribed.
four
months
after
the
alleged
testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed

because
Paolo,
the
accused
in
the
principal case, was acquitted on January

10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
prescribed for such crime is arresto
punishable
by
arresto
on two grounds: first, in determining the

prescriptive period, the nature of the
offense
charged
in
the
Information
should be considered, not the crime
mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.

Crimes
The Solicitor General opposed the motion
mayor
proved;
second,
offense
had
assuming
already
that
the
prescribed,
the
prescribes in five (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.
filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the

principal criminal case was decided with
finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence
Resolve the motion for reconsideration.

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 five
granted.-
(5) years.
Prepared by: LJC
109

a) The accused cannot be convicted of
CIVIL LIABILITY
the offense of simple slander although it

is necessarily included in the offense of
CIVIL
grave slander charged in the information,
ACQUITTAL (2000)
because, the lesser offense had already
Name at least two exceptions to the
prescribed at the time the information
general rule that in case of acquittal of
was filed (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
LIABILITY;
EFFECT
OF
easily
circumvent the rule of prescription in
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from
light offenses by the simple expediment
a criminal case extinguishes civil liability,
of filing a graver offense which includes
are:
such light offense.
a. When the civil action is based
b) While the general rule is the failure of
on
an accused to file 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

the grounds of a motion to quash, the
exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was
charged in the complaint or information;
(2) lack of Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of
the offense or penalty; and (4) double
jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by
the
accused
reconsideration
in
is
his
motion
extinction
of
for
the
obligations
arising
reasonable doubt or acquittal

is on the ground that guilt
has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt (Art. 29,
New Civil Code);
c. Acquittal
due
to
an
exempting circumstance, like

Insanity;
d. Where the court states in its
offense, then it can be raised even after
Judgment
plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on
merely
appeal (People vs. Balagtas)
not
that
the
involves
case
a
civil
obligation;
e. Where there was a proper
reservation for the filing of a
Prepared by: LJC
110

separate civil action;

f. In cases of independent civil
actions provided for in Arts.
31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New
Civil Code;
g. When
the
acquittal
judgment
includes
of
a
declaration that the fact from

which the civil liability might
arise did not exist (Sapiera
vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
h. Where the civil liability is not
derived
or
based
on
the
criminal act of which the

accused is acquitted (Sapiera
vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
CIVIL
LIABILITY;
EFFECT
OF
ACQUITTAL (2000)
was earning his keep as a cigarette

vendor. B was driving a car along busy
Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside
was
C.
The
car
clung to the window of the car but lost

his grip and fell down on the pavement.
The car did not stop. A suffered serious
injuries
which
eventually
caused
his
death. C was charged with ROBBERY with

HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not
convinced with moral certainty that the
guilt of C has been established beyond
reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted
him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover
civil damages in view of the acquittal of
C? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still
A was a 17-year old working student who
continued to speed towards Quiapo, A
stopped
at
an
intersection because of the red signal of

the traffic light. While waiting for the
green signal, C beckoned A to buy some
cigarettes. A approached the car and
recover
civil
damages
despite
C's
acquittal. When the accused in a criminal

prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action
for damages for the same act or omission
may be instituted. Such action requires
only a preponderance of evidence {Art.
29, CC).
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 traffic light changed to green and the
action for damages against B will prosper
car immediately sped off. 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
subsidiary liability and that he was not
negligence,
about
pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties,

is called a quasi- delict [Art. 2176, CC).
This is entirely separate and distinct from
civil
liability
arising
from
negligence
impleaded in the case.

How will you resolve the motion? [5%]
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;
EMPLOYERS (1998)
said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney

owned and operated by Max, bumped
Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street.
Demy sustained injuries which required
medical attendance for three months.
Guy
was
charged
with
reckless
imprudence resulting to physical injuries.

Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight
penalty of three months of arresto mayor
and ordered to indemnify Demy in the
sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as
attorney's fees.
execution was served upon Guy, but was

unsatisfied
civilly liable under Article 103 of the

Revised Penal Code. Even though the
decision
made
subsidiary
no
liability,
mention
the
law
of
his
violated
(Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for

such liability and Max is deemed to know
it because ignorance of the law is never
excused. And since his liability is not
primary but only subsidiary in case his
employee cannot pay; he need not be
impleaded in the in the criminal case. It
suffices that he was duly notified of the
motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ
of execution
Upon finality of the decision, a writ of

returned
industry (transportation business) where
due
to
his
and thus given the opportunity to be

heard.
Prepared by: LJC
112

CIVIL LIABILITY; WHEN MANDATORY;

CRIMINAL LIABILITY (2005)
DAMAGES;
The accused was found guilty of 10

counts
of
rape
for
having
carnal
knowledge with the same woman. In

addition to the penalty of imprisonment,
he was ordered to pay indemnity in the
amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On
appeal, the accused questions the award
of
civil
indemnity
for
Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001)
each
count,
considering that the victim is the same
HOMICIDE;
TEMPERATE
DAMAGES (2006)
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution
failed
to
present
any
receipt
to
substantiate the heirs' claim for an award

of actual damages, such as expenses for
the wake and burial. What kind of
damages may the trial court award to
them and how much? (5%)
woman.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
How would you rule on the contention of
The
the accused? Explain. (3%)
damages in the amount of twenty-five
court
(P25,000.00)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
jurisprudence,
may
award
thousand
temperate
pesos.
temperate
Under
damages
is
The contention is unmeritorious. Under
awarded in homicide when no sufficient
the law, every person criminally liable is
proof of actual damages is offered or if
civilly liable. (Art. 100, Revised Penal
the actual damages proven is less than
Code) Since each count charges different
twenty-five thousand (P25,000) (People
felonious acts and ought to be punished
v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19,
differently,
2004).
the
concomitant
civil
indemnity ex delicto for every criminal

act
should
be
adjudged.
Said
civil
AMNESTY (2009)
indemnity is mandatory upon a finding 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 different
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
Philippines
President
issued
an
of
the
amnesty
proclamation for the offense of Rebellion.

Antero applied for and was granted the
benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
corpus, praying for his immediate release

from confinement. He claims that the
extends
to
the
offense
thereof.
PARDON; EFFECT (2009)
No. I. a. Amado, convicted of rape but
Antero then filed a petition for habeas
amnesty
conviction, bur also all the legal effect
of
granted
an
President,
absolute
and
one
pardon
year
by
the
thereafter,
convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge,

will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.
True, rape is now a crime against persons
(4%)
and, like the crime of homicide, is

embraced in the same Title of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER;
Revised penal Code under which Amado
Yes, I will grant the petition because the

sentence evaded proceeded from the
offender as a crime of Rebellion which
has been obliterated by the grant of
amnesty to the offender (Art. 89[3],
RPC).
had been previously convicted by final

judgment. The absolute pardon granted
him for rape, only excuse him from
serving the sentence for rape but did not
erase
the
effect
of
the
conviction
therefore unless expressly remitted by

the pardon.
Since the amnesty erased the criminal

complexion of the act committed by the
offender as a crime of rebellion and
PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
COMMENCE TO RUN (2010)
rendered such act a though innocent, the
A killed his wife and buried her in their
sentence
backyard.
purported
lost
its
evasion
legal
basis.
thereof
The
therefore
He
immediately
went
into
hiding in the mountains.
cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341

SCRA 464[200]).
Three years later, the bones of As wife

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
the caretaker, found the bones and
bothered by his conscience, reported the
reported the matter to the police.
matter to the police. After investigation,
After 15 years of hiding, A left the

country but returned three years later to
take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
thereafter, he was charged with parricide
but raised the defense of prescription.
Under the Revised Penal Code, when
the
January
police
2,
finally
1970,
arrested
Dominador,
Baldo
on
January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo

claims that the crime he committed had
already prescribed. Is Baldos contention
correct? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANWER:
does the period of prescription of a crime
No, Baldos 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 offended party, the
day on which the crime is discovered by
authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC).
the offended 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
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at
Balo was arrested and charged. The
midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador
killing committed, whether homicide or
witnessed the entire incident, but he was
murder, is punishable by an afflictive

penalty which prescribes within twenty
Prepared by: LJC
115

(20) year, whereas only around ten (10)

years ha lapsed from January 2, 1970
(when the authorities discovered the
commission of the crime) to January 2,
1980 (when the accused was charged in
court).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The running of the prescriptive period of
the crime is interrupted when any kind
of investigative proceeding is instituted
against the guilty person which may
PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
INTERRUPTED (2010)
He
lead
to
his
prosecution
(Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R.

backyard.
ultimately
immediately
went
into
No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).

PRESCRIPTION
OF
CRIMES;
PARRICIDE (2010)
a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the
bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet
backyard.
about
it.
After
two
years,
Z,
the
caretaker, found the bones and reported

the matter to the police. After 15 years of
hiding, A left the country but returned
three years later to take care of his ailing
sibling. Six years thereafter, he was
charged with parricide but raised the
defense
later,
of
the
prescription.
bones
of
As
Three
years
wife
were
He
immediately
went
into
Three years later, the bones of As wife

were discovered by X, the gardener.
Since X had a standing warrant of arrest,
he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z,
the caretaker, found the bones and
reported the matter to the police.
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.

interrupted? (1%)
When is it
Is As defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
Prepared by: LJC
116

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since A had been in hiding for 15 years
No, the defense of prescription of the

crime
is
not
tenable.
The
crime
committed is parricide which prescribes

in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was
only when the care-taker, Z found the
victims bones and reported the matter
to the police that the crime is deemed
legally discovered by the authorities or
after the commission of the crime and

the prescriptive period started running
only after 5 years from such commission
when the crime was discovered, only 10
years lapsed and 3 years thereof should
be deducted when the prescriptive period
was interrupted and suspended. Hence,
the 3 years.
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
prescription
shall
not
run
because
when
the
offender is absent from the Philippine

Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Prepared by: LJC
117

Bar Qs 1990-2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Qs 1990-2015 Updated CRIMINAL LAW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Source: UP Suggested Answers

imposition of sanction, instead the

THOUGHT IN CRIMINAL LAW (1996)

We follow the classical school of thought

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal

circumstances, are incorporated in our

There are two schools of thought in

Criminal Law, and these are

(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

proportional to the gravity of the

1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

extraterritorially. The general rule on

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

high seas or outside of Philippine territory

TERRITORIALITY; JURISDICTION OVER

Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman.

reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City,

authorities. An information for homicide

and on board a vessel not registered or

Philippines, not the citizenship of her

was filed against Binoy in the Regional

jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will

1. Pseudonym for literary purposes.

program a person may adopt a

Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information

different identity (RA. 6981).

customarily known by such alias.

committed since it was committed on the

court (CA. No. 142, as amended by

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

Certificate of Candidacy (Omnibus

ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total

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 staff of Senator Salcedo who wants

bill, as it will result in economic inequality

to file a bill about imprisonment at the

in the field 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

earner for the country through a law

Constitution does not merely bar the

for those who want long-term premium

Additionally, the purpose of imposing

penalties, which is to secure justice,

For conjugal weekenders, he plans to

defeated and put to naught if the bills

is prepared to offer room and board with

imprisonment (7%) and considerations of

CRIMINAL LAW BAR QS (1990-2015)

friendship and finally decided to get

LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS

married. The first wife, Eunice, heard